RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

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

What is going on?

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

To do list


Just that I'd inform y'all that I have taken over this here bar. From now on any time waster will be kicked out. You come in, get your drink and then leave! Saloon bar barman (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No! I'm revolting! —Kazitor, pending 23:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I am too! You'll 'NEVER' kick us out! — Saj 23:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Count me in! Viva la revolución! Kick out the barman! Reanimated Revolutionary --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No! You will all follow my new rules for this bar. I work like a slave pouring y'all drinks and in return I have to listen to pointless political arguments and trolling. The bar is now closed. Saloon bar barman (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
D: —Kazitor, pending 01:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Good riddance: barman watered down the drinks. Bongolian (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Barman forgets that this is a BYOBWikipedia's W.svg bar. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Has this new 90/10 rule for bars been inspired by Conservapedia? Count Bezukhov (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Get your pitch forks and torches, time to drive out the barman! Liberate the Saloon Bar! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm definitely 21. Presents fake ID. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Barfight! :D Dysklyver (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Let me know if you factory workers need some mushrooms. Nerd (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Saloon Bar Revolutionary Army declares war![edit]

I will fight against the barman! He is a traitor to the Saloon Bar democracy --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your attempts to resist are pointless. I will likely have bouncers at the door to ensure the likes of you don't gain access to the high quality beverages this bar sells.Saloon bar barman (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Too late - I've already brought all of the drinks. — Saj 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I will bring my own drinks and put a size 13 shoe up Barman's ass! I blow the horn of freedom! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Y-yeah. W-we will take back the bar! Collapses onto the floor 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I see rainbow cats and flying computers, stay away from my booze barman. Mine, you may not have it. The drunken revolutionary --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Are not these the weapons of choice? Anna Livia (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right's obsession with IQ[edit]

I don't spend much time following the happenings amongst the alt-right,wise decision! but from what I can tell, it seems they have a big obsession with IQ.

This is mostly coming from what I know of one person. I once noticed they had the Wikipedia page on "High IQ Society" in their bookmarks; I didn't ask why nor mention it. This person also asserts that anyone they particularly like "must have an IQ (over|of) [> 120]." Is it just this person or a general trend amongst the alt-right? It seems to be part of the "culture." —Kazitor, pending 10:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It just sounds like a typical arsehole thing to me. Spud (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a link between IQ testing and racism, because IQ test results are one of the few ways you can pretend to "objectively" "prove" that "white" "people" are "superior" to "blacks" (The Bell Curve et al). But a lot of other, non-alt-right arseholes are obsessed with IQ testing, and lots of alt-right people have very low IQs even measured by culturally-biased IQ tests. --Gospatric (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Culturally biased is just the beginning of problems with IQ tests and how they're used. You can argue that tests can refined indefinitely to be more g-loaded, but even if you do so, and untie IQ from individual knowledge entirely such that you measure some abstract reusable portion of human intelligence, you've got a sparse correlate with life outcomes. It's hard to argue that generalizable, fluid intelligence is useless to being a capable person, but it's so pointless to a modern society compared to crystallized applicable intelligence. To wit, would you trust a certified accountant with average intelligence, or a genius foreigner who doesn't know your language or laws to prepare your taxes? IQ can be a psychological research tool, it could hypothetically even have reasonable educational value(though, to my knowledge, no one has demonstrated the specific value of identifying high IQ students in a student population). But to measure a person as a cohesive whole? It's nothing. Its "objectivity" is a sham. An attempt to apply reductionism to the unreducible. And that instinct for oversimplified ratings of human beings is exactly what appeals to idiots who love oversimplification and placing others beneath them to stoke their frail egos. Also, weird that the Flynn effect stopped the same time school integration started reverting, huh? Almost suggests there's some kind of systemic racism involved. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Read the above comment, in case you think that science denialism is limited to the right.
The idea that IQ is a sparse correlate with life outcomes is factually wrong; the idea that it doesn't predict academic outcomes is factually wrong. In fact, the best predictors we have for these outcomes is IQ, which is why it is identified as a confounding variable and controlled in almost all social science experiments. Your issues with IQ stem from your ignorance of the topic. Read this article for what the APA had to say on the topic 22 years ago to educate yourself. The hubris it takes to discount a whole field of psychology, when you clearly have no scientific training is staggering. (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Love the holier than thou idiocy from people who
A. Don't know what a fucking sparse correlate actually is. No really, learn what the term means you goddamn moron. You idiot. You blithe unthinking fucker. Seriously, I cannot drive home how important understanding basic terms and not just assuming it means "low p value, right?" because you've convinced yourself you know everything.
B. Think that (when accounting for other major factors) predicting educational outcomes supports that idea that using it facilitates education somehow. Just imagine a giant fucking book filled with blank pages for all the scientific research showing that.
and C. Engages in exactly the reductionism I was highlighting without responding to the central point that it's reductionist beyond reason. UGH HOW CAN PEOPLE SO OBSESSED WITH INTELLIGENCE BE SO DUMB. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed There is a simple answer to that last question and it is thus: they are envious of something they do not possess. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
IQ is just a number - actual intelligence involves more aspects. To borrow a phrase - what has MENSA (and equivalents) done for us? Anna Livia (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
"People who boast about their I.Q. are losers." - Stephen Hawking noted alpha chad. GoshDarn (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

MAGA: Reagan trolling Trump from the grave on July 4th[edit]

Video created by a conservative pro-immigrant group, The Becoming American Initiative.[1] Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I love it!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you that stupid you can't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, you racist scumbags? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back, bud!—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

When bigots cite the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah to justify their homophobia[edit]

Reading the story of it in the Bible (I bought a Bible as part of my spiritual practices, sue me), there is absolutely nothing about homosexuality. It just says sinfulness and nothing more. How can homophobes cite that story? This was probably brought up before. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I always thought the story of Sodom referred to "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me" in the Book of Ezekiel somewhere. Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is you have the wrong (right) version of the bible, you need the one with added homophobia. Dysklyver (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a copy of the New International Version. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the "accepted" canon is that the Sodomites tried to rape the angels YHWH had sent. It's certainly implied in the text. Again, though, rape =/= homosexuality Count Bezukhov (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
If I remember the story correctly God had already decided to destroy the city for some largely unspecified sin. He sent a couple of angels disguised as men into the to visit with the only just man there - Lot - and investigate further. A crowd gathered to interrogate/kill/ have sex with Lot's visitors and Lot offered the crowd his daughters instead. (presumably for rape)
The angles blind everyone and push off, most of Lot's family escape.
The thing is that the city was already earmarked for destruction before any of stuff in the visit happened. But the story is often told as though it was the events in the city during the visit which led to its destruction, and that the implication of proposed homosexual rape brought about the destruction.
Nevertheless, looking at the conventional interpretation we can conclude that: 1. Offering your virgin daughters for rape to a band of men will not get your city destroyed. 2. Raping two female virgins will not get your city destroyed. 3. Attempting homosexual rape will get your city destroyed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

In the Qur'an, the cities are destroyed for the "the sin and depravity of Lot's people," which is presumably homosexuality. Other cities, like Babylon, are cursed for their wickedness and promiscuously, but never outright destroyed, so "sin and depravity" is not just that. I thought the original Torah story was more explicitly about homosexuals, but it doesn't really matter we can reasonably say that was the intent of the author and everyone has certainly taken it that way for the past 3000 years. Also, the Torah explicitly says "though shalt not lie with another man as thou liest with a woman" or something like that, so the argument that are misinterpreting the story to add otherwise unjustified homophobia is stupid. Even in the Injeel (Gospels) several of Paul's letters decry and condemn homosexuality, so that part of the law is still in effect for Christians. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that Paul's letters are the ones to blame. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
My personal view on the Bible is that "God" is two separate deities. Reading the Bible with that lens makes much more sense. Then again, my dual beliefs in Gnostic Christianity and Paganism would not make many mainstream Christians happy (The fundies mainly). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Does someone know how Gnostics see what's described in the Book of Revelation?. I doubt at least they'll share the Fundie view. Panzerfaust (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I more thought it was allegorically about not loving the prostitutes outside of the temple more than the god inside of it. Then again, good points, Bob_M and Aeonian, it wasn't exactly the attempt at homosexual rape that got the city destroyed so much as the offering of heterosexual rape that got Lot saved, so I should probably rethink that one. GoshDarn (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

End of the World[edit]

I just woke up realised that the world might be ending. With record highest temperatures throughout America, Canada, Europe and Russia. Massive flooding in Asia and Japan. Ring of Fire volcanoes exploding, and dubious leaders breaking the World economy into little pieces. What the heck is happening! Armageddon!!!

I can't find much in the way of "end of the world" bumf the back this up at the moment, the best I can find is the Third Second Coming according to Hal Lindsey. Most the good end of the world predictions have been and gone (2012-2016 period). Such a shame.

There is literally nothing between 2019 and 2026 listed at List of predictions of the end of the world. Dysklyver (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess I should pad out those years with pointless video game references. ;P --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 14:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The moon is looking awful suspicious lately.Wikipedia's W.svgチーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 14:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, a new age of magic is beginning.Wikipedia's W.svg ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
If it ends, then it ends. Oh well. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm tempted to add these, but I don't want to clutter the silly stuff with the actual stuff (to be fair and honest though, the "real" ones are far stupider for being taken seriously). Maybe we can use image captions instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
BRB adding .massive-sarcastic-bollocks to Common.css —Kazitor, pending 23:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) PS: CSS classes cannot have spaces in them ;)
This is literally happening. :D Dysklyver (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Violence and abortions are on the rise while LGBTQ (whatever is written) are on the rise, wanting more and more and to force their genre ideology on schools!. The Rapture and the End Times are nigh!. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The end is nigh and the apocalypse is almost upon us! Gather you food and shotguns before the looting starts! Kravdraataf (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Unless you're in America. There's only shotguns. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kravdraataf I buy food from Costco, the entire country will starve before I can get through half of my stockpile. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually the world ended long ago - and what we have now is whichever bit of the afterlife you wish it to be. Anna Livia (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Bout a week ago I made an Emergency Alert System scenario and put it on YouTube, tell me what you think[edit]


Based off the FX TV series, "The Strain". Specifically the end of season 3. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Undead Schizophrenic Productions presents... Actually a pretty good 1:46. Dysklyver (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It's good. Some old school text effects (kinda like the deprecated html tags <blink>, and <marquee>) would improve the retro feel and a monospace font. —ClickerClock (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
How dare you speak ill of blink and marquee?! They are second in greatness only to Comic Sans and Papyrus! —Kazitor, pending 12:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
CSS is better! Bow to CSS! I am a divine scholar of CSS! —ClickerClock (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed. Your skills are certainly not to be mocked :) —Kazitor, pending 13:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Th hug.gifClickerClock (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I have zero dollars for a budget and crappy internet. The stuff I used (including video editor) was stuff I downloaded for free. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is another I made at 4 this morning- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL-2TRmYvhU

This is what happens when I get no sleep from severe Bipolar symptoms (Yes I suffer from Bipolar disorder and I have had some severe symptoms). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You can download old footage from the Internet Archive for free! —ClickerClock (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a new project in mind[edit]

An EAS scenario dealing with Neo-Nazi terrorists launching a series of attacks against the United States. I could also advertise Rationalwiki on how we debunk racist pseudoscience. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 07:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the link to the complete video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-dfanVq02o --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Mod and tech rights[edit]

There's currently a fair bit of overlap between the rights of mods and techs.

Proposed changes:

Right Moderators Techs
userrights add and remove "Moderators" all (unchanged), or all except Moderators
moderator yes (unchanged) no
renameusers no yes (unchanged)
supressionlog yes (unchanged) no
supressrevision yes (unchanged) no

It also seems mods can edit MediaWiki: pages (even though they don't have editinterface), which I think should be changed. —Kazitor, pending 02:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. Kazitor, pending 02:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I don’t see an issue. Christopher (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. I see no reason to remove the rename right from moderators either. I agree with Dysklyver. Techs need mod rights. And if you're a tech, I think you're more trusted than a mod is.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    If techs not only have mod rights but also are more trusted than mods, then why have mods at all? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    I suppose the idea is that mods can use mod tools frequently for moderation etc., but techs should only use them if there's a technical problem of some sort (i.e. not taking action) —Kazitor, pending 22:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    I can tip my modhat and generally people listen that way. I think mods carry some authority when it comes to settling disputes, so when it comes to decision-making, I think mods are generally contacted rather than techs. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. I think we had this discussion/vote before and the outcome was no change. There's no evidence that I know of that indicates that techs or mods have been abusing their powers in recent years. Don't change it if it isn't broken. Bongolian (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    I get that there's no real issue to solve and I won't be heartbroken if everyone disagrees, but what exactly is wrong with changing things? It'd be a trivial change and could be trivially reverted too. —Kazitor, pending 02:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    Changes of the core settings are rarely trival, it might seem as simple as changing a bunch of $wgGroupPermissions code on a file, but since these are custom groups there is the matter of whether messing with things too often is desirable. But then if the techs break the wiki doing this then it might be easier to remove more of their user-rights... hmm... Dysklyver (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. So what if both groups can do a certain job? Why fiddle with stuff when, in your own words, "there's no real issue"? There's a metric shit ton of problems on this wiki and you're wanking about with some micro issue nobody gives a fish's fart about. Boredatwork (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    How did you know messing around with bureaucracies gave me a hard-on?!? Damn, I need to be more discreet. —Kazitor, pending 23:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. Assuming the Techs are supposed to be doing all the technical stuff. I can say with certainty that having logs hidden from them would be a mistake. Consider how someone is supposed to fix something if they can't see some of whats going on? Also just guessing because I haven't seen the LocalSetting.php file, but perhaps "edit moderator-protected page" has bundled editinterface? Dysklyver (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    Goodpost.gif Bongolian (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    Obviously it's flexible, I wasn't too sure about that either. —Kazitor, pending 22:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


@Kazitor, can you better explain how you think these proposed changes are an improvement? Bongolian (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian I've seen previous discussion of changing some rights before. The idea is to keep techs from having moderator powers (like editing moderator-protected pages) and not making mod involve anything more than tools for moderation. —Kazitor, pending 10:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor: I am still of the opinion that more clearly differentiating mods and techs would be for the best, but I have actually seen mods use the user rename tool to enforce community standards, and I agree with Dysklyver's concerns below. I think the only change should be a tech's abilities to edit mod-locked pages and bestow moderator rights, though as I'm neither a tech nor a mod I might not know what I'm talking about. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reptilian Overlord Conspiracy: Flaws from a Biological stand point[edit]

We all know that dear old wise man David Icke has started the Reptilian bullshit nonsense conspiracy. I want to point out flaws from a pure, biological stand point. This I meant for two completely different species cross-breeding.

  • 1. The psychology of two different species is likely, radically different.
  • 2. Humans can reject blood and organs from their own species due to genetics. How can alien species manage to interbreed with humans?
  • 3. If the Reptilians are alien then how can they go unnoticed? I mean that their foods would be radically different.
  • 4. Finally, there would be a high probability that if Reptilians are alien then their genetic structure might not be based on DNA.

Undead Conspiracy Debunker --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 There's also the rather straightforward problem of sexual characteristics, i.e. their genitals might work differently than ours, and of course another psychological factor, "Why bother with these tiny mammalian primitives?" (from their perspectives). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to note that people give off pheromones to signal sexual compatibility. If an alien smelled human pheromones then they might be repulsed. Another thing in terms of alien microbiology, they might be weak to infectious diseases from Earth or humans may be weak to ET infectious diseases. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Rule of cool is one of the most obvious explanations. —Kazitor, pending 23:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 Thank you for reminding me, I had completely forgotten about Xeno-Microbiology. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The one time I don't press preview... —Kazitor, pending 23:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor Don't worry, I fixed it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Which prompted me to say the above :) —Kazitor, pending 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's plausible. I watched an episode of Dr. Who and in it the Slytheen hid in important people's bodies. We don't know what technology aliens have.Kravdraataf (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on our alien reptile overlords but isn't one of their tactics to maintain themselves as a separate elite caste by only breeding within their own alien reptile kind? --Gospatric (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
'The problem of Xeno-diseases' was spotted fairly early on in SF (The War of the Worlds).
The likelihood of any human-reptilian offspring being sterile is very high; if fertility is not an issue, given the number of royal by-blows (not all of them known to their fathers) a fair proportion of humanity will have at least some reptilian blood, and also there are many examples of 'persons from nowhere' reaching positions of power.
Question - is Jesus a reptilian? Anna Livia (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Jesus is generally a Human. The reptilians are people like the clergy, all the popes, most people in positions of power. Dysklyver (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
There is some sort of logical paradox involving Jesus and the reptilians (given that many early Christians were of the lower classes) - and what about all the ordinary people descendants of royals etc?
Is God a reptilian (this might well explain much). Anna Livia (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't you mean Goddess? BobRoss (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Biblically God is of human form (God made Adam and Eve in his own image). Strictly speaking God cannot be either since God is neither a human or a reptilian, but actually a member of the "God" species. Dysklyver (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Given human diversity the one single God(dess) is a rather odd entity. (What was the classical author quote - '… and the donkeys' god will look like a donkey'?) Anna Livia (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we the story we tell ourselves or not?[edit]

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/the-dual-in-the-crown-story-consciousness-and-locating-the-self/ https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/grand-narratives-unplugging-from-the-big-story/

I know I probably should not be looking into this stuff but it’s been gnawing at me in the same sense that my first encounter with Buddhism continues to. It’s about stories particularly narratives. I know I heard something about it in eastern philosophy about how the self is really just a story we tell ourselves and that we are fundamentally empty. I have heard a few neuroscientists mention it as well. Sam Harris said soemthing around similar lines about how the self is an illusion and that there really isn’t a core you. Looking at life it does seem like it’s easy to see that to be the case. Ask people who they are and they list x y or Z, but then the author tends to cite soemthing about how this is just a story that we tell ourselves and that the stories we are born into (which I am guessing would be culture) narrow and limit us. Then there is some bit about consciousness that I don’t really get. But there is some gem there that I learned in sociology. That what we are born into defines how we see the world and that according to her one must unplug to “directly experience” reality. That it’s just an illusion. Personally I wonder if according to her she isn’t just spinning another narrative or story. Does wiping the slate clean so to speak really get at the fundamental of “who” (or in some cases she’s says “what” ) we are? Or is that just something we believe to be the case? I’m always a bit wary when people use the phrase “direct experience” (which I’m guessing is reality without our filters and judgements and fixings) because to me it just sounds like an assumption. That one assumes direct experience and yet I am reminded of the phrase “you don’t know what you don’t know”. Why are people so obsessed with being unlimited? I know this started one way but it ended up another, and I tried to summarize the links but I might have misssd a few bits here and there. I want to know others input on this. I am aware of the site name but perhaps we can gloss over it (asking a lot I know) and just address the words. I thinking other people here might have something to say. Personally I cannot put my finger on it but something seems off about it.Machina (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well ones culture and upbringing can certainly prove to be a limitation, and though it can be surpassed there will still be limitations to the self. Its pointless to try and become unlimited because there isn't a such thing. But that bit about direct experience sounds worth a try. BobRoss (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Machina I'm legit worried about you. I don't think being this obsessed with philosophy is healthy. It sounds like you might have an Existential obsession. (real thing btw) I'm not one for armchair diagnosis but maybe see a therapist? —ClickerClock (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It is just that based on the links it keep thinking about the self and the lives that we lead and truth. That maybe the world we think to be as solid as it is really isn't and that most of our cherished values are based on our say so. Like how she refers to stories and narratives, which has some grounding in sociology but I am not sure if how far she takes it is accurate. Saying that we are not our stories and that these stories we tell ourselves are limiting and life denying (although to be honest this just sounds like opinion to me plus it seems like personal experience that she speaks from). I mean she has a PHd in Linguistics but I don't really know much about that. I'm just saying that maybe what we view as solid isn't. They like to say "it's all relative" and I am shocked and concerned that maybe it might be after all.Machina (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

God vs. God[edit]

Recently I had the thought that the triple-O (Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient) God of Christian pop culture and the Biblical God described throughout both the old and new testaments might be two separate and distinct deities. But what are the thoughts from the rest of RationalWiki? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie So God is the ozone layer? Nerd (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that most people's idea of Yahweh isn't the Bible's. —Kazitor, pending 01:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I like the Old Testament Yahweh. And Jesus totally backed that guy up in Matthew and John. We're talkin a God that almost lost a wrestling match until he cheated and punched Jacob in the hip. I don't think anyone should cite the OT without admitting Yahweh is the boss of it, even if Yahweh gotta cheat his way out of some of it. Matthew 5:17 says Jesus loves that shit, and I love that shit too.
It's all made up, for sure, but the Old Testament at least has a God, come on. GoshDarn (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@GoshDarn Actually, God punched Jacob in the "Hollow of the thigh" i.e. the crotch. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Tiiiight. "Don't look at my face!" shouts YHWH *crotch punch*
Later, Jacob relays "My name is Israel now, and for all that is holy, guys, I don't care what we kill, we don't eat the crotch tendon. We gotta respect the crotch tendon." Genesis 32:32 GoshDarn (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There are potentially multiple different Gods in the OT (see e.g. the Elohim vs Yahweh theory[2], and the debate over whether ElohimWikipedia's W.svg, a Hebrew plural noun, referes to one god or many gods). Conversely, in the NT, "The Gospel of Matthew presents two very different portrayals of Jesus. In one of these, he is a pacifist who teaches peace, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, non-retaliation and love of enemies ... In the other he is a warrior figure, who leads an invincible army and who is determined to exact violent and merciless vengeance on his enemies."[3] --Gospatric (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I subscribe to the idea that God is different to each and every person. This deals with trying to figure it out and stops me falling into the trap of organised religion or a cult. I know what God is to me, and the fact that my version of God is completely different to someone else's version is absolutely fine. If they think their idea of God has any power over me, then they can rot in hell. :D Dysklyver (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yahweh is both awesome and disturbing as an Iron Age deity, who seems to have strived to be as self contradictory as possible. He was also a polygamous god (hey, I'm not judging). BobRoss (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, it was the Iron Age. Yahweh was a classic war god, and His people were a large and problematic force in their area of the world. No god asks for the foreskins of the enemy, the destruction of their idols, the erasure of their memory from history unless His people are already a monster military and culture, which is probably why the OT starts to resemble propaganda more than a cohesive explanation of the world, even by Iron Age scientific standards.
Hypothetically, if you knew some god must be in control of everything from dirt to weather, and then heard there was a god with a group of chosen people who had every come from behind victory imaginable, even fought off the Egyptians and wandered in the desert for forty years before coming out stronger than ever, wouldn't you sign up?
Jonah and the fish being one of the last stories kinda shows that the stories were being compiled even when tribal skirmishes were irrelevant. Hey, Jonah, proselytize.
No? Ok, meet all these people who believe in different gods and clearly respect that everyone has different gods, remind them that some god must control the seas, so it's probably that scary ass YHWH. Face your fear of telling the other worshippers off and appease Him, you'll get a sweet fish ride to go proselytize in the city like He was telling you to.
My semi-informed guess is that when widespread global travel and civilization became common, and cultures that were all advancing at similar rates with different lore clashed, old school tribalism wasn't a practical way to keep the faith. So you had your hard liners and your skeptics and your liberal (by the standards of the day) martyrs. And then some guys with partially Romanized names but Hebrew backgrounds decided to retcon the whole thing and turn all these liberal martyr attempts into one cohesive metropolitan man/God. By the standards of the day. If it wasn't for the printing press we'd have a dozen testaments by now, I think. GoshDarn (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if they were the gnostics (probably were these), but there were a sect who considered as separate deities the OT Yahweh and the NT God, the former being considered evil and the latter the opposite even if some stuff of the NT shows the more things change the more they stay the same, and in one of the apocrypha even Jesus Himself shows his hate of YHWH. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Buddhism is little more than Nihilism[edit]

http://choosenot.blogspot.com/2005/12/madhyamika-refutation-of-non-buddhist.html http://choosenot.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-buddhism-world-denying-teaching.html http://choosenot.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-actually-not-that-bad-you-know.html

Based on the above, and my past experience, I cannot see why anyone would willingly follow such a philosophy. Especially the whole "question everything you know to the point of absurdity" point of view that is taken to daily life. It's like they seek to ruin what is good and what makes life worth living in favor of some escape from this alleged "hell" they say we are in.Machina (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nihilism, my interest is piqued! And hey, that's definitely one approach to the question of Buddhism. I think with the execution of Shoko Asahara, it's relevant and worth taking another look at Buddhism. I mean, Buddhists have never especially been a practical culture of peace any more than any other religion. If somebody says Islam is more dangerous than Buddhism, then asks where the Buddhist suicide bombers are at, point them to Pearl Harbor, point them to Aum Shinrikyo, point them to Burma. Sam Harris wants to call "peace" a euphamism for "submission" in Islam, but it's like he never learned any religion besides Jainism.
Nihilism as a philosophy is kinda the same way, people ascribe a lot of really broad assumptions to it that, well, are uninformed. I'd say Nihilism is widely viewed as the Joker from DC. The absolute worst any line or thinking can reach. Just some person who only wants to entertain themselves through havoc and disassembly, without fear of failure or derision because nothing matters besides, what, entertainment? But that's hedonism through the lens of psychopathy and sociopathy.
So, if life isn't intrinsically anything special or profound, and existence is best described as the opposite of not existing, and to you that makes life not worth living for some reason, don't get into Nihilism. But more importantly, don't go self-justifying the killing of people you don't like. I'm sure there are nihilists that do that. Buddhists do that too. We're all in this absurd hell together, why be an ass about it? GoshDarn (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It made more sense in the past. You can't drag the principles of ancient eastern culture into the modern westernised world and expect them to make literal sense. That said, there are of course sects that are up to no good. Dysklyver (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Heck, by this time, you could probably even cut that down from east and west in my opinion, as ancient western cultures and ancient eastern cultures can't be applied to their own sides of the globe very well either (unless it's a time cube). But I'm not disagreeing with you, and I do respect that origins of culture have long lasting muddy effects. GoshDarn (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Machina, I grew up in a Buddhist household. You gonna realize that how actual Asian Buddhists practice Buddhism is a hell of a lot different than whatever that blogger is saying. The actual Buddhist stuff was kinda mellow and chill, with incense burning, prayer, + incantations. I never heard a Buddhist IRL say anything remotely nihilist. —ClickerClock (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
In my experience Buddhism when you get down to it has to invent reincarnation and karma in order to prevent people from commiting suicide.Machina (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Buddhimsm helps us forget we are all dying while Nihilism reminds us that we are all dying. I don't understand why you think otherwise.--Spoony (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrongful Convictions[edit]

Hello all,

I want to ask how the community would feel about expanding the mission to include certain wrongful convictions. In particular, I am interested in wrongful convictions where there is reason to believe that police and/or prosecutors knew they had the wrong person, but pushed ahead anyway, or where the person can now be proved to be innocent but remains in prison.

I think these cases could be a good fit for RW. These cases involve thinking and reasoning. They involve Government misconduct. They often involve science. These are all areas RW has interest in in other ways.

Furthermore, no existing wiki is a good fit. Wikipedia will accept the best-known ones. InfoGalactic will accept them, but a lot of the people there seem to be obsessed with race, which means they are not a good fit.

My reason for asking is that I wrote an article on Joey Watkins, which was deleted as "Not missional" per a discussion. Thank you. TwoPlusTwoIsFive (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The solution is simple. If the wiki doesn't exist, create a new one. You can create a new one on Wikia in a matter of minutes.
As has been pointed out to you before, it is possible that wrongful conviction cases could fall within our scope. But those would be cases when it was clearly authoritarianism at work, not just incompetence. And you'd need good quality references to prove that was the case, such as the testimony of retired police officers and judges.
As for the science bit, convictions based on an accidental cock up in the lab or scientific understanding having progressed since the time of the conviction don't fall within our scope. If somebody has ever been wrongfully convicted on the basis of pseudoscience, that would definitely deserve a page here. But I doubt that's ever happened. Has someone ever been convicted on the basis of a lawyer arguing that evolution is a lie or that the flat Earth is the centre of the universe?
And finally, I don't think many users here are going to be convinced that we should expand our mission on the say so of a newcomer who, so far, has only tried to find a new home for this deleted Wikipedia article here. I'd advise you to spend a few months making constructive edits and getting other users to know and trust you before making any such suggestions. Spud (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Miscarriages based on terrible failures at scientific reasoning do happen, e.g. misunderstanding DNA evidence or assuming forensic science and expert witnesses are always right. However, it's probably better to cover those in articles on the science/pseudoscience, rather than on individual articles on the miscarriage of justice, unless there is a lot to say about the use of science in a particular case. --Gospatric (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh[edit]

So, interesting choice for Trump's Supreme Court.

Brett Kavanaugh appears to be very much "pro security" in that the rights of Americans don't matter when "national security" might be at stake, but on the plus side he does appear to be willing to begrudgingly adhere to Roe v Wade.

He may very well be the least awful person Trump would've nom'd for SCOTUS.

Thoughts? CoryUsar (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Roe is probably safe. Kavanaugh seems to be personally opposed to the decision, but he's said formally that he respects stare decisis with regards to it. Roberts seems to feel the same way. Frankly, I think the most likely course of events is that an abortion case works its way through the federal courts at some point over the next few years, but SCOTUS just refuses to grant cert. Or they'll hear the case and weasel out by issuing a ridiculously narrow decision like they did with Masterpiece Cake shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That shouldn't rule out the possibility of the Roberts court taking the opportunity to play the "undue burden" game, but I genuinely don't think that Kavanaugh will push the Court into outright ditching the Roe decision. That being said, the Court's center of gravity is moving rightwards, and it looks like "ACA" Roberts might be the new swing vote. I think Barrett would've been a different story, but I'm pretty sure Collins and Murkowski scared Trump away from her.DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 15:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look good. A more conservative court has bad implications for the short term. But there is a possible remedy: if the court becomes too extreme a democratic congress and president could increase the number of court members to reestablish sane precedents, on reproductive rights, guns, corporations, etc. The size of SCOTUS has ranged between 5 and 10.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it's important to keep in mind the big picture with regard to Kasanovaugh: will he enable Trump's pushing ahead towards autocracy. It would seem that Kasanovaugh was picked for this purpose based on his view "that presidents should not be distracted while in office by civil lawsuits or criminal investigations."[4] Bongolian (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Agree with @Bongolian here. Trump cares more about saving his own behind rather than the fate of Roe v. Wade.
Everybody, please watch your spelling! Nerd (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That's my really big problem with Kavanaugh, his idea that the president should be above the law. But @Ariel31459, please tell me that I misinterpreted what you read, because it seems like you're advocating for court-packing. That is a hideously bad idea. The moment someone opens the door for court-packing, it allows the other side to do it as well. The GOP won't just accept additional liberal justices; they'll retaliate in the same way the moment they have the chance (and they will get that chance at some point). That back-and-forth would destroy SCOTUS' ability to check the other branches of government, because the president and his party could just add more justices to overrule them any time they have an opportunity. That plan would nuke judicial review out of a petty "if I can't have it, nobody can!" tantrum. Shackling the court to the whims of whichever party manages to get the White House and the Senate is exactly how you pave the road to autocracy. The Dems might make good choices when they fire the court-packing starter pistol, but they won't be in power forever.DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 18:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Call me partisan, but the last thing we need is yet another conservative added to an already-conservative majority. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I understand your reservations. Court packing, as it is sometimes called, is not a good remedy, but it is better than impeaching troublesome members of SCOTUS, for which there is only one precedent in 1805, and the Senate failed to convict. The Congress is free to determine the number of justices on SCOTUS and has done so a number of times. Should they do so if the republic is being threatened?Ariel31459 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 I fully agree that radical action is necessary when democracy is endangered. But our republic also can't survive without an independent judiciary. I must admit, I genuinely don't know how far things would need to go before I would end up supporting a court-packing scheme. I know I personally am not there yet, even though I understand that many other people are. Things would need to get very extreme, and I suspect that if things get to the point where I actually view attacking the judiciary as a reasonable option, a Turkish/Nigerian-style temporary military coup might be a better option. I guess I'm just saying that I need to see more gangrene before I'm open to cutting off a limb. (But you're right about impeachment. They'd need to catch the guy taking bribes on his front lawn to make charges stick. I'd still give that a try first, though.) DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 19:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I just don't want to be the person who kicks over the apple cart expecting the other guy to do it first. At least not until I'm damn sure it's the right thing to do. DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 20:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's a reasonably strong case for impeaching Clarence Thomas: sexual misconduct and bribery,[5][6][7] but it will never happen with GOP control of Congress. Whomever Trump appoints would be suspect depending on the results of investigation into his alleged conspiring with Russia. Bongolian (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well that might be good if Kavanaugh sticks to his sexual-impropriety-calls-for-impeachment guns. But then again, he might stick to his legal-cases-are-impediments-to-people-in-power guns. Or he might stick to his whoever-decided-to-elevate-me-has-the-best-history-of-anybody-in-making-these-decisions guns. When picking a supreme court justice, it's important to pick a person of many guns. Otherwise you might be able to guess how straight they'll shoot on any given decision. GoshDarn (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding a fundamental principle of this wiki[edit]

What is so good about goats? Kravdraataf (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Bloody good question. As far as I know, it's a (somewhat lame) joke that originated back in the early days (2007 or maybe 2008) and has since been added to so many pages that nobody could be bothered removing it. And of course there a probably a few people who would still object to cleansing the wiki of goat: "Darn kids be taking mah snark!!!1!eleven!!!!"! —Kazitor, pending 11:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Well it has a deeper meaning of being slightly irreligious. But essentially it's included to stop things being too serious, and because every site needs a moe. Dysklyver (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Look up 'tree goats' and 'cute goats.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I googled 'tree goats' and 'cute goats' so now I kinda understand the obsession with them. They aren't the cutest animal on Earth though... Kravdraataf (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"A few" I think you mean "a lot". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The welcome to this wiki ends with the declaration, "And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!" Now at first I wondered, "where is this goat I'm suppose to pull up and to whom does it belong?". Finding out can be hilarious.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 The Glorious Goat belongs to no one man or woman (or goat for that matter)!!!!! It is a Communal goat!!! — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs
I think it has its origins in the Bible, in a verse (not sure where it is) where it's stated the sheeps (followers of Jesus) will be separated of the goats (the rest). Panzerfaust (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Matthew 25:31-46. Dysklyver (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

as was explained to me a whiles back, one of the original founders of this site just happened to like goats. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Caucasian Albanian palimpsests of Mt. Sinai[edit]

This is an incredibly long shot due to the obscurity of the material, but might anyone here have an idea of how I could get my hands on a copy of The Caucasian Albanian palimpsests of Mt. Sinai by Jost Gippert et al.? It doesn't appear that any libraries anywhere nearby have it, and the price to buy it is insane. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 21:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • A little obscure methinks, no libraries near me have it and I doubt any bookshop does either. I got 4 book reviews/journal entries on it for my trouble :~ Dysklyver (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Consult a librarian, either public or university library. It depends where you are and what institutions, if any, you have access/membership to. But you may be able to get an inter-library loan or a photocopy of the material (particularly if you know what pages you want); the Library of Congress claims to provide photocopying and duplication services[8][9]. Interlibrary loans can be slow (as in months) and may be expensive, but they should be able to get you the material in the end. If you can't physically get to a library, you may be able to persuade/pay someone (e.g. a poor starving student) to go to the Library of Congress/British Library/etc and copy the bits you need. If you have a specific question, you could also try contacting Gippert or another researcher in the field, through their institution. --Gospatric (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You can find out which libraries own a given book at Worldcat.org, which can be helpful to know when making an interlibrary loan request. For this book, see:[10] It's a 3-volume set in case you didn't know. Most US public libraries will make interlibrary loan requests, sometimes for a nominal fee. Often however, major universities are reluctant to loan to public libraries in my experience. Bongolian (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have any specific pages that I need, as the book is essentially a large dictionary containing very exclusive information about the language that I need essentially all of. If my school's library could do a loan request, it's possible that I could get my hands on it, at least temporarily. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 01:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Image upload request[edit]

http://is2.4chan.org/pol/1531310046422.jpg Lysenko was Right (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Denied. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Well hold on. This could be useful on the Persecution complex page. No? ShabiDOO 13:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not memecentral. Too much text on the image IMO. Dysklyver (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo We cannot confirm that the quote in question originated from Rockwell from the meme alone. If we had an another, more credible source, then that source would then become a more appropriate citation for the quote than the meme, thus in effect rendering the meme redundant and obsolete. In short the meme is useless no matter how you slice it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
As Dysklyver said, it's all words. Images are for... images. Quotations, being text, belong in the text of an article. —Kazitor, pending 22:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the fact that nut cases created this preposterous image...whether anyone had actually said it or not. It's a very good and representative example of persecution complex lunacy and propaganda. ShabiDOO 02:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the image itself is objectionable in that respect too. But I prefer to point out flaws with the general case. —Kazitor, pending 02:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

KKK members and their bed sheet outfits[edit]

If the KKK was so proud of what they do then they would not wear their bed sheet robes that make them look like foolish morons. I have been wanting to rant about that. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 The KKK's, infamous "robes" are likely a result of their outfits evolving over time. One source I read awhile back described (and showed pictures of) the KKK using simple bandana masks originally. We can thus conclude that their silly outfits arose as they felt the need to conceal more and more of their bodies to prevent identification. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why the hats are pointy though. Dysklyver (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
That style was apparently pioneered by Roman Catholic penitentes from Spain and Portugal, where the getup is called a capirote. But theirs are often black, and available in many other colors, which makes them way cooler. The costume was used by New Orleans Catholics, which is how it got to the American south. - Smerdis of Tlön, ɚ̥ɵʷê̬̏e̥̽̊˞ə̃̈ʼ . 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok now that makes sense. Dysklyver (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Here in Spain in nearly every city at Easter, thousands of people march through the streets wearing what looks, at time, identical to the KKK attire. For American visitors it is really creepy and disturbing to look at, as adults and children dressed in pointy sheets march through the street beating drums, holding up statues, dragging crosses, self flagellation. Many spaniards are completely unaware that the KKK created a costume very similar to Spains traditional easter sheets. Here is a typical google image search which will show you tons of examples. ShabiDOO 02:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not just Americans. Thanks to TV and the movies, I don't think any non-Spaniard can see those penitents without thinking about the Ku Klux Klan. I saw plenty of Holy Week processions as a foreign student in Zaragoza back in 1993. I watched one procession with a French friend who was a bit frightened by it because she was reminded of the Ku Klux Klan. In class, I said that no foreigner could look at those penitents without thinking about the Ku Klux Klan. The other students (from France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Japan) agreed with me. Our Spanish teacher seemed to be a bit upset by the comparison. Or maybe he was just pretending to be upset in order to keep the discussion going. Spud (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
He was probably upset by the comparison, as most Spanish people seeing the outfit think about penitents, not KKK -the burning cross would probably be more identificative-. Note that the colors of those dressings is not only white, there're purple, red, and probably also other colors as black, white, and combinations.
And after what I've heard coming from them during Easter I'm also sure (Evangelical!) Fundies will find that as well as the processions themselves very disturbing. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
He may have genuinely been a bit upset. But he was also a very skillful language teacher who was very good at getting us students to keep talking. And, unless that was his first year teaching foreign students, I'm sure he'd heard comments like that before. Incidentally, none of the many penitents that I saw in Zaragoza were wearing white robes and hoods. Most of them were wearing purple. But they still looked to me like Ku Klux Klan members wearing purple. And yeah, the Klan having historically been an anti-Catholic organization, many of its members probably wouldn't enjoy a Spanish Holy Week procession very much. Spud (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A part of the KKK's infamous "bedsheet" robes and hoods is rooted in their original purpose-- which wasn't entirely to conceal identity, nor to advertise "Hey, we're the KKK!" No, it was to... impersonate ghosts.

Back in the days when the Civil War had recently ended, and Reconstruction had begun, the average newly freed slave wasn't exaclty the best educated person around. A lot of the new freedmen were, simply put, superstitious as all hell. Ill-remembered African myth and legend were woven into ill-taught Christianity. This did not make for what we today would call a rational worldview. (Then again, at the time, precious little did.)

The new-born KKK did use the above mentioned bandannas and/or masks to disguise themselves, true enough. The robes were an innovation to frighten the newly freed slaves into thinking that they weren't merely being terrorized by leftover rebel thugs. No, they were being terrorized by the ghosts of the righteous dead soldiers of the Confederacy, and sometimes it worked on their superstitious victims. It became clear enough in time that there weren't any ghosts... just a bunch of violent yahoos in ghost outfits-- who happened to have guns, torches, and often the unspoken backing of the Jim Crow establishment. This really wasn't an improvement on their situation, mind you, but still...

In other words, what we have now is a bunch of goons who aren't aware that they are keeping up a hoax long debunked. Oh, well, what do you expect? Kencolt (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Mind you, this is an organisation run by a Grand Wizard, who at one point featured a "Grand Council of Yahoos" and a "Supreme Cyclopean Council". They really have gone for the mystical ghoul setup big time. Dysklyver (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that was an attempt (Again, back in the day) to legitimize the organization. Seriously.
"Secret" societies and fraternal orders were far more common, and popular, in that period than today. (About all we have left-- at least in the US-- are the Freemasons and offshoots thereof.) Most had names and titles appended to the officers and staff that were, at the time, considered grand and mystical sounding, but to a modern ear simply sound absurd. A Grand Kleagle sounded in, say, 1918, like a fine and amazing thing. To the modern ear? Sounds more like a breed of dog. A spectacularly unimpressive breed.
Oh, those wacky pre-21st century racists! Such fun they had! Kencolt (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Not Kinde Kuche Kirche? (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably not. When the early 20th Century version popped up, they kinda of disliked Germans. (And Italians, and Irish, and, well, anyone who wasn't a Southern WASP.) Not that they likely wouldn't have sympathy for the idea, but the term would have been right out. Kencolt (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A few questions[edit]

Ok so for the clogosphere we upvote if we think its ridiculous right? Also this wiki is mostly for ridiculous untrue conspiracy theories like project blue beam? thanks — Unsigned, by: YuriGagrin12 / talk / contribs

I would clarify the misconceptions of Mister "I don't even bother to sign anything whatsoever", but I'm certain the mods and those who have been here longer than I can will do a far better job. All I would say is read at least a bleeding FAQ-- like the mission statement-- before posting. Kencolt (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Upvote the "best" stuff at the Clogosphere, the most ridiculous is often the best.[citation NOT needed] This wiki is mostly for rational analysis and refutation of things like project blue beam, cranks and wacko theories. It's not exclusively that, because there is also a ton of political type stuff here. See RationalWiki for the full bumf on this wiki. Dysklyver (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@kencolt - how about not being a dick to a new user? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes @Kencolt, you're being unnecessarily rude. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Wasn't my intent. Sigh... not in best form, I'm afraid today, it seems... Kencolt (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dysklyver Thank you to you and everyone else sorry for not signing YuriGagrin12 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The "myth" of Trickle-Down Economics[edit]

Just started watching this and at the beginning, this guy is say how the term "trickle-down" is "leftist and MSM propaganda" to "mischaracterize conservative economics". The rest of this video should be fun. TheEOE (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That thumbnail is all you really need to see. Why's the guy urinating?Kazitor, pending 02:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor Because IT'S A SHOWER OF GOLD!!!Wikipedia's W.svg
Speaking of the thumbnail, even though I'm not that far in the video, I'm going to assume this guy is going to "educate" us about supply side economics and I have a feeling this guy is going to something like PragerU talking points while doing it. TheEOE (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The thumbnail seems to be a representation of the "tinkle down economics" phrase that is occasionally used to mock trickle down economics by opponents. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to go and say it: "conservative" in the social and fiscal parts of politics should be be synonymous with "POS", one for minorities, the other for poor people. "Conservative" is often used to white-wash this crap (both mainstream media and far-right do this) but it really should turn into a degrading insult. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Hey, he was the one that said that the term "trickle-down" is "mischaracterizing conservative economics". Not me. TheEOE (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Trickle-down and "conservative" economics are one and the same. What the hell would "fiscal conservative" mean otherwise?? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Whaaa? You think economics and capitalism are an ideology? It's not. It's science. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 04:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right, Lefty. But this guy is treating the term "trickle-down" like it's some kind of snarl word. TheEOE (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Economic policy, whatever your stance on what should dictate that, is politics by dictionary definition. Politics = policy.
Well, he's not wrong about that. Trickle-down should be treated like horse feces. Horse-and-sparrow theory, anyone? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The UK sends its apologies[edit]

On behalf of my country I would like to apologise for the childish, SJW protests that have been taking place across the United Kingdom against President Trump’s visit.

This is an important meeting between Theresa May and Donald Trump, but left-wing hooligans decided to use it as an excuse to make a scene.

That ‘baby Trump’ balloon is vulgar and ridiculous and it says a lot more about the protestors than it does about the US President. It makes the UK look like a laughing stock and may detract Trump (and other world leaders) from making official visits in the future.

I can assure you that these SJW snowflakes speak for themselves and do not represent those of us who welcome Trump’s visit. --RWRW (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

fuck off you egregious prick. you do not spreak for britian. most of us here think he a god awful prick. please show me were the hooliganism is, or is it that lawful protest and blimp tool much for you handle? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
You'll find that most of us think that balloon is a pathetic gesture and certainly not something to be proud of. Its an important meeting on trade and defence and SJW's are hijacking the event in a petty attempt to embarrass Trump.--RWRW (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Donald "grab 'em by the pussy" Trump deserves to be embarassed as much as possible. Spud (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It is funny though, barley anybody complained when the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Turkey (both of whom are guilty of massive human rights abuse, especially Saudi Arabia) visited recently.--RWRW (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec)read the link i provided fucknuts. 67% of us cant stand a racist sexually abusive twat who can help but publicly fellate dictators, even one whose responsible for a chemical attack in this very country. but of course, a balloon is much worse than that. and you call us 'snowflakes'? prick. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
and you may not of have noticed but people did protest those visits dickhole. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
or what about when he retweets racist lies about this country from extremist groups and racist nutjobs as fact? sure we should welcome him. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
You're doing what most of the left-wing activists do on Twitter: as soon as you start loosing a debate you resort to personal insults. Not once did I insult you. Its not surprising that 67% of people in the UK don't like Trump, the UK is a lot more liberal than America. That doesn't mean that 67% of people think that childish balloon is a good idea. I think it is you who didn't read what I said. I said barley anybody complained at the leaders of Turkey/Saudi Arabia complained. The protests were nowhere near on the scale as the ones today.--RWRW (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @RWRW AMassiveGay tends to be fairly brash. But both of you could calm down a bit. (Look at me! I'm taking the holier-than-thou superior moral high ground!) —Kazitor, pending 11:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec)no you are mistaken. i am not losing the argument but i am insulting you because you are an egregious prick. that 67% undermines your entire point, cockhole, and its no wonder the saudi/turkey visits didnt garner as much crowds - they were significantly lower profile than someone who makes headlines every single day and has made the whole a more dangerous place. besides the point though because we are discussing trump. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@kazitor i am merely responding with respect and decorum such a fuckwit deserves. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
People tend to resort to insults when losing an argument. Like I said I haven't said a bad word against you. It is amazing how triggered you are getting. Like, I wasn't even looking for a reaction I just wanted to start a small debate. Yeah because the human rights abuse in Saudi Arabia (arresting people who use free speech, mistreatment of women, arresting gays, arresting rights activists, their actions in Yemen) are a lot worse than Trump saying mean thongs on Twitter. --RWRW (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
you really not getting it are you cockface. no one here is disputing the human rights issues in saudi. if this were about that, id probably agree with you. this about your support for a racist demagogue who steals kids from their families, courts dictators who actively undermines this country and openly disparages us and your delusion that the rest of the uk agrees with your sycophancy. 'people tend to resort to insults when losing an argument' you can keep saying it but it isnt true and certainly isnt true here. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The only redeeming features of the exercise is that a) It's nowhere near the state visit initially proposed. b) He is meeting with the PM that will soon be deposed by Boris and crew. c) The UK is so fucked off with losing the World Cup, Russian chemical attacks, and Brexit that he is barely scraping the weeks most annoying new slot. Plus any problems that occur to make Trump not like the UK can be blamed on the outgoing PM and Europe, then Boris "I like your hair" can smooth over the bad time he had. :D Dysklyver (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

how is any of that a redeeming feature? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It's better than the alternative I reckon. It will not have a lasting impact and nothing is better than a complete waste of time. You could say it's a highly presidential occupation. :D Dysklyver (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW Please don't start speaking for the United States next. You are an embarrassment. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I stand by everything I said here. Everything I said was accurate, its just none of you are willing to accept the truth.--RWRW (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear RWRW and any other Brits here,
While I appreciate the sentiment of apology, I do not require one for the protests. However, while I have you in an apologetic mood, I would like to request apologies for some of the other horrific deeds your nation has committed. For instance, the fourth season of Sherlock was terrible, and I hold all of you responsible for this. Please apologize forthwith.
Another thing you must apologize for is One Direction. Oh yes, I still remember. I remember the annoying little shites at my school singing their songs ad nauseam, and then I learned they were (mostly) British, and I have held this grudge against all Britannia ever since.
There are many more things you should apologize for, but those are some of the biggest at this point.
A damnable yank. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha, I don't know anything about Sherlock but don't worry, a majority of us here dislike One Direction just as much as you. I recall feeling a sense of joy when it was announced that they was on an ' indefinite hiatus'. --RWRW (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Sherlock S4 was an abomination. Moffat just has no idea how to run a television show. DuceMoosoliniForum Romanum 18:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

RWRW should stop speaking for conservatives. Makes moderates look bad. I stand by what I say RWRW. You are simply an embarrassment. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I have said anything controversial that would embarrass conservatives. Perhaps the truth is that you are not a true conservative. --RWRW (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW Definition of conservatism

1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

   religious conservatism
   cultural conservatism

See conservatism defined for English-language learners.

You are not a Conservative. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
What am I then? I happen to agree with strong defences, low taxes, limited government and the other principles you listed. I sure as hell 'aint a socialist. --RWRW (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW You're a far-right populist with libertarian tendencies. The main thing that exempts you from the label "Conservative" is your unwillingness to accept any form of progress what-so-ever, in contrast to the Conservative view of preferring gradual progress over abrupt progress. In addition your view of politics being either "Conservatives" or "Socialists" is the most idiotic oversimplification I have yet seen in political discourse. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It's like how tankies and fascists both often seem to believe they're the only two groups that exist. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I only said that as an example to show the differences between my views and the views of socialists, I don't believe that the only two groups are conservatives and socialists. --RWRW (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
And yet you came in here in your very first post in this thread and tossed off snarl words like SJW and snowflake, and then have the absolute gall to expect that you'd be treated respectfully. I agree with RZ94, you are a fucking disgrace. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
But most of the people there are SJW's, I happen too know a couple (I'm good friends with them but I still think they're SJW's). I expected my post to be criticised but I didn't expect to be called a 'cockface' and a 'prick'. Not that these insults matter though, since I'm not a snowflake. --RWRW (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "childish SJW protests"; "SJWs are hijacking the event"
  • "I just wanted to start a small debate."
  • "It is amazing how triggered you are getting."
  • "That ‘baby Trump’ balloon is vulgar and ridiculous."
--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario They're good quotes, 100% accurate and I stand by them. --RWRW (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Sea lioning intensifies.チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 15:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The bad thing is that Libertarians get lumped in with moderate Republicans. People like me end up looking bad. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 That's not even the worst part. That nugget of hell comes when you realize that U.S. political discourse is so dumbed down and oversimplified that almost none of the political classifications mean what they're supposed to. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my favorite line from RWRWs growingly bizarre narative: "You're doing what most of the left-wing activists do on Twitter: as soon as you start loosing a debate you resort to personal insults". No RWRW. We were winning the debate AND we were calling you out for dickishness. Assuming to speak for a group of people as though you are the big majority, when statistics and polls prove otherwise is dickish. Ignoring clear evidence that contradicts your claims is dickish. Whining about the tone of a conversation or the use of the word "dick" instead of the arguments made is pathetic. You don't speak for the British population and you most certainly do not deserve to apologize on their behalf. Trump is utterly despised by an overwealming majority of nearly the entire democratic world (outside the US) and many leaders of European countries know that their electorate would be very pissed off if their leader invited Trump to visit. And one final thing...stop reducing ordinary behavior (like protesting which happens every day) and theatrical displays as SJW activity. It's grossly misrepresents the majority at protests who don't participate in identity politics advocacy and it also grossly vilifies the minority who are actual advocates of identity politics in a very dickish way. I'm not sure how you can deny these claims when people here call you a dick RWRW...I mean...aren't you? ShabiDOO 23:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, everyone's free to their opinion on Trump, but it's pretty objectively true that the Trump baby balloon is a puerile form of protest. It kind of baffles me how the same people calling out Trump as a buffoon will come up with weird crap like this. Also, why did that tiny thing cost £30,000? (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The only way you can get Trump's attention is by making him seem unliked by the many and making it seem like the many and important people are laughing at him for being a fool. It also takes a mass protest in another country for americans to ever see systematic criticism against Trump...because it's own media certainly dampens it down when Americans do it. Seriously, Trump is far far more affected by this balloon and the millions lampooning Trump while he is meeting the queen...than hundreds of his own Republican leaders begging him to change his mind on something. ShabiDOO 01:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking on behalf of smelly redneck deplorables, We don't give a crap what you say or think. "Pay up" for 70 years of NATO, then we might give a crap. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to get out of Trump by doing this. An angry tweet maybe? If you want to stop Trump, you need to get conservative voters over to your side. Ridiculous protests like this, if anything, achieve the opposite. (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking as an anti-Trump conservative, it seems to me that pretty much everyone on the right with any brains or integrity are already at the point where they're going to stay home or vote for the Dems. As long as the Democrats don't nominate absolute fuckheads, I plan to check the box for most of their candidates in 2018 and 2020. The GOP has gone insane, and they deserve to lose for it. They won't learn any better unless they are punished. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 03:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
My limited experience describes the opposite situation: Trump is slowly growing on moderate conservatives and the left seems increasingly unhinged. I guess we'll see whose observation best describes the nationwide reality in November. (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Anon has it right above. What's happened in less than two years is, Trumpism occupies the moderate mainstream (not just in America), conservatives and progressives are on the extremes. Progressives calling Trump and Trumpers extreme, and not recognizing the failures of Obamunism, only fuels the reaction and marginalizes themselves. Same can be said about "traditional conservatives."
Trumpism (like Clintonism) is less an ideology, and more a flexible program that can be anything you want to make it to be. Only it stresses more individual initiative and does not worship at the altar of government as most leftist ideologies do. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
"and the left seems increasingly unhinged." Looks like someone doesn't know how far to the right U.S. politics leans. That left wing you're ragging on? Yeah, in the rest of the civilized world that's what they call moderate right wingers. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@RobSmith "Trumpism (like Clintonism) is less an ideology, and more a flexible program that can be anything you want to make it to be. Only it stresses more individual initiative and does not worship at the altar of government as most leftist ideologies do." I got bad news for you, it's more or less the same crony capitalism that's been raping us up the ass for the last fifty to sixty years, just with thinner skin, a shorter fuse, and shittier hair. nothing has really changed aside from the social aspects. the rich are still hoarding all the money and everyone else is still starving to death. In short, you're an excelant example of how most Americans look at politics, with party tinted lenses so you see what you want to see. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
And in the midst of all this protest and cold reception from politicians, he backed down from his raged criticism of May...very quickly, totally changed his tune and played nice. Saying stupid moronic critical nasty shit doesn't work with the Uk leader. No bite. No feeding the troll. A stern roll of the eyes and look of disappointment. You guys voted for him,, you suffer the consequences, we don't want his trashy asshole narrative infecting ours. You can be sure he won't be asked to visit several countries now...(the ones begging to be the first to get the trump baby on its planned world wide tour). Will Trump want to visit a country that lampoons him openly and throws such protests through the main streets he has to go to the country side to actually meet leaders? And you never know, this form of protest may rub off on a few americans and its media.ShabiDOO 04:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
But ultimately it is a work of art. And a powerful message with no words written. He is seen by so many as a pissy infantile stupid vain badly coiffed manbaby who shits on people and then throws hissyfits when people hit back...and his biggest weapon and mode of communication is through phone text message sized whining. It's a funny real world representation of what so many people think and a chance to say f**k you back at him (wheather it is helpful or not) in a very beautiful way. And it is perhaps one of the few times trump is faced with the fact that millions of people really see him that way and laugh. ShabiDOO 04:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Even if Trump deserves all the mockery in the world, is it worth it if it strengthens his electoral base at home? Honest question. (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep. As I said, "pay up," then what Brits do to entertain themselves might be worth looking at or commenting, if only just to humor them and pretend we give a shit. As for most Americans, we take it as an insult agsinst us, not Trump, after you owe us so much. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 04:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think playing nice and civil is going to attract his electoral base either. It's not going to stop birthers, it's not going to make them apologize, it's not going to make them think it's unacceptable to viciously attack shooting survivors, and it's not going to make them reflect and think how unnecessarily unpleasant Trump is to others and how and why he attracted actual awful people like white supremacists and MRAs and incels. Even politely pointing out how his views are wrong makes them lash back and invite the backfire effect. Also, his base is frustratingly loyal: even if Trump nuclear bombs Disneyland, his supporters are going to brush it off, deflect to Obama's drone attacks, deflect to abortions, or blame the Democrats for sending Trump over the edge. Even when Trump's own policies actively hurt them, they still stand by him. They're a lost cause. Instead of reaching out to his base, I think those that believe "both sides are equally bad" or on the "fence" are more feasible to get over. Or, you can get people who think "hey, Trump is being nice with North Korea at least" or inform people who don't know little details of issues (sometimes me, especially on foreign policy) to be more confident in picking the "correct" side. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You bring up a lot of fringe groups which have very limited electoral power. I'm talking about the half of the American population that elected Trump. Most of them are just regular people. There's plenty who aren't as devoted to Trump as the label "Trump supporter" seems to project in people's minds. (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm gonna agree with @LeftyGreenMario here. Civility won't do anything to sway people. As I've said before, I'm pretty sure that everyone who can be convinced to step off the Trump Train has already done so. It's hard to read articles like this and this and still come away thinking that these people can be reached. So no. I don't like seeing more people degrade America's political discourse, but a more "civil" left won't do any good. As for the so-called "normal people" who support Trump, I think you might find that many of them aren't so normal once you push the right buttons. Trump-supporters are just like their president in that they have no loyalties other than to the Trump name, no ideology other than Trumpism, no policy preferences other than whatever rhetoric Trump is currently spewing, and no ideas too complex to be expressed on a bumper sticker. You're not going to convince them. You're not going to sway them. They've internalized their support of Trump into being a part of their identity. An attack on Trump is an attack on the Trump supporter. You can only outvote and outlast them. There are probably some rational people left in his camp, but they all seem to have massive blind spots. I have family members on the Trump Train. I know what I'm talking about. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 06:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I also kind of need to express some grudging respect for my favorite Ann Coulter. She's actually gotten angry at Trump for not enacting the policies she thought he would, which I don't think I've seen from any other part of his base. She's crazy, but at least she's her own consistent kind of crazy. (This has personal significance for me because one of the family members I mentioned above was a die-hard Coulter fan for decades but sided with Trump over her.) DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 06:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump's not incivil, he's a New Yorker. The rest of the country knows that, and is accustomed to it. Trump is no more rude or incivil in public discussion of issues than Bill Mahar or the cast of Saturday Nite Live.
One out of five Americans is from either New York or California. The difference between them is, Californians are too stupid to know they are rude, they think everybody stupid and rude, and it's normal to be stupid and rude. New Yorkers are at least smart enough to know that the rest of the country isn't like them. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 06:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The above is another rather pathetic attempt to whitewash Trump (not to mention taking a dump on New Yorkers in general.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Also taking a dump on Californians, you know, the 39.5 million people who live there, not to mention my home state. They can't be all stupid unless you believe that it's part of a mass brainwash from invisible force fields created by political boundaries. Maybe it's your attitude that's the problem.
"I'm talking about the half of the American population that elected Trump." Sure, they're more moderate, but they're also content with Trump's platform, which is just a mild version of the extremist stuff you're seeing, hence why Trump was able to attract the extreme stuff. It doesn't help at all that virtually everyone in that extremist crowd supports Trump, and furthermore, you get literal Neo-Nazis or apologists feeling confident enough to run their own ticket: see that King guy and Patrick Little from California (who has more support than you think). There's also the other half, a bigger one, that voted for Clinton. You never ever see newspapers ask how they feel and you also don't see newspapers ask how the people who elected Obama either. I'm so sick and tired of everyone wanting to hear them out when their opinions never change. If anything, we're trying waaay too hard at this point to "reach out to them" just from the continuous interviews with Trump supporters. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
(1) New Yorkers made Trump rich; (2) if not for a life sentence, Charlie MansonWikipedia's W.svg would be the two-time elected governor of California by now. You know it. I know it. The whole country knows that's true. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 00:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think I just read the stupidest thing all day. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario The above is a tragic example of the long term side effects of kitten huffing... So sad. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
What to think of the Brits being rude to Trump: 1) It should be expected because he is a loathsome person. 2) We see how American propriety has been damaged because of him, 3) It is evidently galling to him personally, being the narcissistic jackass that he is. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What Ariel said...all summed up in three sentences ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ShabiDOO 22:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The balloon is tame - look up Bonfire Night effigies. Anna Livia (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's cute. Dysklyver (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump will surely making a killing if he promoted his own brand of piñata. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Now the only thing to do is to convince him that this is a good business idea, and not a gigantic laugh at his expense. :D Dysklyver (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Defining Illusion and Reality[edit]

What is nonduality

The philosophy of Non-Dualism is the point of view that there is one Absolute Reality without a second and that each of us is one with that Reality, just as a wave is one with the ocean. It asserts that experiencing Ultimate Reality is the goal of life. Advaita, another name for Non-Dualism, sees other religions, practices and philosophies as tools that ultimately lead to the direct experience of Absolute Reality. To discriminate between what is real and what is not real, it is necessary to define what is meant by real and not real. In this philosophy only that which neither changes nor ceases to exist is real. No object or knowledge can be absolutely real if its existence is only temporary. The unreal includes every “thing,” all names and forms, our minds and thoughts, everything. The universe looks real but is not permanent. It is an illusion. We can’t say it exists nor can we say it doesn’t exist. It is neither real nor non-existent. It is magical. It’s a mystery. Reality is not a thing at all. It is no-thing, nothing. An innocent term for it would be pure spirit, or pure consciousness. It has no parts. If we look for it, we are an eye looking for itself. It is experienced but cannot be described. It is ineffable. This Pure Consciousness is permanent existence, knowledge and bliss and is one with man’s inner self. When we wake up from a dream the dream world disappears. Non-Dualism teaches that when we wake up to reality this world disappears. The world of thought and matter is a misreading of pure spirit and nothing more. It has a phenomenal or relative existence superimposed upon Absolute Reality by ignorance and remains superimposed until ignorance is destroyed by knowledge of reality, commonly called Spiritual Enlightenment

The above got me thinking about illusion and reality. If illusion is defined as impermanent but the beings and forms of reality change (being that they are made of atoms, break down and rearrange) would it be right to call that an illusion? Or is that painting with too broad of a stroke. From what I see I think that might be going a bit too far. The claim that consciousness is permanent is, to me, unsupported and more of a belief. After all, it’s not like you would know if you were not conscious for you would not be aware of it. And what of things below our awareness (like the subconscious), things that have an influence on us but that we are unaware of? What of the cognitive biases that we share, errors that we are blind to?

There are many unanswered questions to me but overall it seems like the philosophy makes too many assumptions and tries to cover them with “transcendence”.Machina (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

?Machina (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers and stuff[edit]


According to this vid, The Guardian is "evil as fuck" aswell. Yet, we have alot of articles using the Guardian as a source...

Do we need to change these, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No. In that 45-minute video, The Guardian was mentioned 5 times and I could barely make out what the 2 journalists were saying because of how they were holding their microphones. And the reason why broadsheet newspapers, like The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph are considered good sources whereas tabloid newspapers are not isn't down to how "evil" their editors are. And if we really wanted to make John Cleese happy, we couldn't use any British newspapers as references at all. Spud (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, just wanted to know since I hardly know anything about British newspapers and on the ISF they always talked highly about The Guardian, so. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Guardian is vaguely left (left wing on the spectrum of British newspapers), but is undoubtedly reliable, they have solid editorial and journalistic integrity. All British news sources have a particular political slant, if the topic is sensitive to this it's a good idea to compare coverage from number of publications to avoid only getting part of the story. Some papers like the Sun and the Daily Mail should be avoided due to their tendency to write utter garbage and occasional complete fabrications. Dysklyver (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Forbes & their articles about TotalBiscuit & Gamergate[edit]


His wife tweeted this: https://twitter.com/GennaBain/status/1017098664911818753

And his fan are "not amused". Could this signal the rebirth of a new GamerGate? And shoud we mention this on the "Timeline of Gamergate"?

On one hand, Forbes is mentioning GG again and it might sparkle the interest from the Lamergators. On the other hand, if TB's fans and wife find out about this over here, we could experience another edit war like with "ShoeonHead"... Tinribmancer (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

First, why would that happen? We don't have an article on him, he's barely mentioned on this site outside of the Gamergate article, there's no reason they'd come here reading us the riot act over TB. Second, the same people who would be interested in edit warring here over Gamergate are, most likely, the same ones who already are edit warring over the Sh0e on Head and Blaire White articles.
While I'm not a Gamergater, I am also not amused by the prospect of "celebrating" a person's demise. Do I disagree with what he said? Yes, but I still wish the best for the family members who survived him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I actually meant the "Timeline Of Gamergate" article with "edit war" (the "about this over here" is missing some words). I personally don't see the point in making an article about him. I agree that celebrating His death is disgusting. Didn't stop those former Bioware devs and this site. Although I'm quite surprised the Kiwi's didn't do the same. If they could, they'd trade him in for "Jim Spergling" (TB & Sterling are sharing the same "lolcow" page on Kiwifarms), because he wasn't afraid to shout out his opinion about GG or something (I presume the Kiwi's are also pro-GG?)... Tinribmancer (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Join Us[edit]

I was thinking today, if there isn't some global secret society pulling the strings (doesn't seem to be), why not create one. I'd love to try and be influential without the world knowing, why not? So join me if you wish and let's form an actual soceity, with no pyramids or all seeing eyes. The goal I have in mind is to lessen the hold that organized religion has over people's minds. BobRoss (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds legit.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. BobRoss (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not in. ;) —Kazitor, pending 02:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
None of us are in, just as no one in Shawshank prison was guilty. Namaste Kazitor. BobRoss (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
do itVorarchivist (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems good. Sign me up. Dysklyver (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that, is there were some global secret society pulling the strings, we would by definition not know about it. Because, you know, it's secret. Now consider this... that automatically implies that every single conspiracy theory about "them" is automatically wrong, because Alex_Jones, David Icke, and the like know about them and advertise it. The one that is out there doing the sneaky secret running of the world is the one we don't know about. So, I'm not going along with it because we're aware of it, and so is anyone reading this page, therefore it's not secret any more, therefore it doesn't exist. And possibly, neither do we.

It's like some strange counter-solipsism.Kencolt (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Spud's first Esperanto translation[edit]

You asked for it and you got it! You asked for a translation of Santa Claus (well, one of you did). Now you have Kristnaska Viro. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few closet Esperantists here whose Esperanto is much better than mine. You are most welcome to edit the page and correct my mistakes. Do it anonymously if you don't want people to think you're weird for speaking Esperanto! Spud (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

We thought you were weird before we knew you spoke Esperanto. LongLostLegend (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I am weird and I've never hidden the fact that I speak Esperanto. There's been Esperanto text on my user page ever since I created it on 13 September 2011. But I wasn't talking about me. If other users here want to keep the fact that they speak Esperanto a secret and edit the page I created, anonymously, that's fine by me. If they want to come out of the closet as Esperantists, even better. Spud (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason why an Esperantist would want to keep that information secret? Is persecution still a thing? Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, persecution is still a thing. If I told my fundamentalist family my true beliefs I'd be dead. BobRoss (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This is cool. Grats for Spud knowing Esperanto and actually doing an article in it. Dysklyver (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 World Cup Final[edit]

What does everyone think will happen in the World Cup Final? I think France is just going to surrender half way through. World Cup Final (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You're giving them that long? Ha! French surrender jokes are always funny!Kazitor, pending 11:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Is that you, FA? I never knew you liked soccer. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Please out yourself so I can block you. Please. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth Unfortunately I am rubbish at playing football so I have to make do with just watching it. I have to day I thought my surrendering French joke was rather funny. @GrammarCommie I know you like blocking me (and since I'm in a good mood) I will make your day by confirming the above accusation. Block away! World Cup Final (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Well that was boring. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I wish Libertarians would stop getting mixed in with conservatives[edit]

Too much of that has happened. Many actual conservatives don't hate Trump outright but don't agree with some of his ideas. We don't worship him like a God. We also accept gradual change unlike Libertarians. Dear Libertarians, stay 100 miles away from the Republican party. You have your own party that gets crushed in every election.

I know this is a rant but certain Libertarian users here don't get the idea.

Rant over. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I doubt many Libertarians worship Trump like a deity (I like him, but I certainly don't worship him). In my opinion the Republican Party does well when it adopts Libertarian policies as a way of winning votes, otherwise the centre-right/right-wing vote is split allowing left-wing parties into power. Also are you referring to me when you say "certain Libertarian users"? :P --RWRW (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You are right on the money. I was also referring to nobs. Like I said, you have your own party.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
As long as these libertarians you label them continue to describe themselves as "conservative", I fear there's little you can do to distance yourself from that label. Also, calling them "libertarian" is not accurate. Trump is for deregulation, yes, but he's also increasing military power and immigration authority as well as encouraging the pro-birth part of the debate and also probably for voter ID laws. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 I might be misunderstanding you, but you're implying things about libertarians that aren't true. Most Libertarians don't worship Trump, and Trump most certainly isn't a libertarian. His harsh stance on justice (courtesy of Sessions), his interventionism in the Middle East, his trade war, and his massive increases to the federal budget are all policies that libertarians hate. And I'm not sure where this "We accept gradual change unlike Libertarians" idea comes from. Most libertarians I've interacted with are socially liberal, favoring legalization of certain drugs, criminal justice reform, and LGBT rights. Many are even pro-choice. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 18:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 You clearly misread what I wrote. I said RWRW is "a right-wing populist with libertarian tendencies" not an outright libertarian. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Guess so, I kept getting labels mixed up. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

RWRW is just... not a quality poster. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Being a crazy right wing goon is much easier if your cause is not well known or mainstream. The problem with Tramp is that he is too big and fucking massively high profile. Every crazy nutjob under the sun has swarmed in to praise him, and that leaves the legitimate right fighting for space while being steamrollered by other people with odd views, this has caused a right wing mismash of ideas all tacked on the the Trumptastic bandwagon. Dysklyver (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The legitimate right IMO should just vote Democrat to show how unacceptable what the "new" right has become. Once the crazies lose power, then we can get some saner right-wingers opposing the Democrats again. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It's an option, maybe something for someone to pedal against Trump 2020 (if they can get a candidate with less dodgy Emails). My guess is that this is why the UK for some time had three main parties. /shame one of them died out :D Dysklyver (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The GOP deserves to get shithoused in November and then shithoused again in 2020. No question about it. I only hope that'll be enough to tame the Trumpist wing, the same way the Moore snafu seems to have fatally weakened Steve Bannon. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 21:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Are Americans stupid enough to vote for Trump a second time? I don't have enough faith in the public, honestly.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump supporters generally don't express regrets even today, if countless interviews are anything to go by, so I have no faith in them. At least my state didn't want Trump. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of gullible morons in the American electorate, but I honestly think they're outnumbered. The only thing any of us can do about it is vote. The biggest problem during midterms is always turnout. There might be some really competitive and interesting elections this time around if people actually give a shit. I'm in Kansas' second congressional district, and our Democrat is outraising all of the Republicans combined. It looks like the Democrats in my state have learned from the Conor Lamb example because I'm perfectly happy to vote for him. Plus, a lot of people here are pissed. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 01:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Everyone I know where I live abhors Trump. And also, I regularly vote whenever I can and I beg for people my age range (18-24) to freaking vote more. 🙏 I haven't voted Republican ever since I registered, so easy for me whom to vote against. And the GOP needed a roundhouse kick, it was overdue since 2016, you know, for being a pain in the ass Congress during Obama. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Any predictions as to which date it will occur in late July-early August? Anna Livia (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)