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.
Drinks drunk.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

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

To do list

Contents

Homeopathy

The crazy government of my country, India, has decided to officially promote an homeopathic drug - Arsenic, sugar pill, 30X dilution, for safety from coronavirus! That's right. Incidentally, some a family related to my grandmother, were all homeopathic doctors. So they have put their trust, and are buying this state-sponsored vaccine. And my father tells me that homeopathy works because his father had brought a homeopathic sugar pill for a cousin suffering from appendicitis. And according to the tale, it cured the problem in a day. Am I supposed to take that seriously? Teerthaloke101 (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

At least India isn't promoting bleach as a cure for coronavirus. Oxyaena Harass 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
No, but their "guidance" is almost in the same league.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Your dad's tale is standard placebo effect, which is the main thing that makes the average person (i.e. not "true believers") think maybe there is something to this homeopathy stuff. The odds are pretty good it wasn't appendicitis but just something like bad gas. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had not read this. What the hell is wrong with people's brains? Teerthaloke101 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The Ministry of AYUSH has a quack Miranda warning of sorts at the bottom, "Disclaimer: The above advisory does not claim to be treatment for COVID 19." Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
So it does. Interesting. Their website Ministry of AYUSH probably needs a page actually as there is a load of weird stuff there. Not all with discalimers.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good project to spearhead. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This is literally just standard politician's syllogism: we must do something; this is something; we must do this. Then they have at least the appearance of "doing something about it". You don't think this is motivated by strict scientific reasoning, do you? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a gif like this but for other continents?

I am talking about this Lang-ar.gif but for other continents and if there are, where can I find them. Tuxer (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No. It's not supposed to be for a continent. It's supposed to be for the Arabic language and it includes flags of countries in Africa and Asia where Arabic is spoken. However, there's no reason why somebody shouldn't create gifs like that for all the continents. Spud (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Spud. It would be useful for the situations where it's it's basic this entire region instead of putting down like 5 or six flags. I could take a look into doing that later today. (Technically there are other versions of that file, but like Spud said, they're actually countries that use 'X' as an official language, not countries in 'X' region/continent. More info here: Template:Ar.)--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
So, it's a Commons file, I should be able to modify it pretty easily to get a countries of the Middle East version. I'll do a few regions and upload them there and bring the links over, but my lunch half-hour just ended so it'll have to wait until later today.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@NavigatorBR Excellent! Spud (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, @Spud and Tuxer, we have some flag loops of country flags for regions. Middle East flag loop.gif (Middle East), Central America Flag loop.gif (Central America), Canada Mexico United States flag loop.gif (Canada, Mexico, United States). At some point, I might make a European version of this, since technically the EU flag refers to a specific entity which excludes a bunch of European countries, like the UK, Norway, Switzerland, etc, so it's not rally a suitable substitute for continent of Europe.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 21:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@NavigatorBR I have thanked you over on Wikimedia Commons. I will thank you again here. Thank you very much. They're great. Spud (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted page

The below is copied and pasted from a comment I just posted on the talk page of Kill-all-uglies, a page I just deleted. I am reposting it here so others can see that I have deleted this page and the reasons I have done so and weigh in and respond on this decision as they see fit.

I have just deleted this page due to the obvious lack of notability, and lack of coverage in any independent sources, of its subject, and the sensitivity of many of the allegations and events described on this page. Furthermore, pages about this person have been deleted from Wikiquote and (repeatedly) from Real Life Villains Wiki. If anyone disagrees with this action they are welcome to revert it and explain why. Jinkinson (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jinkinson I think you did the right thing. Spud (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Luddite needs help

I may have found the scoop of the century, but my computer skills are close to zero (at one point in my life I repaired IBM Selectrics, I did redeem myself by ditching my B.A. in History/Political Science and ginger back to college to get a BSN in nursing. (The first thing you do is turn it upside down and shake it to see how much crap, like erasers, paper clips, loose change, crumbs from lunch or a snack or meal, and all kinds of assorted junk fall out, including quite a few roaches once, evidently it was nice, warm, and homey. About 30% of the time, problem fixed due to my repairman acumen.) Anyway, the Daily Mail.co.uk may have actually posted its first accurate, decent, and good story in its lifetime. They may have occasionally hit one mark, but all three? I think not! They made a pretty decent showing covering the antiscience coronavirus protests in Michigan and some of the people behind it while also taking swipes at their Mormons Losing Money (MLM) scams that are making them rich. If someone with the know how could post the info to the current news section I sure would appreciate it. Thanks. Willie Earl https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8238433/Organizer-Michigan-lockdown-rebellion-pushed-bogus-cure-coronavirus.html — Unsigned, by: WillieEarl / talk / contribs

Sadly IMHO it's a little bit old IMHO for the "what is going on with the coronavirus" page (April 21) but it might be interesting to put this in our COVID-19 page on lockdown protesters to further correlate that group with woo-pushers. He's definitely the leader of a notable Facebook anti-quarantine group (recently shut down). The podcast he makes is littered in various places across the Internet such as here, seems minor but still. He seems to also be involved in the motivational speaker scene (also not a surprise). I'll have to verify the quotes when I get a chance because Daily Mail, but if true, it's one of the few times a Daily Mail article actually is worth anything. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A conundrum

This, of course, not ideal. I have dropped off from music sharing. There was a complaint a while back that was like "3 youtube videos wrecks the page," and I want to kinda abide that nonsense, since I don't know, but I'm also a rude boy at heart [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLAlgnF1iLA[/youtube.com] I just took a break while I was writing this out and had a potential breakthrough, what if we had poll-page for music videos? I know YouTube already functions with upvotes and downvotes, but there could be a link without an embed and a short description and a signature on each one. I am likely to go on very long this plus that minus that kind of diatribes from this point forward. Can I get a ban until Tuesday? Monday is a holiday. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Basically, I'd like to have no input since I don't actually work on the site. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that dumping moving music videos into their own separate page somewhere would be a great idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Since this is the Saloon Bar, can we call that hypothetical page the Jukebox? Spud (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Music videos are generally non-missional. So, it's a waste of bandwidth and RW's cash, which could instead be used to fund system maintenance and upgrades. If you're here primarily to do non-missional stuff, there are better places to do it. Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure you if are responding to anyone in particular but I have never posted a music video in my life and I have no intention of doing so. Furthermore I support your implicit suggestion that they be banned.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's not make a song and dance about it. Anna Livia (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand. I would have to sandbox it, I'm not so cold as to think there's no merit to art, and I'm not so impractical as to think there's a way for me to actually maintain it. My plan is inadvisable, I checked the fossil record, I basically live in sandbox, but it wouldn't be good for me to run the sandbox. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ethics of Human Cloning

I was thinking about it after completing the "Newsflesh" trilogy by Mira Grant. At the end of the second book a dead main character was cloned and had all memories of the original person she was cloned from.

Now, would it truly be ethical to completely clone a human being with all memories of their dead counterpart? I personally don't think it would actually be ethical if you cloned a person with full memories of their previous form. Might cause serious emotional harm in the long run. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How are you going to clone memories? The clone would only have the DNA - not the memories.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, in general the sci-fi concept of cloning is way off compared to what an actual clone would look like. Strictly speaking a clone doesn't have to resemble its progenitor in any way at all.Flandres (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Would cloning a person with their old memories ve immoral though? How is it less immoral than bringing an actual baby into the world? One is entirely defenseless and devoid of any knowledge and is a tiny defenseless being, the other one has the advantage of years of knowledge to give it a fighting chance. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm guess that's a good point. Is it moral to produce helpless, tiny, ignorant humans?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
what kind world has the tech to produce clones with someone elses memory but babies are seemingly abandoned at birth in the wilderness? whose memories does a clone have might impact how things go for them, and how such clones are viewed. what purpose was the clone for? a dying king gives a clone his memories to continue his rule as if still the same person. only the king is still dead, and a clone who remembers the dead kings memories is a no body with a unearned sense of entitlement, their only advantage is to the dead kings biographers. id imagine clones wouldnt be popped out and abandoned but would released after a period of orientation and support while a clone gets to grips with its existence. does the clone get total recall of all life experienced by the original, or the hazy unreliable memory of real people? how much emotional investment to someones elses memories? will it think the same or feel the same way about those memories? who knows its a clone? does the clone know? can you co exist with your clone? are you certain you are not the clone?
what do amnesiacs tell us about the effects of memory on personality? would you still be a prick if you forget that you were a prick? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I screenshot CP using the bot?

I posted on thios topic on the Tech Support page, but nobody replied.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There used to be a functioning capturebot that would do this sort of thing automatically. You're basically on your own, but we have instructions for the manual methods here: Help:Screenshots. Bongolian (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Epoch Times in my mailbox

I got an unsolicited copy of Epoch Times today in my mailbox. It appears to be similar to the one that was distributed in Canada last month,[1] but this one is 16 pages instead of the 8-page Canadian one. It includes an editorial that say that COVID-19 should be called the 'CCP Virus', and insinuates that the virus might have been developed at the "Wuhan Institute of Virology, China's only P4 lab" (P4 is the highest level of biosafetyWikipedia's W.svg). Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Whoever distributed is certainly mistaken into thinking you own a pet bird in your house. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe they think the toilet paper shortage is still a thing?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Canceling

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think this is necessary: I don't think cancel culture is a good idea. Of course, being more unpopular because of a bad opinion is something. Having your life ruined and getting death threats is a completely different story. Now that I said it, one of you can dox me for being to right-wing. In fact, canceling people, once done by the left, has now been manifested by the far-right. For example, Jeannine Cummings got death threats because she wrote a book supporting Mexican migrants, even though she wasn't a migrant. A lot of things that lefties do end up on the other side of the spectrum. I think this wiki is becoming more and more conservative, and it's easy to see why. If you excuse me, let me prepare for if I get doxxed, or even murdered for my opinion.Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess to me it depends on what level we're cancelling people. I've no qualms with Louis CK being driven from the limelight. He's rich, he'll be fine. Probably a little too fine. But sometimes people seem to want to target much less fortunate individuals and if they end up out of a job that hurts a lot more. -"Shut up, Brx." 19:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
"Cancel culture" is just a new term for the various mobs that love a celebrity scandal getting worked up about whatever tickles the mob's anger button that week. It is not new. Just ask Roscoe "Fatty" ArbuckleWikipedia's W.svg or Charlie ChaplinWikipedia's W.svg or, fuck, even the Dixie ChicksWikipedia's W.svg. (As these examples show, it's not just the tool of angry hard-headed left-wingers.) Being a celebrity means being a public "brand", so some of this comes for the territory. But sometimes they say more about the audience than anything else. For instance, booting the Dixie Chicks off mainstream country radio simply for feeling ashamed that Dubya was president (not an unreasonable opinion at all, mind you!) may have made the jingoists feel good or something, but the only real net effect was that it only confirmed that mainstream country radio was boring and monotone (foreshadowing the devolution of the mainstream into misogynist, predictable, dumb "bro-country"), and that the only interesting, real country music made anymore usually was given the "alt-country" or "Americana" label, and wasn't anywhere near a mainstream station dial. Because a celebrity is a public figure, sexual misconduct and violent acts will have even more impact. It's not new for a career to be derailed by sexual mischief, either (just ask Pee-wee HermanWikipedia's W.svg). The only issue here from my perspective comes when the charges aren't real (see Fatty Arbuckle) yet the yellow journalism smear-a-thon (whether it be William Randolph HearstWikipedia's W.svg, the Daily Mail, or low-IQ YouTube vloggers) acts like it is. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

its one of the few options for people have to effect any kind of change, where public discourse on social media is largely screaming into a void smeared with shit, and political and electoral systems seem to feel disenfranchising for one reason or another. you effect immediate change at local level, maybe briefly touching on national levels. but the local level means targets might not always warrant the attention. the issues might become secondary to the power trip, while some sides are impacted more than others. louis ck for example, can get away with much, his fanbase will ignore criticism from feminists or the left. his audience wont cancel him while those who would are not going gigs in the first place to miss their custom. someone on the left however, right winger will go after with hypocritical zeal, while the their natural audience will reject anything short of ideological purity. the right is bolstered, while the left eats itself. dialogue, concensus, the building of bridges and the greater good. takes time and effort to even to agree to your goals, while coalitions and good will can vanish in a moment not defeated by robust argument but by simply shouting louder. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Boycott, shunning, and similar tactics inherently skew right-wing. This is basically how the Roman church was able to sweep their child abuse problem under the rugs for years, even when it was generally common knowledge around newsrooms and courthouses. But if a news outlet dared to raise the subject, the priests would tell the faithful to go after their advertisers. These are the weapons of outraged piety. And in the echo chamber of social media, people are encouraged to treat their political attachments as sacred truths, so that their answer to contrary opinion is to burn the blasphemer. This is a very bad thing. And it cuts both ways; among certain circles 'socialist' is an insult combining 'tyrant' and 'traitor'. You may have noticed that soldiers and police officers are all 'heroes' now; I remember when they were all 'pigs', so this will never sit well with me. And I certainly don't think Louis CK deserved any kind of reprisal. I was only peripherally aware of what he had made anyways, but the USA is terribly cruel to creative types and does not need to be made crueller. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I really don't see how boycotting is inherently rightwing. The Montgomery bus boycotts spring to mind-"Shut up, Brx." 21:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Some cancel culture is excessive, a few people get dinged for simply saying something unwise or having said something that was fully tollerated 20 years ago. But a lot of it is totally above board. How would you propose moderating cancel-culture? ShabiDOO 00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The notion that things were 'tolerated' 20 years ago and have become intolerable now is deeply repugnant. Why are people today so brittle? How did we come to such a place where we're in such a hurry to move backward? Morally aggressive proprieties are inherently right-wing, because the aggressors here have arrogated to themselves the power to declare words and works taboo and unfit for public consumption. No amount of 'feminist' or other dubiously leftist cant can conceal that they're basically standing in the shoes of Mary Whitehouse or Tipper Gore. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel like this video and its transcript version are relevant to this discussion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
What the hell Smerdis? Outright racist charicatures were tollerated. Calling someone a stupid faggot was tollerated. It isn't any more. While I certainly agree that in some cases (not the worst) if someone is found to have done this in the past, ruining their lives is overkill. But if their reaction is to just defend it, as though they still agree with it, is as bad as doing it now. I've sensed over the last couple days, both here and in the coop, that some people feel reacting to racism or homophobia or grossly offensive shit is somehow overkill, or we just shouldn't be offended or in your case that its simply "brittleness". Sorry privileged person, but if you have ever suffered real persecution, daily shame, hid who you are, live under discrimination, have been physically or psychologically abused...ITS NOT SOMETHING THAT EASY TO JUST DISMISS. And we shouldn't have to fucking deal with it. It's the 21st century. This shit is old and should be over with. Listening to people tell you "not to get so worked up over it" is almost as bad as being insulted or intimidated or made to feel like a sub human. Fuck that shit. I agree...some cancel culture is over the top. Not all of it. Some of it makes total damn sense. People should stop saying pointless, stupid, intimidating, demeaning, offensive shit. Just fucking stop it. It doesn't hurt anyone to stop being offensive. Offensive people are the ones who have to get over themselves. ShabiDOO 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
“But if their reaction is to just defend it, as though they still agree with it, is as bad as doing it now.”
It seems that the concept of disagreeing with something while believing that it should not be suppressed by force is disappearing from our culture. This is a bad thing, and so obviously bad just a few years ago that it was used as a comedy premise. https://youtu.be/hxEARZCQhoE
“Sorry privileged person, but if you have ever suffered real persecution”
It sounds like you’re imagining a hypothetical person who has been oppressed, then getting offended on their behalf. This is not a reasonable thing to do, let alone use as a basis for policies. I would propose that people who have experienced “real oppression” would typically not be very concerned about words on the Internet. The people who implemented the First Amendment, for example, had just fought a war against a government where various forms of speech were considered treason and sedition.
“ITS NOT SOMETHING THAT EASY TO JUST DISMISS”
It actually is. The only person who can control your emotional reactions to words is you, and you don’t have to become upset at words you disagree with. Many people don’t, after all. Children used to be taught a little rhyme about sticks and stones to put this sort of thing in perspective. Physical violence warrants aggressive defensive measures, but words do not. An inability to moderate one’s emotions in response to minor negative stimuli is what emotional brittleness is, and it used to be something that children were expected to grow out of.
“It's the 21st century. This shit is old and should be over with.”
It’s actually rather new, historically speaking. It’s generally been the case in human societies that people faced severe punishments for speech that offended mobs or those in power. But around the Enlightenment, some people argued that freedom of speech is important, and this was used as the basis of laws in some places. These laws have been in place long enough now that people have forgotten why they were put there.
“It doesn't hurt anyone to stop being offensive.”
Likewise, being offensive doesn’t hurt anyone. The offended party is the one responsible for any “hurt” since they have unilateral control over whether and to what degree it occurs (unilateral control is a useful heuristic for assigning responsibility, you see). And conflating taking offense with being hurt is sloppy conceptual mapping that leads to silly conclusions like that people should stop being offensive. If that’s what you want, go ahead and give a clear delineation of precisely what is offensive and what is not. Since the notion of what is offensive is subjective and varies from person to person, that’s not a reasonable basis for an actionable policy. I think that the views you expressed here are very offensive, for example. Are you prepared to stop expressing them because of that? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. This is an authoritarian-libertarian issue, not a liberal-conservative one.
the above post is utter nonsense that can only be true for unfeeling automatons living in a bubble divorced from all reality and human experience. nursery rhymes are not known for their scientific rigor and I bet your mother told all bullies ae cowards who will run away when confronted, a similarly bullshit piece of advice mothers tell their children thats patently false. that words can do no harm, or that only you are responsible for the hurt words can do is absolute dogshit, that displays a callousness devoid of empathy and an ignorance of mental health issues such as self harming behaviour and suicide. its an argument so often made by those who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions or to even consider other people or the environment they occur in, or to moderate their own egregious behaviour. here it is an argument so abstracted from anything resembling real world examples, where it would be a first rate display of selfishness and victim blaming, devoid of any context it is delusional self aggrandisement of a supposed moral fortitude and an inhuman level of emotional control and detachment. its not difficult to dig up examples of harm to individuals effected by the words of others. its not difficult to see where words contribute to febrile athmospheres that have led to physical assaults and murders. I agree it is all easy to dismiss, with obliviousness and semantic pedantry. just not convincingly. actual suicides are less easy to dismiss. the murder of jo cox cant be handwaived away. the emotional impact of ones words cannot be separated from the physical actions or harm produced. is that not the point of ones words? o illicit some kind of effect? sadly just as easily inspiring festering hate or self loathing as charity and bon homme.
its curious that this argument is always made along side a lazy defense of free speech. I wonder why free speech is of any worth, given how little you think speech can do. even the most stubborn free speech absolutists accept that can speech cause harm and is a price we pay. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I see we have an article No platform which goes into issues related to this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In the generally free West, except for certain boundaries, nobody can tell anyone what entertainment to consume in the end -- it is a personal decision. The danger of any "cancel culture" comes only with any sort of ruling authority. If small, there is the possibility of a "Banned in BostonWikipedia's W.svg" deal, where localized prissy moralists ban works of considerable merit for moralistic idiocy and thus the only long term impact is a sort of a Streisand effect. If large, you get despicable situations where authoritarians arrest/purge/execute any artist they don't like (see "degenerate music"Wikipedia's W.svg in Germany or Stalin's "Great Purge"Wikipedia's W.svg). I have not seen any sort of "ruling authority" with "cancel culture", it's all Twitter mob opinion. So what's the problem? As I see it, it is just an opinion. In older times, I thought a comedian like Andrew Dice ClayWikipedia's W.svg was a sexist homophobic asshole (an act, but not a funny one). There is, unfortunately, an audience for that bullshit, but he's not funny to me, so I didn't watch. I suppose I "cancelled" him in modern terminology, I prefer terms like I think he sucks. There are a few artists over the years where their off-duty behavior became shitty enough to me that it overtakes the art, and I no longer support their product (Scott Adams comes to mind for me) and their are a few artists where for me the art is too good in spite of some serious character flaws (Richard WagnerWikipedia's W.svg (racist dipshit) and Michael JacksonWikipedia's W.svg (don't leave your kids with him) come to mind here). These are all my personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less. If a Mary Whitehouse like figure begins emerging from "cancel culture", let me know, because that's when the issues might start. At present, I struggle to think of an artist actually significantly impacted by "cancel culture" to be honest (hell I actually can't recall if Mary Whitehouse even changed anything significantly). At least, not in a way that wouldn't have been similar in the last 40 years or so. (Roseanne Barr was booted off TV for being racist in public? Being racist in public would get you booted off TV in 1988, too.) Soundwave106 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Except of course I have dealt with LGTBQ+ bullying my whole life. And it still comes up. Even in a gay paradise like Madrid I face insults for holding hands, disease when I bring up my identity and conceal who I am while traveling to more conservative neighbourhoods or other countries. I've heard the word faggot used derogatorily a dozen times this week in public. The best of us can only take it so much. I say to all the poeple who have never have never undergone life with daily bullying (especially in highschool) for an inherant quality you cannot change and daily reminders about how subhuman you are...you have no fucking clue what it's like. Fuck you telling us to just let it pass. It gets easier if you live in a bubble and it gets less exhausting but it is only natural to get exasperated. The comments don't just mean a shitty opinion. But they add up. And it makes life miserable for most people and under no circumstances will I not call out this bullshit. If I poked you in the face five times a day and after a week you lashed back and I told you to just calm down and let it go you'd be as incredulous as most marginalized people are when they are told not to be so brittle. Fuck that shit and fuck you. The solution is beyond simple: stop saying offensive shit. It literally costs you absolutely nothing to not be offensive and makes the world a whole lot less miserable for millions of people. I no longer have an ounce of patience for dipshits who don't know a second of what its like to be beaten down...to be told not to make a big deal about being beaten down. ShabiDOO 11:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ever hear of Daryl Davis? In addition to being an unbelievable musician, he's gotten more than 200 people to leave the KKK through a lot of listening and letting people talk their own way into showing themselves how untenable their views are. Obviously it's not 100% successful, but he sure has a lot more robes in his closet than I do. And when someone said it wasn't the job of marginalized people to explain themselves, he completely disagreed and said it was everyone's job to explain themselves; yeah, it's tiring, but lots of things are tiring and we do them anyway. Notably absent from his repertoire is shutting people down. The documentary on him is called Accidental Courtesy, I'd link to it if I could find it but there are plenty of interviews and speeches of his readily available. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
So, here's the thing. Most people who are "canceled" or "deplatformed" (The term you are using "Canceling" as a euphemism for) tend to be public figures. Very few tend to change their views. It's easy to deconvert some nobodies, normal people who follow, it's quite another to tackle someone like say... Richard Spencer. So. Until someone deconverts several major white supremacist figures using "Debate over deplatforming", I'll remain skeptical of methods like this one. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems to me that Grand Wizards and Grand Dragons in the KKK are, in their world, fairly major figures, if not necessarily in the broader public. Though Davis actually did speak once about Richard Spencer when asked about him in his heyday, Davis said it'd likely be a few years but would almost inevitably be knocked off as top dog (was he ever right about that...) and then there was a good chance he'd be someone salvageable. He emphasized it doesn't happen overnight, so if it does happen it'll be a while yet, but it'll sure be great if it does happen; clearly punching him didn't work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't advocate for punching Spencer. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Didn't mean to imply you did, only noting that 1. it happened and didn't dissuade him from his views and 2. the Davis approach is the diametric opposite. Don't want to make it seem you advocated for it, sorry. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

“the above post is utter nonsense ” Since you’re not making the case yourself, let’s go through that blog post.

You posted this as if it supported your case. Did you actually read it?

“that can only be true for unfeeling automatons living in a bubble divorced from all reality and human experience” Or, you know, adults with agency and self-control. Those used to be desirable traits, and lacking emotional maturity was regarded as a serious character flaw.

“nursery rhymes are not known for their scientific rigor” Nursery rhymes of this kind traditionally came about as ways to teach basic knowledge to children. As with other traditions, the ones that worked well enough to persist tended to hang around. It’s not science, but have many of your own beliefs been subject to such empirical testing as that?

“I bet your mother told all bullies ae cowards who will run away when confronted, a similarly bullshit piece of advice mothers tell their children thats patently false” That’s actually a rather new interpretation of bullying. Traditional remedies for bullying tended to let children work things out for themselves, and thereby learn to manage conflicts on their own, either by learning to conduct interactions with hostile people (because that doesn’t have any relevance to modern life, right?) or by physical violence that dissuades further bullying. I find it curious that you too present a hypothetical situation where you imagine people acting a certain way, then use that in an argument as if it were relevant. In my experience, bullies typically bully for the enjoyment of tormenting others. Deny them that emotional reaction, and they tend to lose interest. The one time my parents got involved was when a persistent personality conflict led to disruption at gradeschool, and they coordinated with his parents to have us spend time together outside school to hash out our differences. He he eventually became one of my closer childhood friends.

“that words can do no harm, or that only you are responsible for the hurt words can do is absolute dogshit” That’s literally how it works, though. Words themselves are not harmful in any way. Unlike, say, getting struck by sticks or stones, where there is physical damage that depends on the actions of the person hitting you with the sticks or stones. Words “cause harm” (which is a misleading idiom) via emotional responses, and emotional responses are the purview of the individual that experiences them. People vary in this regard, and respond differently to the same words. This should be obvious, so perhaps the disagreement is about the question of whether people should take responsibility for themselves and exercise agency in emotional matters.

“that displays a callousness devoid of empathy and an ignorance of mental health issues such as self harming behaviour and suicide” Generally speaking, emotional trauma is not fixed by coddling the person experiencing it so that they don’t experience negative stimuli in the future. It’s fixed by teaching them cognitive techniques to manage negative stimuli and emotions in productive ways, so that they can manage problems effectively in the future. Perhaps you care more about showing how virtuous you are with vague but fervid declarations than about practical measures that improve people’s lives, but I don’t.

“its not difficult to dig up examples of harm to individuals effected by the words of others” Can you find a single example in all of human history? At least in a causal sense. As worded, you’re invoking the idea that people can be harmed, and that in independent circumstances they can be affected by the words of others, which is not what we were discussing. The links you gave don’t discuss the former at all. They’re about identity theft and assassination. Policing words is a lazy proxy for the actual issues involved.

“words contribute to febrile athmospheres that have led to physical assaults and murders” Assaults and murders are physically performed by people who choose to do them, not by words or a vague metaphysical “atmosphere”. Just three sentences before this, you were making a point about personal responsibility.

“the emotional impact of ones words cannot be separated from the physical actions or harm produced” Empirically, it’s blatantly obvious that they can, to the degree that this argument strongly implies the use of homebrew definitions. Would you care to share the definitions you’re using here?

“is that not the point of ones words?” Words are symbolic representations of concepts. Their purpose is to express or communicate information. This can include emotional expression, but that is not their only purpose

“its curious that this argument is always made along side a lazy defense of free speech.” I suspect that this has something to do with the calls to restrict speech and other expression commonly found is these arguments. And characterizing it as “lazy” doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

“I wonder why free speech is of any worth” As I mentioned above, people have forgotten the reasons for free speech. The practicality is that it’s a mechanism for resolving conflicts peacefully. Preventing undesirable speech doesn’t make conflicts go away, and preventing peaceful resolutions tends to lead to things like political violence that cause trouble for everyone.

“So what's the problem?” There is a difference between not watching something you don’t like and preventing others from watching something you don’t like. Social media mobs generally try for the latter.

“If I poked you in the face five times a day” Assault/battery depending on jusrisdiction, and grounds for a restraining order. Words and physical actions are rather different, you see.

“Fuck that shit and fuck you. The solution is beyond simple: stop saying offensive shit.” I notice that you haven’t stopped expressing your offensive views. After all, you’re spitting on the legacy of the Enlightenment and much of the cultural infrastructure that allows our society to have nice things, and I find that to be very offensive. Why the double standard? Can you give an objective definition of what “offensive shit” is? Keep in mind that offense is a subjective phenomenon. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

“the emotional impact of ones words cannot be separated from the physical actions or harm produced” "Empirically, it’s blatantly obvious that they can, to the degree that this argument strongly implies the use of homebrew definitions. Would you care to share the definitions you’re using here?" People are easily influenced, and words can have powerful effects on other people, your viewpoint is incredibly naive. Hitler for example was a true magician at rousing crowds into action, and into influencing others to do his bidding. Do you think he accomplished that by remaining silent, and performing mime tricks to communicate? The words of people in power grant a legitimizing effect to ideas, this is empirically demonstrable. Your typical centrist skeptic bro bullshit is just that, bullshit. Meaningless deepity. Oxyaena Harass 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
its a long old post that has literally nothing worth unpicking. literally nothing at all. nothing remotely grounded in reality or reference to real world examples, just semantic pedantry, misrepresentations, and empty assertions. such wonderful sealioning framing an exquisite heap of dogshit to tell us we can direct our efforts to something more worthwhile. well done. its quite something. just not a very good something. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
“this is empirically demonstrable” You seem to have missed the point being discussed there. AMassiveGay was making the point that words themselves can be harmful, via words being conceptually inseparable from their associated emotional consequences, and those being conceptually inseparable from physical actions and harm. I mentioned empiricism because, if you actually look in the real world at how these things work, they’re not just conceptually separable but obviously physically separate events. You brought up Hitler, so let’s discuss Hitler. When Hitler decided that the Jews of Germany should be disarmed, his words to that effect did not teleport guns out of their possession. Rather, his words convinced people under his authority to act on his behalf, doing things like performing raids according to the firearm registry enacted in the Weimar Republic. Tangible results were produced by physical actions performed by people, not by Hitler’s words themselves. The pen being metaphorically mightier than the sword is a different issue.
“its quite something” It seems that you disagree with what I said there. Can you quote a single specific thing that you disagree with, and explain why you disagree with it?
“sealioning” You seem to have misused that bit of terminology. I wasn’t “just asking questions”, I was directly explaining why I am right and you are wrong. The questions I asked were rhetorical (“Did you actually read it?”) intended to steer the course of discussion or Socratic (“Can you give an objective definition of what “offensive shit” is?”) intended to prompt a closer examination of beliefs and the realization that my point is correct.
And I saw that, Oxyaena. A reminder. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hearing insults and slurs (along with looks of contempt peppered with occasional moments of aggression or even violence) beats you down. I cannot imagine how anyone on Earth would find this controversial unless they've never paid attention to it and imagine themselves somehow a psychological superman. Add that to being told by people that you are subhuman deserving lesser rights mixed with having to be careful for your physical safety in more extreme environments, unwelcome reception in others, noticeable disdain (all of this on a daily basis) and yes...those empowered enough stop tolerating it. Of course we call out offensive bullshit. And of course if we have the means to, we can make the worst offenders pay a social price. I mean a business leader saying "America sucks...this country is a piece of shit" will pay a social price and a corporate price because of their meta-offense. Why should it be any less different is someone offends all women (51% of the population). African Americans (15% of the United States population). Or LGTBQ+ (various numbers given)? Especially when they are marginalized people whose very few tools that exist to gain real equality are fighting back on offensive shit and enforcing a price? Or should we just continue living like sub-human beings in silence being the ones tolerating this shit and us being the ones paying the social price all the time? ShabiDOO 06:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is a decent distillation of what I was getting at above (20:30 is the real heart of the matter, but why would you want to skip the kick-ass piano at the beginning and end?). Talking with, instead of at, people doesn't mean agreeing with them or promoting their ideas. It was people willing to talk with me, instead of at me, which gave an ASD person like me a chance to try to see a broader perspective; goodness knows I'm insufferable in many ways, but a few people still gave me a shot and I'm absolutely in a better place for it. I can't stand the Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield types, but allowing the anti-vax nutcases to go berserk in public now will only make them look more ridiculous when (I hope someday!) we're lining up for a COVID vaccine as they hack their lungs out. And easy for me to say, but I encourage using ASD as a foil for humor; I've been known to affect a Rain Man, and most of the humor has something relatable (this is a personal favorite). Given how much the attendant shortcomings seriously interfere with my life, at least that makes them good for something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
to bon - still misrepresenting whats been said and still not providing any basis at all for any thing you claim, and not understanding the sole example given.
harm caused by hate speech [2][3]

[4] [5] its just fucking idiotic to deny any harm to an individual as a result, your arguments amount to nothing more than because you say so.

you don't seem to understand context. the context for hitler as an example here is anti semitic propaganda used in the Nazis rise to power, its use in consolidating power, its use in reinforcing obedience and loyalty of the rank and file of the military, and in ensuring that they would 'just follow orders' and commit ever escalating hate crimes all the way up to genocide. we could go even further an look at anisemitism that was already present and examine how hate speech perpetuated and exploited it.
we can see similar tactic used by other genocides that have taken place, such as Rwanda and how tutsi were dehumanised, such as through the hutu ten commandments, priming hutus to commit genocide.
today, we can see the radicalisation of vulnerable individuals to extremist causes, how once radicalised, it isolates them from friends and family, and from mainstream views, in a bubble of hate speech and reciprocal radicalisation, making violence seem ever more permissible.
you missed the point of the reference to the murder of jo cox. it was an example of how as a result of the Brexit ref, anti immigrant sentiment had been ramped up by racist reporting and racist propaganda, wartime rhetoric and the branding of all opposition as 'traitors', made racism more permissible, made racist attacks to increase, and allowed for someone to become convinced murder was necessary for the good of the country.
none of this happens in a bubble, they are not the sole causes of events. they are contributing and manifestations of factors that directly cause harm to individuals, their specific communities and the wider community, and contributing to the actions that may be taken by them or others. they are inherently linked and cannot be so easily separated despite your baseless insistence to the contrary, which remains dogshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I cannot imagine” I mentioned above that people are different. Some people may be figuratively “beat down”, but some people aren’t. In the scope of abuses that humans have suffered historically, insults and slurs from strangers as people go about their business isn’t particularly severe. There are still slaves in the world, for example, and they may be literally beaten down with fists, whips, or other implements. Lots of people live in physically dangerous places where they may be robbed, beaten, raped, or killed. Those things happen to millions of people each year. When faced with difficulties, people generally pick up and move on with their lives, which they can do because most humans are psychologically capable of dealing with hardship. And unlike physical abuse, verbal abuse can be prevented from causing harm by the person experiencing it. Constructing a victimhood narrative helps no one, most particularly the person experiencing the abuse, who it encourages to remain fixated rather than moving on, and to minimize personal agency leading to feelings of helplessness. Emotional trauma is fixed by maintaining normal activities including exercise and social interaction, and by therapy that teaches how to manage emotional difficulties and take responsibility for one’s life experience.
In a world where there are a lot of people with different opinions, it is not reasonable to prevent people with views you find offensive from speaking those views where you may encounter them. There are, after all, no objective criteria by which something may be judged offensive or not, and in a world where there are a lot of people with different opinions, you’d be hard pressed to find something that someone doesn’t consider offensive. As such, that someone finds something is offensive carries no moral or practical weight. If you want the person responsible for the offensive thing to be punished somehow, it takes a stronger case than merely being offended. After all, I note that you’re continuing to advocate for a position that I find offensive. Can you articulate why that shouldn’t meet your threshold for prohibition?
“harm caused by hate speech” Is this an attempt at a Gish Gallop? If you were correct here, a single example would have sufficed. But since you’re again not making the point yourself, let’s go through those links.
“its just fucking idiotic to deny any harm to an individual as a result” In the manner of chaos butterflies spinning causal webs through the whole of the cosmos, sure. It looks like the crux of our disagreement is that I assign personal responsibility to individuals that do or control things, while it seems that you do not.
“the context for hitler as an example here” is to make Oxyaena’s point above that words are tantamount to actions. I could quote the relevant bits, but they’re just up the page.
“priming hutus to commit genocide” Which was not the genocide itself. Do you propose that people be prohibited from convincing others to disagree with you? Or should we just stick with the prohibition on genocide here?
“it isolates them from friends and family” What isolates them? Their own words and actions.
“you missed the point of the reference to the murder of jo cox.” No, I understood the point just fine. I just disagree with it. As I said, that was an assassination. The responsibility for that event lies with the person who killed him. Why, if the speech caused it, weren’t millions of other people who had also heard that speech going out and killing politicians? It’s not because of the speech, it’s because they didn’t choose to. And Thomas Mair did.
“they are inherently linked and cannot be so easily separated” As parts of the cosmos, everything is inherently linked to everything else. That’s not particularly relevant for much of life, though. I just separated those things. What do you have to say to that besides “nuh uh”? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
i'll tell you what, I will respond when you actually respond to what was presented. I will respond when it appears you might have actually understand what was presented. I will respond when you support your assertions. there is little point otherwise. there is nothing to respond to. i'm not so arrogant as to believe my arguments are water tight or unassailable. ive made my case. ive supported it. I'm happy with it. you've misrepresented every part of it, misrepresented every point made in this thread. there is little reason to counter points made up of semantics and unsupported assertions, or a string of quotes you've taken out context that simply do not say what you claim. I say read what was written again, its pretty clear what was being said or claimed. its nice touch ending with 'nuh uh', since you have not once provided anything to support a word you have said. its all unsupported assertions. not even bothering to support your initial claims, that words can do no harm and we are responsible for our own actions, that even how something effects us is a choice. no evidence of any kind for the lack of harm has been forth coming, and no one but you has been positing personal responsibility as a binary either/or. you've only ever displayed wilful stupidity or just plain stupidity, but its not been in good faith. we are done. 12:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────“i'm not so arrogant as to believe my arguments are water tight or unassailable” My arguments are watertight and unassailable because I make it a general practice to know about a topic before I argue about it. It’s not difficult to produce solid arguments if you do that.

“not even bothering to support your initial claims, that words can do no harm” The context of the discussion is people being “canceled” in response to offensive speech, ostensibly because the speech is harmful. The burden of proof is on the party making such a claim, in particular that such harm warrants restrictions on or punitive measures for speech. As for support, your own links seem fine. Did you read the “Flaws in Verbal Abuse Research” section I mentioned? It’s pretty relevant. And words literally do not do any harm. To repeat, any harm resulting from words is a result of an individual’s own emotional responses, and those responses are in principle under that person’s control whether or not that control is actually exercised. If you want support for that, I could supply references for trauma therapy where people do just that, but instead have a link about Stoicism, which people have been doing for millennia. Other schools of philosophy have made the same discovery over the ages, which has resulted in things like Buddhist monks having a strong claim to being the happiest demographic group in the world. In my opinion, a society that cultivates emotional maturity and open communication is preferable to one that suppresses freedom of expression to cultivate emotional frailty.

“we are responsible for our own actions” This is rather tautological, so I had hoped we could agree here. Do you want to discuss the philosophy of agency, causality, and responsibility?

“that even how something effects us is a choice” Bullets, no. Words, yes. Just how it works. The case was closed millennia ago.

“no one but you has been positing personal responsibility as a binary either/or.” What I proposed above was a heuristic for determining responsibility in certain situations. That is: IF a single person can unilaterally decide whether or not something occurs, THEN that person is responsible. No one has disputed that heuristic, just implications that they don’t like. That political assassination you brought up, for example, was obviously the responsibility of the guy who killed the politician of his own accord. Naturally, not every situation involves a single party with unilateral control. For example, if the assassination had been a hired hit, the assassin would no longer have unilateral control over whether or not the politician would be killed or not, because the sponsor could hire a different assassin if one refuses to take the job. Both the assassin and the sponsor would bear partial responsibility in this case. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Free speech in and of itself

While I don't mind cancel culture for the most part (as stated above), I do feel compelled to defend the concept of free speech, at least in terms of government. While it sounds fun to simply outlaw all the points of view we disagree with, we have to remember that we live in democratic societies. If we set the precedent that it's okay to determine what people are and aren't allowed to say, we may well end up disappointed with the results. Would you want Donald Trump and a Republican majority congress to decide what is and isn't okay for you to say?-"Shut up, Brx." 20:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that we all heard this naive absolutist defense of free speech too many times. It's a talking point, a cliche, a meme, a car bumper sticker, with no persuasive power and naively overlooks how platforming is abused to spread viewpoints that ultimately harm people (fake news, conspiracies about the pandemic I can't remember the name of, and so on). It's also very naive and dangerous to suggest that these sort of viewpoints are simply "points of views we disagree with" as you will lump in Nazism, pedophilia, Sandy Hook truthers, death threats, doxxing, and more which are forms of speech no matter how you say otherwise. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Tisane. That is all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, if it weren't for the first amendment, Trump would be deciding what is and isn't okay for us to say. And look in European nations, where open racism and nazi paraphenalia are effectively illegal. Is Europe free of racists? Free of bigotry? Quite the contrary. It's fun living in the liberal bubble, but the real world is where the work gets done.-"Shut up, Brx." 21:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Good thing I'm not a liberal. Also, in your child level understanding of philosophy, you may have missed that we aren't the government, that there is flexibility in what the government can and cannot censor, and furthermore your logic can be used to defend some indefensible shit. So yeah. Have fun in the kiddie pool of philosophy, I shall engage in reality. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I do feel compelled to defend the concept of free speech, at least in terms of government. I have no idea what you were talking about, but I was very much talking about government. Anyways, if you've an interest in philosophy, this has all already been debated at length. Look up the concept of a pastoral power.-"Shut up, Brx." 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I'm unbanning Tisane then. Cause why not? Free speech right? Oh, And Bryan See too. And really any other toxic shits I can find. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Wut. I feel like there's a serious miscommunication here. I have been talking about free speech on the government level this entire time. To clarify, I am not talking about free speech on RationalWiki, at least not in this thread. -"Shut up, Brx." 22:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Trump is already toying with the dangerous idea of meddling with speech. His administration did try to remove references to climate change in various scientific organizations. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
trump doesn't have to do anything to free speech. no one trusts the media in the us, with continued accusations of fake news and bias no one trusts anything that does not confirm ones own biases and everything is else fake news. real news is drowned out by a sea of bullshit. worked well for trump, its only the coronavirus and a 100 000 dead that's ruined it for him. your problem is you have too much free speech. its choking you. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The principal public forum of this moment is corporate controlled and privately owned. Those who confine free speech concerns to the actions of governments are literally living in the past. I strongly believe that people who urge corporations to suppress opinions because they own the media and are not answerable to voters have chosen poorly and failed to think through the implications of what they're asking for. This is especially true if they also hold various leftish opinions about economic policy. Give corporations carte blanche to suppress opinions and you are inviting them to declare any opinion that might threaten their bottom line unacceptable. This will not work out well for anyone. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
On that sentiment we're largely in agreement Smerdis. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Many of the recent manifestations in media are, I think, a result of the massive proliferation of new media, creating the effect of an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of keyboards: assembling a patchwork quilt of sense and nonsense. Free speech doesn't exist everywhere. It is however, desirable that it exist somewhere. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
But corporations already control these platforms? YouTube is particularly very abusive with its demonetization of LGBTQ+ content but there's Facebook and Twitter bending to the whims of anti-vaxxers and stuff to ban and remove posts. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Basically, what is anyone afraid of? That the US government would crack down on free enterprise because it is suppressing the speech of the head of the executive branch of the US? Bluff, insane bluff, anyone who takes that seriously is fucking lost. Like, look at that question. Does the head of the US executive branch not have other methods of speech? I's a power play, Trump thinks Twitter will lose money if he steps back from it, and he thinks Twitter will groan and oblige because, let's face it, people check the president's Twitter. Maybe Twitter wants to fact check, maybe it's conspiratorial. Are we actually afraid Twitter is going to go down? Does Twitter ACTUALLY suppress conspiratorial baseless cuckoo bonkers garbage because it is a political motivator? If the president of the US shuts down Twitter, say, tomorrow, what does he gain and what does he lose? I say do it, motherfucker, do it right now if you're so big. Collapse on the free enterprise that you benefit so much from, and see if your base can keep up with your nonsense without it. I know Trump won't answer for anything, and shit is getting fiery, Trump is building up a fucking baseless monster. Just cut the cord already, if you're so correct. But he won't do it tomorrow because of Tsun Zu bullshit. The administration wants what China and Russia have, state run media. This is a big bluff, the fewer real things, the absolute better and it doesn't matter where the false things come from right now, it's the divide and the act of suppression that hurts, fill in the truth later. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I literally cannot take anyone seriously who thinks that insulting, derogatory and even aggressive language (sometimes accompanied by violence) towards marginalized people who chronically face discrimination and fewer opportunities...aren't beaten down by it. Especially if its something they frequently experience. I mean...it's like saying kids who are bullied in school aren't adversely affected by it. Only in theory bullying ends when school ends, or when adults intervene or when you switch to a less toxic place. Unfortunately that bullying follows people who are visible minorities or visibly (or openly) marginalized people. The bullying...in other words lasts for life. Only in adulthood it is not always as overt and its easy to think it doesn't exist or doesn't make much of an impact. It does. For the love of God the only people who don't seem to get this are those who have never experienced (or fully see the extent of) bullying or have some miraculous psychological fortitude and are shocked that not everyone else does. And what does all of this really come down to. Why the big fight about what should be an obvious problem with the human condition? Cause you're pissed you can't use overtly offensive language? That not being able to say stupid offensive shit is such a major attack on who you are and how you express yourself that you'll start arguing that this shit doesn't adversely affect people when...you know...marginalized people have been saying out loud for decades that it does? It says more about you as a person that you'll struggle to be able to say demeaning hostile intimidating pointless offensive shit regardless of the human toll. ShabiDOO 15:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Brxbrx I’m a bit curious as to which ”European nations, where open racism and nazi paraphenalia are effectively illegal” you are referring. True, in Germany, Nazi symbols are outlawed (at least outside of, say, educational contexts and the like), but European laws tend to focus on active and public incitement to hatred, usually with the implicit or explicit threats of violence this entails, not merely to being openly racist.

The very fact that there are several, prominent, European racists who are very active in online illustrates that the laws don’t apply to ”open racism” in general. I think that while there definitely are good arguments for the “get them out into the open” line, there are at least equally good arguments for putting certain limits on the amount of (in)direct threats you can apply to groups, just as against individuals. Basically, it makes little sense to me for it to be illegal to threaten a specific gay or Jewish or whatever person, while defining chanting threatening slogans against ALL gays, Jews or whatever in general as being fine, simply because they are depersonalised.

Indeed (Godwin alert!), reading some accounts from Germans during the Third Reich, it was exactly the depersonalised categorisation that was the most virulent among broader sections of society, rather than the targeting of specific individuals, with some Germans being shocked when such “generic” antisemitism impacted Jews they knew personally (but had kept mentally separate from the concept of “the Jews” in general). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bizzare nonsense on WhatsApp.

Two snapshots of a bizzare nonsense rumour about Covid-19 on WhatsApp. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, the NWO isn't using a virus to kill us; they are using a bacterium to destroy the economy and build funds through the medical industry, rendering everyone subservient to GEORGE SOROS. TPTB. Clearly, THEY are responsible and must be stopped. HairlessCat (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Most fatalities from Spanish Flu were due to opportunistic bacterial infections that were themselves the proximal cause of death. This seems to be invoking the same idea, though we’ll have to see how accurate that is. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that Italian Ministry of Health did not say anything like what is being attributed to it. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


I've seen similarly idiotic posts on Facebook in Portuguese. The sad thing is that there are really gullible people out there who will believe anything, including this. G Man (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger: Wikipedia Is Badly BiasedDo You Believe That?

Just WIGO'd a blog post by Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger accusing Wikipedia of having a liberal bias. Hmm, where have we seen this before? Normally this would be a case of DFTT but given who it's coming from, I think it warrants more attention. Maybe he's trying to promote his upcoming Encyclosphere project? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I was compelled to give Larry Sanger a fair treatment and read his hot take but I stopped at "The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing 'Obamagate' story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump." --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh so I tried continuing and apparently, Larry Sanger is bothered at the word "false". "Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are 'false.' Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as 'false,' very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia." He's really confused that "false" and "neutrality" aren't mutually exclusive terms. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Anyway I really hate how these people try to politicize fact-checking. They expend no effort trying to understand what makes a source reliable or not, they just complain about bias when Wikipedia exercises its policy on sourcing and then the conclusion happens to run against their ideology. This man has the nerve to bring up "questions" about MMR and climate change regarding Wikipedia's bias makes him look ignorant and petulant. They don't realize they're politicizing this, and that's dangerous as they've already politicized climate change and vaccination to dire consequences. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
OBAMAGATE! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Is this guy trying to hop on board the profitable American conservative quackery circuit? His list is pretty much all the standard stuff that the alt-right, with a strong United States political bias, would claim about: Trump good, Obama bad, abortion evil, we must listen to "minority viewpoints" on global warming, MMR vaccines, and alternative medicine, wah I don't like what they say about Christianity. Drug liberalization is the only kinda oddball one here. The "Encyclosphere" he is trying to start has the self-referential quote "No small group of elites deserves the power to declare what is known for all of us." Looks like he's trying to start Conservapedia Part 2: Electric Boogaloo to me... Soundwave106 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Eh, I wouldn't call it "alt-right" but just the typical brand of Fox News conservatism. Which is still an ugly set of viewpoints, particularly on climate change denial (which tends to coincide with less savory viewpoints in my experience especially in the recent years; if you're still denying human-caused climate change in 2020 there's probably more tapeworms yet to be found in there). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Conspiracy idiocy has been an integral part of American conservatism for decades. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
True. I guess my thought was more that Wikipedia's list of controversial issues has a much broader depth then mere populist USA right wing talking points. The Wiki list leans populist as a whole but is not Rush Limbaugh talking point regurgitation for sure. (For instance, it is not surprising to see fandoms with certain dogmatic elements like Star Wars and Star Trek on the Wiki list. Note that a more heady "controversial topic" like, say, the widely differing academic opinion surrounding Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First CenturyWikipedia's W.svg, doesn't even make the cut.) Doesn't matter, it seems like Sanger's been pissed off for some reason at Wikipedia since he left (his "notable" stories post-Wikipedia was, of course, the spectacular Citizendium failure, and reporting some turn-of-the-century art from Martin van Maële on Wikimedia Commons as child pornography to the FBIWikipedia's W.svg) so....
Encyclosphere? How many failed encyclopedias is too many?-"Shut up, Brx." 22:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Obama was a complete piece of shit president, but focusing on these fake manufactroversies instead of the real issues (charge Obama for war crimes, cause he committed plenty) does him, and the rest of the right, no favors. I would express major joy at seeing Obama arrested and sentenced for crimes against humanity however. Oxyaena Harass 01:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't hold back comrade. Tell us what you really think. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
He expanded the disastrous War on Terror and further gutted the 4th Amendment than even Bush did, mocked and supported the brutalization of Occupy protesters by pigs with badges, destabilized Libya into a Jihadist shithole, really Obama was probably the biggest disappointment of the 21st century in terms of US Presidents. Oxyaena Harass 00:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This was the same guy who, when launching his own "alternative" to Wikipedia in the form of Citizendium, stated that he thought the problem was that expert opinion was being overwhelmed by mob rule, and built Citizendium in such a manner that the experts would have absolute authority over the articles under their purview. Now, he's saying the opposite, that we need to let "the people" decide rather than the experts. I'd wonder what changed... except I don't really need to, it's just him being a contrarian trying to pander to right-wingers (and probably launch his next big, doomed tech venture). KevinR1990 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It helps to remember that Wikipedia was literally founded by Randians who knew each other through an email list for Randians. I would expect there to be more of a systematical libertarian bias, although in reality Wikipedia has a dark side and there are some power users who prevent certain articles from seeing much criticism of certain powerful people. They use byzantine rules like lawyers, and back channels to get fellow power users/administrators on board, and some Wikipedia articles are outright bought by rich men who want a complementary resume of them on the internet. They pay companies that specialize in writing articles that meet the rules and which won't be taken down, by people whose entire job is to write Wikipedia articles on behalf of clients. Itsnotthatsimple (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DALP protests draft

I've started a draft on the DALP protests and I would like input, though there is already a page so I will move it. Also could someone please find links about conspiracy theories regarding the protests? Tuxer (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on "And did those feet in ancient time" (Jerusalem)?

I've come across they hymn "And did those feet in ancient time" a few times recently in TV & movies. The hymn is almost a punchline in at least two Monty Python episodes, which goes over my head. As an American, it did not register with me at all as to what it was, but it always seemed peculiar to me. I was surprised to find out that the lyrics were by William Blake, with whom I was primarily only familiar with his Songs of Innocence and Experience and his graphic art. After reading the complete lyrics and reading a few commentaries on the song, I find it quite puzzling that the song is an unofficial English anthem, and there are even proposals to make it the official one. The song's lyrics actually refer to a Luddite-ish historical event ("Among these dark Satanic Mills") as well as a mystical form of British Israelism ("And was Jerusalem builded here") according to what seem to be rather mainstream interpretations of Blake's intent. Any Brits care to comment, e.g., @RWRW, @AMassiveGay? Perhaps it's even worth making a page for it. Bongolian (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what we would say about it. Blake was a strange and controversial character even in his own time.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey! I'm a Brit too. How could you overlook me? Anyway, I think a lot of the song's popularity is simply down to the words "England's green and pleasant land." I certainly don't think that many people who sing it with gusto these days genuinely think they're God's chosen people. And I'd just like to say, "And did those teeth in ancient times..." "It's a man's life in the Cardiff Rooms, Libya." Spud (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about forgetting you, Spud. I remembered that after posting, then got distracted. Bongolian (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
ex pats don't count. splitters AMassiveGay (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
its just nice uplifting song. Jerusalem is being used as a metaphor for heaven, and as such is has been popular with lots of social movements. its has an optimism to it, that lends itself well for coming together and building a jolly future. the suffragettes used it, the labour party still uses it. England has no official anthem, god save the queen being the british one, and rather dreary, so sometimes gets played at sporting events. its been associated with the womens institute for years, a quintessentially 'English' organisation summarised by jam and Jerusalem. there are periodic flare ups of 'England should have its own anthem' and Jerusalem is indelibly linked with England and Englishness of a particular type. plus everyone sings along at the last night of the proms, so its got the anthem chops while being a whole lot less jingoistic than land of hope and glory. and its a pleasant tune. I wouldn't get too hung up the lyrics, though 'dark satanic mills' is less about ludditism and more the fact that the industrial revolution can be characterised by hellish dehumanising and exploitative working conditions as it can for technological advancements. those mills really were ugly polluting blots on the landscape and a literal hell on earth for the their workers.
could do a whole lot worse for a national anthem. could have an ode to war, for example. or god save the queen. its so fucking dreary. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I would certainly not like to see it as a National Anthem. The "Did these feet in ancient times" bit is often thought to have been inspired by weird ideas of British Israelism and to refer to a hypothesized visit to Great Britain by Jesus ("England" not existing at the time). I can't remember if this was supposed to be before or after he died. It would be like inshrining the Mormon idea the Jesus visited the US in the US National Anthem. I do accept there are other interpretations of this line though. (From yet another forgotten Ex-pat Brit)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. The idea is that Joseph of Arimathea had business that often brought him to Britain. He was a friend of Jesus' family and took the boy Jesus to Britain with him. Utter nonsense, of course. Not even supported by anything in the New Testament. Spud (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
From my non-British perspective, a lot of the popularity of the tune probably lies squarely on the composer, Hubert ParryWikipedia's W.svg. It's a good tune IMHO, particularly compared to other "national anthems" (patriotic music tends to not be a place where one looks for good tunes in general), and designed as a nice simple, but not banal, unison song that everyone can sing along with. I don't think Parry intended it to be a "national anthem", he initially composed it for a World War I effort, but later gave it to the women's suffrage movement (which was more the type of cause he supported) for their own use. Even so, I'm not entirely sure how any of this fits well with the Blake text other than vague upliftness and that's how the early 20th century art world rolled and whatnot. The large orchestration by Edward ElgarWikipedia's W.svg (the Land of Hope and Glory composer, originally Pomp and Circumstances #1, a piece used in the United States for countless graduations for some reason) is what you typically hear these days. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
the text works well, basically says if jesus had made a visit, it would have made England quite lovely, or specifically heaven. the last verse says we can all come together to make England heavenly in reality. it is a little too explicitly Christian to fly I suspect, and the Englishness is of a rural middle England, ideal of country fetes vicars - the jam and Jerusalem thing, probably not so representative today, but nigel farage would cum in his pants at the thought of it, so boris would try to push it through if it were anyway a serious possibility. its definitely the kind of imagery he'd invoke in a speech, if he bored of allusions to the blitz. he probably has used it in a speech if I could be bothered to look.
we will have to make do with god save the queen. is a national anthem strictly necessary? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a useful thing to have if everyone else has one. You might look pretty silly at the Olympics just having a quiet time for three minutes after after accepting your gold. Having said that, the Spanish National Anthem has no words. It's just a rather boring piece of music.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I might have missed the window for that to be concern. I suppose id still have to hang about for bronze, so maybe. I might need an event that's not super popular and the few who compete are really rubbish and disqualified for doping or something. honestly though, if its god save the queen, im not going to bother. so its dreary and its cost us a medal at an Olympics for something that im probably for defo would have won. curling maybe? pretty sure I can use a broom AMassiveGay (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Of course if something - anything - is chosen as a separate national anthem for England, different from the UK one, that does mean that the next time England play Liechtenstein at football, they won't play the same national anthem twiceWikipedia's W.svg before the game. Spud (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Among these dark Satanic Mills" was a reference to a specific event in Blake's time that likely inspired him, the (possibly arson) fire of the Albion Flour Mills. The Mills had been characterized as taking away traditional millers' jobs and using cheap imports. A dissenting (NonconformistWikipedia's W.svg) interpretation would seem to make it even worse as a national anthem, since it characterizes the Church of England as the 'dark Satanic Mills' (see And did those feet in ancient time § "Dark Satanic Mills"Wikipedia's W.svg). As an example, the book Against Technology from Luddites to Neo-Luddism by Steven E. Jones (2006, Routlege) uses Blake's poem a few times in reference to Luddism. Bongolian (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC) (reset) I read somewhere - the answer to the first verse is 'No' and to the second 'Do it yourself.' Anna Livia (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

by the time it became Jerusalem it was far removed from any context that could suggest luddites or non conformists, and there is nothing within the piece itself nor has ever really been clearly one thing or another. its meaning is what ever it has been wheeled out for which for 100 years has been social movements and patriotism. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Jerusalem the hymn and "And did those feet in ancient time" should not be viewed or understood as the same thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Using the GWAS to predict GDP of countries

Wow, look at the strength of that correlation. Really makes you rethink how much genetics contributes to the success of a country. Really goes to show how unimportant humans are, and how much the particular subspecies of mouse-eared cress that grows in your country matters. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain it? It leaves me a little puzzled.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Racist shitfucks like to do this kind of analysis, where they use the sampled genetics of populations in a country to "predict" the GDP of nations with relatively strong correlations. This person has applied the same methods to the genes of a weed noted for growing in gaps in sidewalks and found similarly strong results. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think Bob M may have been looking for an explanation for why a graph correlating a statistical measure of GDP with a statistical measure of predicted GDP would show that. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Because that's what the dipshits he's parodying do. "Polygenic score" is a code word for "No actual analysis". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I must admit that I don't really understand what the two axis of the graph are trying to tell me based on how they are labeled. But that may be a consequence of my not understanding the terms or lack of context to the argument being made. In any event I guess its the "correlation does not equal causation" problem and this has always been my favorite site for demonstrating that. :-)
Except of course the glaring (and numerous) exceptions. N. vs. S Korea. Taiwan and HK vs. China. Malaysia vs. Indonesia. Turkey vs. Turkmenistan. Chile vs. Bolivia. Zambia vs. Zimbabwe. Pitcairn Islands vs. New Zealand. Austria vs. Romania. California vs. Alabama vs. Conneticut. Greenland vs. Nunavut. Somalia vs. Djibouti. ShabiDOO 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

CGP talks a bit about spoiler effect

Scroll to around 5 minutes into the video. It's a really good video that I think some people could really get use out of with the current election coming up. The Crow (row row fight the power) 17:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Informative article on people who cannot get vaccinations due to medical conditions

https://www.healthline.com/health/vaccinations/immunization-complications#takeaway

Very well put together and written to where most people can understand. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

those are antivaxxers bro — Unsigned, by: 162.253.71.21 / talk

Anti-Vaxxers would probably distort the article for their own purposes. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering

Anybody else play this? Just made a new deck on Arena featuring Snapdax, Apex of the Hunt. Might be my new favorite card. I call the deck Snap!Dax because who doesn't love 90's dance music, amirite? What does everybody think of the Mutate mechanic?-"Shut up, Brx." 02:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I picked it up when I was 10, my brother and I both got starter packs because we had just moved to a new city and had nothing to do. He kicked my ass EVERY SINGLE DAY for an entire summer. I eventually played the Xbox Arcade versions, rules were unbreakable, no cleanup, fine enough (except I think you can get mana screwed while your opponent always gets a hand). Occasionally I'll play with some super casual friends, and I've usually complained to them enough about how much I hate the game that they go unfairly easy on me. UNO is better with an AI ref also, when the rules are unbreakable and instant, holy crap the game gets intense. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Many, many years ago, I played when it first came out. I played a Fire based deck, and somewhere around here in some crate in my attic I doubtless still have those cards. Since then I've played dozens of other CCGs as well-- had a surprising amount of fun with Legends of the Five Rings, and being a World of Warcraft player the PC based Hearthstone is always an option, but I do remember the original, first CCG... and that goddamned ante rule that we pretty much scrapped because it sucked donkey wang. Tell you what, when that one was scrapped officially, we all rejoiced. Kencolt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
You guys should try Arena. Free to play, easy to pick up. Not sure if you'll like the current meta, though. Agent of Treachery might seem too expensive to cast, but not with the current card lineup-"Shut up, Brx." 20:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't quite get into Hearthstone, probably because I couldn't figure it out. A few years ago, I don't even remember, I had a Priest deck that was all "this guy takes damage, this guy gets stronger over time" and it worked until the next season when half those cards got cut. God, what was it, the Annoy-o-Tron or something, and the one mech that just built attack every turn, and all the shit that gives their neighbors shields, and the big scaries that could survive damage but got stronger if hit, Trog whatevers, and very cool placement mechanics. It was a good deck, I didn't get that far with it, but I was so proud of it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Excited for you, BrxBrx, I'm definitely disconnected from it, but I know how nuts MTG decks get. The last game I played was a 3 v all and I got a guy's Bottle Gnome leftovers to build my deck with. I let the guys hit away at each other and when it came to me, I had to explain that declaring blockers and tapping cards were two separate phases. Got all my health back, took no damage, and won against a fully tapped army with a leftovers deck, being like "guys, I hate this game." It's a cool concept, but the rules are so wildly important. I also played UNO with some friends, and I couldn't talk them out of little kid rules, even thought I kept telling them "No, this is why the game is bad." Draw until you can play? That's how UNO does not work. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the great thing about the digital format. Handles the rules for you-"Shut up, Brx." 02:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I play the Pokémon Trading Card Game. --Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

NERDS AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You forgot the video that goes with it. Beyond Reality (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How hard is it to find players for the Pokemon Trading Card Game now? If I ever find my old cards I'd like to give them away to some kid who still plays them, but I don't even know if people still play with the old cards. Itsnotthatsimple (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Iraq War: Sending soldiers overseas to die for a lie

Soldiers and civilians got to die for a lie, all for a mere oil grab. I think about things like this often.

I cannot see why people supported the war, it is just sick to support the slaughter of people in the name of a lie. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, Bush 43 was very good at narrative-making in the aftermath of what was, to be fair, a national tragedy. The Democrats did what the usually do(fail miserably when presented with a golden opportunity) and did not oppose the war in any meaningful way as a party leaving a void in terms of narrative Bush of course immediately filed. He created an environment where he was a almost holy leader, sacrosanct and too "purely american" to question, and the Democrats did not do enough to prevent that. So, the public went along with it because otherwise you were "surrendering to terror" and the Democrats failed to provide a strong alternative and say there was another way. Have you ever heard Herman Goering's quote about starting wars?-Flandres (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
how'd you figure 'very good' at narrative making? a chimp could good have got the us to go to war after 9/11. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Not just the war, but the elevation of him to a figure fit for a Hellenistic ruler cult. All of what came afterword, when he was the Thirteenth apostle in the manner of a byzantine emperor, who could get even liberals to go along with it(also perhaps not Bush, but more truthfully his handlers, Rove, Cheney, the like). Afghanistan, well that was easy to claim just cause, but he directed it to a more or less completely unrelated country and yes, it was shockingly popular at first before that aura of righteousness went where it belonged. Even as protesters climbed into the millions even Democrats dissembled them as an Un-american fringe.-Flandres (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
HairlessCat (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
9/11 broke americans' brains, who were used to never facing any consequences for their actions, and thus awoke a deep seated bloodlust in 3/4 of the population, much to the terror of anyone with even a shred of humanity. Iraq was the convenient place to target that hate for W's political aims. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, basically this. The Democrats wouldn't have dared try to deny Americans the blood they so desperately


wanted after 9/11. Americans had decided that because brown people did 9/11, brown people had to pay no matter who or where they actually were. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So, there's this point. We can't vote for them, they lied to us. And somehow, that's been turned into a partisan thing. I heard today that Bill Shatner and Bill Nye cannot describe how rocket launches work because they are actors. I made one comment that "Donald Trump can probably explain how medicine works, though" and the huffs and puffs were palpable because I was trolling. I shifted to Kerbal Space Program, and we all agreed, I don't think I "played" Kerbal Space Program. I think I "worked" for Kerbal Space Program for a little bit, and I think I was bad at it. I got an orbit around the Mun, but how do I bring that back, holy shit, the phrase "arcs of shame" came up, brilliant, and "more boosters" which I got mad at until I found out that was a joke, and yeah, it's fucking hard, the rest were just jokes on Elon Musk being solely responsible for the failure. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It's just not about lying anymore. It's about creating a second truth, because the first truth is inherently nonsensical "What I want to believe" garbage that isn't even nihilism. We have no choice but to answer to the second point of reality. Solipsism. I swear, that just hit me, post immediate.
The failure of Solipsism is it doesn't work on what we actually believe. It assumes what we want to believe is what is going on. What you want to believe is not always what's going on. Do not use Descartes as an end-all be-all ticket to denying the rest of your experience.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
No, the failure of physicalism is that it assumes what we want to believe is what is going on. The material world is an assumption, a rather egregious one. Solipsism doesn't fail because it's illogical; it fails because it's egocentric. Ego exists in consciousness, not the other way around.HairlessCat (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
A profound argument from ignorance is still an argument from ignorance. The a priori rejection of deterministic materialism doesn't suddenly make gravity stop operating. The evidence of a coherent material world driven by mostly predictable mechanical forces slaps every one of your senses in the face every second of every day for your entire life, and it takes a rather severe degree of up-your-own-ass syndrome to call that the assumption rather than whatever convoluted philosophical thought experiment it takes to posit an alternate explanation. Des Cartes' demon can suck a dick. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Why would gravity stop operating? If I look at quarks, the quarks are still in reality. Just because they are perceived in a field of consciousness and not verified to be really real solid physical things does not mean they don't exist as things. The evidence of a material world does not slap me in the face when I look at my mental field of vision; evidence of a mental world slaps me in the face when I look at my mental field of vision. This isn't an act of mental masturbation done by a brain; this is mental masturbation done by brain done by mental masturbation because mental masturbation is where things are ontologically. You are making the assumption that objects exist independent of consciousness, but I understand RationalWiki has a weighty, intense boner for logical positivism--in which case--the assumption is perfectly practical and always has been. I'm just saying that it's not true. HairlessCat (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
And to think, this started out as a thread about the Iraq war....-Flandres (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Media criticism beyond the fascist right, consumerist 'center', or socialist left?

Hello lads. Longtime lurker, first time Saloon Bar-er.

I'm noticing more of a movement in the alt-right toward some kind of "cultural conservatism," a.k.a "traditionalism," and the rejection of what they like to call the "degeneracy" of mainstream consumer culture. For example, a newly popular rightwing subreddit is r/ConsumeProduct, which puts commercial materialism up against some sort of idealized Christian purity. Real Kinder, Küche, Kirche type stuff. Obviously part of the motive there is to whip up hatred against LGBTQ people, unmarried women, nonwhites, etc.

On the other (political) hand, there is a pretty well-established anti-consumerist commentary on mainstream culture coming from the more socialist left. For example, part of the appeal of podcasts like Chapo Trap House is that they take the piss out of upper-class darlings like Hamilton. They call out the pandering of "woke" corporate branding. But the critique is also in the context of leftist politics, not just the media content itself. Then there's the "stupidpol" wing, who seem even more allergic to things like ethic/queer representation in media, because identity politics fails to challenge capitalism.

I'm fed up with the consolidation of media companies and the way superheroes, sequels, violence and children's entertainment have taken over the cultural landscape for ostensible adults. But I'm in search of critique or commentary on these things that isn't just an expression of the author's politics. Does that make sense? Or is it futile in the sense that all critique is inherently political?

yub nub (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a saying on the Left; "everything is political" meaning that everything and everyone, no matter to what degree or intent, expresses some form of political views. Even being "apolitical" is itself political. Does that make sense or help? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the best way to determine this is what you're looking for in criticism. As GC said, everything is political, but if we go by the definition of both stupidpol and the right (and Chapo to a lesser extent), what is political is highly determined by your personal worldview, because what is political is what challenges your personal beliefs in this definition. To take an easy example, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain is an excellent case study of this. If you care a lot for the story of the game and lean right, you'll probably have a knee jerk reaction to someone saying that Quiet having her ass out so much is kinda sexist and claim it's political, whereas if you're leaning left, you probably will not have that kneejerk reaction, even if you disagree with the conclusion (as I do, Quiet is a pretty interesting case of challenging sexism, although like most things in Metal Gear Solid it's difficult to define without going into an hour long spiel. Kojima is a great director is what I'm saying.)
Calling media sexist is by this definition a political thing on the right and not a political thing on the left. What I would recommend you do is find a critic who is good at defining themselves by what kind of media they like and wears that on their sleeve, rather than someone who defines themselves by what they dislike (there's asterisks here, such as Yahtzee, but those rely more on what you know about him beyond ZP such as his writing or indie game dev work).
You might not entirely agree with them politically, but you know where they stand and what they enjoy. It's why I can politically disagree with Jim Sterling (personally don't swing as far left), yet still embrace the fact that when he likes a game, it's probably something I will enjoy too, since I know that what we both like in games (good single player content, engaging mechanics) mostly lines up with what I enjoy. I can say the same for videogamedunkey, moviebob, Yahtzee, hbomberguy (loose definition here) and the other critics I follow.
Basically, the best thing to do is find someone who likes what you like and branch out from there. Looking for negative criticism is generally just going to lead you to grifters who want to squeeze money out of you like Chapo Trap House and adjacent podcasts (or if you swing right, folks like Sargon of Akkad).
Does that make sense? The Crow (row row fight the power) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
im not sure what the complaint here is. you want critiques of media consolidation but don't want it political. how could that not be political? as for superheros, kids stuff - essentially geek culture, great for merchandising, and sequels proliferating the cultural landscape. well, that's still about media consolidation. its all going to have the slant of whos doing the critiquing. I don't know what your issue is here AMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
"Not political" in OPs wording means "things that don't challenge my worldview too much". The Crow (row row fight the power) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not too hard to find many articles that go into how some feel superhero movies are over-saturated / overdone / etc. or how Hollywood has too many reboots, sequels, and remakes without going any sort of "politics" beyond Tinseltown economics and movie buff type stuff. On a topic like violence in media, though, politics is going to creep into the discussion naturally due to the subject matter. r/ConsumeProduct is just the usual American fundie ninnies complaining about porn while putting on a front of growing veggies at home... meaning it's not about consumerism at all, it's just the usual fundie bullshit that's been an American tradition for pretty much the lifetime of the nation. Staying away from bullshit like that will definitely help. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Be careful how heavily you are using left and right politics. They are a convenient barometer of political ideologies and in non-Anglo Saxon countries...how to place political parties in a legislature. However dividing the world into two political tribes confuses everything. So saying a "leftist" critique is not a great idea. It is incredibly vague and overgeneralizing. I know the US media (some of it) and British tabloids have started to tribalize voters into left and right, but its super artificial and I don't think much profound can be said. Sure, far-right is better defined. But I'd highly recommend using other terms. Be more specific. Also, I'd be careful to what extent you consider a Reddit group notably representative of political movements. What's important is to what extent they are active in disseminating their ideas and how activist they are. How well they broadcast their ideas beyond loyal visitors to their sites and how far they mirror or, better, how far they penetrate intellectual/academic/media/political circles. ShabiDOO 02:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I do think there is something very busybodyish, very Mary Whitehouse or Tipper Gore, about critics who judge media and games by some highly moralized standard of political orthodoxy. I was around in the 1980s and 1990s, and remember the manufactroversies about good girl artWikipedia's W.svg and bad girl artWikipedia's W.svg in comic books, where the people who judged them in moralistic terms were hardly the core audience. This is a RCH away from kink-shaming, and I despise kink-shaming. And this holds true regardless of where the moralistic critic is coming from. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
From what I've seen nobody's doing that, it's rather how only certain groups get a particular treatment, at the expense of everyone else. That is a really oversimplified analysis, but there's nothing moralistic about it. Why do women more often get sexualized treatment than men? The only reason there's been any change on this subject is because of critical analysis like this. Oxyaena Harass 06:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The reasons women are sexualized more than men are: men were traditionally more powerful in a sexist way that has left an imprint, men consume more of the media formats where sexualization is most extreme, and men are hornier than women. This is pretty simple stuff that doesn't really require any sort of labyrinthine critical analysis. Going nuts over this stuff leads to things like Gamergate, which was only more vapid in my opinion.HairlessCat (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
the sexualisation of women (or conversely, saintly chaste in their depictions) in some mediums would be far less of an issue if it were not, for the longest time, the only representation ever given, or that any attempts to try something else is loudly denounced. its the when looking at treatment of minorities - its not so much representations have stereotypical and negative, its that's all there has been. until sexism, racism, homophobia and the like are absent or at least greatly diminished in society then its very difficult not view such depictions as regressive and as reinforcing negative stereotypes in peoples minds as a reality.
it is not just about how women and minorities are seen by men and the majority, is the effect it has on women and minorities themselves. its easy to find discussions about some ground breakingly progressive depiction of, say a black doctor where black people say they did not know it was possible to even be a black doctor until they saw it on screen showing anything was possible and consider it a valid and very real goal. a lack of variety among suitable role models put limits on ones aspirations. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
More strong, intelligent, and upstanding role model women and minorities in the media--by all means. It's just my personal opinion that mindless sexual eye candy shouldn't be totally eliminated.HairlessCat (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The general trend I've been personally seeing is that mindless sexual eye candy isn't being eliminated per se, but more mindless sexual eye candy is being made with women in mind. At any rate, in accordance with the "TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life" philosophy, I've personally found that the vast majority of media uses stupid simplistic tropes and a heck of a lot of these tropes are dumb stereotypes. And many of these stereotypes actually move product. Bro-country encapsulates a fairly ridiculous stereotype, but it moves units, many to the same people it stereotypes. The top hip hop styles (whether it be the type still wallowing in 1990s gangsta tropes, or the more popular "bling trap" of today) are honestly also pretty ridiculous, but they move product, for the same. It's actually a marketing strategy to change, pro-wrestling style, into a dumb stereotype these days to move product (many of the people on "reality shows", like your Duck Dynasty types, certainly do just that). Likewise, "sex sells", and there are certain dumb tropes about the role of men and women in society. Many of these "dumb sexualization tropes" move product, too!... although times *are* changing. (Beauty pageants were, back in the day, one example I can think of. Although it's hard finding hard numbers, I remember that the beauty pageants actually were marketed more for women then men, with old articles like this seeming to confirm this. ) I guess that's the problem with going nuts over mild ethnic stereotypes -- sure, but that's a general problem with most of the dumb side of media. I can see the argument where, if a mild stereotype is actually the dominant portrayal of an ethnic group in media, and generally thought of as negative within the community, you don't want to encourage this (probably the best argument against, say, the Apu Nahasapeemapetilon/Simpsons issue). But elsewise, the main combat from my perspective to the dumb stereotype is to encourage smarter media, and spend money on that. Dumb tropes that move product isn't going to go away anytime soon. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Female sexualization in popular media was originally a vehicle to capture male interest. Production companies were, after all, selling something to men. Women, on the other hand might have been fascinated by the fantasy of being irresistible. Sexualization of one, or several, characters was a dramatic technique once thought to be indispensable for any popular story or film, because it established a female character's importance in the structure of a male narrative. Reviewers talk a lot about strong women characters. In 20th century media a strong sexual presence was a proxy for strength in female characters. The sexualized heroine could manipulate ordinary men. Very often the central male protagonist in a story is the only one of the dramatis personae capable of resisting this type of manipulation. Modern fiction is replete with the "battle of the sexes" subplot. Female protagonists should not always be represented as exceptionally beautiful. There is no need to get rid of sirens altogether, and I suspect to do so would immiserate popular entertainment media. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 So, two points. One, you seem to have used a bit of an appeal to tradition there, and as the "White Savior" trope illustrates, not all tropes in media should be continued. Secondly, I doubt the media will become less sexualized anytime soon, short of someone like Pence getting into power (which he might depending on the 2024 POTUS primaries, which will be interesting.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, media probably won't become less sexualized. On your first point: I was describing 20th century fiction. I suppose I could praise it as well, but I am more interested in describing it and understanding why it worked. Here is an old Commercial about the relative nature of sexualization

Ariel31459 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Some nice anti-orthodox music

HairlessCat (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Great for torturing terries-"Shut up, Brx." 02:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the price we pay for . . . uh . . . freedom.HairlessCat (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Arguing with stupid people...

...is it ever worth it? ShabiDOO 16:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

for the lulz-"Shut up, Brx." 16:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of RationalWiki is basically to argue with stupid people without actually talking to them.HairlessCat (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends. People are far more likely to be wrong or indoctrinated than stupid.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends on intellectual honesty. If someone is being intellectually dishonest (ie. pushes fallacies when confronted and doesn't let them go when you point them out), then don't bother. Otherwise, you might change some minds. The Crow (row row fight the power) 17:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure of your point. What you are talking about is not the same as "stupid" which was the question I was responding to.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I should have made it more clear. It's only worth arguing with stupid people if they're not being intellectually dishonest about it. Does that make sense? The Crow (row row fight the power)
(EC)But, from your comments, - I suppose that you wouldn't argue with anyone who you did not consider intellectually honest - whether they are "stupid" or not. So no I'm still not seeing the relevance. But I guess it's not that important.
More interestingly, does anyone feel there is something kind of ableist about using "stupid" so casually?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Probably, but calling people stupid is so thoroughly inculcated into our culture we may as well protest the very concept of insults. So we try to distinguish between stupid people we disagree with and stupid people with a legal disability-"Shut up, Brx." 18:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It's an interesting discussion to be had, but frankly unless you want to go to the kiddie TV type of insults (which yeah, there's a lot of fun to be had in calling someone a big doodoohead, but that's just me and is funny in a different way), I can hardly think of an insult that doesn't carry some sort of connotation to ableism. While we agree that there's certain words that are over the line (ie. the word we describe at Intellectual disability), those mostly tend to come from the fact that they are still mainly used in that fashion by ableists to describe those people. On the other hand, words like stupid or dumb aren't used as often against people with legitimate disabilities, which I guess makes them seem somewhat societally more acceptable. IMHO with this, the line should be drawn where you think it's appropriate and to respect it if the other person asks you not to use it. I personally stay away from the harsher terms myself, but I think it's a personal matter here. One thing that does intrigue me is that the word "gimp" is apparently used as a slur, but I've literally never heard anyone use it beyond the description of a gimp suit... which is kink stuff, so that suprised the hell out of me when I learned it. The Crow (row row fight the power) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
After deleting an introductory phrase qualifing this sentence that deflects my responsibility for making it, if a phrase like "stupid piece of shit" more offends someone because of some distant inferred connotation about the universal fundamental equality of mankind, rather than the very intended insult to the kind of person someone is clearly choosing to be in the moment, you might be going to far with trying to stop ablism. People are capable of acting like absolute dumbfucks without having a fundamental and intractable inferiority tied to some kind of discrimination.
Ways "stupid" can apply to impugn character without meaning a goddamn thing about people with disabilities: not applying a moment's critical thought to whatever stupid idea passes your head, revelling in ignorance and refusing to engage with freely available information, putting no effort into formulating a coherent understandable version of your thoughts, or embracing overly simplistic beliefs because they're easier than more nuanced ones. You have to have seen far more of people being called dumbasses for those things in your life than being slow witted at mathematical problem solving or a lacking an expensive education and the skills that entails. I don't like ablism, it's very rarely justified, but I don't much like linguistic reductionism either. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Never got much out of arguing. Belittling them, on the other hand... ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, at least they won't ask you questions anymore, sheesh. If you've ever been in charge of a project, though, maybe you want them to ask you questions. I had a slow morning at work, I had probably 10 legitimate questions per hour since I was taking the time to cross-train and also playing two roles at once. Then things got busy, and I still had 10 or more questions per hour, and I had to play three roles. I have two leads out sick, one sick with the Rona, one preexisting condition, no useful help in his department, that's my fault. I took over his department for the past two days, and everything seems like a stupid question when you know the answer to it, but you have to answer. So I threw in a potential second lead. The guy I threw in has a ton of experience and he did extremely well, his native department did not do so well after that. I really only had to teach him organizational tricks before he got really comfortable and asked me some good questions. It was also a weird day, 1 day drop-offs didn't show up until after 3, and usually those need to go out the same day. So here's a stupid question, how do you get networking equipment at 3 pm and get it QC tested, refurbished, and packed and shipped by 6 pm? The answer is, we have to do that sometimes. It's a stupid question, and it's a stupid answer, and anyone who wastes time saying "but this is hard" is caught up in the stupid. But there's a stupid kind of magic about that place, and it relies on not arguing with stupid people, rather making the magic happen even when it looks really, really stupid. We have survived the big lockdown, not only as a business, but as a crew. This week has been rough, I'm on three 10 hour days, and I've got some stupid complaints that don't matter about how each department is working, because they are nothing new, just people pushed into roles aren't used to dealing with one or two mishaps in their chain per day. Can't complain that I got the Monday off, though. Little benders pay big dividends. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
TBH if you're arguing with people working for you, that's also bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I mean, working "for" me isn't how I see it, they are working "with" me and I am working "with" them, and mostly "for" them. That's not jargon, that's really how I manage things. But I don't make arguments out of little things, got a better idea, I'm not gonna tell you it's wrong. Got an idea that won't work and I know it, I'll work with it until it breaks and then fix it. Got no idea what you're doing, and you just run off and do something really wrong? Well, I have to fix that, that's the actual limit of my job. Arguing with people working for you is bad, I agree. But I do what I can to work for the people I work with, even if it would make my life a million times easier if I could just be in 5 places at once. I enjoy my job and I like my coworkers anyway. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There are some things that can make it worth it. For one, refusing to argue in support of your position means that you cede any point of disagreement, which may lead to undesirable outcomes. Another is that if you actually know what you think you know, you should be able to trace explanations back to first principles, understand each step, and explain each step to someone who doesn’t know it. Actually being challenged on that can point out any places where your own understanding may be lacking. Also, some people may find that sort of thing enjoyable on its own, regardless of the other factors involved. And who knows, you might change their mind. I was once cold-called by a tea-partier to discuss politics, and I got him to admit that there are merits to socialism. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

there are plenty of cases where it just isn't. some issues are just not up for debate, that make just questioning them make you suspect someone either stupid or trolling. other times an assumption of good faith has you making a point that is responded to with a reply leaving you incredulous at how they could possibly have misinterpreted your point the way they have. it can make you doubt your sanity, studying what you said in case maybe there was ambiguity, but no, its trolling or stupidity, leading to a drawn out debate where you have to clarify every point made as it is misinterpreted each time in ways they just couldn't have got from what you have said. stupidity or trolling, same result - frustration.
all the above doubly so, if the issue under discussion is deeply close to your heart and a frustrating encounter leaves even more despondent. 'fuck off you imbecile' can be the best response some times if one is required. 'if you say so' is better when you can just walk away. no need to argue the toss over everything AMassiveGay (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I commented on this pretty selfishly. Aaand, I overshare, but I've not been able to see my family or friends for a while. I did read the Larry Sanger piece on a, I don't know, 6 minute lunch break, and I really don't want to go back to it, I'm guessing NPOV is neutral point of view, because he define it, but I absolutely loved that final thing he said, his point that we've all read his whole deal over, "they live in a fantasy world of their own making." It was such incredible lever of irony, because the guy is lamenting that his point isn't propped up like it's also true.
I'm surprised we aren't touching the George Floyd incident. I don't know whether to think that's cool, or to worry that we want something, or that we're scared to talk about it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

this is ableist and you could also be stupid, how would you know without arguing for a few minutes — Unsigned, by: 162.253.71.21 / talk

I think it depends more on whether they're open-minded than whether they're "stupid." You can reason with dumb people if you're patient, and can explain things, but you can't reason with people that won't listen to you even if they are potentially able to grasp a lot more if they'd just listen. Itsnotthatsimple (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

“some issues are just not up for debate, that make just questioning them make you suspect someone either stupid or trolling.” There is nothing at all which is not in principle up for debate. Certain things may not be debated in certain times or places, but that is not at all the same thing. If people are going to have a meaningful discussion about important topics, the sorts of things that people may not like to question can easily come up as points of disagreement. Do you expect people to just agree with you without justifying your position?
“if the issue under discussion is deeply close to your heart” That makes it all the more important to examine critically. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies. They motivate rationalization, and if they’re strong enough to shut down debate altogether, they prevent you from being more correct than you are now. And without critical examination, how do you know that the conviction is correct in the first place? If the issues they relate to are close to the heart, it’s particularly important to be correct about them. Unfortunately, intuition is not generally reliable, and the world often works in ways that humans find undesirable. If you with to pursue the truth, you may find that you must give up some cherished notions.
“I'm surprised we aren't touching the George Floyd incident.” https://youtu.be/MpPvGlrqhdA 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Autistic People: Kings of Social Distancing

Lack of social skills is not such a bad thing after all. Take that neurotypicals! Okay I am actually talking about people who hate those with Autism. Maybe this is a bad attempt at comedy. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand I did say that extraverts, the kind that U.S. society puts a lot of value in, are going to kill us all. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
As a editor with autism I can say it has been... helpful. A combination of that, the fact that I work from home, and my limited economic means have always prohibited me from most recreational activities that involve leaving the house anyway(I did not lose the opportunity to go to restaurants and theaters, I never had it) means this pandemic has really not impacted my daily routine at all even as the deaths climb into six digit figures.-Flandres (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I had an idea for a joke about this post being "reverse abelism", but then I realized how potent Poe's law is and there was no formulation of that joke that wouldn't be taken seriously. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
As a person with Autism and a laundry list of psychiatric disorders, I will happily mock those who support discrimination against those with disabilities. I often crack jokes about how stupid the KKK or Neo-Nazis or conspiracy theorists are. If someone supports discrimination I will happily mock them and not feel sorry for them. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of formulations of that joke that wouldn't be taken seriously. They just wouldn't be funny. HairlessCat (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

When was the last time an american insurrection/riot/protest of any scale seized a police station?

I don't think it'll last, but there's definetly some hint of things breaking loose in the social fabric of the US. Not really a open revolution or anything, but there's a functional and not just reported distrust of social institutions at a level I don't think I've seen in my lifetime. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you saying will not last, may I ask? The riot, or this overarching lack of trust in social institutions, this unraveling of the grand american tapestry?-Flandres (talk)
I think the referent is the police station being seized by the insurrection/riot/protest. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
What I find confusing is that those "don't tread on me" conservatives who proud of their anti-establishment, anti-elite, anti-government, anti-authority sentiments are extremely pro-police on these occasions. They are the ones who always boast about having 100 guns in their yard and ready to riot against "government tyranny" or whatever that is. Dogeatsdog (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not surprising if you think of these conservatives as racist fascists. Which is what they really are. They are happy to accept government tyranny if it's their kind of government tyranny. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
In the ideology of “don’t tread on me” conservatives, people should generally be able to go about their business without interference from the government or each other. Laws are to be minimal, setting basic ground rules intended to maintain the desired state of peaceful individual liberty. When these laws are broken, it is the duty of the government or capable private citizens to put a stop to it and restore order. Theft and the destruction of public and private property are some of the actions they believe should be illegal, so police suppressing riots and looting is a case of police doing exactly what the “don’t tread on me” conservatives think police should do. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
So feudalism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@192.168.1.42 The "looters" are setting up mutual aid stations with the looted goods to support fellow protestors [6]. You know, because helping people in need is more important than profiting off their poverty. Oxyaena Harass 08:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
“if you think of these conservatives as racist fascists. Which is what they really are.” Have you ever talked to some of them? And then listened to what they had to say?
“So feudalism.” Feudalism is a kind of social organization in which land is controlled by “lords” who permit “vassals” to use it in exchange for service of some kind. There are typically several tiers of this relationship ranging from a king who personally owns a country and delegates control of regions to various nobles, down to peasants leasing farmland from a local baron. Feudal rights were generally minimal outside the oaths of fealty. In Gadstenstan, everyone owns land and does what they want with it. Apart from basic things like a military, police, and courts, which keep the system running (there is some disagreement about the finer details of this), things are organized by voluntary commercial interactions.
“setting up mutual aid stations with the looted goods to support fellow protestors” That doesn’t mean that the goods weren’t stolen, or that the people doing it are’t accurately described as “looters”. Or that the people whose ideology I was describing would want police to put a stop to it.
“profiting off their poverty” Are you referring to Target offering goods for sale to poor people? And then poor people choosing to buy those goods? Consider that most of the businesses looted in the LA riots never reopened. Suppose that the Target store never reopens. The poor people in the area would then no longer have the option of shopping there. Do you think that they would be better off as a result? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence this is actually what that is? Even if we put aside the issues I raised below, about being cautious this is actually from the recent protests given the scant evidence (given that it could be e.g. from after some natural disaster), there's nothing in that video which suggests this is looted good. I found the original which is from an RT.com senior editor [7] and for all the flaws of RT.com, it's enough for me to accept this was really a recent photo. But I looked through the other tweets and responses, and I'm not seeing anything which demonstrates either way that these were looted goods as alleged.

There are ample media reports suggesting that in response to stores being shut down due to the rioting, looting and destruction, plenty of people have donated goods often including many coming from outside the area (since they need to be getting the goods from somewhere) which have been provided in various ways including by setting up collection points [8] [9] [10]. I'm sure some of the looted goods ended up as donations, but if people are going to claim it was a majority, or even a substantial minority, we need far more evidence than that picture.

IMO it's a mistake to romanticise looters, I'm not saying that they're all evil people who need to be locked away for life. I'm sure they have various motivations and reasons, but I definitely don't think many do it for some sort of community spirit. However I'll freely admit I don't have good evidence for this, just like we don't have (AFAICT) good evidence for the contrary claim that they're doing this to set up mutual aide stations and help people.

I do think there are a large number of people who are horrified both by what happened to George Floyd and the horrific way the police in the US often treat black people, and who fully support peaceful protests and who while they may agree that the way the police have handled the protests has sometimes or even often been wrong and harmful and can understand the anger, are not going to look favourably on the violence, looting etc and will fault those involved. Most recognise it's only a small minority, but reading people almost glorifying the violence doesn't help matters, and does risk turning them off supporting the protests and protestors and therefore any support for change.

I'm reminded of a video I once saw of someone in Hong Kong who was set on fire. It was alleged that he had been attacking protestors before hand, I never worked out if it was true. [11] (As mentioned there, there were also claims it was staged/fake, but I saw enough to convince me this wasn't the case, and most of the evidence to support that was poor. Just because someone wasn't lying on the ground in agony doesn't mean they weren't substanially harmed.) What was clear is that at the time he was set on fire, he wasn't doing anything which would justify such a violent response. Therefore for me, and I think most others who saw it, there was no justification for what was done to the man.

Seeing a bunch of people on Twitter most of who I am confident were real ordinary Hong Kong people down playing the incident (I don't mean those who suggested it was staged, but those suggesting setting someone on fire wasn't anything that bad) or worse suggesting there was justification for it definitely did not make me favour them. I'm sure it was only a tiny minority of people who felt that way even though it was actually a large percentage of Twitter commentary I found. But such attitudes don't help win support especially since a lot of people are going to read that and be horrified and not think "well yes it's horrible, but whatever the situation you always getting people saying horrible things" but instead "fuck some of those HK protestors are horrible, maybe China is right to want to deal with them".

Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

HairlessCat (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Don’t know if this is really the right place to ask but

Does anyone know whether being underweight affects your coronavirus risk the same way being overweight does? I’ve looked around but haven’t found anything. I’m underweight (BMI hovers around the 16-17 range usually, though I have been losing about 0.5 kg/month for a little while), and while I seem to have various health issues that I think are related to that (dizziness, fatigue, anaemia, more frequent colds/whatever, etc). However, a lot of my appointments/obligations have stopped doing it over the internet/phone, and I’m trying to assess whether it’s worth the risk. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks! 14.200.168.113 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Being underweight only really has significant health detriments if it's to the point of anemia. Since you specifically call that out, yeah, I'd be concerned that you're partially immunocompromised. Not a doctor or a medical researcher, though. You should consult a medical professional who can perform diagnosis, not random internet strangers. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Well that’s part of the problem - a lot of my doctors have stopped doing phone appointments and, luckily for me, most of the ones who still do are also the ones who, in my experience, are either less competent or less trustworthy. I suppose though one or two in-person appointments to assess my overall level of risk is probably the safer choice in the long run, if there is some kind of increased risk. Thanks. 14.200.168.113 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Also not a doctor, but I'd be more concerned about a consistent largely-unexplained weight loss than I would be about the potential risk of Covid 19. But - good luck.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah been trying to find an answer to that one for ages. Seems to be related to some kind of persistent digestive issue. So far we’ve ruled out most of the obvious answers, right now we’re investigating potential parasites and/or liver damage. Been investigating for the best part of a year now, and still no answers. It’s definitely got much worse over the past four or five months though - before that, even though I was (only just) underweight, I wasn’t losing it like I am now. Hopefully some kind of answer shows up soon. Thanks for the support appreciate it. 14.200.168.113 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I wish you the best of luck, but personally I think you have the right to be worried. As stated above, you should be more concerned about the unexplained weight loss than the slightly low BMI. CoryUsar (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've permabanned Ken

So that this doesn't slip under the radar, I'd like to point it out. Since, after 4 days of inactivity, the Coop case had 14 votes in favour of banning him and 10 votes against it, I have gone ahead and permabanned User:GiuocoPiano and User:Margon282. I have de-sysoped and permabanned User:Newton. Spud (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What on Earth happened? Just curious. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding conservapedia in mainspace, using ratwiki to soapbox for his essays on conservapedia about how he hates atheists, gay people and us, using his userpage to preserve a removed comment that broke our community standards and being obviously here to just stir shit. RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive101 if you want to read the discussion back. The Crow (row row fight the power) 20:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Never actually interacted with the banned user but dude sounds like a real asshole. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken Demyer is pitifully sad and the notion that anyone might feel threatened by him is inalienably alien to me-"Shut up, Brx." 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19: The Game (I wish I was joking..)

I can't be the only one that thinks this is distasteful.. Beyond Reality (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

not especially AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems quite tame compared to back-in-the-day newgrounds games. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Guess Plague Inc. is not good enough for some people? Speaking of which, there are already plenty of COVID-19 scenarios on Plague Inc. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If you were playing as the virus, that would be really tasteless (although I can think of more tasteless things). But if the aim of the game is to defeat the virus, I can see the appeal. Spud (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Have not played Plague Inc. in a while. I do know that there is a YouTuber named "Pravus Gaming" who does Plague Inc. play videos and he played one of the COVID scenarios as have similar YouTubers. Plenty of other scenarios that can be made in the game and there are mountains of them. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
What about 'Ring-a-ring-a-roses' - and the wall-paintings of the dance of death? Anna Livia (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
And during the 1918 influenza pandemic, children used to chant this rhyme while jumping rope, "I had a little bird,/Its name was Enza./I opened up the window,/And in flew Enza." Spud (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It turns out sneeze noises are totally a choice. You can sneeze like "Ah-choo" or "Ah=shit" or "Wu-han" or "Fuh-huh-huck me." Not even a joke, mess around with your sneeze noises, change your sneeze noises, you can do it literally on your next sneeze. This game is just a thing we're faced with, but with different noise on top of it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like the US is officially withdrawing from the WHO

I predict no ways this improves anyone's lives anywhere. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Donald "I take no responsibility" Trump:

Because they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms, we will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving, urgent global public health needs.

--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The US government and the WHO, it's hard to say which one thoroughly beclowned themselves worse in this fiasco. And this sure doesn't help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
seems pretty obvious who looks worse. im a little perplexed at the suggestion that they've been as bad as each other throughout all this. they are clearly not. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
When was the last time the Trump administration paid into the WHO fund? As far as I recall they haven't paid in two years. Could this simply be a case of Trump finding an excuse for not paying? A typical corporate externalising practice? Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not think it is anything else but an excuse. he gave a 30 day ultimatum for reforms, in the middle of a global pandemic probably not the best time to put in effect, then declared 'too late' after 10 days. not to mention all the potential issues with china being less than open or early denials of a problem, did not prevent WHO from keeping governments informed of the dangers posed, including the us who only took any action 6 weeks after a pandemic was declared. its more scape goating and denying responsibility, more claims its every one elses fault except his own piss poor leadership. it probably doesn't hurt it saves some cash too. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I hate sinus infections

Been suffering for over two weeks. Happens once or twice a year although getting blood in my mucus is a new one. My brother had a phone appointment with the doctor and I was able to get it mentioned during said phone appointment.

Doc stated for me to stop using nasal spray for the swelling inside my left nostril. Still stuck using over-the-counter medicine for the time being. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We have mature evergreens here, and this is the time of the year that a couple of them release massive amounts of pollen that make the whole back yard appear like it's enveloped in fog. It's quite surreal. The pollen makes our younger cat sneeze for a couple of days, otherwise we've observed no ill effects. Be careful with that nasal spray. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I live in the countryside of Mid-Michigan, plenty of pollen from flowers and animals. I also live next to a few farms. I am doing fairly okay with allergy meds although the doc stated to call if symptoms get worse. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The fear that is put into protest

I watched the video of George Floyd. I watched the other angle.

I intend only to describe what happened, from my point of view. I don't care who riots or counters riot or whatever, I have a single read, and it's what I've seen. So here goes.

A man was detained in a prone position. There were enough officers there to detain the suspect, however one officer was sufficient. The officer used normal maneuvers to restrain a non-compliant suspect. The other officers were necessary to keep the area clear. The suspect died of heart failure, no evidence of trauma Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a fucking execution, I don't have time to dance around it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can dance myself into any to say Fuck you. Goof on it, the world is getting bad. 06:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

so which is it? is it normal maneuvers to restrain a non-compliant suspect or is it and execution?

also I want to see what users here think about the ethical status of rioting and looting in this situation. Oxyaena is def going to be all "burn the state" but some of you other people might have different positions.

I think the rioting is wondrous personally, though I must admit concepts like "ethics" rarely hold dominant sway over my thought process...-Flandres (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Looting? No. Destroying public property? No. Burning down a police station? No. I don't think it's acceptable outside of, perhaps, and its a big perhaps, civil collapse (which is hardly the case in America...yet). If you condone that kind of violence then you don't have much of a moral framework to condemn the police violence. Do you? The violence, while understandable, shouldn't be condoned. But the choke-hold was murder. I know police officers from other countries (Canada and Spain) who unambiguously call it murder. And yet there is silence from American police unions and chiefs. Police forces in Western Europe go about their days dealing with crime (in some cities terrible violent crime) without murdering unarmed people (and yes they can be armed). The rare time it does happen the officer is inevitably charged and prosecuted. Their police corpse don't defend them. The code of silence doesn't work in these cases. It does in most American police forces. They act as though their tough job warrants occasional aggressive psychological warfare and brutality. And yet, its usually (if ever) not necessary. There's a reason why the police are respected in many countries and despised and called pigs in others. And that comes down to the police forces, their inability to evolve, adapt, recognize change is needed. And part of it comes from the fact that some citizens have no problem with harsh police tactics (as long as they never get caught up in it). And then there is race. You're blind if you don't think race changes everything. So yeah 1) This was murder. You're a sociopath if you think otherwise. 2) The overly-violent part of the protests is not cool. You're on terrible ethical ground if you think otherwise. And a bonus: it is extremely likely he was in the position that he was because he was African-American. You're a fool if you dismiss that. ShabiDOO 08:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
its not simply police violence at issue here, though as a symptom of bigger issue its an egregiously ugly one. black americans suffer from the violence of an economic and legal system that seems designed to oppress them while denying them justice and to rights taken for granted for white America. police violence is the natural result of body for whom upholding the law means enforcing the systemic racism that sees black American disproportionately more criminalised, imprisoned, and disadvantaged in every area used to indicate success - income, education, health etc, and where not actively oppressed, wholly neglected. if not for the proliferation of mobile phones able to catch some of these police murders on camera, its likely many of us would still be ignorant of any injustice at all. police murders are likely to have been going unreported for years. 'do the right thing' came out in 1989 and depicts the exact same incident as what happened to George Floyd. explosions of impotent rage that these riots seem to be, its only violence that gets our attention but it doesn't fix and only distracts from the issues. and if trump has his way, violence dealt with more punitive violence.
but I am not American. it feels to me that all this is has been getting progressively worse, but looking back it seems like police brutality and racist oppression have always been a feature of American life. are things really regressing? has there actually been some kind of progress? or has the American dream always been a sick lie?
jesus fuck, is there nothing to be hopeful about in the world anymore? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Do you know what caused the riots? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a series of vicious police brutality against African-Americans, in several cases nothing being done about it and/or being condoned and justified by the police/politicians. Over the course of years. People finally expressing their outrage on a national level. I'm fairly shocked it's taken this long to become so violent. That doesn't mean the destruction and crime should be condoned. Understandable perhaps. But it is an extremely unwise president to set that its okay to destroy, loot and burn when one desperately needs laws and policies to change. That's what fierce activism, disruption, peaceful resistance and legal and policy advocacy are for. ShabiDOO 15:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: AMassiveGay. Yes I couldn't agree with you more. I was responding to the two comments by the BON who was defending the police's "choke hold" and taunting users here to glorify the violence. I also pointed out at the end that he completely left out race. How could you possibly engage in this tragedy without the elephant in the room. ShabiDOO 15:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't live in the States so I can't exactly tell, but I'd assume African American activists (like BLM) have been peacefully protesting against police brutality in front of police stations or down on the streets all the time, but they were not getting heard. It takes rioting and national broadcasting to make people to finally debate about this issue. Dogeatsdog (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure Martin Luther King would highly disagree that change need come with violence. He was instrumental in bringing about such change. Much much much bigger change than this. It's fine if a society decides that violence is okay under some circumstances. It's just an extremely extremely extremely dangerous precedent to set. It's up to Americans to decide that...not outsiders like us. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country where that's okay. ShabiDOO 17:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and now that this dangerous precedent is broken, we will assuredly see similar events elsewhere in the future even if Biden wins-hence why I this rioting is wondrous.-Flandres (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
what precedent? America has had riots before. its had race riots before. some pretty fucking deadly ones. its just as likely to blow itself out as it has so many times before. at best it will settle into more peaceful protest, more sustainable, more focused. if not? the national guard are on route. what the fuck do you think is going to happen? what the fuck do you think is going to be achieved? do you think people will suddenly realise racism is bad because target is on fire? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I what I think will happen is that either way the USA will be pushed towards collapse when this is not met with a Federal response that actually improves the life of the black community and the more left wing voters who support these causes(given their age, the next generation of Americans) to lose faith in the Electoral process. The USA dying is all I want right now,Hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The precedent is that the violence is met with a much larger public approval or at least ambivalence. ShabiDOO 17:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

America's had a lot of riots caused by police brutality against minorities (from the Watts Riots in 1965, sparked by a police beating... to the Rodney King riots in 1992, again sparked by a police beating... to now). Not much has changed between them in some ways. Now, I'm seeing a couple of differences with this one, if not huge but enough. The first was the officer that committed the murder is actually being charged this time with full blown murder. The second is a trend -- now that everyone has a recording device in their pocket, more of the "dumb fascist" side of the American police force has been captured over the last decade, which is why this is even a thing -- people can record more of the bullshit. IMHO the response to the police now having more watchmen so far is not encouraging from a police perspective; if anything, American police seem to be growing dumber and more fascist over time. (I don't know whose bright idea it was for someone to arrest a CNN reporter for Reporting While Black, but I expect to see America fall another several notches in our Reporters Without Borders press freedom index next time around, partially as a result.) Generally speaking, the situation in America is that white people trust the cops and minorities do not -- the usual tribalism la-te-das that got someone as dumb as Trump in office etc. are in play here. I don't think this will change that situation at all, frankly, and the only way I see major reform happening is if white people also stop trusting cops. But we'll see... Soundwave106 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Racism is just a constant undergoing current and I'm still astounded this crap is politicized like every other issue and still manages to get people elected. How will these riots pan out for the elections? Is this going to be like Rodney King where nothing really happens, just as how cries for gun control and healthcare are met with callous disregard especially from Republican politicians? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Shabidoo MLK was becoming more radical when he died, and direct action like this is something he approved of. Oxyaena Harass 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a chance that something legislative may come of this case. Uniform "use of force" legislation regulating police behavior is necessary. There will always be racism. There need not always be unnecessary police violence.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oxyaena could you provide a source that directly quotes MLK condoning for calling for violence? Even if it were the case (which is pretty surprising) what he achieved was through non-violence. I'm just curious where to draw the line here where violence is permitted. Should illegal-immigrants be permitted to riot, loot and burn down civil buildings to try to end the detention of children? What about trans people fighting police mistreatment, the murder of trans-gendered people and general discriminatory laws against them and general abuse in public? How about Native-Americans? Should they set fire to downtown Chicago in order to fight for their land that the US government contractually owes them but never gave them? I'm simply curious what are the sufficient conditions of oppression to condone violence and destruction in the street in a (supposed) attempt to bring change? ShabiDOO 19:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [12] When all other tactics fail, violence becomes a necessary tool. It's called the "last resort" for a reason, it's still a resort. Oxyaena Harass 20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems a lot of the destructive parts of these riots that's being committed is coming from white dudebros (just look at some of the videos about who are starting it), which... concerning and yikes. Very few of the people on my twitter feed who are visibly POC (as in, they use their face as their pfp) seem to condone the torching, and it's mostly white dudebros defending it. I say mostly since it's not universal, but... yeah. Undercover cops escalating are a whole 'nother issue, but there's definite cases of white dudebros doing it as well. Shit like damaging a CNN building is being celebrated by dirtbaggers and disliked by POC protestors, which is just so telling. The only folks that stick up for that shit usually push some form of class reductionism since "CNN is corporate media, they don't get to play victim here" (since one of their reporters got arrested live on-camera whereas another was treated much nicer. One was POC, the other wasn't), whereas several of the POC protestors I've seen aren't happy about it since it means the situation is being pointlessly escalated and giving the cops/Trumpites a reason to hate them (not the property damage or looting itself). Thorny situation to be certain. The Crow (row row fight the power) 21:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The point, which I will explain now, because it is so fucking hard, is there are lots of words to describe things, and words have value. They can muddy what actually happened. I hope we've all seen what actually happened, and the point is, as hard as it is to accept, what we are looking at is really close to an execution. I would call it one, but I don't think words don't matter. Very fucking close though, if you watch it. All the jargon and the qualifying, I did that because that's what's going to happen in court.

I watched a man kill another man. Somehow, there's no value in that statement. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The only relevant quote in that article has MLK explaining the riots, not defending them. Explaining the mindset of the minset of rioters (their last resort). Again, he never condoned it. He ceaselessly quoted that the riots will shock but not be effective. Meanwhile the Martin Luther King research foundation begs to differe as well as every analysis of his later quotes I've read. For example:
""…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.""
Explaining why and how it happens, but he never defends it. I'm unfamiliar with timeline. Their repetition of the word "fetishized" in the article makes me extremely skeptical of this author evoking a fairly post-modern evasive narrative. I tried to see how reliable it is as a source (not re: bias but dependibility) but I cannot find out any outside information about the website. The author isn't an academic or experienced political/historical journalist but a poet and a critic of music. ShabiDOO 08:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Worth taking a listen to

Jocko podcast with Gary Sinese. Humbling . — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:24c7:c6a2:8d03:b45a / talk / contribs

In Minneapolis at least

the vandalism was started by an undercover cop who's been identified. Most of the protests are peaceful. In Fort Wayne the protesters were peaceful, but they got tear gassed by pigs anyways. There's a full on pig riot in NYC. The problem isn't the "rioters," it's the system. Get your heads out of your asses. Oxyaena Harass 18:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but systemic problems call for systemic protests not throwing fireworks at cops (I mean why not break courtroom glass). I sympathize with the rioting though, just that I don't want people that weren't directly involved with murdering get hurt either. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Riots and revolutions rarely achieve their aims. Burning down businesses will impoverish the local community.AndreyL (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I know that in Flint, Lansing and Detroit the protests there have not gotten violent (last time I checked). Sad to see that chaos is brewing. I am reminded of the Los Angeles Race Riots from high school history class. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Oxyaena could you give us your source on the undercover police starting the vandalism? ShabiDOO 19:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 This isn't that. Trust me, we are nowhere near L.A. Riot levels yet. @Shabidoo Oxy is repeated an unconfirmed report based off a suspicious figure earlier on in the riots. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena For the record, the Minneapolis protests did indeed turn into riots. Justified riots, given the cops reportedly shot tear gas into crowds of unarmed, peaceful, protesters, but riots nonetheless. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"Unconfirmed". I hope you don't get accused of cop apologia for suggesting that.
I'm worried it'll be like LA Riot levels where people got robbed and hurt (hell Korean shopkeepers got armed and this is somehow encouraged in social media to own guns? Really?) and this directly affected my parents to get the hell out of Downey. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It's "suspicious" in some ways. The main thing we know right now is a white man dressed all in black with a mask smashed an Autozone next to a police station when things were relatively peaceful. Not confirmed, but a little shady. There is indeed also strong suspicion among government officials though that most of the people causing the violence are indeed "outsiders". White supremacists and lefty anarchists are being blamed but at this point I think there's a lot of shit-talking based on established prejudice, we'll see what happens after the dust clears. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Those reports are semi-inaccurate, quite a lot of it is by tired and pissed off locals. Oxyaena Harass 20:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Soundwave106 I think we can safely say, based on the current evidence, that whoever that guy is, he's a troublemaker and a provocateur. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


Well educated societies with strong families and a strong work ethic produce good leaders. Riots are rooted in poor leadership. Well-trained police with good management typically don't have serious police brutality problems.

Societies that produce good leaders typically don't riot if some bad apple police pop up from time to time and are the exception. Rioting is a sign that a society is dysfunctional. An exception is revolutions due to oppressive foreign occupiers.AndreyL (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is grossly inaccurate. There are two major types of riots. Protests that turn violent and extrajudicial mobs. Both result from reactions to systemic problems within a given society. The competency of the leadership is largely irrelevant. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
One of the jobs of leaders is to deal with systemic problems. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, my apologies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Which, by default of being the leaders of a corrupt and failing system in the first place, they do piss poor jobs at dealing with. Your knowledge of basic politics is atrociously naive. Oxyaena Harass 20:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
AndreyL's comment seems relelvant here. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, people over twitter and all are discussing too much about riots, much more attention should be dedicated to what part of system should be changed, you know the specific goal. Dogeatsdog (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

What would Enoch say? Anna Livia (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think these riots are more of a signal and symbol than anything. I'm hoping that'll be a signal for a more left-wing era that tries its best to address the failings of the past presidents to deal with festering problems. Right now, the riots won't do jack anything. Heck, as long as Republicans remain in power, nothing will be changed. They're the ones that often stall or even rollback on the most important issues such as worker protections, healthcare, student loan crisis, the housing crisis, the climate change crisis, income inequality, police brutality, gun control. They're the ones that limit our actual solutions to these problems by shoving the Overton window where something sensible is seen as radical left-wing. We have to get them off the debate bank, remove their putrid ideas that are taking up space in the discourse, and this should be a priority. People need to vote Republicans out, deprive them of their power until the Republicans clean up their act and emerge as a more moderate party. But how is THAT going to change, I don't know, but getting them out of office is still a choice, and has been a choice I've been pleading for since George W. Bush screwed up everything and seemed to have tainted the Republican brand. But even Reagan was really bad too, but I wasn't alive to witness the disaster of his making, only that he deregulated banks and created an infrastructure that eased into a collapse, the Great Recession. Something Trump is repeating today with his tax cuts and more deregulation. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
How, exactly, is this new left wing era to come about? The republicans had the whole primary process this year to demonstrate if a large mass of them think their party should go to the center and they laughed it off. Even now, they blame his flaws on others or try to deny them entirely, and if Biden wins they will just say he stole the election with the help of illegals or something. Speaking of Biden, he is not exactly the next FDR. Furthermore the Republicans regrew from the catastrophic bush 43 administration in, like, two years.-Flandres (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the problem, the voter base is too ignorant and complacent to realize that "the other party", the "alternate choice if you don't like the Democrats", the Republicans have moved really far off but people don't realize they've actually been pretty far off since the Goldwater days honestly. The idiotic "this is socialism" talking point is still here since like the 80s because it works. I don't know when it'll lose its power. The Republicans have rigged their voter base, too, though, keep that in mind. And they've successfully politicized basic decency at this point. Biden not being like the next FDR is why my support of him is very tepid and I'm still not considering to vote for him at all. How is a riot going to help any of these long-term deeply embedded problems? I don't think the point of a riot is to effect change but, again, they're a signal, hopefully to future politicians that are similar to Bernie Sanders, that neoliberalism and conservatism are abject failures. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Short term one of the basic shifts I'm seeing is that some moderate conservatives are starting to tepidly drift into voting Democrat. In other words, the type of voter that was "Never Trump" in the 2016 primaries (often the suburban type of voter firmly in Reagan's grasp in the 1980s) has finally given up, and some of them are starting to tepidly vote for Democrats because its better than Trump Republicanism. This is one of the advantages electorally of a Biden over a Sanders (the other is catching the Boomer senior citizens a little more), with partisanship so strong in this country this can be overstated, but the suburban voter is generally thought to have carried the Democrats in 2018. Personally, I think though that left-leaning politics will overall increase as the Boomers move on. The millennial generation on back in the US has a leftward lean, particularly *huge* among women. From my perspective, even Biden, should he win, is at least being pressured leftward by enough people that he'll be a little to the left of Clinton (as the current Democrat coalition is a strain between progressives and centrists, I expect fun should the Democrats actually take all chambers, but at least some shit will get done). More will probably come... "a week in politics is a long time" and things can change, but sheesh, Pew found among millennial women there was a 47 point Democratic advantage in 2017. That's huge. Boomer politicians these days are hanging on for way longer than necessary, but in ten years (when many millennials will be in their 40s and 50s) I can't help but think that the political power can't help but skew in their direction, and from what I see, that direction is more leftward. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
As a mid20s woman, that I'm not alone in that millenial demographic pleases me..--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
So...what happens to these "Moderate Conservatives"(lmfao!) when Trump is no longer at the top of the ticket and 2 years of Biden has us focused on other problems? I just want you to consider more than a few of these seats won in 2018 might flip in 2022, soundwave.-Flandres (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. If the Democrats actually take power in 2020 the odds are pretty good that some seats will flip in 2022. American politics seems to like to ping-pong. This is more kind of the "long view", and more armchair speculation based on current polls. It's not like nationalist Trumptards are going to go away completely, of course. In the past I would say the type of person I'm framing as a "moderate conservative" is a very American view of "moderate" -- a commentator like David Frum or Andrew Sullivan would have been flat out Conservative with a capital C in Europe / Canada, but they are more the "moderate" side of conservatism over here -- actually, in the case of Andrew Sullivan he is so old-school British Tory that he is seen by many Americans as liberal. However, re-imagining fascism / nationalism has become quite the thing in Europe, too (see: Brexit, National Front, Vox, AfD, Northern League, Fidesz, etc.), so I'm not sure that's quite the case anymore. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
its probably not especially useful when considering the disparities of the various political systems and of the differing histories of far right, fascism, and nationalism in each of the countries these parties exist in, to lump them together with the broadest of terms obscure significant differences. Europe is not one homogenous whole. its makes even less sense to include Brexit in that group. that has its supporters and critics from across the political spectrum, as does Euroscepticism and across Europe too. it doesn't make sense to compare anything from the uk right now. fuck knows what left or right will look like in a years time over here. fuck knows what the uk will look like. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a refutation page dedicated to debunking Autism woo and pseudoscience?

I think that it could be a good idea personally. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We do have an article specifically about Autism Speaks; not sure if it exhausts the subject. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Probably not. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
what are you looking for that isn't included on the Autism page or cannot be added? is a long exhaustive list necessary, if that's what you are after? I know we do like a good list here at rw, are they really necessary? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Just does not seem to go into through detail. Having a hard time explaining. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Write a draft and show it off, that ought to help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the word for when you're given unrealistic goals for proving something?

For context. Apparently CNN asked if Russia had something to do with the riots and it kinda blew up in the Twittersphere.

Anyway, One guy claims that anyone blaming Russia would have to name someone and provide a document clearly detailing the plan. How could anyone even get either of these? It kinda reminds me of the "Were you there?" argument in creationism debates.--DoomTay (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

bad faith And argument can't rest on an unfalsifiable claim. An argument is not a point, and isn't the crux of conversation. But it happens, yea? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Non-sequitur is another look, I mean, the problem here is we're intending to prove something. Any tool used to "prove" something is hard to use, which one you using? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
As presented, that’s fairly reasonable. CNN apparently didn’t present any evidence when asking the question, so supporting the claim would require evidence of some kind. Something like an agent provocateur being identified or official documentation of a plan would actually be strong evidence of such a thing being done. In the absence of such evidence, why entertain the notion at all? And that looks like an OR operator rather than AND, since either would be evidence of Russian involvement on its own. And this isn’t math. News doesn’t get proven. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Libs are gonna lib. Oxyaena Harass 09:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If someone is making a claim that something is true then the person making the claim has to provide the evidence. If they cannot provide the evidence then the claim can, and should, be dismissed.

The creationist response to the age of the earth: "How do you know? Were you there?" is two questions. The first one is quite valid and can easily be answered in a large number of ways. The second question can also be easily answered as the response is obviously "No". This is not the same class of thing as asking for evidence of an alleged conspiracy. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

what is lacking from doomtay's post is what cnn has actually said. the links provided are for a couple of responses to cnn's asking about possible Russia involvement. what did cnn ask exactly? was it completely, as implied by the tweets, from leftfield and only they are only asking because they think Russia is behind everything, or was there a reason for asking like, some rumour going around, or addressing someones elses claim, or maybe due claims of Russian involvement in a group that is related to the rioting, say blm for example?
all I can find is this which doesn't ask if Russia are involved, but that events are not being orchestrated by nefarious outside influences, and are in fact a genuine response to egregious abuses. Russia is used to as a prime example of the usual suspects being employed to try and characterise protests as being fake, not significant, or the people on the ground are agent provocateurs trying to exploit or create civil unrest where there was none. Russia, apparently have form with similar protests previously, pushing false information to stoke trouble and strife. the article reiterates the protest is real and the protesters are real and we should not pretend otherwise. what can be discerned from this, is that fucknuts on twitter can spread misinformation pretty well on their own if they strip everything of context. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow, that sounds like the opposite of what that initial tweet claimed. I couldn't find an example of this "CNN asking Russia" thing myself. --DoomTay (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's what the internet, or better yet Social Media, is known for since a decade: "spreading misinformation". Some clowns we have pages on do it all the time... Beyond Reality (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

People are most likely to toe what they want to hear

People are most likely t0 say what they want to hear, I'm doi9ng it now, Does that mean what anyone wants to hear is valuable? And does that mean that the words they use have vale? Resident nihilist here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Say what? Jejasas258 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Probably yes or no.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, I dunno. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pigs firing live rounds now

Major content warning Oxyaena Harass 09:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Police killing and assaulting civilians is sick, twisted and deplorable. Things are going to shit quick. The peaceful protests in Grand Rapids, Michigan have turned into riots. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Twitter. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario It's an actual video of someone being shot at by a cop with live rounds. Oxyaena Harass 21:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
And now the pigs are using child soldiers1!!1!-"Shut up, Brx." 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The first problem with "an actual video" is that whichever side your on, you must be aware of "an actual video" which turned out to be now that it's claimed. Maybe it was that "actual video of evil BLM protestors murdering someone in a wheel chair", which turned out to be Boko Haram in Nigeria doing the murdering. Maybe it was that "actual video of evil police murdering a peaceful BLM protestors in cold blood", which turned out to be some Somalian militia murdering someone, or worse a scene from The Shield.

These examples also show another problem, even if the video is mostly what it claimed to be, there's no guarantee the time frame is right. Maybe it happened 5 years ago, everyone who saw it was rightfully horrified and the people responsible are now in jail for murder or whatever. Some analysis of the content can help e.g. are there any voices heard on the video, any indications of a location or time frame. Clearly any reference to George Floyd would strongly suggest it's recent, or a recent intentional fake.

And "fake" here has to be considered in context. Given current level of technology, it's not realistically possible to completely render a video from nothing without it being obvious that's what it is. But especially in the age of machine learning and deep fakes, you can easily do a lot of fakery.

For example, that video appears to be a screen cap of an Instagram live video. It should hopefully be obvious the Instagram stuff is nearly completely useless in determining anything about the video. Anyone with even a basic level of competence could product a fake "screen cap" of that sort, e.g. you could produce one where people are watching a video of Star Wars and talking about it like it's real. The only use of the Instagram stuff is if you plan to hunt down the people featured and try and work out if they seem to be real people, and then ask them for more details.

But just as important, even stuff in the video needs to be treated with care. Yes we've all seen those Photoshop fails, and editing a video successfully is harder, still people have been able to various editing e.g. modify a sign so it looks like it's saying something fairly different from what it actually said, in a manner which even an expert has difficult detecting the modification especially from a poor quality screen cap; let alone random people viewing it on Twitter. Likewise adding voices etc. Deep fakes and machine learning has made the problem even more acute. And unfortunately there are a lot of bad actors whether Russians state services, MAGA trolls, antifa trolls etc with a fair amount of technical competence and resources.

Now all that being said, I actually have no problem with accepting that this video really is of someone who was shot during a recent protest relating to George Floyd. My concern is "with what". Perhaps I'm weird, but for me when someone screams "pigs firing live rounds now" I'm thinking normal ammunition i.e. the kind explicitly designed to kill. Yet AFAICT, even on Twitter there seems to be consensus that almost definitely wasn't that such a bullet. It was almost definitely a less-lethal round, probably plastic bullet (often called rubber bullets although as I understand it, actual rubber bullets aren't used very often any more) or maybe a bean bag round. And while I'm very far from an expert on bullet rounds (or the sounds of guns) even from my quick look at that video IIRC before I read anything, my conclusion was "this doesn't look like a wound from normal ammunition", so I don't think you even needed to read the Twitter stuff to know that.

By some definitions "live rounds" may include such ammunition, although we should be careful of etymological fallacies here. However as I said, when I read what you wrote, my understanding is you were referring to normal ammunition, and I actual doubt I'm the only one. It would be simple for you to have include a clarification what you were talking about. Don't get me wrong, I agree there is a good debate to be had about the appropriateness of using such rounds, in the context and way it was used. For starters, the term "less-lethal" is preferred for a reason, these can and do kill; and as that video shows can also cause significant injury.

However, I get enough click-bait nonsense in the wider world. If you want to engage in discussion on such issues, don't do click-bait nonsense on RationalWiki. So if you want to debate the use of such less-lethal rounds, make it clear that's what you're talking about rather than just saying "pig firing live rounds". Edit: Realised I completely forgot to mention that another reason why your headline is just weird is it's not like it's major news. I think anyone paying attention is aware that police are using plastic bullets (again often called rubber bullet) and bean bags and other less lethal ammunition against protesters. While again I agree there is good room for debate over such tactics, the way you treated this like some major news or surprise just doesn't make sense.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the same advice I caution about but I got called collectively yelled at for being an apologist. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I raised an eyebrow when I noticed the lack of journalists interviewing protestors who got shot. Unless it's all part of the conspiracy, right? The pigs, the corporate shills, and the centrists all working together¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!-"Shut up, Brx." 09:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
So now the police is firing against people in their own property, and even libertarians on Reddit are voicing against this, while conservatives on twitter are rushing to defend the police actions. Again, I'm very confused, aren't conservatives supposedly the ones who don't want the government or the authority to tell them what to do? (e.g. see their outcry against "plandemic" and lockdown) But now they are completely fine with the police expanding their authority and breaching individual freedom.Dogeatsdog (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
IDK man, conservatives have no coherent values, but be careful about sweeping conservatives apparent hypocrisy because they'll easily turn around and say "liberals say we have to stay indoors and now they're fine with people rioting outdoors?" --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
They do have some amount of coherent values, it's just that one of those values is "we hate everyone who isn't on our team", no matter the reasoning behind it. The Crow (row row fight the power) 19:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a simple thesis statement but if you prod them for actual beliefs behind that, it's far from coherent. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Some people lumped into the binary of "conservative" lean more authoritarian and some people lumped into this lean more libertarian. Radley BalkoWikipedia's W.svg has been one of the strongest critics of American police militarization for years, and he's definitely on the libertarian side of things -- he wrote policy analysis at Koch's Cato Institute, fer crissakes! Then of course, there are Trump's biggest fans... hell, a black person protesting the police by merely kneeling at a fucking football game is too much for some of these guys. Early onward, the vast majority of Americans, including a plurality of conservatives, were fine with the whole stay indoors thing. This is changing, but still, I doubt too many people would actually compare the protests / riots to the COVID-19 lockdown unless they are deliberately trying to stir the pot and make a shitty comparison. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing like being a beat cop, dressing up in military fatigues riding in an armoured car, all in a small town of 50,000 people to pull off a raid in a barber shop for a guy who didn't pay a hospital bill. Seems like the small-government don't pay a cent for the homeless wasting away in the gutter are happy to give their boys some pointless expensive and counter-productive toys...because...well...tough-on-crime or some other shit. ShabiDOO 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an entirely irrelevant aside. It does my heart good to see young people calling the police 'pigs', because it was relatively common in my day, and we've had twenty years of nonsense about how 'first responders' are all 'heroes' and it has never sat well with me. Really, the worst street gang you can join, although they do a good job at protecting their own. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Dehumanizing a group of people isn't a good thing. Calling cops "heroes" is wrong. So is calling them "pigs". Don't. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, not a huge fan of the dehumanizing language here either. Pigs is just a shorthand for "it's ok to make fun of them when they get hurt" (which tends to be the conclusion I see a lot from people who push that language). The Crow (row row fight the power) 10:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous

Anyone seeing the stuff being posted by Anonymous? Seriously, this stuff is wild. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A link of a tweet, apparently Now this is a new twist to throw on the conspiracy crowd! I look forward to the Anonymous vs. QAnon steel cage no-holds-barred death-match in the future. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
That Twitter account is pseudonymous, not anomymous. The person running would be a “namefag” in the relevant parlance if it were posted to an anonymous site instead of Twitter. As for what anonymous is actually posting, the most recent thing here is this. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
You're link leads to a rationalwiki article Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It leads to a diff of an edit made anonymously by a person connecting from 2A02:C7F:187C:9800:4132:7AA9:EB32:483. Doing something anonymously, particularly on the Internet, is all it takes to be “anonymous”. The term became used as a personal name in discussions of such activities because that’s how anonymous posts are attributed on English-language Futaba-style discussion boards. People unfamiliar with that picked up and ran with the idea that “anomymous” was some organized group with leaders or an agenda, producing silly things like this. That Twitter account is just some person trying to cause a fuss, and is not representative of the people who post things anonymously on the Internet. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
What about the video that circulated the Internet of a dude in a Guy Fawkes mask declaring war on he Minneapolis PD? Was that legit? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think a demonstration is in order. Hold on for a minute while I grab my mask. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It is I, Anonymous. You can tell by my name that I speak for the infamous hacker collective, Anonymous. Watch and listen as I present a video patterned after the Chanology ones. You can tell I’m serious because I said expecto patronum. My personal army will be along shortly to wreck up the place. Αnonymous (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The point being that “anonymous” declarations are cheap, and they don’t signify much on their own. They only carry weight if people are convinced to join in the effort as a lot of people were in Project Chanology targeting the Church of Scientology. After that wound down, some groups continued activism in a similar vein on smaller scales for various things, though organizing such activities has long been banned on many of the popular boards. A perennial misconception is that Anonymous has leaders or spokespeople. It just has people who do or say things, and these people may convince some others to follow along for a bit. Any actual functional organizations are just the people in those organizations, and they do not reflect the larger population of people who post anonymously on the Internet, even if they may claim to speak for them. The person behind the recent video may have some support lined up to follow through, but it seems that a point of the video is to convince unaffiliated people to help out as the Chanology videos did. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Are the claims that Anonymous took down the Minneapolis PD website accurate? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The website apparently went down, but saying that Anonymous is behind it is kind of like calling something you see in the sky a UFO (it's unidentified, not necessarily an alien spaceship). It was apparently a DDoS attack, and the party or parties responsible haven't claimed responsibility. As such, it was an anonymous action, but there is no indication as yet that the people responsible for the video were involved. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
What about the Chicago PD radios being hijacked to play 'Fuck the Police' by NWA? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
LOL, the "Anonymous" Twitter account has been cited by the fuckin' Guardian as being involved with "Anonymous" since 2006. Also cited in Mother Jones and Daily Kos and Slate. So it is "Anonymous", but you are correct in essentially highlighting the problem with a fucking decentralized mob of edgelordy 4chan types -- your mileage and motives will vary. A better example of being a True Anonymous is the Panama Papers hacktivist. Ain't no weird conspiracy theories there. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is currently documenting their outlandish tweets as real accusations. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, the lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of raping a 13 year old at a party hosted by Epstein is not news -- frankly, that lawsuit was known during the 2016 election campaign. The Snopes article is a bit better at allowing you to make up your own mind at the probability of truth IMHO. As far as the rest goes, one of the accounts involved in posting this information is *cough* a bit over-obsessed with (as they see it) the "paedo-sadist industry" being the Dune-style "spice"Wikipedia's W.svg of the "entire global oligarchy", so... Soundwave106 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
So do you think the people who posted the video directed at the Minneapolis PD have conducted any significant cyber-attacks? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-interventionism + Russia

I find it kinda ironic that some people who are "anti-war" (á la Tulsi Gabbard and Marine Le Pen) happen to side with Russia, a country that loves to invade others. Why not just criticize war without going to the other side of the coin? That would be smart.Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure Le Pen is funded by Russian oligarchs (as are many right wing populists in Europe). I had heard claims that Gabbard was accepting Russia money as well but no sources on that. That probably "influenced" their opinion on Russia a bit. The Crow (row row fight the power) 19:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
its a lot less ironic when you consider it is not a question of a anti-war vs pro-war binary, and that they are not especially anti-war in the first place. anti war is not what springs to mind when mention then name of probably-still-a-facist le pen. you might find it helpful to look beyond our own pages on these people. they are not the best, what with anything useful to be gleaned obscured by piss poor snark AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
First, I don't trust Tulsi. But my understanding is that a lot of leftists of the Noam Chomsky variety think there's enough criticism of America's current carousel of boogeymen that they don't need to add to the flame, and that saying they agree with the liberals that China or Russia have bad governments would just be repeating the propaganda. They therefore try to save their breath and focus instead on amplifying the less-heard criticisms of America's imperialism or shady military practices & dark operations, which basically don't have a voice on the cable news networks. Itsnotthatsimple (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a separate matter, and I think the answer is much easier summarized as "fucking tankies". A lot of the somewhat lefty-ish spaces (/r/socialism jumps to mind) tend to side with China/North Korea based only on the reason that they're against the United States and claim to be socialistic. I think the Chomsky rule argument is after the fact, because as someone who agrees with that rule in theory, it doesn't preclude you from criticizing a foreign government, it just makes your priorities much more clear. It's easily possible to both condemn the US and condemn foreign states, and if you're confronted about it (which yeah, that will happen because people aren't that good at connecting the fact that your criticism of one doesn't preclude the other), saying that those countries aren't so bad and the US is far worse, even though they factually have poorer human rights records... yeah it's not hard to see why the conclusion tends to be "fucking tankies". The Crow (row row fight the power) 09:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't think Tulsi was funded by Russians, but it's true that people who criticize American foreign policy have a tendency to be sympathetic to other world governments. Meanwhile, tabloid magazines like the National Enquirer keep pushing headlines like "CHINESE AMBASSADOR DEAD IN ISRAEL! MAY HAVE BEEN KILLED BY EITHER CHINA OR MOSSAD!". Thanks to the media, foreign relations are a mess.Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
this is all nonsense. there is a hell of a lot to be critical of with us foreign policy. its more than just Syria. it doesn't mean you are uncritically pro Russia or china. nor does support for Russia or china mean unequivocal support. you can like some things the us does and not other things. the same for russia or china. it doesn't even matter if you are for or against something. what matters is what it is you are for or against and why. with the tulsi and le pen examples, taking position of 'you either for us or against us', with criticism of the us being taken as either hypocritical or in the pocket of foreign governments, or unquestioningly ideological is just stupid. what some fringe group might say for what ever reason is irrelevant if its not them being looked at. and oversimplified and broad assumptions on peoples motivations are worse than useless. and the original question was pretty dumb to be begin with.
look at what people are actually saying before you decide why they are saying it, for fucks sake.
and no, us foreign policy is not a mess because of the media. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
>"it's true that people who criticize American foreign policy have a tendency to be sympathetic to other world governments"
Do you have any study to back up the claim that the tendency is "true"? Dogeatsdog (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Snark in political articles is worse than useless. When topics are actually morally ambiguous, the attempt at satire is often disconcerting and affects confidence. If you can afford the time, please do some editing where you think it would help clarify this type of article. I would love to see political articles improve.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I can afford the time, but I not be the best person for such tasks. pointing out what displeases me in the work of others is all I am good for. and I can only do that when I feel like I know something abut the subject, which isn't too often. you are lucky if I can string a sentence together to be honest. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
That's total bullshit. I honestly don't know a single European or Canadian who is NOT critical of many elements of US foreign policy nor a single one of them who is sympathetic to China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia or looking for some new world order. Parts of U.S. policy are so excessively grotesque I don't think any rational person would not criticize it. And no you don't need to be a communist, Jihadist, post-modernist or anti-anything to arrive at that conclusion. Naturally governments follow self-interests and some governments push those interests to truly twisted levels, and even that isn't such a surprise, but when the policies don't even align with the countries own interests (and alienate just about every ally you have) then there is something seriously terribly wrong. ShabiDOO 12:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the biggest irony here is Jeh2ow initially mentioned people like Tulsi and Le Pen and then subsequently expanded to lump together all the people critical of U.S. foreign policy. I'm pretty sure Sanders for example doesn't want to be lumped together with Le Pen in any political context. Dogeatsdog (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Historicity of Religious Figures Taken for Granted

I've been on a theological bent lately and have been reading a lot about religion, especially ancient ones. One thing that surprised me is the lack of reliable records on many supposed founders of major world religions. Aside from the 10 Sikh Gurus(Sikhism started in the 1400s CE) we often have fragmentary evidence at best for the origins of other religions. Most of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are legendary figures, King David seems to have been real based on very limited archeological research. We have a good page on the Jesus myth theory and the page on Mohammed. I personally believe both figures existed but that we really can't say anything with great certainty about either. Actually, I think rationalwiki is a bit overly hostile to the likelihood of a historical Jesus, but thats a different matter.

There are, however, two figures who I'm curious about existing. Siddhattha Gotama(The Buddha) and Zoroaster. The first is said to have lived from about 480 BCE to 400 BCE. The other is believed to have lived from sometime between 1500 and 1000 BCE, an enormous range. I was wondering if anyone has ever actually scrutinized these two with the same level of precision and detail as Jesus. I'm not saying they weren't real, even though it took about 200 years before anyone wrote anything about The Buddha down(longer than Jesus or Mohammed), but is there any evidence of them actually existing? It does seem hard to believe that there isn't some figure at the root of these traditions, but it's also strange they seem so shrouded in mystery.Neo Stalinist (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of these figures live(d) in the fog of ancient history, and in the case of Zoroaster, quite possibly prehistory, since the Persians were still a bunch of nomadic steppe warriors during the latter half of the second millennium BCE. Why is it so troubling to you? Oxyaena Harass 21:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
In terms of Historicity I'd give Quran Mohamed a 90%, scriptural Bhudda a 20%, historical Lao Tzu a 0.1% and Biblical Jesus a freakin 0.000000000000000000001
The extent of non-religious sources on Jesus...at its most generous interpretation...is that some religious trouble making person named Jesus was crucified. Biblical Jesus (the one who made all those sermons, claimed to be king of the Jews, the son of God and all the other conflicting shit written down well after the fact by ideological religion starters. No ..there is t a shred of evidence that Jesus existed. Not one tiny shred. No contemporary corroborating sources. Just dubious unreliable texts written well after by religion starters. Jesus was not an uncommon name. And we have no idea why that guy was crucified. Maybe he accidentally ran over a Rabbi with his cart. Whatever. One of the stupidest most absurd religions ever. Zoroaster I am familiar with the religion but know zero about the sources. Problem with sources are the most avid readers and researchers are also believers. So yeah good luck on that. You'll have to write professors on the topic. Look up researchers on Zoroastrianism. ShabiDOO 21:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism no longer being a major world religion, asking whether or not Zoroaster ever existed is less like asking if Jesus was real and more like asking if Heracles was real. Spud (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In my readings I chanced upon some people(I think it was the Jesus mythicist Robert M. Price) who very boldly claimed that Hercules could have very well been based on some remarkably strong person. As an aside, Gilgamesh is actually considered a real person by historians who think he was later deified.Neo Stalinist (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"No ..there is t a shred of evidence that Jesus existed. Not one tiny shred. No contemporary corroborating sources. Just dubious unreliable texts written well after by religion starters." Paul of Tarsus knew his brother and the apostle Peter and mentioned them in passing. Some of those mentions occur in his surviving letters, 6 or 7 of which are considered real. There are 6 other forgeries. The Earliest NT Gospel dates to about AD 70. It's not that shocking that the historical Jesus was only remembered via oral tradition for 40 years, as opposed to suddenly being made up.Neo Stalinist (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
that is not a contemporary source. Written by people crafting a religion. Why oh why would people constructing a world view and proto-doctrines ever wanna distort "history"? What could they possibly gain? ShabiDOO 09:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know... here it comes... WERE YOU THERE? Damn, that does feel fucking good, Hovind at least knows how to cash smugness in for dopamine. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There's actually more evidence that Jesus existed compared to someone like, say, Gautama Buddha (Tacitus mentioning Christus when shit-talking Christians is a pretty good one since he likely had no ulterior motive). But exactly *what* he said will never be known. It's clear that any exact details are lost in time to the mythos that was shaped over the next several centuries after Christianity started to become established. That's life back then. The ability to separate The Myth and the reality increases as time moves on and more information (not just information for and of the elite) is recorded. People like to tell stories, so you're still going to get wild tales in modern times, but these days it's easier to "be the party pooper" and fact-check the wild tales, finding out what stuff probably isn't true. That's not possible with the early Christianity stories (the same with a lot of ancient literature to be honest). All you have is the Tall Tales that made it, versus the apocrypha (the Tall Tales that did not) and various little tidbits from other sources of the small amount of writing that actually existed then. Mere nuggets compared to what we have today. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, the thing that modern people really need to get is back then the vast majority of people were barely if at all literate. Reading and writing was a full-on career (scribe) because so few could do it well and it was time-consuming. No computer, no printing press. The extent of most people's education was whatever they picked up from family, those around them, and religious/political leaders. All this stuff was transmitted orally for at least decades before what survives today was written down.`Given that as well as the indifferent attitude people often had towards historical preservation it's kind of a miracle we have as much as we do. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no. For some ancient events, we have remarkably contemporary accounts (say, Caesar’s Gallic Wars, for instance, despite that work obviously being his own propaganda account). For others, we know that such accounts once existed, but are now lost or survive only in fragments in other works.
However, since most accounts of religious figures stem from when they became famous later on (with Mohammad a partial exception, since he became a political force during his own life time), the sources on them tend to be particularly poor and suspect.
It’s also not that ancient people were generally haphazard slobs when it came to preserving the past, but more about subsequent huge sociopolitical shifts or catastrophes. Subsequent Moslem rulers tended to care little for the preservation of Byzantine and other Christian history. Subsequent Christian rulers tended to care little for the preservation of Pagan history. Some rulers actively destroyed history as part of solidifying their hold on power and while the accounts of Qin Shi Huang burning prior histories are probably either embellished or mythical, the attitude was not unheard of. Similarly, some pharaohs attempted to remove their predecessors from history in a parallel to what the Romans would later call damnatio memoriae. As for catastrophes, the time consuming task of manually copying texts prior to the invention of printing, meant that copies were often scarce and expensive and the risk of rare works perishing in fires or simply due to “attrition” (the ravages of time, rodents etc.) was very real. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition, there are the various non written sources that historians rely on when reconstructing past events (coinage, pottery and other archaeological finds, various dating techniques, monuments etc.), but these are usually silent about religious figures altogether, at least when it comes to the question of contemporary sources about their lives. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Well yeah? I don't see anywhere we're really disagreeing. Caesar was an elite in a society that valued education, including rhetoric, for elites. (He didn't do the actual labor of writing-down; wealthy Romans dictated to their scribes.) I'm an atheist; I was just attempting to give a bit more historical background. The fact that ancient sources are less-available to us than modern ones obviously doesn't mean we therefore have to believe whatever ancient sources say because there must have been other lost sources that more reliably corroborated them, which is what a lot of religious apologists argue implicitly. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to the study of ancient history, you're not really using the scientific method, many of my ancestors are lost to history because they were illiterate nobodies. The lack of any record of them doesn't mean they weren't there. There is no empirical test to falsify their existence. The absence of evidence may not be the evidence of absence regarding historical figures or events. You can however, use bayesian inference to try and ascertain the probability of events or figures. Richard Carrier did this with Jesus in a book he wrote and came to the conclusion that there was a 1/3 to 1/12000 chance he was real. I never read the book and I've heard not every mathematician who read his book was a huge fan, but he at least tried it.Neo Stalinist (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course, when you research history, you (should) apply the historical method,Wikipedia's W.svg which draws on various scientific methods, as well as textual analysis, arguments from analogy and a certain degree of uniformitarianism (e.g. that we have no reason to suspect that historical events were not constrained by similar laws of physics etc. as the present, hence the scepticism about supernatural claims of any kind) in order to make its inferences. While I respect Carrier’s work and agree with his inferences and conclusions, his use of Bayesian statistics has always seemed needlessly arcane and complex to me. In making the inferences themselves, he’s really not doing anything that other historians aren’t doing and presenting his case in the guise of statistics adds little to the veracity of his arguments, but simply present them in a more formulaic manner. One could almost suspect a case of physics envy in this approach... ScepticWombat (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Going to be completely honest here

Anytime I see a cop around I actually fear for my safety. I know that I am considered white but the police have been known to attack people with disabilities. There is plenty of times my Autistic behaviors and mental illness symptoms become obvious. Is it bad that I actually fear for my safety when I see a cop? Considering the police brutality track record I would not be shocked if others with disabilities fear for their safety. There was one case where a cop used a taser on a guy with a severe learning disability (white dude FYI) which traumatized him. There was also the case where two cops beat the shit out of a deaf guy for 45 minutes.

Please understand where I am coming from. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. I have the privilege to pass as white, 5'1 and overall tiny for a woman. That's not going to get cops noticing what I do. I'm not scared of them, just scared I might do something that I don't realize will get them acting up. I'll just do my best to listen what they have to say, even if what they order to me is crazy like stripping off my clothes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
My city set an 8 o'clock curfew to avoid violence. I just got back from a round trip 12 mile hike because I was hoping to score a beer and a sandwich. Everyone was closed. All the gas stations, the Wal-Mart. Everything, lights off doors blocked. Not a bad part of town. I'm not going to claim I was out marching around for a noble reason, breaking curfew to spit at the systemic violence, I wanted one more beer, I will live without it. But I would like to point out, none of these places closed for an untraceable, highly transmissible, potentially deadly virus. America is scared of what? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
They set up an 8 o'clock curfew here too and it's some reactionary nonsense-"Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Where are yall that had curfews tnite? I saw a bunch of major metros (twelve or so?) but I haven't heard about smaller municipalities. (edit) and yes you should absofuckinglutely fear for your safety. Stay safe rats!138.207.198.74 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Like, who thinks the curfew is necessary but the stay at home order is not? I have emergency wine, but damn this is some really obvious racial bullshit. We can't have the blacks just out there angry, what if they break windows? We can't have the consumers stay at home, what if they don't spend enough money? Fucking garbage. A cop killed a man, I had cops slowing down and taking two passes at me, nothing, none of them even stopped to tell me there was a curfew as I was walking towards the hotspot. I found an Alanis Morrissette CD though, that was kinda fun. And I pulled some old Hollister jeans out of the street because people were steering around them with traffic so light. I almost kept the Alanis CD, but I saw it was so scratched up it couldn't play and I knew all the tracks, so I figure leave it, somebody else might look it up, it was cool but it wasn't mine. I left the jeans on the sidewalk hopefully they fit somebody who needs them, the city without people was actually a little fun. No small adventures here, fuck me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've always felt that way instinctively about cops, because there is a kind of coldness to them. And they always have that damn pistol right next to them. How can you really trust someone who has a weapon of death right next to them at all times? Cops have a history of being trigger happy, and even when I get mad I can sometimes push someone. So what if I had a weapon on me, and cop culture was to brag about beating up people to enforce law and order and show them who was boss? I've heard them brag about using inane laws to police people who speak back to them, because they basically enjoy being fascists.

I've felt that instinctive fear a little less when I was in some other countries where the cops aren't armed with guns because the population doesn't have them (then they keep them locked in gun lockers, or in their car trunks or whatever.) I also naively thought that being a foreigner meant they'd have more understanding and be less corrupt because it might cause some kind of trouble. I had thought that if you got jailed wrongly the American embassy would be willing to back me up. I didn't realize that the stories I'd read of interpol were only of them helping out the families of mega-rich people with connections, and that a regular Joe would probably be out of luck. Itsnotthatsimple (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cops are trained to see ordinary Americans as their enemies. We are their enemy. Cops hate us for it, and they will not hesitate to murder us if they feel like they have a reason. Please, all of you, stay away from the cops. They will main you. They will kill you. They will enjoy killing you. They will do it for no reason at all. Because cops are trained to see all of us as subhuman. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 08:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Slightly autistic myself, and also pass for white. Haven't really ever had to fear cops, at least no more than the average "white" person.. When in a new, uncomfortable situation, do you freeze up, or freak out? Because if the former, most cops I've seen are actually very good with those kinds of mental disabilities, but in the case of the latter, well...CoryUsar (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Kind of glad I don't live in the states. Stay safe guys.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Duce: Constructing a "enemy (a profession made of millions of people) based on sweeping generalizations vs us victims" fantasy, especially based on you simply sticking to a conclusion on a viral cop video and firmly staying there when told to be critical of them, is extremely dangerous and simplistic. I don't think your advice is helpful or good nor should anyone be adopting that worldview, as opposed to seeing the problem as complicated, a manifestation of the worst of human nature, an ugly combination of gun culture, violence glorification, propaganda, income inequality, desensitization, capitalism, corrupt politicians, broken laws and philosophy, and rugged individualism. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It's actually a fairly useful one. Pigs are not your friend, they are your enemy. Stay away from them. Oxyaena Harass 09:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Nah no. I've seen too much Twitter shit that has that capability to sway you but turns out they're lying. I've seen people jeer at bricks being thrown at a cop who suffered a face injury from a brick and then justify violence toward individuals with the "participants of a system" "excuse". I'm not going down that path. If you are going to get robbed, get mugged, get harassed, or otherwise need law enforcement, call the law enforcement. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Certainly hope there is change and reform in the US police. Jesus can they ever seem fucking scary. ShabiDOO 09:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I don't trust them 100% to not shoot me but chances are good that in majority of cases, just listen to them and don't do anything that make them believe you're going to shoot oe hurt them, even if their requests sound ridiculous. In the meantime, the cops can't do anything in this system. We know we can't do anything. We as a society have to answer to police reform but the effective reform has to address guns, income inequality, drug "war", racism, broken window philosophy, and more. Sure, we perhaps should throw out everything and start from scratch but as long as that underlying rotten foundation is there, those problems are going to remain. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Never felt that way about police officers in any developed nation except America. Some American police officers have a tendency to yell and huff and act extremely aggressive. I can see how this scares people. From my perspective, they are acting like untrained, dumb wimps, military wannabes that aren't smart enough to pass the ASVABWikipedia's W.svg. Any police officer that can't handle a fuckin' dog without shooting it really shouldn't be a police officer. But this is America and here we are. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I found them half as bad in Canada. I didn't see much love for them there (though neither are they as despised). Though neither do they want to deal with their racial problems either (think police brutality against indigenous people). I found UK police could be lippy and snarky though not remotely like North America. I was in Ottawa when I was 15, asked a policeman for directions, he asked me to open up my back-pack to see if I had anything criminal inside. No particular reason to ask me. Around the same month I was on a park bench with friends and the police came asking us what trouble making we were up to. These kinds of antagonisms quickly taught me and my friends to avoid the police and not trust them. To consider them looking for trouble. However inconvenient that was, it was nothing compared to Canadians who were in poor areas or marginalized. And however bad it was for them I knew it was SO MUCH worse in the US. It's just such a different world when you are in a country where you actually feel safer having easy-going cops walking around not looking for trouble and trying to avoid arrests or unpleasantness as much as possible. Arrests are considered failures. ShabiDOO 13:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I was flat-out arrested once and was treated the most courteously and professionally I could have possibly been. Yes, cuffed, put in car, booked, mug shot, fingerprinted. This was a Cali university police department, which miiiight have had something to do with it. I am a big extremely white dude and was completely cooperative as well. Not every single U.S. cop is totally bad I guess! Also the few times I've interacted with our moderately-sized-city police (who are actually county sheriff's deputies) for nothing serious they've been fairly pleasant. Obviously nothing in this anecdote refutes that a lot of U.S. police are at least fascism-curious. Just thought I'd tell my story for anyone interested. I was released "on my own recognizance" after booking because it was not a serious crime. First (and only) arrest and I had my wallet with driver's license so they had my identity. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

America, the anarchistic state?

Is this what could maybe happen in the US? I mean, apparently ANTIFA is getting involved aswell and Trump wants to put ANTIFA on a list of terrorist organisations. Riots everywhere (there's a dude from Jacksonville that stabbed a cop in his leg. Then there's a courtroom in Nashville that was put on fire...). Trump and his family fleeing into some sort of protected area in the White House (bit like a bunker or something), Sharpshooters on top of the white house, incase someone would breakthrough (is the White House Far-Right aswell? Before Trump became President, they always said that they didn't want Trump as a President)... Beyond Reality (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond Reality Are you asking about a failed state or an Anarchist "state"? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This sort of thing has happened before (see 1967-1968 for a really notable example). America has a racism problem, to state the obvious, and while some things have changed from 1967-68, a lot has not, as the election of Donald Trump proved. Racial-oriented riots actually are not unusual from a world perspective, though this is more typically the type of shit that happens in developing nations. (You know, the type of nation that Donald Trump ironically calls a shithole...) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Basically If what's currently happening could resulting in, and this might sound silly, people overthrowing the US Government. Apparently, Obama is asking people to stop the violence? Beyond Reality (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it is doubtful the the government will be overthrown in this instance, but this will be seen as another link in a long chain of events that leads not to some era of comprehensive reform, but to the destruction of the United States. Give it a few decades.-Flandres (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond Reality That reply didn't really answer my question. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Peaceful civil rights demonstrations help Democrats win white votes. Urban rioting causes more white voters to vote Republican.[13]
Trump was elected 18 months after the Baltimore riots. The wave of urban riots close to November might sweep Trump into office.AndreyL (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Did Biden seriously have a chance even before the riots? Dogeatsdog (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd actually put Biden as the mild favorite at this point due to an incredibly consistent +6ish polling over Trump. And I actually don't see this changing much (unlike past times) with the civil unrest. Trump got elected by using race as a bullhorn and it's my feeling that any "I'm not racist but" types who would ordinarily cross over are already firmly in Trump's camp. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the top betting websites Electionbettingodds.com has Donald Trump being a slight favorite to win the 2020 US presidential election.

Trump, who has some authoritarian tendencies, will do what it takes to quell the wave of rioting. He vows to send in the military if he feels it's necessary. He has designated Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. In uncertain times, people like a strong leader.

Richard Nixon used racial rioting to position himself as the law and order candidate and he was reelected in a landslide election. The white voter "silent majority" got Nixon reelected.

Biden might win the national vote in terms of popularity, but it is the battleground states that are going to get Trump reelected.

Trump will win the 2020 election.AndreyL (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden's actually the slight favorite in today's snapshot.
I expect Republicans to try to pull some dirty tricks, but Republican voter tricks actually backfired in Wisconsin.
This is not to say "Biden will win". I view any statement other than "slight favorite" with suspicion. It could go either way. The only certainty is that we live in "interesting times".Wikipedia's W.svg Soundwave106 (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
trump isn't looking like a strong leader hes looking like someone not in control. hes been making demands through out the pandemic of things he couldn't deliver, with governors of various states flat out telling him no. hes been flapping around almost out of the loop while governors have been calling the shots, desperate to look like hes in charge. he cant designate antifa as a terrorist organisation - he can say it but he cant do it, and vowing to send in the military means little when its uncertain whether he can or not. all this when not hiding in bunker.
polling has biden ahead, while odds has trump on a downward trajectory, biden and trump level pegging virtually, what lead has trump there looking like he will soon be trailing.
not that it really matters right now. elections in November last I heard, and a week is a long time in politics. its a coin toss for president at this stage. it would be under normal circumstances, but now? any one certain of the outcome of anything, let alone the presidential election, in these times must have a time machine. for anyone else its a pure guess right now, and events have yet to run their course, and biden hasn't really started to campaign yet.
America of the 60s is not the same as America today. the America that saw trump elected is not the America today. how much of impact did rioting 18 months before the election actually have? the la riots didn't hurt Clinton and they were a bigger deal and a lot closer to the election. this all might be a distant memory in November.
why even make predictions right now? its coin toss and anything can happen in the run up to november. anyone predict in January we'd be all locked down from a pandemic? anyone here guess there would rioting in the streets 2 weeks ago? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
People vote with their pocketbooks.
Joe Biden is losing the economic argument to Trump as the U.S. economy begins to re-open.[14]
Donald Trump is going to win re-election in 2020 in the amidst of a surging economy. The smart money is predicting it and betting on it. The S&P 500 and and Dow Jones Industrial average are both moving upward. The stock market surged after Trump's election in 2020.AndreyL (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"Financial markets have got out of whack with the economy. Something has to give." - The Economist, May 7 2020
there will also be massive unemployment by November, and you are assuming than polling now will not change, or that biden wont address any issues, or that economy will be surging when its not yet even begun to recover. a recovery that's hardly a sure thing especially if there is a second wave of contagion. the stock market is not quite as certain as you are.
the smart money doesn't pretend a gamble is a certainty. and none of it can predict what November will bring. go to the bookie a place a bet if you certain. you might make some cash if it bares fruit. it will still have been taking a punt on what is not by any means a sure thing, with so much still uncertain its still a coin toss.
why even call it now anyway? it doesn't show much political savvy to declare the winner when the election is so far off and so much can happen in the mean time. the smart money is wait and see. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
One of the messages of critical thinking that doesn't get through to people very well is the concept of saying: "I don't know". This should most certainly be the case of making predictions in any volatile atmosphere. I refuse to believe that anyone could possibly call an election months away in any democratic country without a single dominant party. To call the US election now, is to show how little you know about how little you know. It somehow claims some remarkable special information that nobody else could rationally have. In other words you are an intellectual superman. Even if either candidate was polling at 75%, it would be absurd to call the election now. People are blind to the power of small and unpredictable events. COVID and the riots are two prime examples of massive game changers that instantly change everything...and there have been two of those since the last round of people here in the bar already calling the election months away. Then there are the thousands of little factors that all matter that also cumulatively influence the vote swing over time. It can also chip away at a seemingly "forgone conclusion". Only intellectual false-prophets call elections months away. ShabiDOO 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Goodpost.gif This is indeed largely a toss up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Missional?

Is it on mission to have a page on this current event? Beyond Reality (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait until the conspiracy theories based on the movie of the events start emerging. Anna Livia (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. We don't do current events very well. This is an example of what happens.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I feel like we should implement a tl;dr rule in mainspace. At least break up the big articles into smaller ones-"Shut up, Brx." 15:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This journal calls itself "peer-reviewed and academic" but it is mainly publishing woo

I am talking about the journal of Evolution&Technology. I mean have a look at this paper published in that journal for instance: Forever and Again: Necessary Conditions for “Quantum Immortality” and its Practical Implications.

It manages to combine a very wacky cosmology together with a very wacky epistemology and also all of the following:

Quantum woo, Quantum suicide, science woo and, to some degree, more science woo. (There is more, I just don't have the time to go on here.)

It then concludes with a Pascal's_wager type of argument against suicide... Dahell??

Maybe there should be an article on that Journal too.... --TiltedAtBullshit (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

See Transhumanism. The journal and their sponsoring organization is mentioned there. I'd suggest that you consider adding content to that article before creating a new page just for this publication. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"Peer reviewed journal" was always a bare minimum standard. This is an ongoing ideological war. Any objective standard you can set to demonstrate good faith can and will be faked with enough bad faith. They're almost never going to be faked well, but that puts the onus on the reader to recognize that fact, and propagandists don't want to win over critical thinkers anyway. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If one's peers are also lunatics, it's not much of a peer review. Wikipedia has an interesting paragraph on the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies,Wikipedia's W.svg the journal's parent institute/think tank. It cites intelligent design looney Wesley J. Smith's critique of them, which is approaching a stopped clock moment. Bongolian (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The author of the paper is a known member of LessWrong, and has written a 35000 word paper on explanations of UFOs. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC) This man Turchin is a noted transhumanist and has started a life-logging company named Digital Immortality Now. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Liars for Jesus NASA

I apologize in advance for starting a thread I very likely don't have a lot of time to contribute to.

Anyhoo, I fairly often get into debates roughly like so (I'm the doubter):

"NASA is doing wonderful things.  Did you see the rocket launch?"
"Eh.  I'm not sure what the point of puttering around in near space is."
"It's the first step to exploring the universe.  We can't stay on Earth forever."
"Nowhere else in our solar system is worth colonizing and lifting a big can of hydrocarbons and/or oxygen and hydrogen out of a huge gravity well and then shooting it backwards really hard isn't a first step towards interstellar travel at all.  We should have some sort of plan that involves actual physics first.  It's like perfecting horse nutrition in the hopes of developing high-speed rail."
"Look at all the things NASA has developed."
"All of those are coincidental side results.  If discoveries are the goal, the money would have been better spent directly funding research on, say, materials and weather prediction. Maybe we'd have superconductors and gasoline equivalent batteries by now."
"NASA is the best source of inspiration for our young and upcoming scientists!"

And then I pause. They're not wrong, but it's also an admission that we're feeding the next generation a line of inspirational yet demonstrably effective bullshit. I'm all about utilitarianism. Do I just let it go at this point? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The outer space exploration type stuff is not the only thing NASA does, they have done the bulk of satellite launches over the years (which means things like GPS and weather forecasting bear their imprint) They are involved with projects to, say, preventing a dinosaur-style catastrophe should an asteroid come our way, which are more fantastic but still to a useful end. So the agency is more than just what gets in the press. That being said, stuff like manned space programs generally are done for political reasons and politics tends to rely on demonstrably effective pomp-and-circumstance bullshit, so... Soundwave106 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think endeavors to satiate human curiosity is a good way to make us, well, better people. Material benefit isn't the only thing we gain from space exploration or underwater exploration. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
More to the point, things like Space travel are.. for lack of a better word... romantic. And by romantic I mean in the classical style, grand adventure, great deeds, heroic endeavors.
Sure, someone can argue that "It would make more sense to focus on a laboratory" and the like, but that doesn't inspire. A great number of the greatest scientists and inventors became that not because of any intellectual motive, but because they looked at things like the exploration of space or the charting of unknown seas, or even the ideas of radio and television, and thought "That's cool." Utilitarianism, simply put, rarely inspires. It's the mad dream of putting a flag on Mars of being the first to explore the wreck of the Titanic that forges those who find unlikely solution to problems that didn't exist, and that solve so many that did-- and do.
Sadly, the other great impetus for innovation and creativity is war. We're really more likely to come up with advances in fuel cells from the need to power a tank than the dreams of Elon Musk. Oh, well, the world isn't a perfect place yet... Kencolt (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
SpaceX, on the other hand, aims to build a civilization on Mars. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This. I have the feeling that the returns due to "inspiration" alone justify the (not terribly high) cost, though I am willing to be convinced otherwise by evidence. People like impressive-looking things. Anecdote: my mom is nebulously pro-science but not a "nerd" type. She watched the manned Falcon launch of her own accord (meaning, I never brought it up to her) and was going on about how impressive it is and how great that sometimes we can do stuff like that instead of killing each other. So yeah. The original poster mentions doing more direct research funding instead. Why not do that too? We're not going to "run out of money". Look at the U.S. federal budget breakdown for perspective on what the U.S. spends publicly on different things. And Soundwave brought up something very important that few people take seriously. A ~300 m diameter asteroid impact on land would end civilization. Period. One shot, boom, done, ~99% of humans die, we had a nice run. Currently we are utterly helpless against that. Maybe we should do something about that? We're dragging our feet on even getting a telescope up to the Sun-Earth L1 to look for killer rocks, and today even if we found one we'd need years to attempt to do something about it. People don't like to contemplate this so they just ignore it, but the universe doesn't care if we all die. And there's plenty of other potentially-useful space stuff. Space-based solar power would be fantastic if we could get it to feasibility. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if I understand the thread. Space programs are: politically useful to whatever state, inspiring, a way of obtaining knowledge, a way of obtaining new technology either directly or as a consequence of spin-offs, both expensive and profitable depending on how you look at them. So - like everything in life - it's a mixed bag.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Video Games

While the first BioShock was pro-Christianity, the sequel and Infinite were the exact opposite. Also, the upcoming game, The Last of Us: Part II involves Ellie being involved with a Christian cult. No wonder Conservapedia has a list on the worst liberal games.Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Conservapedia has nothing better to do than bitch and complain. They don't like something so they force their views on people. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I am happy to report that a certain movie is still on CP's list of 'greatest conservative movies', evidence that CP remains easily (self?)-trolled. Also, there's still apparently a trove of 'unsafe'-for-kids stuff in CP if one is desperate enough to look for it. Not spending much time there, I stumbled upon one example, indicating there are likely many more. Bongolian (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
How is BioShock pro-Christianity? Isn't it just satirizing Atlas Shrugged? i.e., here's what a Randian "utopia" would actually be like, also plasmids. FISFULL O' LOITNIN'! Yes I know it's a spiritual successor to System Shock 2. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
From what I remember, the only plot point involving religion in BioShock was that the ruler of the city was executing smugglers for illegally importing Bibles, which were banned. I think that point was more to criticize libertarianism than to say anything about religion. WheelOfCheese (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My attempt at an AMV

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

Did my best and I think it turned out okay. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 and the protests

I'm seeing a rise in Coronavirus denialism due to the public protests. What do you guys think? Something I dislike about Covid denialism is that the next time a possibly deadlier disease hits we'll end up with a 'Boy who cried wolf' scenario and paranoid people won't take it seriously. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The US learning the worst possible lesson from history? Why, I've never seen that pattern repeat dozens of times in just the last couple decades. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the denialism, should we expect to see a spike in Covid cases due to the protests/riots? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What lesson did we learn from our financial crisis, 9/11, Katrina, or a multitude of other self-infliced disasters? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You can expect it, but you'll have to wait and see first though. Christ, the States really are a basket case, bad enough the response to a pandemic was, to put it bluntly, fucking pathetic, and the reasons given by the publicly elected official who sought the office (And seems convinced that Anti-Fa is an actual organisation with structural hierarchy and operating under foreign influence) have been beyond parody. And now the twin problems, which aren't exclusive to America, but the blind eye most Yanks turn to it possibly is, of systemic and endemic racism and an ever more militarised police force, have converged into one explosive reaction. These people haven't been heard, haven't been helped, have been pushed down, marginalised, ridiculed and killed, no wonder they have taken to the streets and reacted the way they have. The only problem is unfortunately timing. Why now, why not two or three years back (when Fuckface Von Clownstick claimed the "alt-left" was causing issues in Charlottesville, and the peaceful protest of "taking a knee" was "unpatriotic") Instead, right now, you've got a large section of the country who've had enough and voicing it in the only way they have left, in the middle of a pandemic. The country is fucked. Cardinal Chang (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The US does seem to be at an unfortunate intersection of long-term, medium-term and short-term crises at the moment. But to respond to the question asked, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Covid numbers in five to ten days when any potential infections start to show up.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
As an American, I find it sad that the country I was born in, lived in and raised to love is going down the crapper. Police violently suppressing protests, terrible pandemic response that lead to the deaths of over 100,000 people and the worst unemployment crisis in US history. Nice work Trump, what other shit can you do? Declare war on Canada, fire some nukes at the UK, how about invading China? --Racia zombio94 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we add a section on total denialism to our COVID-19 page? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a section on "economy > virus" (which is where Jair Bolsonaro, an outright denialist, was stuffed) and "Lord > virus" (which includes some tasty nuggets of denialists thinking that they could use the Lord as a get-out-of-virus-free card), as some of the insane conspiracy theories like "Virus bioengineered by Bill Gates for population control etc.". So there's a lot covered, but if there are any other major categories, perhaps they could be included. For instance I'm going to suspect anti-vaccine conspiracy theories are going to run wild later, should a COVID-19 vaccine be available (40% of Republicans aren't planning on getting one with "don't trust vaccines" being the #1 reason of not getting one). Perhaps enough to warrant its own category for all I know. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What I don't understand about total denialists is what they think the motive is. Fake a pandemic, crash the global economy, for.. what exactly? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
So they can force socialism/Globalist doctrine down our god fearing throats, obviously! Conspiracy theorists and right wingers have been saying disasters are caused by the left so they can exploit the ensuing chaos as long as I have been alive, even as they do the exact same thing. And you have seen Medicare for All and the Green New Deal rise in support around now so they can just "make the connection," knowing their target audience will not actually give this a deep look because it confirms their own preconceived notions.-Flandres (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall, how will the public protests effect the number of COVID-19 cases? The people protesting seem to have completely forgotten about social distancing, and unpunished public congreation of this type is fueling total denialism. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That will be exceptionally difficult to quantify. Remember, a lot of these people who are protesting come from backgrounds which do not give them enough money to be tested, so even if they die of COVID, well, corpses are not tested so we won't know. In fact, I imagine the death toll and case count is a LOT higher than recorded simply because poorer demographics have trouble getting access to already scarce testing supplies.-Flandres (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Flandres True. It's just that the frequency and scale of these demonstrations are making people expect a massive boom in cases. Also, the blatant disregard of social distancing by the demonstrators will make it hard for people to believe COVID-19 is a serious threat. It's easy for paranoid people to glance at these public gatherings and convince themselves that the virus was never as bad as people made it out to be. Also, the conspiracy crown might not be able to figure this out, but I think it would be simpler to actually engineer and release a virus then to fake a virus outbreak. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Want some real denialism?

I could not stomach five full minutes of this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0uemkf9c88 (Do Viruses Exist)

So much to debunk in a short period of time. Warning: This video contains an annoying repeat of the same tune, bad grammar, conspiracy theories and zero science. It is 45 minutes long. Watch at your own risk. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I value my sanity and brain cells so I'm going to have to pass on that one. Thanks for the recommendation though. I've seen denialists like that debunked by Professor Stick. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I like Professor Stick, his videos are great! --Racia zombio94 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
True. Not sure how he stays sane while dealing with the kinds of people he does. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A pissed off YouTuber (No not me although does similar content as me)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8UYoYactkE

Watched the video where the YouTuber talks about how Pro-Plague people took one of his EAS scenarios and called it evidence for vaccines being evil. The EAS scenario was about where a poorly tested COVID-19 vaccine makes the virus far more deadly. It is pretty damn obvious that it was a work of fiction but Pro-Plague people do not like reality.

While idiots are at it, why not take a few of the global freeze EAS scenarios and call it proof of global warming being a hoax? Same logic. God people are stupid. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

何にしますか Oxyaena Harass 20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Have you only just now discovered that the majority of this planet is filled with idiots & morons? This is something I already realized since I was 14... Beyond Reality (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of military against civilians is point of no return

This is pretty bad. Look I live in a country that until fourty years ago was a dictatorship and I can tell when the military is used against civilians that's it, democracy is dead. You might still have "elections" (though America's elections have been rigged for decades TBH) but your country is no longer democratic.Tuxer (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What effect would Biden winning have on your prediction? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I am just curious.-Flandres (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Bonus Army - I hope no one strawmans me as saying "no big deal lol", but, it's hardly the first time in U.S. history. Of course before 1965 the U.S. was effectively a "whites only democracy", which is what a lot of Republicans want to take it back to. "Democracy" doesn't necessarily have to mean "universal suffrage". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The major difference is that Trump is significantly more authoritarian than Hoover and represents a much more authoritarian party, and furthermore most Republicans are okay with this drift.-Flandres (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Considering Biden's extremely conservative record and that congressional districts are rigged and there's widespread voter suppresion, America can only claim to be at least a liberal oligarchy.Tuxer (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, and thank you for bringing Biden's terrible record up(not enough people are), now what do you think of Biden campaigning to the left lately? I am referring to his "next FDR" pretensions, his claims this pandemic has made more than a return to normalcy desirable, his unity task forces with progressives, that sort of thing. Again, not disagreeing with you, just making sure I have a good grasp of you position.-Flandres (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
If things reach the complete point of no return and full scale revolt takes place, I will get my running shoes and flee to Canada. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I will probably join one of the more powerful local factions and take it over from within. Ever since childhood i've been a man of, how shall we say...lofty aspirations, Hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Well friends, in America we have always, so far, returned. Fixed elections? That's what the Trumpists all say. Here is one of my favorites from 1965.
Ariel31459 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You know, all empires come back from the brink, suffer crises, return more powerful then ever, and then just the right chain of events happens and they just... don't. You are a idealistic imbecile if you believe the USA will just always "come back."-Flandres (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
We're getting close to that point. The US has been declining in power since at least the Bush years, and Trump has only accelerated this trend. I'm not going to lie, it may not end well. Stay safe everyone. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Lots of people hope for the best. Try it, it doesn't hurt. I expect the world is going to improve. It has done so for many centuries. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Only if you are a white person. Did all those people in the former African colonies have their lives improve? What about Latin america? the Arab world? Hoping for the best and expecting the world will improve NOW of all times is...breathtakingly stupid.-Flandres (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The other point, which I almost said last night but I couldn't quite get it out. There's a type of person who goes into law enforcement, there's a culture of law enforcement in America. There's a huge confusion between military and duty and gun ownership in America, and you've got these people who, just as rhetoric, think their duty is to keep the peace through militaristic force with a small tear in their eye about what military force means. Listen in on it via the On Point program. There is a reference to black gloves. And I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Is theree a known trope in the law enforcement community that black gloves mean it's time to beat ass? She says she would not allow anyone in those black gloves. But that's a difference between "don't do that now" and "don't do that when this is all blown over." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
as has been pointed out all over the place, the military have been "used against civilians" in the US on numerous occasions in the past - eg here on the BBC, unless you think they are fake news of course! So no, it is not any sort of "point of no return" at all. Aloysius the Gaul 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's just grant you that for now and then point out all of those OTHER things going wrong, like hyper-partisanship meaning the Democrats will need a super majority in the senate to get ANYTHING done, or catastrophic climate change, or the rise in right wing domestic terrorism, or the Pseudo-Fascist radicalization of the Republican party for the foreseeable future. You have a only skin deep understanding of what is going on- the USA is screwed not because of this but because so many maladies are piling on at once and there is no cure for all of them. I have not even come close to naming them all.-Flandres (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There are enough people who think the world will get better. The millions of people across America who have been coming out and peacefully demonstrating, what about them? Do you think they are stupid too? Do you think black men ask for change not believing in their hearts that change is possible? Did you see the videos of the trouble makers get subdued by the protesters? Do you think that is because they have given up on a better America? You may think you are seeing a disintegration of cities. Those folks are out there right now, people of every sort and color, trying to pull it back together. I hope they can do it. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the protesters still have hope in this country, but from what I've seen, most don't. They protest not because they have hope, but because they lost that long ago. Just like they initially rioted because they lost hope. And the worst part of all of this is there still is so much worse we as a nation can sink to. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe you are projecting GC. People don't go out and peacefully demonstrate when they have no hope. Millions have been demonstrating peacefully. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes ariel, those people are at best, tragically naive in their optimism that the world will get better. This idealism is merely something they hold onto as a comfort so they do not have to come to grips with the fact the world is burning around them. It is sad really, that they earnestly want things to get better, but at best they will only improve for a short time. Most of us just want to live normal and happy lives, and we do not chose to be born in an era of destruction. GrammarCommie's post also makes a good point. People are not dreaming of a better world so much as reaching critical mass and the system will not listen to them no matter what they do. If anything, YOU are the one projecting on the protesters.-Flandres (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Political leaders have played the black against white and urban against rural divides against each other for so long that I despair of them seeing how much they share in their despair. The cities were hollowed out when the owner class decided to move the factories to rural areas, hoping that the people there were docile and trained to be hostile to unions, mostly. Then those rural industries were hollowed out when the owners decided that labor was even cheaper in China, Mexico, Malaysia, and etc. What happened to the one sixty years ago happened to the other thirty years ago. It's all part of one long process. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Flanders
Only if you are a white person. Did all those people in the former African colonies have their lives improve? What about Latin america? the Arab world?
Yes, overall. Things in Africa are far better today than they were under either colonial or pre-colonial rule. And if you think pre-colonial rule was great, well, I'll bet you're the type who reads King Arthur and says "gee, I wish I could have lived as a peasant in medieval times!". While yes, there's a lot of poverty in Africa, there are a crapton of middle class and rich people there as well, Africa isn't just one endless slum. The same goes for Latin America; it might surprise you to learn that countries such as Mexico are mostly white (the poor Mexicans sneak into the US for work) and many of them actually do have things such as electricity and plumbing, thankyouverymuch. Ditto the Arab world; I strongly recommend you read "The Innocents Abroad" by Mark Twain if you ever want to know what life was like for the Arabs under Ottoman rule, in addition to realizing how after a century and a half, Europe really hasn't changed all that much. CoryUsar (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not saying they do not have access to modern conveniences, I am pointing out they are still victims of imperialism, and go through a history of have puppet dictatorships foisted upon who then proceeded to engage in mass murder and economic misrule. The benefits of this "Better world" are spread nothing close to equally. Anti-american resentment is widespread for a reason.-Flandres (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
True, but is there some better alternative out there? China and Russia sure aren't going to do a better job. Anecdotally, as a man who works with disabled adults, for all the genuine complaints about how we treat our most vulnerable we do way better than anywhere else; try, for instance, finding autism support in Europe, it's nonexistent. It isn't a perfect world, wont be a perfect world, and we have to just do our best to make it better; a certain Canadian trio once warned about being so full of what is right that you can't see what is good, it helps to remember there's at least some foundation of good there. And to people complaining about the US, if nothing else this country sure has improved; when last I looked, there's no legalized slavery or legalized segregation. Clearly not perfect, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is still in force while Dred Scott isn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Uhhhhh...what's this about non-existant autism support in Europe? The two countries I know of (Belgium and Spain) have special schools for autistic children AND support workers for autistic kids going to regular schools. Belgium in particular accommodates any disability when dealing with the government (bureaucracy or implementation of social programs) and will provide an assistance officer when necessary. In both countries people with severe autism are given a pension by the government for life and even in these cases, with Belgium the government has a part time "volunteering" program so that they can participate in society to some extent (no...not going menial slave-labour). The police are trained to deal with people with various cognitive issues (especially volatile severe ones, hence the relatively low rate of people getting shot by the police for misunderstandings). In both Belgium and Spain I have friends with Autistic kids going to school and they've never voiced frustrations with deficiencies. None of that is to say it's likely sufficient. Funding should always be more generous for everything. But to say it is non-existent is utterly baffling. ShabiDOO 09:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
A) I'm sure the victims of Pinochet rest peacefully knowing the the USA has a better human rights record than China.B) No, there will be no better alternative because politics is about power, not helping people. Stronger countries force regimes upon weaker countries and the global community, even Europe, supporting human rights does nothing to change that. Again, my point still stands that life improvements lopsidedly benefit the Western countries. Also, I like your implication black people should be happy being second class citizens who get shot in the streets because it is better than being property-Flandres (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Pinochet is dead so I'm not sure how that's relevant today. And if I wanted to say that I would have, paredolia (thanks to The Big A I have somewhat less of it, with my hyperfocus on detail) strikes again. And yeah, a lot of improvements lopsidedly benefit people; it doesn't meant they're not improvements. I'm quarantining after 1 1/2 months of looking after disabled COVID patients for 16-17+ hour consecutive shifts, and I've neither physically (I haven't gotten COVID, but I'm pretty sure the horrible ear infection I got wouldn't have happened under normal circumstances) nor mentally recovered from that; some of us see something going wrong (i.e. people bailing on a group home en masse when someone is COVID positive) and try to do the best they can to fix society's problems. Others just blame [insert entity here] and never do get to fixing things. The world won't be perfect, you (generic you) still have to work with what's there. Attacking people who did you no wrong is about the worst solution possible, that's the Orangutan-in-Chief's MO. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Because Pinochet was supported by the United States;if you lack basic background knowledge about USA imperialism maybe this is the wrong argument for you. And working with what you have has less relevance when the status quo that we have is on the verge of death.-Flandres (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm well aware of American influence in Chile (although people tend to get a little starry-eyed about Allende, much like lots of information about Mossaddegh in Iran conveniently gets left out), and in the rest of the world (overthrowing Arbenz in Guatemala was completely inexcusable, to be sure). I highly doubt anyone is rioting in the streets of the US today because of what the US did in Guatemala or Chile, though. And as to what I've done, I'm just doing the best I can; I'm unwilling to look my clients in the face and tell them to die because I'm too busy with something else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It has a lot to do with america because the current president is a Pinochet fanboy who seeks to emulate his policies the USA convinced him to adopt, and those polices are quite unpopular.-Flandres (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh, and the US was never the victim of British imperialism? Just where do you think you got all the cotton and other resources that fed the Industrial Revolution? The US was dirt poor (and kept that way intentionally by the British) until a number of American IP thieves entrepreneurs in New England managed to sneak some power loom designs into the country. CoryUsar (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes it was... centuries before the global status quo we are talking about. This should not be that difficult, CorruptUser.-Flandres (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Tired, and rather than deal with all your wrong, here, enjoy this.
CoryUsar (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I have not actually been wrong in our exchange(the third world suffers from neocolonialism and is worse off than the west), but I graciously accept your concession of defeat.-Flandres (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Irrespective of anything else, I once won $20 from roommates who bet against my memory and thought I couldn't sing and play the bass to that song. It's the rare song that's much harder to sing than play. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
(EC) That's not what I'm disagreeing with you on. The point is that the Third World is improving, and Billy Joel is there to rebut any claims about how things are worse than ever.
(Blade)Isn't each section for the bass just 2 notes per bar? I've sung that song a couple of times in Karaoke, it's not that hard considering that it's not really sung, you just have to keep up with the fast-paced lyrics, sort of like rap. Planning on singing Butthole Surfers' Pepper once I can go to Karaoke again, that looks like it's even easier for a guy like me who has a terrible singing voice. CoryUsar (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I dunno, Climate Change threatening the biosphere seems a pretty good "worse than ever" mark, especially when few countries are actually taking appropriate action to mitigate it, according to the IPCC, which is a bit of a authority on the matter.-Flandres (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
A fine point (in both fronts) and fine song selection. And the main issue with the bass is that the verses are mostly slapping, and when you're playing a 5-string and primarily focused on spitting out the lyrics it's easy to accidentally hit one string lower than you mean to and throw everything off. The words aren't so bad once you get them down, it's memorizing them that's the trick; the method of loci that the ancient Greeks and Romans described proved quite useful for it. But even though my idol is Geddy Lee, my voice is more Peter Steele or David Draiman so getting his tone down was a chore. Still worth it, I'll take $20 from anyone willing to give it! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

is the world getting worse? some parts are I guess. depending on the metric. I wouldn't generalise to the whole world is getting worse. my neck of the wood seems to be. or will be once we can see what the world looks like after coronavirus. my country was getting worse before the pandemic, with Brexit and all. but its not the worst its ever been. it a decline from a previous high point. else where in the world might be doing great. relatively. I fear the worst because im a glass half empty type of guy. but in truth, its not so much the world collapsing into chaos, its just a reordering of the world and its not certain where it will take us and who will be the winners or losers, or even who the players are. I have no idea what the world will look like next year. or even my part of it. and this lockdown has me going properly mental. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually think a fair bit of Asia has improved over the last couple decades, to be honest. Although of course there are problems - there always will be. Most people are pessimists by nature, this makes it more striking how optimistic China was about the future in a 2016 Yougov poll. But I personally thought Malaysia 2018 was a fair bit nicer than Malaysia 2005, the poll notwithstanding. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a big issue, and that the hope doesn't work to make it better. There are a lot of people who want to say "We hear it," but the problem is, things aren't getting better. So, as I've always said, if you're treated as and assumed as a criminal whether you are breaking the law or not, what is the difference? And when police pick and choose who is the criminal and how to escalate or de-escalate a situation. I think it's really disingenuous to listen to well educated white people saying "it's harming their community." It's not. The problem is, there's this weird mix of people, mostly really pretty young people, who don't know the difference. Breaking windows in the business districts is not harming their own communities, either way, and sometimes people live in those districts, so it's not a tactful move either.
Being said, I fully understand that anger can get to a point by which any means by anyone for any reason with any justification is the only thing that looks like a way forward. So, agreeing on the justification that people should be angry, but disagreeing on the means, we're left in a swirl of "Who would do this?" Apply the same logic to video after video of police being unreasonably harsh to unarmed black civilians, and case after case of police de-escalating armed white civilians, what is the difference, if you've been watched close as a criminal all your life for generational racism that not even your parents had a say in, yeah, I get it, I get the anger and the pain, not to say I've felt it. Wouldn't claim to feel it the same way as some of the allies do. But it's not useful to differentiate between thugs, bad actors, inciters, and a peaceful protest. This is what actual protest looks like and involves, it's OK to pick and choose how you like protest to go IF YOU ARE WORKING to change things. If your idea is, it doesn't matter in the long run, then you don't get to pick the terms of protest. Get a grip on that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

whats the end goal?

obviously for the police to stop murdering black americans is up there, but how is that achieved? its easy to say reform and leave it at that, but what form will that take? and according to one article they'd tried reform in Minneapolis already. they suggest defunding the police and shifting resources to various outreach and community led programs. it doesn't quite say what role the police would have here though, and the type of community programs suggested are the sort that americans don't seem to like paying for and have cutting for years.

there doesn't seem to be easy fix, but I got to thinking about reforms and community policing and the like, and it seems that such approaches are hindered by a profound lack of trust. all the best training in world wont change anything if its implementation is hampered because everyones got their hand on their gun, expecting it to kick off at any moment.

how do you build trust after all that has happened and is still happening? not easily im guessing, but the RUC had a similar issues of being thought illegitimate by a large segment of the population. the solution there was to get rid of the RUC, and set up a new police force, the PSNI. what has worked for northern Ireland might not be applicable for the us, but how likely is something like that could be part of a solution?

what other options are there? the systemic problems like with the prison and justice system arnt going away anytime soon, nor any of the socio economic problems. fixing the police cant be too effective on its own if the environment it exists in causes them to full back to old patterns.

ultimately I cant see a solution that ends the current strife with something concrete to build upon, something to suggest progress can be made. best bet that doesn't involve the national guard crushing all resistance with overwhelming force (superior numbers in this case, I would hope), is it runs out of steam and everyone goes home. nothing decided, all issues put on a back burner as it fades from the view of white folk, left with just periodic flare ups.

is there any organisation, any focus or plan to get something done with this? I cant seem to see a great deal, and I can only really see 'a demand for justice' as a goal not what that looks like or how to get there. im probably missing a lot of the various groups who actually are looking at all of this, hidden under headlines of tear gas and rubber bullets. I hope so at least. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, the police are just the worst street gang. Like any other, they are jealous of turf, wishing to acquire power and territory, fiercely defending those whom they consider blood brothers. The code of omerta is strong with them, made worse by the fact that they have enough training in law to know what to say in any situation, and enough internal cohesion to make lies stick. The chief difference is that they have the protection of unions and public-service bureacracy.
'Reforms' that will actually make a difference are going to have to go beyond 'training on implicit bias, mindfulness, de-escalation, and crisis intervention; diversified the department’s leadership; created tighter use-of-force standards; adopted body cameras; initiated a series of police-community dialogues; and enhanced early-warning systems to identify problem officers.' They are going to have to face skeptical, hostile, and persistent supervision by an agency more powerful than they are, that won't accept their lies, and with the ability to hand out summary rewards and punishments in a way that can crack the code of silence and expose the truth to public scrutiny. This probably will end up only kicking the problem up a level in the long run; but at least the general public won't be the victims. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 10:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Not from the US but as an outsider I'm not sure you have the right target as "the police". I understand the police may well have their own codes of conduct but ultimately I assume their attitudes, beliefs and prejudices derive from the society in which they grow up and operate. So the US may have a bigger task than just fixing the police. Though I guess it would be a good place to start.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The police typically draw on a subset of the population with identifiable, persistent personality traits, including a strong preference for uniformity in culture, behavior, and appearance, an a marked suspicion of strangers and outsiders. These personality traits are persistent over time and to some extent necessary for coherent societies, even if people who do not share them tend to attach pejorative labels to them. You see a marked uptick in the us versus them mentality in the police as opposed to the wider culture. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
seems just as likely to me that the nature of the job, certainly in thes version, might breed such distrust. faced with the worst of humanity on a daily basis it becomes the default setting. factor in a legal system that criminalises so many black americans, it must breed and reinforce racist associations in someones mind if they were not there before. if your only contact with black people comes through your work, and your work involves nicking them - that must do something to your view of the world. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Certainly the laws they are hired to enforce are a big part of the problem. Drug laws should be repealed lock stock and barrel. Traffic laws should reflect social reality rather than insurance company ideals. That said, I do think there are personality types who are drawn to the authority and the spit and polish mentality. The wrong people are drawn to the job. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I cannot answer your main question but I'm quite impressed with how large the protest has become. Its been pulling the Overton window to the left (with many corporations joining the BLM bandwagon) and attracting international attention. I always thought "protest fatigue" is a real thing, seeing the examples of Arab Spring and anti-Trump protest after 2017 calming down. But now I see the biggest difference between the Arab Spring and BLM is that their leaders and organizers weren't thrown to jail, assassinated or expelled, and they remained active. I'm sure this systemic problem will take decades to fix, but as long as Trump (or any other even more radically white-supremacist president in the foreseeable future) won't go full Sisi or Putin and completely disable the BLM leadership, they will keep igniting protests until police brutality become no longer an issue. Dogeatsdog (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The most positive thing I've heard to come from the protests is politicians in New Jersey pushing a civilian oversight board with actual teeth (so with the right to subpoena documents, hear officers and bring cases of misconduct) for the police. Apparently they want to copy it from another state, which is currently getting held up in court by the police union in that other state. I think ultimately that would be the best answer. Civilian, not internal oversight. Basically, an oversight board that the police cannot influence. If I understand the current situation correctly, any oversight the police have is being maintained by well... the police themselves, which is why you see so many baffling cases of cops getting away with horrific shite. I've seen a lot of talk of completely abolishing the police/defunding them completely. That seems to me like having a hopelessly romantic view that humans won't hurt each other and will follow the laws of society on the good of their heart. Whilst that would be nice, sadly that isn't reality. If I had to think up a few things, one pretty big thing that I've been hearing come out of those protests is that apparently the police that patrol black communities typically aren't from those communities, which creates a pretty large divide between the citizens and the police. One possible answer to that would be to create local stations manned by the local populace. The Crow (row row fight the power) 13:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
it certainly doesn't help that every battle needing to be fought will likely have to happen in each state, all with differing levels of fuck nuttery.
btw I mentioned above the RUC. they literally did abolish their police force in northern Ireland and set up a new one, the PSNI AMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the RUC and PSNI, but it seems that is just a rename of the organization + extra reforms. It's not an abolishment, the person leading the police force there was literally the same person during the change, which if I compare the two articles on WP, the PSNI is the RUC with more oversight. The Crow (row row fight the power) 07:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
its fundamentally a different organisation in its structure, its composition, and its core focus. you are comparing wp articles not the ruc and psni. and its not merely 'more oversight' its oversight from the communities being policed. sein fein are on the police board. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's hoping something like this and its fallout never happen. Bloody Sunday Or the more disturbing events by the same parachute regiment a year earlier in Ballymurphy Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How to have an accurate Renaissance Festival (another one of my attempts at dark comedy)

  • Infect a bunch of people with the plague and smallpox
  • Burn women, men and children for being "witches"
  • Terrorizing the Jews
  • Have violent invasions
  • Bring back slavery
  • Bring back violent sexism

Now you got an accurate Renaissance Festival! --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Throw in the Inquisition! What a show! Semipenultimate (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
dysentery is all that is needed. many a great man of history, who shaped their worlds as well as ours. kings, emperors. myths and legends who we sing songs of today and inspire us. all literally shat themselves to death. AMassiveGay (talk)
Oregon Trail is the game for you, then. Oxyaena Harass 01:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
But what about the all the women dying during childbirth and their children croaking before they can walk? What kind of renaiscance fair would it be without that? ShabiDOO 02:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
in a plague pit where they belong AMassiveGay (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. This isn't the recipe for a Renaissance Festival. It's the plans for a Renaissance Recreation. Kencolt (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Witch burnings were incredibly rare, and terrorizing jews continues to this day. The ongoing plague is hard to deny. The US is party to multiple ongoing invasions. Violent sexism never left, and slavery just got shipped overseas. I don't think you're very fair to how much we all suck today, with only modest improvements to those recurring issues. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Full Circle Dog Day

I was going to my car this morning, almost got mauled by a Labradoodle. Just as I was walking between the cars to get to my driver's side door, the mean Labradoodle in the apartment complex was walking by, and I can't deny it must have looked like I was headed straight for them, that's kinda how parking spots work. But I don't mean this dog was trying to come be friends, it was a charge, snarls and barks, and if I had been 2 steps early it would have had me. Good on the owner for catching the dog at the end of its leash, at least. I absolutely love dogs, I had one when I was a kid. I only had one because she lived to be almost 18 years old. Good dog. I've done dogsitting, I've helped raise a rescue in a house I was living at the time, my friends' dogs all like me, and I like all of their dogs. This morning, this dog tried to attack me. I'm not confused about dogs.

So, I told some of the people at work and they were like "a labrodoodle? Nahhhh." and I was like "I know it's embarrassing but it happened. I was 4 feet away from being chewed on, and then I would have to tell this lady it's not my fault her dog is getting put down? No thank you, that was almost BAD" I just went for a walk, thinking about all of it, and on my way home there was a lady walking a black lab puppy. Normally I go out into the street, because I don't like to mess with puppy stuff, that's a time to listen carefully to mama, but a car was also driving up the street. So I said "Cute pup" and mama said "She is but she's still working on manners" as the dog lunged at me. I put my arm out straight, palm forward, let the puppy hit it a couple times, got an excited nose boop or two at the elbow, but never broke stride, puppy met me, enough, as the dog kept lunging and the lady kept saying "heel." I said "I can tell she's tryin," while it occurred. As adorable as that puppy was, I've seen it around, it's been having people fawn on it, and I wanted to too. But it's formative, the lunges will last forever. Tonight was not that night, and there was nothing but friendly lunges. However, when mama says heel, you don't get to chase, puppy. Full fuckin circle in one day. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
None of that is metaphor. Let me just head that off right now. No small adventures, fuck me Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
A few years ago I was attacked by a mastiff and had to spend two weeks in hospital. It was a really terrifying experience, if it hadn't backed off when it did it could easily have finished me off. It left me with some slight mobility issues in the hand I used to try to keep it off while lying on my back.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Transphobic slurs

So, I've recently found out that "shemale" is a slur too. Yet, pornsites & production studios use words like "Tranny" & "Shemale" all the time (even some trans pornstars).

Is the porn industry borderline transphobic, then? Beyond Reality (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

its the porn industry, not a bastion of progressive values. its a purveyor of sexual objectification, racial fetishism and sexual racism. why would its approach to transgendered people be any different? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I, for one, am shocked that an industry dedicated to selling sex, breaking taboos and objectifying women would stoop to not using politically correct language! I also think that "interracial sex scenes" should be re-titled as "sex scenes between people of differing ethnic backgrounds".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, EvilAngel seems to be defending trans people in several tweets a few years ago (unless, it's just all for commercial purposes). Then there's this. There are also several users on pornhub who uploaded videos with titles that have "fag" & "transfag" in it & pornhub seems to be ok with that, despite the fact that they're supposed to be pro-equal rights...
And yes, I have encountered one video a few years ago (I think xhamster) that had the word "nigger" in the title. I reported it and 2 months later, the video was still there...
@Bob M I didn't know "interracial" was a slur aswell? Many media outlets seem to use this word to promote relationships between 2 people from different ethnicalities. Beyond Reality (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you're all reading into words that are supposed to be sexually demeaning. We have right-wing Christian family values prudes and "feminist" anti-objectification prudes. It's almost as if it'll take hundreds of more years to actually get to a sex positive society that understands sexuality and fetishes. Vaginal missionary with the lights out, eh?HairlessCat (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
When I think "respecting people" I sure thing "porn site". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Porn isn't respectful or disrespectful. It's not even a part of that dichotomy in any way unless a master-slave dynamic exists. HairlessCat (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Porn as seen on the internet is frequently disrespectful and dehumanizing, and if you think otherwise it's because you don't have eyes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, next time I meet a porn director, I'll tell them to give the actors more dynamic roles that truly depict the human psyche in an accurate light so that all the horny virgin dogs will be able to jerk off to a good story with well developed relatable characters and so that women and girls will have positive role models in porn that exhibit intelligence, bravery, and empathy. All pornos must now pass the Bechdel Test, and viewers must be responsible in viewing the actors as fellow respectable human beings and not random people having fake sex for the sole purpose of arousal. I will dwell on this in deep contemplation. HairlessCat (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Part of porn is appealing to transgression, so using non-PC terminology is likely to be part of that transgression (and is itself is a sub-genre of sadomasochism. There is also Pornography#Do Mormons and right wingers really hate porn as much as they claim? and Stalag fiction.Wikipedia's W.svg Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC) By the way, if anyone cares, the Wikipedia page on "Stalags" is inaccurate. That type of porn existed in the US as well and did so well-past the time of the Eichmann trial. Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian Thank you. HairlessCat (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Porn is inherently objectifying and to a greater or lesser extent dehumanizing. But on the latter, so is modern media in general. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Garble blarble argle-bargle