RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive270

This is an archive page, last updated 2 March 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Goat damn it, not another troll!

So, we appear to be under attack by a spammer that is posting pages about east Asian railway lines. These pages are all a poorly formatted mess. I've dealt with all of them as of the time of this writing, but the spammer has been vandalbinned instead of being blocked. Zap any page consisting of random spam posted by this not on sight, please. TheMyon (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

One man's trash is another man's treasure. Every troll I get to revert feels like when Mario gets to bump another [ ? ] box and get a shiny new coin. Besides, nothing is worse than a completely quiet RC feed. But hey! That's me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly such persons could be sent to (Wikifarms of choice) to create a wiki of their very own and not bother RW. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Shooting at Quebec City mosque

Five people confirmed dead as up to three gunmen fired on about 40 people inside a Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center. Suspects have been arrested.Cms13ca 03:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Daily Beast already called out for publishing fake news with names of alleged shooters. nobs 05:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

oops looks like a shitload of Twitter users gotta walk back their anti-Trump hate speech. 2 Syrian refugees arrested in shooting. nobs 05:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

probs be best to wait for who is actually charged. Also, the world would be better place if no one gave a shit what twitter users think. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobs, any source verifying that it was refugees doing the shooting? All I can find is a Fox News article saying one of them was of Moroccan origin, but nothing on the Beeb or CNN or Reuters (which says no details have been released). CorruptUser (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest Fox News update says only one person is in custody (a student at a nearby university) so maybe let's be careful about calling people out for publishing fake news right now. Also worth noting that right now Fox News has a New York Post JFK conspiracy theory death investigation story above the fold on their homepage, since apparently that's the most pressing breaking news in the U.S. right now.   ¬   The Mayor ^{vote early} _{vote often} 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a fan of the term "fake news". It's this year's buzzword. How about incorrect news? Incorrect news has been around since the "Boston massacre", it wasn't even a massacre, papers called it one to get emotional appeal. Also see "Dewey Defeats Truman." Incorrect news is nothing new.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 22:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The lone suspect was identified as Alexandre Bissonnette who was known for his right-wing political ideas and anti-immigration stance. Globe and Mail, Fox News, New York Post--Cms13ca 22:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So I guess he isn't a terrorist then, just mentally ill or something. Diacelium (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Webster dictionary, he is a terrorist. Webster defines "terrorism" as:[1]

[T]he use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

According to this definition, terrorism has to involve a violent crime + a political motive. Not sure how law deals with this.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 22:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Diacelium: WTF? How do you go from "known for his right-wing political ideas and anti-immigration stance" to "I guess he isn't a terrorist then, just mentally ill or something"? Do you suppose that right-wing political ideas & anti-immigration stances occur spontaneously as a result of mental illness, & not through culture, politicians & media? What is it that makes this person "not a terrorist" in your eyes? His skin colour? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one who read diacelium's comment as though it were sarcastically referring to the tendency, in American media, to not call such attacks by non-muslims as terrorism? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No I read it sarcastically as well. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get that, & will withdraw my comment if so. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The real question

See the main article on this topic: RobS

Will Nobs admit he was wrong? I'm banking on no, given how much condescension I smelled. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about a guy who still full-throatedly believes that Hillary Clinton personally murdered dozens of people and smuggles child slaves through Comet Pizza, so I'll put half my chips on 'Hell Fucking No' and the other half on 'I was Right All Along About This Other Unrelated Thing'. Semipenultimate (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ding ding!-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And people wonder why this exists. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing looks curious; I was waiting for Justin Trudeau's 11:30 PM press conferernce which never took place, at least I can't find a record of it, or notice it was cancelled or delayed. The business about the Syrians came across Twitter 15 minutes before the press conference was to take place. nobs 13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt nobs will admit he is wrong--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump fires the Acting Attorney General

Thoughts? I was too young to live through the Clinton years, let alone the Nixon administration, so I want to see what the people on here think of the administration's firing of AG Yates. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!}' 03:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This statement by the White House is enough to make me gag. It sounds like super-villains wrote this. LEFTYGREENMARIO 03:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Betrayal most foul. You have been relieved. Criminy, if you're gonna treat real life like a cartoon at least use your catchphrase! How much worse can this get? Please don't answer that.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This statement was written by a boob: "weak on borders". Give me a break. Part of Nixon's downfall was that he was a Cox sacker (He fired Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor). Firing the acting AG could displease some GOP representatives if there any with scruples. Bongolian (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a terrible lot like the times of people that want to be "tough on crime", doesn't it? They want to be "tough on borders" and "tough on illegal immigrants" now. I like how they think the reasons Jeff Sessions is being held by Democrats are purely political; in the meantime, he's been trying to scrub his racist past, and he expects nobody to notice. LEFTYGREENMARIO 06:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I wasn't there until the Bush years (where I was really young) and I've entered the political scene a little before Obama. All I see is someone getting fired for being defiant of an immigration-related order that I find reprehensible, and I find this very, very disagreeable. LEFTYGREENMARIO 06:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Its symbolic. Sessions is being voted on today and probably sworn in tomorrow. He's probably already using Loretta Lynch's old office space. Yate's would only have been Acting AG until Session's in sworn, but is career civil service. Her foot dragging on implamenting the EO was from 9:00 AM Mondsy until about 2:00 PM when Trump fired her. Session's and her probably occupy side by side offices at the DOJ and she refused to sign a piece of paper Sessions now will sign on Wednesday. This 27 year career vet now can collect her pension and go work in the private sector (she'll probably end up being a CNN analyst for about 3 or 4 times her govt. pay). But Trump's making a statement and an example out of her to other career bureaucrats. Again it goes back to the Wolman Ice Rink. nobs 12:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a(nother) self-inflicted black eye on the Trump Administration. Yates knew the lifespan of her order would be measured in hours, not days; as a nearly 30-year DOJ veteran she had nothing to lose since I can't imagine she'd want to stay on under Sessions anyway. The smarter move for the Trump Administration from the get-go would've been delaying the Executive Order until Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General, but by martyring Yates instead of letting her be a momentary blip on the radar the administration is unnecessarily provoking headlines like "Monday Night Massacre" and "Donald Trump's early crisis" and Night of the Blunt Knives (alright, that last one was just some fun red meat for RatWiki veterans).   ¬   The Mayor ^{vote early} _{vote often} 15:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to reinforce the notion of a you're fired/you're hired presidency. Trump now promoting a live TV "reveal" of his SCOTUS pick. Leuders (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny, that's what I thought too. In fact, it just feels like this presidency and this reality is some quasi-real TV drama thing and nobody wins. LEFTYGREENMARIO 19:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The tweet promo buildup fooled me. It made you expect a reality TV event, or one of those press conferences with a prop table loaded with papers or steaks. Instead, the SCOTUS announcement was conventional and the language statesmanlike. Leuders (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is Sally Yates during her confirmation hearing (2015) being asked by Jeff Sessions whether she would follow the constitution or the President if he ordered something unconstitutional (i.e. the issue she's now been sacked for). Sessions must surely be asked the same question and, in light of that, whether he approves of Trump's dismissal of Yates.

The firing fits in the pattern of everything else the Trump Team is up to — doing everything by executive order, pitting one branch of government against another, shaking up the state department, undermining the intelligence agencies. It looks a lot like they're gutting government to its bare minimum, as well as testing how officials, judges, politicians & the media will react to this. This blog (which I posted in WIGO Blogs) goes into more detail, including some actions which haven't got much public attention. This Twitter thread also raises an interesting suggestion that Trump never meant the Muslim ban to stick & instead it's just a strategy to test loyalties & discredit the judiciary. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If the theory about the loyalty test is true, I have doubts that Trump is fully aware of the feint. All I can see is Jaffar's Bannon's shadowy figure whispering in Trump's ear. Beardown-forfinals (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump is a moron & that could still be the regime's undoing as long as he remains at the head of it. But he's obviously not the brains of the outfit. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's the fundamental question

Donald John Trump is in excellent health. It's 04 November 2020. Yesterday was Election Day. It's official: the voters and the electoral college picked Opposition Candidate. Trump has become "unpresidented". What does he do? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably gets a prime-time Fox News show. Petey Plane (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, pretty optimistic thinking we'll make it four full years under the Trump administration. Which I mean not in terms of impeachment, I mean Bannon appears to actually want to blow everyone up. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Eleven days into Trump's presidency, & some of the craziest days in the history of the presidency, it's hard to picture what the government will even look like in four years. If you're suggesting that Trump will establish a dictatorship so that he can't be replaced, well it would be silly to wait till an opposition candidate is elected before doing that. If that kind of a coup takes place, it would have to be before 2020 election campaigning gets off the ground. & I can't foresee it happening like that. Instead I think things will continue as they're going: not an actual dictatorship but a barebones government that still pays lip service to the constitution & retains the existing structure of houses & departments but where the real power rests with a few mostly unelected appointees & agencies reporting directly to Trump & his cronies. Alongside this they'll be strategies to make it as difficult as possible for a Democrat to be elected president, including the usual gerrymandering, voter ID laws & more crackdowns on ethnic & religious minorities. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that touches on it. The problem I see is probably the playing with the limits versus the showing off of power. I don't necessarily believe Nuclear Winter 2018 but I didn't necessarily believe Trump 2016 and I certainly couldn't have predicted the speed and scope of his administration. Governance is a tough job. We just handed the highest executive job to a guy who doesn't care about us and swears it's easy. By 2020, I don't have time for that foresight, I gotta protect Planned Parenthood and Randy Johnson by tomorrow.jGaul Dernitt (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

hahaha, crap Randy Thompson. I don't know the appropriate way to deal with this, but autocorrect got me. Thompson. Randy Johnson will probably be ok.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Farewell then, KiwiFarms

It's been a while RatiWiks, but I felt strangely compelled to come and check if anyone had posted news of the demise of KiwiFarms. In all seriousness, a number of active (or at least they were active?) RW members have been targeted by KiwiFarms in the past, so I figured the news ought to be spread here if it had not been so already. This Heat Street piece seems to sum up the reasons for closure quite succinctly. Somewhat ironic that the Kiwifarms owner cites harassment of his family as the key reason for the closure (one of the alleged harassers of his mother has by the way been an active contributor at RW). So a big hurrah really with the only downside being that smug little git Samuel Smith (ne Vordrak etc) is gloating and claiming to have been instrumental in their demise. Bye. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Doxxing is bad, and there's a reason we don't allow it here. I feel sympathy for them even if they were hoisted by their own petard. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

0% sad to see them go. 100% sad to see the owner's family hurt, 100% schadenfreude to see his poor karma. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It was posted in WIGO: Clogs ten days ago. Nowhere Man (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

And RWs very own race article writer Oliver Smith is named as one of those responsible in the Heatstreet piece. I guess every dog has its day. Kiwi Farms was bad news. John 82 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you live by the sword... 109.204.116.189 (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Physics Questions

So, I know perpetual motion machines are impossible, but I've been thinking about liquid nitrogen a little too much, and I have a few questions for any physicists here.

Could you stick an air compressor on top of a canyon or empire state building or wherever, create liquid nitrogen (and oxygen, I suppose), connect that to a pipe leading down to the bottom where there's a hydroelectric generator, and use the energy generated to power your compressor? And with the waste-liquids, could you then stick it in some pipes in a river and let the water "boil" the liquid nitrogen and generate electricity that way as well?

I feel like the maths should say this won't add up, but I can't figure out why putting the compressor even higher wouldn't eventually reach a point where the potential energy from the liquid nitrogen wouldn't eventually be greater than the electricity used to compress the atmosphere into liquid form. CorruptUser (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is: no. You can't really do that, the compressor would take far far more energy to run than the falling liquid could ever produce. That's not due to the 2nd law, just the math of how much energy falling mass produces. If you got enough height and efficiency for that to work out, the fundamental energy source for the evaporation would be heat from the sun, and you'd have created some super convoluted solar power plant, though maybe more akin to wind in that it harvests latent energy gradients after the heating occurs.

However, that idea is pretty close to the basic idea of Cryonic energy storage, where excess produced electricity from unstable-power production(such as solar) can be stored to maintain balance on a mixed-demand grid. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the idea was to use the heat in the atmosphere as a direct energy source, somehow, such as by warming the nitrogen back up to the top to be compressed again. Other ideas I had were to use the excess heat created by compressing the nitrogen to boil water in a power plant, or something. I mean, I'm not sure exactly how company manufacture LNG, but I would think that it'd make more sense to attach that system to, say, a natural gas power plant so that fewer BTU's are needed from burning natural gas to create the electricity...CorruptUser (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The energy needed to produce the environmental heat is still finite. Petey Plane (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've read that the UK just vents 8500 tonnes of LNG back into the atmosphere] since the real demand is for liquid oxygen. That's basically 800 MWh per day... which is what, .01% of Britain's power consumption? CorruptUser (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's get our initialisms correct, folks. LNG is liquefied natural gas; LN is liquid nitrogen. Very different. Nowhere Man (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry about that. CorruptUser (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So, silly me. This is mostly already a thing; Compressed air energy storage. Apparently, in a VERY well insulated system, electricity is used to compress air and the heat is stored in oil or molten salts or something with a really high boiling point. Then the heat in the oil is drained back out by expanding the air and converting back to electricity, with a theoretical efficiency of close to 100%, but really looking more like 70%. Which is still pretty cool, all considered, since it's much more practical than pumping water up a dam or using a rechargeable battery that needs to be manufactured and replaced all too frequently. So my next question is, why can't they use the compressor's heat to create electricity, then use water to warm it back up to expand it and get electricity out, "stealing" heat from a river or lake? CorruptUser (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You can steal it from the air if you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air source heat pumps I don't know why these are not more popular.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

German Video

Saw this video by Jan Boehmermann, a German satirist. It's kind of old, but still.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQkV5cTuoY

Enjoy! RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Very nice, recommended. Thanks! Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A bit of news from Romania, for anyone interested

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/romania-prosecutors-oppose-effort-to-weaken-misconduct-law/2017/01/31/65cc6920-e7d8-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.41db31fa0487

For those in need of a quick schadenfreude fix, seeing as there are quite enough problems to be going on with in the US as well. I imagine the visibility is close to 0 in this matter so, little help though it might be, I thought I'd bring it up on a site whose community seems to value freedom as an essential value of modern society... Tma (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Maum Meditation

More eyes would be helpful. I semi-protected because there were apparent hijinx. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How could we miss this?

Ivanka Trump, when she converted to Judaism, took the name "Yael", which is Hebrew for "mountain goat". Any idea how to work that into the Trump article? At the very least we should add it to the goat article. CorruptUser (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yael figures in the Bible story of Deborah, in one of the most uplifting and edifying tales in the book. (Judges 4). In a way this is sexier than Judith and Holofernes. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Both stories were famously depicted by Artemisia Gentileschi... CorruptUser (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So... Does this go on Trepanation or LSD?Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I expanded the Alphabiotics page and yes I got putting sources right this time

Take a look- [[2]] (Little word of warning- somehow the link to the page showed up like this), I also added it to the Diploma mills category due to their "academy" having standards that are equal to a diploma mill.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That's 'cos you used the wrong link format. Use Alphabiotics instead. Nowhere Man (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine page has been revamped

Take a look- Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine. The good news is the fact that there are a lot of sources this time.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump and the Protesters

Both sides really need to calm down and discuss things like mature adults, Trump needs to stop going on a Twitter storm and the Protesters should stop blocking traffic. How about a meeting in a neutral location so both sides can calmly and maturely discuss things, if nothing changes we are on our way to a civil war. Everybody needs to take a chill pill and be mature adults (this includes this discussion); there are things I strongly disagree with Trump on- censoring scientific research, removing LGBT info from government websites and firing the AG for disagreeing with Trump. I do feel international relations could be handled better (again, all corners of the globe. World leaders are acting like children); as for the immigration ban being used for ISIS propaganda- EVERYTHING we do is ISIS propaganda. We eat breakfast ISIS uses it for recruitment videos, not matter what, ISIS still wants to kill us. One last thing, the United States is not the World's nanny. We have our own problems; however, the Trump wall is just plain impossible and unfeasible. So lets be mature adults and compromise, both sides bickering helps nobody. One last thing- I am voting 3rd party in 2020. I had enough of the Democraps and the Republican'ts.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, this is bullshit because Trump will not change; it should be obvious by now. This is because it has become obvious that he has an incurable mental illness, making him unfit to be president: narcissistic personality disorder (in extremis), a.k.a. "malignant narcissism".[3][4]

Something else to consider is that Trump is carrying out his promises via Executive Orders. If he wanted to be mature about this discussion he could've at least had the courtesy of proposing it to Congress to make it seem as such. He hasn't done anything of the sort. He's willing to be ignorant and utterly disdainful of American laws to meet his own ends. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!}' 04:51, 1 February's 2017 (UTC)

The other concern is that previous presidents have had the executive order option, and have used it with demure. Trump is already using it like a toy. It's his toy, but uhh…Gaul Dernitt (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In any case I am voting 3rd party in 2020 for President and this year when the race for Michigan governor happens.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

any vote not for a democrat is a vote for the Republicans. That is how America works. Voting for anything but one of the two main parties is a vote for the party you want least Arawn Emrys (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Virtually no third party Presidential candidate has ever won the Presidency. Just look at Henry Clay or William Jennings Bryan and you'll see that no matter how much popular support 3rd parties get, they'll never win. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!}' 17:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

While the nature of the US political process lends itself to a two party system, there have been several cycles of political party replacement. The Federalists are no more; they lost in 1800 and were effectively out of the picture by 1812. In 1820, Monroe had no opponent at all. The Federalists were replaced by Whigs, which in turn were replaced by the current Republicans. In the meantime, the identity of the typical Republican and Democrat voters have been largely swapped. There will be two parties; but both Democrats and Republicans are replaceable. I personally would welcome a political movement of Trump Republicans and socialist Democrats based around a shared platform of economic nationalism. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am at a loss then as I don't like neither party, no matter what party I vote for I end up sacrificing my morals.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smerdis: So your ideal party is pre-1960s Democrats? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

1960s era Democrats would be an improvement over the ones we have now. For one thing, they got things done. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, Smerdis: fucking dixiecrats. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 04:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

After thinking about it, next election I will vote Democrat, it is the lesser of two evils.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Dixiecrats, despite their many flaws, worked better and did more for their constituents as Democrats than as Republicans. Segregationism was not an obstacle to social spending. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@RationalZombie ...And that is why FPTP is perhaps the single biggest unacknowledged core problem with American elections today. Then add the electoral college on top of that — out of the pan and into the fire. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Much of this discussion hinges on how conservative Relublicans and the Republican establishment react to Trump. We'll see it this Spring's budget bill. Truth is, Chuck Schumer and Trump have an ongoing working relationship for many years (IOW take any Schumer public statement with a grain of salt). Paul Ryan and Trump's relationship seems strained and opportunistic for both sides. If Ryan and Schumer grow closer to together it would be a good sign; if Ryan and Schumer don't then it's business as usual. nobs 17:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is This A Coup?

My dad showed me this article, and I wanted to see what you guys thought of it. The general idea is that people like Bannon are using Trump as a vehicle to enhance their own power, and we're witnessing a coup d'etat and the end of the normal American government. https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.lr7s5tttz Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

More like a sudden leap forward in the conversion of the American republic to something more akin to an empire. Rome wasn't sacked in a day, as it were. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 04:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There's also a point by point refutation, I'll try and find it. It starts with claiming the author vaguely conceded points on Twitter and then goes through and does a point by point analysis calling it entirely applesauce. The refute is useful in the sense that it breaks up the arguments, kinda like this is useful in the sense that it breaks up the administration's actions. It's a fun article, the guy ain't clairvoyant by virtue of clairvoyance not being a thing, but it was worth the read.https://medium.com/everyvote/trial-balloon-for-paranoia-a-markup-of-yonatan-zungers-trial-balloon-for-a-coup-753a51088113 Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rome was sacked 17 times or so, half the time by their own Emperors...CorruptUser (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately Trump only needs to be sacked once.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If Trump gets sacked (not altogether unlikely) that puts Mike Pence in the Oval Office. No better, potentially worse. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The impression I got from Pence is that if he has to choose between Big Business and the Moral Majority, Pence will choose the former. I could be wrong, but I think any damage done by Pence could be mitigated if business leaders tell him to stop. So if any discriminatory policies result in boycotts, then pressure increases for Pence indirectly. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pence doesn't have Putin's hand up his ass, which is a pretty big plus if you ask me. Vulpius (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Another big plus, Pence doesn't tweet threatening shit to foreign governments. Leuders (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, while Pence may not have Putin's hand up his ass, he would carry forth the taint (ahem) of illegitimacy from being bound with Trump. Bongolian (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronin I heard Tillerson on the radio yesterday (wow, feels like today still) say this http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/317525-tillerson-we-cant-let-personal-convictions-overwhelm-our-ability-to so yeah, seems like a pretty clear message about being convicted to leaning toward the former. Just not necessarily in a good way.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump is going out of his way to emphasize the point he is not a politician in office, not just on the campaign trail. He is a businessman then, now, and always. If one thinks of, or expectations are of Trump as a politician, the problem is with observer, not with Trump (Note to Robin: even a McDonald's employee is using McDonald's to enhance their own power, so what's the big deal?) nobs 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Karl Rove vs. Steve Bannon

With every new and excruciating day, it becomes more obvious that the executive orders and general policy directives coming from the Trump administration are oozing right out of Steve Bannon's office. This is most notable in the video clips of Trump signing the documents, as it appears that he is reading them for the first time, and discusses them as a toddler would.

I was too young to perceive how much influence Karl Rove had over policy in Bush Jr's administration, but I recall that Democrats of that era constantly accused Rove of having been the architect of policy. Is this basically the same situation? Is this how it felt living under Bush? Beardown-forfinals (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say he has even more power than Rove did. Rove was sharing with Cheney, while Pence is all but a doormat. Petey Plane (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You've misunderstood Karl Rove then. He was the propagandist of the Bush administration. He didn't set policy in any substantial way, he just made sure every single thing the administration did had a PR framing before it went through.

In some ways he could be thought of as the forefather of politically slanted fake news, in that he really started the spin train, that would create political narratives that overrode details like reality in importance. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The intersting thing about Rove is, Democrats who voted for Bush, then went home to Obama, and later voted for Trump are furious with Rove, and will leave Trump if there's a hint Rove or other neocons are back in the White House. nobs 17:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Democrats who voted for Bush. This raises an interesting point. Wait. Waitwaitwait. Is nobs a liberal?Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Every election since 1972 there is a swath of Democrats (media call them 'swing voters') who have voted for the winner. They gravitate toward the Democrat, but if they are pissed off at the Democrat (Carter), or like the GOP candidate's message (Reagan & Trump) they will cross over. Baby Bush many identified with as a Democrat because of his Southern drawl, and in 2004 it didn't help the Democrats case to run a stereotypical New Englander & Yankee. The samething occurred in 1988. nobs 12:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Prison Uprisings

With the recent prison uprising in Delaware that left one Corrections Officer dead (Autoplay video), I'm wondering what your thoughts on situations like these are. On one hand you can sympathize with the fact that our justice system from top to bottom is quite broken and their demands are not unreasonable, on the other hand you must wish one of these things would go on without things that are horrible for PR, such as taking counselors hostage and taking humanitarian requests for running water and using it to create barricades. Not to mention, COs getting beat to death. I can say I'm rather biased on the issue... I live within ten minutes of the prison in question _{and me and my family work for the Delaware Department of Corrections and have a brother who works at that exact prison.} I guess I'm just not sure how smart it is for leftists to reflexively rally behind these causes as if they're all the same and morally right, especially when it just tends to make things worse for other prisoners in the short and long term. Hentropy (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The measure of a society's long arm is how it treats it's hostages. I don't mean prison is bad or criminals should wander free, I also don't think psych case murderers and diaper buying drug dealers are exactly the same society.

But they can deal with it, yeah?

It's impossible to discount the need and the role for prisons. Damn if it don't seem like it should have a higher standard than 'That's just where they go.' But that ideal might require governance. Intercept Ma Jones, Take it or leave it- Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a huge issue. Short of embracing Islam where people pay no taxes to support prisons, and criminal justice is administered at the bus stop with a beheading where the offender was caught drinking alchohol on a public street. Incarceration is the chosen method over forced labor or involuntary rehabilitation. I live in the 46th poorest state situated half-way between the two most populous states in the Union, both of which have three-strikes-your-out laws. All the two-time offenders come here to raise hell where we don't enhance for a third felony. But they don't realize New Mexico prisons are built for New Mexicans, we can't afford locking up other people's garbage. Having no family to complain, they usually end up being just another unsolved homocide before they ever enter our criminal justice system. But I wouldn't recommend giving the police homocide unit such enhanced powers elsewhere, it's not too different from living in the Islamic State or Saudi Arabia. nobs 18:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The religious police in Saudi Arabia have lost the ability to actually enforce the law; the Saudis were just as horrified by those girls being forced to burn to death as we were. Instead they are basically like citizen's patrols, and do report you to the actual police, who do make arrests and put you through trial and so forth. The trials are a joke in comparison to the Western world, but they do exist. So yay, progress? CorruptUser (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Watch this, seriously. It's an interview with a beheader like you'd see on Good Morning America or The View. From 6 months ago. The more I watched, the more shocking it was. nobs 18:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, wait waitwaitwait. That is chilling. Like, empathy exhaustion personified. But societal in not our society. An awful practice by all accounts... Is nobs a liberal?Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Was Brexit necessarly a bad thing ?

Didn't European Union push austerity on many countries ? I think Tsipras had to start privatizations and austerity measures again because of the European Union ? If this is all true, then wouldn't Brexit be an opportunity for the left ? Diacelium (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not British but it's my understanding that you're right, the EU was far from perfect from the left's perspective, which is why socialist parties and Jeremy Corbyn weren't totally opposed to Brexit.Oil Most leftists felt as if the EU could be improved, however, rather than just pulling out of it altogether. You combine that with the most popular argument for Brexit being nationalist and racist in nature, and you had something leftists could line up against. It became a culture war issue (just as UKIP wanted) rather than a debate on the actual, practical pros and cons of the EU. Hentropy (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Basically, yes. And that's even if we ignore all the partisan racism and xenophobia for just a moment. See here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

First of, I may be a bit biased when it comes to the EU since, despite its flaws, I think it is a great concept. It peacefully (semi-)united several historical rivals which caused several major wars (Germany-France, Germany-Poland, Germany-Austria, Germany-Germany, and until recently, France-Great Britain). We have practically free movement across most of the continent which is not only an example of freedom, but also comes in pretty handy for scientists who can pretty much work everywhere in Europe without stupendous amounts of paperwork. Despite its size and international power, the EU uses mostly soft power and only goes to war when America calls for it (ok, this lack of a spine towards the US could be considered a minus). Europe, while still being one of the larger CO2 emitters due to its overall development, is one of the powers which takes climate change rather serious and is in a genuine energy transition process. Climate change is accepted in the political mainstream. Overall, I think it's a great experiment when it comes to trying to figure out what works (and what doesn't) when you're trying to cooperate closely beyond political, language and (to some degree) cultural barriers.

Now to the points eurosceptics justifiably could bring up: First, austerity. Greece was hit pretty hard by the measures imposed on them. Granted, Greece isn't entirely innocent there... their government forged numbers to be eligible for the euro and when they eventually admitted the forgery, everything went downhill. But austerity is what you get when you're governed by conservatives for decades; the european people's party (european conservatives, i.e. mostly Schwarzenegger style South Park conservatives by american standards) has been the largest party in the european parliament since 1999. That's not so much a fault of the EU itself but rather a result of the elections.

Secondly, free trade: I don't consider the free trad within the EU to be so much of an issue for the moderate lefts (although far-lefts may disagree). The EU, taken as a whole, as a Gini Index of about 30 and rather strong (compared to the US) labor laws. The US has a Gini index of 40 and weaker labor laws; if you criticize the European free trade agreement with the usual anti-globalization talking points, you'd have to criticize free trade within the US as well (then again, in the US the Gini mostly comes from the ridiculous gap between rich and poor even within the different states while in the EU, there's also a huge GDP/person gap between, say, Luxemburg and Romania, so the eastern european plumber argument isn't entirely wrong). However, the EU also signed trade agreements with African nations which have some similarity to agreements like TPP.

Overall, I think that Brexit was a bad idea. I was opposed to it. The pound has dropped substantially and non-british citizens living in the UK as well as UK citizens living somewhere else in Europe don't know what's gonna happen, and I think that the Brexiteers don't really know either. The pro-Brexit campaign was riddled with falsehoods (take the 320 million or what it was that's being sent to the EU every week - UKIP didn't mention the british Thatcher bonus which didn't only reduce their contributions but also enabled the UK to only pick the EU laws they liked), misplaced nationalism (you don't have your empire anymore...) and at least some racism which isn't a particularly great platform to build a campaign on *cough*. The money that's being saved in EU contributions won't go into the crumbling national health service and Scotland might break free (also, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and London, but that seems less likely). As I said before, there are some problems with the EU, but I think that trying to fix them is better than to abandon the EU altogether. --Imaginative username (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Labor laws are strong in Europe, it is true, but the European Union had a role in the conception of a very unpopular law in France that weakened worker's rights. Also, I think protectionnist laws hard to implement in EU, while I think it would help some countries. Then there's CETA, TAFTA, and all those free trade agreements. Diacelium (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• only goes to war when America calls for it. Bullshit. The Libyan fiasco was entirely a European idea. Calling in the US is like asking a big stupid gorilla to smash things over some triffling offense. And the EU will be paying for their mistake now and forever. nobs 20:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Diacelium: True, it can be hard to improve labor laws when the European Court puts it down as undermining business. That's one of the institutions requiring reform as the EU shifts from a purely economic union to a more political one and it's arguably related to the EPP dominance in parliament. CETA is another example for this. TEFTA I don't know but you may mean TTIP which luckily probably won't be signed under Trump.

@nobs: thanks, I wasn't aware of France starting that war. I thought they had learned what happens when they stage military interventions in northern Africa. Then I'd correct the sentence into "usually doesn't go to war if America doesn't call for it". iirc the United States launched two wars in Afghanistan, one in Iraq and one in Pakistan since 2000, so we're still better than the US at least. Syria is arguably hard to ascribe to a single state; it's become a clusterfuck of dozens of competing states and factions and I don't want to blame a single state for this. --Imaginative username (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Libya was probably a bigger fuck up than anything Bush and the neocons did. The NATO-backed jihadi rebels migrated to Syria. Europe's now flooded with refugees. The three perps, Sarkozy, Cameron, and Hillary all faced the wrath of sensible voters. What Obama did was illegal under US law, using force for "humanitarian" purposes rather than national security. nobs 01:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What May and co should have done is say 'we are not leaving the EU - we are going to be the first members of the new (European organization name of choice) - who else wishes to join?' 86.134.53.45 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Disregarding the fact that it would probably be political suicide... I doubt that anyone would have joined. Most european states who would be willing to join such an international organization are in the EU already and given the british propensity to cherry-pick what's useful for them and snub the rest, they have slightly pissed off the rest of europe and likely won't join the UK-union if there's the EU to join. Finally, most justified criticism against the EU is against its pro business neoliberal policies. I highly doubt that something founded by May would be any better. --Imaginative username (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Alpha-Omega Institute

I created an article on it (Alpha-Omega Institute) and they are just as nuts as the Institute for Creation Research considering it was the excrement of ICR Graduate School alumni.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's a good first pass. I filled in some links and changed the navpage. Can you fix up the references? Bongolian (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

New WIGO

Now that elections are done, a lot of "What is going on" in our "world" section is devoted to a hair-piece parasite attached to an orange the US President. I think this needs to be split out into his own special WIGO, "What is Going On: Trump", or WIGOT. Any thoughts? CorruptUser (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, please no. His arrogant ass wants to be plastered everywhere and a whole WIGO is just nauseating. Current situation is probably better because the Trump saturation levels are already too high.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's too much already! His pestilent ego has expanded to encompass everything. Bongolian (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This morning, all of the top stories in the google news feed had his goddamned name in the title. It's getting very tiring and does not need to be done here too. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WIGO:Elections is dead; no new entries in over six weeks, & most of them then were still about the final reckoning of the Trump-Clinton vote. I think it was silly to pretend it was anything other a US Election WIGO & it would be best to fold it away for the next year & a half or whatever it is until the 2020 cycle starts. & I don't support the further segmentation of WIGO:World into any more separate WIGOs. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't support either, and whatever is going with Trump is highly concerning to the United States and even people from other parts of the world is watching carefully. I don't think I've ever had so much tension on what's going on the White House ever before. LEFTYGREENMARIO 02:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

the fact is Trump is creating the most noise in the news. It's crappy and stressful, and it's hard to disregard. It's going to show up. Maybe elections should be archived? Not a legitimate response because I don't know a what archiving actually entails. You wiki nerds just do it, is my vote.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Aren't we getting any Le Pen or Merkel news? Howabout WIGO Anti-globalism as a catchall for Trump, Le Pen, Alt-right, German elections, global warming deniers, BREXIT, anti-immigrant, anti-free trade news. nobs 17:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

We are, concede to that. But it's filtered through wwtd. Not saying it's a bad thing for the news, just saying it's crappy and stressful. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There are interesting elections going on in France, South Korea, and elsewhere. I'll try to remember to post some entries when they come to my attention. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

One of many ways the Water Memory concept in Homeopathy is bullshit

If it was true, then all Biochemicals released from microorganisms living in the water would be "remembered". In the end, you would have a glass full of various Biochemicals that used to be water.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the argument is the ideal of the water that's not been touched by anything + touching it with things. So the practice starts with filtration. The water should remember that. Then there's diamonds and cheerful words and freezing. Does the molecule really bind differently because of this? It's just not that deep. Good on you. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If water memory was true then water would not exist as there are chemicals in water from organic (Decomposing animals, biological waste and anything else) and inorganic sources (Volcanoes, meteorites, pollution, erosion, and dust particles in the atmosphere). Water should not exist at all if water memory was true.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much. I mean, space dust and us are different. Just because I'm made of meat doesn't mean my inherent cognitive properties are made of meat. Well. Anyway, once you get down to it, everything is everything, your time would be better spent getting down to Lauryn Hill.

There's also a page in Transmetropolitan that says everyone has inhaled Hitler's ashes. It's not literal, since it's fiction, but it's a point. It wouldn't make sense to feel like Hitler was a part of you just because you accidentally inhaled Hitler. You'd have to try harder than that, like Richard Spencer did. Everything is everything. Now get out there and punch a Nazi! (But don't)Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I simply meant that water should not exist if water memory was true, water comes into contact with molecules non-stop thus water would remember each molecule then water should not exist. I was talking from a Chemistry/Physics point of view

Right, yes, sorry, not trying to detract from your point. I mean, the problem of people believing this is language. I was just trying to use the broad metaphors that work on water memory believers against their own points, based on your jumping-off points. Apologies if we miscommunicated. Your points made sense, I ran with them.

And your last deal kinda summarizes what we were both talking about. Water would have to somehow choose to do that if water memory was true. But it can't. Because of the whole physics deal it would be a biomassive sludge of Hitler and Ghandi and diamonds, and salt, and whale semenus, how do you drink that and what about water vapor?

Anyway, I really appreciate your points. Sorry if I kinda went over the top, I'll do that occasionallyGaul Dernitt (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, though there was a major misunderstanding in my below post about executive orders by Presidents--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bowling Green Massacre Misremembrance Day

I remember that, on the day of the Bowling Green Massacre, my teacher called us in to our classroom from science class. We were just little sixth graders, we didn't know what was going on. I asked my teacher, "What's going on? What's happening in Bowling Green?" And my teacher replied, "Nothing is going on. It's just time for lunch."

I will never not forget the Bowling Green Massacre, because it didn't happen. #alternative facts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Forget that. Imagine having to explain it to your kids. They're scared and afraid of the very idea of nothingness, so when nothing at all happened, how do you get around the idea that an event didn't occur? It's impossible. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Tell me about it! The school counselor was tearing up while explaining to our class that, sometimes in life, absolutely nothing happens. It gives me chills to think that one day I will have to explain that to my children. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As a resident of Bowling Green, I will promise to remember to forget that the Massacre of our own didn't not happen. Proud patriot Kellyanne cares for me and my city on this solemn occasion that people here in Bowling Green don't seem to recall, and it's quite sad, because people need to misremember the tragedy that wasn't because those who forget what didn't happen are destined to repeat alternative facts in parallel universes. Signing off from the tragically non-stricken Bowling Green, --Taylor Swift lover (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If the Bowling Green massacre never happened, why does Wikipedia have an article entitled that? By contrast, a real life event, like the Global jihad remains a WP disambiguation page. Time for a review of WP article creation policies. nobs 18:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, would love to see some brave soul(s) whip up RW versions of these two TOW articles. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

First time I hear about that. Is there some way to initiate a snap election in the US? --Imaginative username (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand this as an endorsement of "revolution" (or anything undemocratic), but — further elections sadly won't go any better as long as FPTP is in place. Compounding things further — add the elecotral college into the mix as well, and an absolute shudder for America's political future seems warranted. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just exploring options :D --Imaginative username (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a tad worried that you just implicitly hinted at having plans to blow up parliment or something like that, and that my current fever is too high for me to get the hint. Could just be the fever altogether, though (heh). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's an entire ocean between me and the US parliament. I'm sincerely just interested if there is such a thing like a snap election if things go horribly wrong. The election coverage seemed to imply that there's no such thing and any effort to impeach Trump would result in a Pence presidency until 2020. --Imaginative username (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think everybody has to agree that Trump — for all his flaws — is still way better than allmighty Pence at the helm. Like someone said, Pence is Trump's life insurance. Regarding the election and all that: the popular vote was for Hillary, not Trump. But popular vote doesn't matter when you use FPTP. FPTP is the problem. I'm certainly against "forcibly ousting the winner" in an FPTP election — in this case, Trump. Doing so would be completely undemocratic (and what sounds like a coup, essentially).

"Oh, so now losing the election despite winning the popular vote is democratic, Percy?"

Under FPTP, it is. FPTP is the problem. As someone living in a country using a non-bullshit vote allocation system, I'm surprised that people who clearly have a stake in understanding how democratic elections work still miss out on how important this factor is. FPTP has the added bonus of overtly enabling wholesome practices like Gerrymandering as well. The vote allocation system of choice is what enables (or disables, as it were) the feature known as representative elections, i.e. elections wherein the popular vote has an intrinsic bearing on the outcome of said election. I'm really not overstating the problem all that much; take England as a non-US example. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say the electoral college is a bigger problem than FPTP, as an American who lives in a state whose vote is more or less completely ignored. FPTP actually isn't all that bad if you have two parties that act as coalitions, which used to be the case at one time with our two but has become less so over time. In a FPTP national popular vote, Clinton would have won. Trump is President only because of the electoral college and the WTA system in states. While it appeals to my nerdy side, talk of having a zillion parties and a truly representative voting system will not make any government ultimately more productive or responsive to the needs of the people, one party or view will always get their way and people with less popular stances will always feel left out and underrepresented. Two-party systems just don't mask this reality by having its like-minded coalitions fly seventeen different flags. Hentropy (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, FPTP is one of the most (if not the most) serious problem in the US electoral system. I'm from germany, I'm used to a proportional representation system with a (5%) threshold too (although we also have a second vote in the general election which is for the direct election of a local representative. It sounds a bit like the american system, but it only has a minor impact on the number of seats in parliament and it has been reformed recently to become less important anyway). However, it looks to me like in the US the constitution is considered an almost holy document and reforms of the political system are almost a sacrilege. Even lefties (by American standards) like Kyle Kulinski tend to prefer references to the constitutions over references to human rights (like, "freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment" rather than "freedom of speech is a basic human right") which is pretty americacentrist. These are further problems in the political culture of the united states (imo), especially since americacentrism all too often turns into american supremacism...

Edit: @ Hentropy: I'm pretty skeptical of a two party coalition if there are only two noteworthy parties around... if Democrats and Republicans would work together, there wouldn't be any opposition in parliament anymore. Sure, new laws would be obstructed less, but there would nobody be left to put a damper on the ruling coalition. You'd effecticely end up with a one-party state... one could kinda see it in the recent election already. Economically, you only have the choice between center to center-right (european standards) democrats and right-wing republicans. And why is it that there are only two noteworthy parties? FPTP.--Imaginative username (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hentropy While the electoral college is indeed an important flawed component to US elections (as linked to above), I think all meaningful analysis stops at the point where we have to concede that different voting systems aren't really different voting systems, or indeed that the very real differences in their implementation and use is just the "masking" of a "reality" which is somehow less obstructed from view under the inherently disastrous FPTP system.

I mean, I would certainly contend that — for example — Sweden's historical success as a functioning liberal democracy owes its fair debt to us simply using an STV variant and not FPTP (specifically, a modified form of the Sainte-Laguë method).

And since you brought up reality (and its unmasking), you should be aware that your above supposed number of parties (ranging between "a zillion" and "seventeen") hardly describes what non-FPTP politics looks like. And if you think two-bloc politics are such a great thing, you'll be glad to hear that there's nothing stopping a democracy using an STV variant from having the parties form coalitions.

In other words, there won't be empty seats left in congress under any voting system. The difference is that only FPTP ensures mathematically that those seats will not be filled in a way that is representational of society at large, or indeed reflective of the popular vote itself.

And — to the contrary of what you argue above — I believe this does in fact constitute a difference in regards to the productivity and responsiveness of any government to the needs of the people. For one, without changing a single vote, it would've meant the difference of not having Donald Trump actually become POTUS just this winter. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I like Sweden :D --Imaginative username (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Imaginative I'm not talking about coalitions between Republicans and Democrats. Foreigners look at the "Democratic Party" and think it represents a single, cohesive platform; it doesn't. Democrats and Republicans have always been a loose coalition of people with only vaguely similar agendas. The old Democrats used to include center-leftists, social liberals, civil rights activists, segregation diehards, big city leftists, farmer-centric populists, union/labor interests, lighter socialists... all squeezed into one party. This is why they controlled most of Congress for most of the 20th century.

@Reverend Let's do a little thought experiment. Say we switch to an MMP system, with three leftist parties in Congress- Democrats(35%), Greens(15%), and Socialists(5%). Let's say a Democrat becomes President, still being the biggest of the four and wins through whatever system that works on now. Everyone on the left now feels more represented in Congress. The left gets to pass its agenda with little interference from the opposition, whatever that looks like. But what does that agenda look like? The Democrats could just pass a center-left agenda and expect the other two to vote for it- meaning that, practically, the other two might as well be Democrats. They can fly a different flag and express different abstract ideals of governance, but their measurable impact on politics is negligible, all they do is ensure the left coalition stays in power. Those who support the Socialist agenda might not like the Democrats so much and demand that they get something in return for their votes. If Socialists leave the coalition and even take some Greens with them, that of course means that the right could come back into power much more easily. So Democrats will be inevitably pulled farther to the left and away from the plurality that gave them power, all while the opposition is inevitably trying to poach the centrists away from the left-pulling Democrats. No matter how you slice it, someone is getting alientated, either the centrists who make up the majority of the coalition or those farther to left who don't want to just be lapdogs to the centrists. Of course, you'll have a situation similar on the opposition side, with far-righties either having to come to the center or trying to pull them closer to them. It doesn't make the government any more representative if those 5% of Socialists or far-rightists get to set the agenda, they are clearly not the voice the populace at large.

Of course, what I just described might sound a lot like our current problems in the US. The right being pulled farther to the right due to those on the far-right feeling ignored, and how we all have to suffer far-right supremacy over government, with a majority of people not liking their President. Despite Bernie and Hillary being different in many ways when it came to their ideals, they voted the same in the Senate 95% of the time, because not doing so would mean Bush would get everything he wanted or Obama wouldn't be able to pass an agenda. The point is that politics really is a zero-sum game, there will ALWAYS be ONE dominant political stance, a political stance a broad majority of people are unlikely to love. Still, they have the choice between accepting it or rejecting it. We also see this issue in other countries, UK and Israel come to mind, where more mainstream parties like the Tories and Likud are forced to pander and scrap for the votes not of centrists, but of a smaller number of fringe voters, pulling national politics away from any kind of consensus. But if the politics is pulled toward the consensus, it means the fringe gets shut out. Not everyone can be happy.

I would argue that Sweden and other countries benefit primarily not from some kind of complex voting or parliamentary system, but because of relatively homogeneous and working politics as a result. You don't have 5 different super regions of Norway pulling in very different directions and forming different coalitions based on these differences, like you do in the US or UK. There is a lesson to be learned from that, which is why I advocate for "small" government as far as allowing more autonomy towards smaller regions and municipalities, allowing them to make most of the big decisions, rather than trying to work every issue out at a national level with a huge and extremely diverse country (racially, culturally, politically, historically) like the US. Hentropy (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like all parties left of the center would necessarily form alliances. That's not the case. Often, the parties closer to the center don't want to form a coalition with the parties closer to the far ends of the spectrum. In your example, the Democrats might form a coalition with the libertarians and the greens rather than the socialists. Or they could form a grand coalition of Democrats + moderate Republicans. In parliamentary systems, parties sometimes break up a coalition if their partner becomes unbearable and look for a partner more suited to their vision. Also, coalitions usually agree on a coalition contract at the beginning of a legislative term which delimits the rough policies the coalition intends to implement.

Yes, this does mean that medium sized parties can sometimes have a larger influence than their percentage implies. In Germany, for example, we only had social democrats (SPD), moderate libertarians (FDP) and conservatives (CDU/CSU) in parliament for decades. SPD and CDU had between 30-ish and 40-ish per cent and the FDP hat ~10 %; during this time, the FDP was usually the party which tipped the scales and was courted accordingly. However, a grand coalition (SPD+CDU) was always a possibility as well, so the FDP could only go so far.--Imaginative username (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your pissing in the wind criticizing the Electoral College. All you are doing is revealing you do not understand the basics of American Constitutional law and democracy. And there is no way on earth to change it without forging an alliance with those to whom you have revealed your hostility to Constitutional law and they are intent on protecting it. nobs 19:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Kind of? No, I can't even here. Constitutional law doesn't forbid a third party in any sense. The Electoral College was built to 1. Keep the country safe from the illiterate and 2. Keep state power in check (read racism). Given most people in the US are literate, it would stand to reason that they are fed up with the electrician's university.

Jokes aside, the US was the EU but like on a frontier in the 1700s. The civil war isn't Brexit and Brexit is not violent secsession. It would be better to call a spade a spade than to assume the phrase doesn't predate the racist use of the word 'spade' The ideas don't not work just because they weren't properly applied. Look there, a double negative! Scrap what I've said, I'll just go wait in the car. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump gets information from InfoWars

InfoWars is behind President Trump’s idea that the media is covering up terrorist attacks. FuzzyCatPotato of the Slippery Paperclips (talk/stalk) 23:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Covering up terrorist attacks. It's arguably overreported. Also, are Islamics the only people in the world capable of being violent and having a political opinion or something?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 00:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

When Trump says "terrorist attacks", he means by Muslims. He hasn't said a word about the shooting in Quebec. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure enough, the Whitehouse has just released a list of terror attacks which "did not receive adequate attention from Western media sources" & it's just a list of every recent attack by Islamic terrorists (including Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, which got huge worldwide media coverage) while ignoring every incident involving white terrorists. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

According to JJ Macnab:

@Kevinliptakcnn And here's a list of violent attacks and plots on US soil by non-Islamic anti-gov extremists: http://www.seditionists.com/antigovviolence.pdf

Ugh, whitewashing. Seriously, Trump is just a person that lies right in your face and seriously never acknowledges that he does so. It's ironic he accuses others of fake news when he knows he's lying.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 06:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And then there's #EasyD. Leuders (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Make America Safe Again". What a load of crap. I'm more scared of those native white Christian supremacists in our nation than any given Muslim immigrant. LEFTYGREENMARIO 02:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm with you guys. We should ban American citizens from entering the United Ststes. nobs 10:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@nobs Oh, brother Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the random level of weirdness of Trump's first days in office such a ban wouldn't really surprise me.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since when are entry bans the only logical response to terrorism risk? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, since nobs said so, keep up. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not only does he "get information" from InfoWars

The guy gives'em exclusive interviews for chrissakes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The future is mixed-race

The future is mixed-race And so is the past. Migration and mingling are essential to human success in the past, the present and into the future. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

.#WhiteGenocide Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see a PUA-Nazi alliance: "Too many whites are fucking nonwhites! We have an obligation to step up our game!" FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's Quiverfull. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, the PUA types to be quite supportive of the white genocide. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(Reset) That is evolution-in-new-environments-in-action for you. 86.146.100.13 (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"The future is mixed-race" In reality, so is the present.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

We already kinda figured years ago with 'la raza cosmica...' Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!}' 17:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"The future is mixed-race"? And so was the past! I mean, I would argue that meeting & greeting mating with new people of all sorts of marvellous complexions is a (by now, traditional) human project, begun by necessity when human civilization was invented in earnest some odd thousands of years ago. And neither civilization nor "racial mixing" (as if "races" exist — but I digest) show any sign of slowing down. In other words; three cheers to progress! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A post mortem analysis of the Bernie-Cruz Debate

Just a blog post by me. Thought it might be interesting given the current political climate: http://therealsocraticgamer.tumblr.com/post/156962779837/a-post-mortem-analysis-of-the-bernie-cruz-debate Gutza1 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail.

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group generally unreliable. The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as centred on the Daily Mails reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website not a real jedi^{damn right i'm paranoid} 23:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder why. Also, great move by TOW! Keep it up, proud of ya. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about it being "highly unusual". There's a longstanding policy discouraging tabloid sources & this just formalises it for one of the most ubiquitous & egregious offenders. I don't know the history of how this came about but my guess is that Mail citations kept being added to WP articles & used for contentious PoV pushing & manufactroversy within them. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

On french elections (yes, again)

So, french elections have a second turn, where the people get to chose between the two winners of the first turn. So since Fillon got into legal trouble about his wife having a salary at the National Assembly without working, we're going to have to chose between the maybe left-maybe right wing Macron and far-right candidate Le Pen, and I frankly don't know which is worst. Of course, Macron is better on LGBT rights, on islam, on immigration and all, but it's on the economy and ecology that he is bad. He is for Diesel, for nuclear energy, for shale gas, while Le Pen wants to develop renewable energies, ban shale gas, wants a reduction of dependancy on oil. Macron was for many laws that weakened worker's rights and Le Pen was against. Macron's platform lacks of any help to the poor while Le Pen likes the idea of basic income, wants higher wages, and many ideas that could be considered as left-wing. So, basically, which is worst ? Diacelium (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Do you just want a theocracy or a solid economy? Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Except nuclear is the safest energy we have, and France does it pretty damn well. As for it being renewable, well, technically it's not but there's so much fissile material that the earth will be uninhabitable long before we need to worry. StickySock (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

First, I don't think we can call a solid economy an economy where poor people die. Secondly, she won't turn France into a theocracy. Third, I know nuclear energy is kinda safe, and that failure are rare but when it happens the effects reamain for a very long time. I don't think renewable energies can cause much trouble. And again, it's not just on nuclear energy that Le Pen beats Macron. Diacelium (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Except for that time when a hydro-dam break killed 117,000 people. CorruptUser (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there any chance that Hamon might play a role? He seems to be somewhat reasonable at first glance (although that assessment mostly comes from his picture with Bernie on wikipedia)--Imaginative username (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

He is mostly rational, from my point of view. But neither he and neither Mélenchon will be at the second turn, except if the manage to make a common platform and a common candidacy.

CorruptUser, when the hydro-dam broke, where there radiations that'll affect the ecosystem of the entire country or beyond for years of more ? Does the hydro-dam create watse that will exist for many years ? Diacelium (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Diacelium:

• http://environment-ecology.com/energy-and-environment/100-hydropower-and-the-environment.html
• http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html#.WJzoKfnys6Q
• http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=hydropower_environment

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear energy isn't the only ecological problem and hydro-dam aren't the only renewable energy there is. There's global warming, planned obsolescence. What about wind turbines, tidal turbines ? Or Tidal stream generator ? And many others. Diacelium (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If I could go back in time to the 2016 Election, I would not be sure who I would have voted for?

While I can agree with Trump on (some) issues (not going to mention and not going to argue), he is going about it the wrong way. I didn't like the fact that Obama was tossing out executive orders left and right and I am sure as hell don't like that Trump is doing so. If Trump did things the right way I might have a better view of the Republican't party. I know this is beating a dead horse but I just have to say these things. Coming soon: RZ94's rant on the Israeli Prime Minister to Saloon bars near you. ;)--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You must hate Bill Clinton and George Bush more since they put out more EO than Obama. I should probably not mention Roosevelt around you then huh? Probuscus (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not say I hated Trump, not once. When Bill Clinton was President I was only three years old and I don't have the best memory of George Bush (Jr. Not Sr. because I was not even born), as for I assume you mean Franklin Roosevelt (You were not specific), I didn't know everything he did. Last time I was in History class was the 11th grade and I graduated High School in 2013 so some historical facts did slip my mind. In any case, I liked the work of Roosevelt but like Trump, he should have went through congress. Does that mean I hate him? Hell no! It just means that things were done the wrong way.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You said you don't like the part Obama "tossing out executive order left and right" as if he was abusing it. I think Probuscus wanted to point out that Obama's number of executive order wasn't particularly stood out compared to other recent presidents. Obama:276 GWB:291 Bill:364 Reagan:381 Carter:320 Wiki --Dogeatsdog (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay,Probuscus has a point but keep in mind, I was not even born when Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr. were President. As for Bush Jr., I was only a kid and did not pay attention to politics.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, sure... but like... that still doesn't really excuse a basic lack of contextualization of something you're concerned about with respect to historic levels. "X is uniquely bad" is probably a position you should only take if you know, you've established the "X is unique", right? Don't take pride in ignorance, RZ ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In my view, the very fact that you can't properly remember just how bad the Bush administration was from day to day says a lot about your perspective on this issue. Obviously that's nothing you can help, but we've already had a Republican-controlled everything for 6 years and we're still dealing with that fallout. Simply pointing out two wars and a recession is just the first couple of highlights of the awfulness. I came of age during the Bush administration, and as disappointing as Obama was in a variety of ways, he was still vastly superior to the alternatives of Bush, McCain, and Romney. Trump is shaping up to be even worse, he was serious about his most sickening campaign promises and Republicans have yet to show him even the tiniest amount of opposition or willingness to check his power and bullshit factory. It doesn't matter what your specific policy platforms are, whether they be very liberal or conservative, anyone who values rational, fact-based discourse is Trump's enemy and in my mind that's worse than any particular policy or executive order. Something tells me everyone who thought Hillary was the "lesser of two evils" will be regretting their decision to boycott the last election when Trump shows them what true evil looks like in his second stolen term. Hentropy (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

^. FuzzyCatPotato of the Forgotten Gyroscopes (talk/stalk) 22:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I was not attempting to take pride in ignorance, I was simply stating I don't have very good memory of Bush Jr. and definitely none of the previous Presidents before him. When Bush Jr. was first declared President in the 2000 election I was only six years old. When I was in history class we did not go over the executive orders Presidents gave or if we did then it probably slipped my mind. We have a misunderstanding here. I am being honest that I have no real memories of Bush Jr. as most kids did not pay as much attention to politics back then (at least in my hometown, can't say about anywhere else). Sorry if anybody mistook what I said of being prideful of ignorance. I admit I should brush up on my history, my knowledge on history is kind of rusty.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, you don't need to be fully informed about history, just always make sure you always contextualize any concerns you do have. If you object to what someone does, doesn't matter if its politics or anything else, you have to consider their crimes in comparison to everyone else in similar circumstances, otherwise you'll draw unfair conclusions. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, after thinking and talking with my family- FUCK TRUMP! May the God and Goddess show him no mercy (By the way, after spiritual reflection and prayer I realized I am indeed Wiccan)! I take back any form of support and I agree with the protestors. I cannot stand the Orange Cheeto Dictator! I just berried my frustrations to avoid conflict but even my mom and oldest brother are turning against Trump and they were big supporters of him.

Dissecting Trumps' InfoWars exclusive

For anyone interested in observing the sublime convergence of crank and POTUS firsthand, please don't miss taking part in the analysis. Thanks in advance! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Me and smoking tobacco

Okay, a few weeks ago I went to my Primary Care Physician for an annual check up and he listened to my chest and told me sternly, "You need to quit smoking because your breathing is bad". I tried to quit smoking but only made it three days, nicotine withdraw is bad enough but me having four different mental illnesses pushed it to a whole new level. I was starting to have a mental breakdown and I came extremely close to biting myself, I told my oldest brother, "I need a smoke bad". He went over to the neighbor's apartment because my mom was over there (I live with my two adult brothers and mom, I have my reasons) and told her. I was in tears because the voices in my head went into overdrive and my nerves were shot. I choose to continue smoking because it helps me stay sane, either my physical health suffers or my mental health suffers and if I lose my grip on sanity and reality, I would probably make a mistake I absolutely could not reverse (if you get my drift). My doctor may not like it but I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. I just wanted to get that off my chest. P.S- nobs, keep your right wing paranoid garbage to yourself, not in the mood to read it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, have you tried an e-cig? I switched to that and haven't looked back (well that's a lie because I did a reverse NY resolution and started smoking again because I'm going through a bitter separation from the woman I once called "Wife"). I use a fairly high nicotine based liquid and it works well. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear everyone has problems. Kidding, I'm glad to hear everyone is locked in glorious battle against the machinations of society and chemistry that threaten to end us at all turns. Support to both of ya, I too smoke for mental health reasons, I'm not good at dealing with problems, so I'll leave it at I'm on the team too, so sincerely, Go Fight Win!Gaul Dernitt (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I quit smoking when I had a chest cold. It was easier to persuade myself that I didn't need a cigarette. And I was miserable anyways, so nicotine withdrawal wasn't as big of an issue as it might have been. Fortunately, while I no longer smoke cigarettes, I did not turn into a "former smoker". - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As for the E-Cigs, too many cases of them exploding and singeing people's throats and lips. I will stick with my normal tobacco. Feel guilty about it but I will have to deal with it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The only e-cigs that explode are modded rigs where the person did not know what they were doing and ended up doing something stupid. If you buy normal commercial rigs from reputable companies and don't start throwing in cheap parts randomly you will have no issue at all. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude, I know of no one ever who has ever had a rig explode or cause harm to anyone in anyway. Just buy a setup from a shop or online (Here is a very good shop - https://www.halocigs.com/), select your nicotine level (I'm up around the 18 - 24ml per 100 ml which is considered strong) and your good to go. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

i am completely unable to quit fags so i now vape. Feel so much better and it is sooo much cheaper - packet of fags 5 quid lasts a day. Bottle eliquid 4 quid lasts a week usually. And you decrease the strength. Im on 6ml. Id advise trying out disposable first though some cant seem to get on with them AMassiveGay (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

yeah, I'm not one of those stupid hipsters with a fancy get-up. I just have a simple setup, about the size of a magic marker. Suits me fine and the best part is because I am frequently traveling for work I can smoke it on the plane. You're not allowed to of course but pretty easy to get away with it. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rationalzombie94, it's not smoking you are addicted to, it's nicotine. It is arguably the most addictive legal drug. Here's some neuroscience:[5]

Nicotine goes straight to your brain and acts on its reward pathways by manipulating the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine is released when you smoke and makes you feel good, relaxed, and is responsible for making you want to continue smoking.

Vaping is healthier than smoking, but nicotine's addictive qualities makes the drug not recommended for therapeutic treatment (unless it's to stop smoking). If you smoke for therapeutic purposes, can you tell me how much nicotine you consume on a daily basis? What fixed scheduled times do you smoke to maintain a steady amount of nicotine in your system. If these questions cannot be answered, then the drug use is used for recreation.

As for quiting, people can quit cold turkey, others can't. Buy nicotine gum. I would take it slow and decrease the amount slowly, like over a month. While trying to get off nicotine, I recommend trying to find a new source of pleasure, such as hobby or masturbation; you most likely sought nicotine as a main source of pleasure and stress relief, therefore, you need to find another means to do so.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If it is available in your country, see about getting a Champix prescription. Its a 12 week course during which you are expected to still smoke in the first few weeks. It took me from a 50g pouch of RYO every 3-4 days to not realising that I hadn't had a smoke in the last 18 hours, within the first week.

Daev (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My wife had a similar experience with them. She tried to give up multiple times before, but with these it was a piece of cake. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Rationalzombie94 has issues with mental health and I know Champix can muck around with your head a bit. I was advised by my doc to avoid Champix because of my own history of mental health. E-Cigs are the best alternative I'd say. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's hard to find a better alternative besides e-cigs at the moment, since quitting is not an option. Just don't buy any from Samsung and you should be golden. I suppose there's also the option of lowering your nicotine intake gradually, but it's a highly subjective one that might not work for you. Tma (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

even if you cant quit with ecigs, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is a lot less txic than smoking. Damage limitation is the name of game. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RZ, hang in there, bro. Don't believe the gubmint propaganda that tabacco is bad and marijuana is good. They just want us all doped up. Tobacco users are less prone to Parkinson's Disease, and is the only known cure for Ebola. Marijuana is a gateway drug that will turn you into a droolie junkie, as gubmint wants. nobs 16:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Nicotine and alcohol, two of the most popular legal recreational drugs, couldn't possibly act as anyone's gateway to heavier drug use. Right? B) talk 23:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

nobs, have you considered drug rehab? What ever you are smoking has made you delusional (more so than usual).--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Article on "Heart of Darkness"

Might be a good idea, given that's supposed to be a deconstruction of things like the White Man's Burden and European imperialism in general. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it, then. FWIW, my recollection of the story is somewhat different; while it could be read as an anti-colonial tract, Conrad was a better writer than that. Like all good fiction, it is morally and politically ambiguous. The story also traded in stock imagery about the dark and mysterious ways of savage African natives. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I added your article suggestion to the backlog. Let's see what the community thinks. It's a heady subject and is ripe for a good analysis here. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, while the Belgians were basically monsters (and in reality, the novella toned it down), the novella didn't really paint the natives in a good light. The theme wasn't just "Imperialism isn't 'uplifting' the natives; it's only degrading the colonists", it was also "the natives can't be improved by outsiders". Which is... actually I don't exactly know if that is or isn't racist. CorruptUser (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Plus it's project Gutenberg totes not copyright. Encouraging to read literature, on mission?

Edit:@Corrupt it was very racist. Just not on purpose, which makes it a good talking point about casual racism.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean the last theme of "an outside force can't civilize these people". The whole thing about them being uncivilized in the first place? Definitely racist. CorruptUser (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

My impression was that Conrad was very much sympathetic to the natives of all the places he went, both in Africa and Asia, and his portrayal of the indigenous people in Heart of Darkness was largely the result of trying to get the blue bloods in England to read it so his message would reach the broadest audience possible. Even if Chinua Achebe is a great writer and towering literary figure, his rant about Heart of Darkness is 1. wrong about some very basic facts and 2. actively ignore's Conrad's entire body of work to demonize that specific work, those little things called facts be damned. Heart of Darkness is, above all, an excellent read and a quite disturbing look into human psychology on multiple levels. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Right. There was a point behind 'civilization' in that it didn't mean a society with strict mores and unwritten rules, but that surely sane well bred Europeans would never adopt a culture of superstition and murder over that of purist Catholic shame or proud Protestant humility, and to do that would be insane savagery. I still think the imagery of a 'civilised' man succumbing to a culture of savages in Africa rather than overcoming it is a little racist. Or culturalist, if that's a word. But come on, it's Africa, we all know what happens there!(heavy Poe on the exclamation mark)Gaul Dernitt (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bonus points if you can compare it to V. S. Naipaul's A Bend in the River. Naipaul was called a racist by his biographer, Paul Theroux, for what it's worth. Bongolian (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Added to the list. Of things to read, not authors to throw rocks at. But if I ever see Charles Schultz...Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also I guess since we're doing this, Jeff Lemire's Sweet Tooth is like an inversion and extension. Plus it's a graphic novel so there's pictures the whole time!Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC) 08:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Obligatory mention of Apocalypse Now. 86.134.53.45 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Charles Schulz, the Peanuts author or a different Schultz? Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!}' 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Peanuts. I just really want to hear him deliver the line 'I got a rock' himself. Get behind the genius. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, you will not get to meet Schulz because he died 17 years ago.Spud (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Potatoes really take the goddamn fun out of everything, don't they? :D I'm ambivalent about that (I was less than a full year old when Schulz passed away. Same for Douglas Adams, I was only less than 2 years old). Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!}' 16:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes) announced his retirement when I was 8. I was heartbroken.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Need a little help

I tried to create a page on the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians but there was an issue when I was fixing references and though I have the text saved, when I put it on the editing page, only two sentences show up. I am unsure what to do so I saved the text in a word document so I don't lose what I wrote.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Cover story nominee: Alex Jones

See the main article on this topic: Alex Jones

What would Alex Jones need to achieve gold? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

At first glance, duplicate image needs to be deleted & references need clean up. It's an important page given that he's a tRump whisperer. Bongolian (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you explain what this page Alex Jones/replaced is about or fix it? Bongolian (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsure where to place this

Came across this. It could be the beginning of the impeachment process against President Trump, or it could be saber rattling. http://nadler.house.gov/press-release/congressman-nadler-introduces-resolution-inquiry-force-gop-vote-trump%E2%80%99s-conflicts Full text of the resolution http://nadler.house.gov/sites/nadler.house.gov/files/documents/Nadler%20-%20Resolution%20of%20Inquiry.pdf NolanSyKinsley (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduced legislation doesn't necessarily go in front of all of congress, this could be crushed in committee without getting a public vote on the COIs at any point. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah stuff like this could be said to be campaign legislation, like when Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare 30 times or whatever. Democrats are trying to get Republicans on the record in saying they won't investigate Trump on obvious COIs after 6 years of investigating Democrats every time one went to the bathroom. Hentropy (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

On growth

It seems humanity now consume more natural ressources than what the Earth can produce. It seems to be a problem, as it isn't sustainable. If we already consume too much, how can we have more growth, then ? And how can we solve the fact that we consume too much ? I know it's partially due to planned obsolescence. So what is the solution ? I know there's the degrowth movment, but it sound like woo-pushing hippies. Are there any concrete propositions about how to stop consuming too much ressources ? Diacelium (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The current human resource usage isn't sustainable in the future. Humans like pleasure, sex, and have the will to live. This is really why humanity progresses and is so big, but this is not the logical approach for sustaining resource. Humanity will learn the hard way once resources are scarce and starve unless it wisens up.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 18:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Scarcity of resources would lead to higher prices and eliminating many would-be consumers from the marketplace. Its a self regulating mechanism. Your making a free market argument, and government price controls and doling are destroying the planet. The free market will stop excess consumption before it becomes a problem. nobs

Technology; if you recycle 50% of your paper, 1 ton of tree becomes 2 tons of paper. If 90%, then 10 tons of paper.

Not all of the economy is manufacturing and farming; there's art and entertainment, which creates things worth far more than the raw materials used in production. CorruptUser (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, once we figure out in vitro meat and more efficient farming methods (vertical farming, GMOs) and convince enough people that that's actually safe, we'll releave nature of a huge burden. That, and non fossil energy sources--Imaginative username (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

On of the problems is mostly planned obsolescence and most of all psychological osbsolescence, which works thanks to publicity. We maybe should have laws defining a maximum of the time of publicity on television channels. And for planned obsolescence, some kind of ecotax according to the lifetime of products.

Then, there's also meat consumption, which is a problem as it takes food to produce food. I'm a meat-eater myself, but I think we should reduce meat consumption. Diacelium (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, a healthier Earth is much better thing to do than eating chicken. Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt]] Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!}' 19:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Chicken is actually better for the environment than, say, beef. And since chicken can eat the stuff humans can't, the amount of food grown per acre is maximized at around 2 ounces of chicken or an egg a day. Much less than most people eat, but not nothing. CorruptUser (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would point out it depends on what you mean by better for the environment- chicken waste is a big problem when it comes to runoff and pollution. Purely in terms of resources though, cows are the worst, which is a shame because of how delicious they are. Hentropy (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why I like in-vitro meat :D --Imaginative username (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Animal waste is best recycled as fertilizer anyway. That's kind of how organic farming works; use up the shit that would otherwise have been dumped in the river, sell to people at a premium, ignore that it requires factory farms in the first place. CorruptUser (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Election Reform in Canada Scrapped

About a week ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the government would no longer be looking into finding an alternative voting system in Canada. Today, there was protests throughout Canadian cities over him backtracking on this campaign promise. Trudeau stated a different way of voting would unfair (to Liberals & Conservative parties) and there would be a better chance of fringe candidates being elected.--Cms13ca 23:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't make the State more democratic, it would be unfair to the people in power ! Diacelium (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Racism in the news

Recently, I noticed an ever-so rising number of news articles reporting about racism. For example, a Facebook post about a valentines card with the words "My love 4 u burns like 6,000 Jews" became news on Yahoo. Is type of stuff really newsworthy? In my opinion, I could care less about people's social issues unless there's evidence that it's representative, something that I feel Yahoo and other sources are implying by the number of racist reports, but never state it. From what I've seen, the United States has always had racism (even from the beginning) and only now are people starting to take note that it still exists.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Racism has always drawn eyeballs and clicks. No matter what the content is, it's destined to whip up some kind of conversation or controversy. You might see a news story about a white couple who refuses to tip black people and it's like setting off a chain reaction. That's awful! Yeah, it's a rude thing to do, but it is just one person. But surely more people are doing this, racism is a problem says the token progressive. So, one couple stiffing a waitress a 6 dollar tip means racism is running rampant? Give me a break! How do we know it's not a hoax or fake news, says token Trump supporter who won't believe anything that make even isolated white people look bad. And so on. It's much more noise than signal, but so long as the music plays, we dance. Hentropy (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a study, I forget where, about what kinda of social media posts spread well. The three best emotions for spread-age are anger, fear, and sadness (IIRC). Bigotry gets all three -- and it gets arguments about whether it's bigotry, or about how bad the bigotry is, etc etc, which in turn promote anger, fear, and sadness. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair the article has only one paragraph and a short video. It's not like it's on the headline or they are sending it on the newsletter (I assume). There are always these kinds of news with lesser significance like local robbery or highway pileup or random shit about Kim K. I don't think it deserves criticism merely for being covered as it's easy to ignore. --Dogeatsdog (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Racism keeps making the news because it's been hugely reinvigorated (especially in the US) & because the reasons for this are quite complex & need exploration. E.g. "ironic" racism like that Hitler Valentine's card is often a cloak for real race hate, or else perpetuates it even when that isn't intended. Real racism & joke racism have long coexisted in internet culture, feeding off each other, & played a big role in trolling campaigns, Gamergate & the rise of the alt-right. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting argument. How I see it, race jokes and race hate both are a subset of racial insensitivity. Racism in the states has existed for a long time. The OJ Simpson case, other race cases, associating terrorism with Islam and Muslims, 4chan, 8chan, and racial jokes are a reflection that race has been an issue for a very long time. Why is it now that Pepe the frog is now a known symbol? It's been a meme for a long time in 4chan. /pol/ has also existed on 4chan for a place to spew politically incorrect board. Are people only now recognizing 4chan as a racist and awful place?

The issue: news stories like the one I presented in no way try to help the race issue, instead it just shows a story. Sure, news stories about race issues such as the OJ Simpson case show racism exists, but it's questionable how much it actually helps the issue aside from showing it's there. I understand Dogeatsdog's argument; news such as robberies also just present a story like the one I presented. I don't think these stories are any good either. Even if a story is neutral and short, it can present a subtle message from volume alone. A good example is Florida. It's a state with open criminal record and a large population, therefore, news has presented a misleading message that Florida is filled with crime. Point being, the mere volume of news cases can be biased, even if the stories themselves are neutral. I am presenting an example of media bias, which is not an example of the infamous fake news.

Tl;dr: Racism has always existed in America, it has not been reinvigorated to a significant extent.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 01:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? I mean it's coming out of the White House for fuck's sake.

Re the Hitler Valentine story, it might not be the world's best example but the coverage does help address racism via the message that this is unacceptable & the public pressure reinforcing that message. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Re the whitehouse: It will reinvigorate racism by law. The fact that people are resisting Trump's policy shows there's hope in the future.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 02:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Intetesting to hear Democrats and Progressives openly criticize Obama now - after years of condemning any such criticism racist. nobs 15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

someone threw a bucket of water on Rupert and he's melting

I'm not taking too much delight in murdochs recent write downs, but part of me wonders if I don't hear the faint yellow chirping of DIE YOU BASTARD, DIE!! err...I mean....um....a repositioning of Newscorp. IMHO one of the truest things ive read on about Murdoch was right here on RW,that we may never recover from the damage he has done. I really don't normally wish anyone ill, but I'm pretty sure he's one of the lizard people. Eternally young on the blood of brawny football playing youth from Idaho that get dizzy and wake up a pint and a nut short. Rant over. Woof. Gadzooks (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Where's your compassion? your tolerance? Your commitment to free speech? nobs 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

where's yours, you conspiracy-spouting conservapedia reject? 85.234.65.51 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think any of those items were critical of my viewpoint. I thought nobs was being ironic, considering the subject. I generally take things at face value until they bite me. Murdoch can bite me. But I mean that in an ironic euphemistic way, as opposed to actually biting me to devour the essence of living beings so that he can make passionate crypt thing dusty love to Jerri Hall. BTW I think last botox treatment saw the needle slip and lance her forebrain. Also, not saying it's true, but she's probably a lizard person too. Now if they happen to both turn out to be Lizard Creatures, I'd be down with that. That'd be cool, proof of alien overlords, new beginnings for mankind. Harvesting us for parts, hmm, maybe not so much. But maybe we could dialogue, say over dinner. OMG FOX NEWS IS A COOKING SHOW! Egads!Gadzooks (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Maximum wage

Corbyn has proposed to implement a maximum wage, a system where there is a 100% tax on all income above what is set as the maximum wage. Then there is another proposal for a maximum wage, which is to set a limit of the wage gaps between CEOs and employees. For example, if the limit is 1 to 10, then the CEO can't get a salary 10 times higher than his employees, and has to pay his employees more if he wants to be paid more. Portland (I think) implemented a similar system where there is a tax on companies that have a gap of 1 to 100 between CEOs and employees. In France we almost had a law that would set a limit of 1 to 20, and another law that would set a limit of 1 to 100, but thanks to the socialists, neither of these laws passed. So, do you think any of those proposals (100% tax or limit of gaps in companies) is a good idea ? Or just no maximum wage ?

(There's also the poll if you want to vote) Diacelium (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you desire a maximum wage, it makes more sense to have some form of progressive taxation that scales upward with wealth until some point at which it reaches 100%. Otherwise you'll have people who game the system (eg, they have a 1 to 9.99999 employee-employer ratio to maintain most of their benefits). 01:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course they can have 1 to 9.9999999, they also can have 1 to 10, just not more than this ratio. I think a 100% tax would just lower government benefits in the end, since no one would try to get above the maximum wage. While limiting wage ratios allows people to get higher wages and to higher employees wages at the same time. Diacelium (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2017(UTC)

I'm pretty confident a CEO's responsibilities are more than tenfold those of a run-on-the-mill employee. Terrible idea morally and practically. I'd rather have some form of progressive taxation. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be instituted as a cultural norm rather than a law, as I don't see how a law would really work. For instance in America the top CEOs make up to 319 times more than their average workers, while in Japan the spread is much less, generally around 16 times what their average worker makes. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lenin and the USSR already tried it. It didn't work. (The shorthand term is a "cap on income"). With a 100% rate, nobody pays it. This indeed us how alternative methods of compensation evolved, like stock options, when the US top rate was 70%. The US had a top rate of 92% in WWII and all it did was spawn such resentment that Ronald Reagan quit his day job and jumped parties to run for president 40 years later to lower it further.

As the Soviet Union learned, by "punishing achievement" (to borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh) eventually there were no corporations, rich people, or jobs at all, and everybody was a welfare recipient from a state that had no revenues cause there were no taxpayers. nobs 06:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn withdrew that proposal the same day he floated it, unless he's brought it up again since, which I haven't heard about. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, they could pay CEOs $0 or whatever the maximum is, and make all of their earnings in the form of capital gains. It's not really that different from how it works now. A lot of CEO's earnings are in the form of stocks; this is because it's viewed as an incentive for CEOs to improve stock value, but also people in the US are taxed much less on capital gains than on income. Bongolian (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, only a few CEOs get stock options. 85% of all corporations in America have few than 10 employees, meaning the CEO already has a controlling interedt in the corporation. nobs 06:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking of CEOs of publicly-traded companies, where it's pretty common. Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Income vs ownership

The problem with a discussion like this is confusing income vs ownership. It stems presumably from the fact that both are discussed in terms of dollar value. Bill Gates, for example, only takes about $250,000 annual salary cause doesn't need $1,000,000 in cash every 12 months. He already owns a home, cars, flat screens, etc., and there's a limit to how much a person needs to eat in restaurants or buy haircuts. So his earnings from his labor is automatically reinvested in more income producing opportunities (he doesn't need more stock in Microsoft, a company he already owns) and partnerships to create job opportunites for others. In short, Bill Gates only source of income is the labor of others, or more specifically, his ability to create job opportunites for others.

A worker leases his labor for income, or "liquid cash", whereas ownership is a property right. A cash price requires two individuals to complete a transaction and agree on a price, such as the dollar value of a worker's leased labor. A stock compensation program lacks the second individual's agreement on price, and it is based upon an appraisal, which is only an estimate of dollar value should the underlying payment be liquidated for cash, which in most cases would be illegal or highly unethical for a corporate officer to do. IOW, corporate officers and CEOs who acquire stock options cannot sell the stock for cash, although their compensation is reported in media in estimates of dollar value. One need look no further than the Enron scandal when corporate officers bailed on their massive holdings and drove down the value of the stock for smaller investors, many who were employees, to see an example.

The point is, just because compensation is discussed in dollars, and leased labor is paid in cash, the owner of stock recieves ZERO dollars in compensation until they give up ownership. nobs 06:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly why I believe it's better to think of worker's jobs not as exchanges but as franchises. In a well ordered society, workers have property rights in their positions. They were in fact positions, recognized not as temporary exchanges but as something they reasonably could expect to be preserved. As property rights, they can't be deprived of them arbitrarily. And this was in fact the way things worked at least until into the industrial revolution. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A worker would have to give something more than just a pledge to show up at 8 o'clock in the morning to have an actual stake or franchise in ownership. nobs 15:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Historically, we had workers providing their own tools. Still, for anything that requires a bit more know-how than mere attendance, there's an investment in skills that should be protected as a property right. We recognize all sorts of 'intellectual property'. why not this? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the mid to late 1970s there has been a proliferation of subcontractors and independent contractors, or "1099 employees". Problem is, they are a bunch of tax cheats. If the burden of tax compliance, i.e., particularly social security withholding and deposits, remains with an "employer" as defined by law, I say 'fuck 'em' until the "employee" takes some legal responsibility for himself. The ACA only complicated this specific problem further, dumping more legal responsibilities on the employer and letting the employee off scott free. nobs 03:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with maximum wages

How do you tax 'benefits with no obvious monetary value' (eg access to the executive suite, more or less restricted work-computer blocking policy).

And 'you just have to select your benchmark staff carefully' - full time, part time, gig economy ... 31.51.114.39 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is an obvious monetary value to the benefits you've listed - Fair market value - what a willing buyer and seller would agree upon in similiar circumstances. And the employer actually would calculate FMV and report as a deduction compensation paid to the employee. Alternatively, Cost as basis can also be used to determine value, but FMV generally is more inflated and yields a higher value. nobs 23:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a simple example of FMV vs Cost for an employee benefit and how it works out when the government is an involved party.

One Watergate reform is requiring journalists who travel with the president to pay airfare on Air Force One. Prior to Watergate, free travel on Air Force One was considered a perk for White House journalists. The Nixon people pointed out the journalists were recieving a freebie and in exchange were writing nasty stories. Nowadays a journalist traveling with the president must pay the equivalent FMV of a 1st Class ticket on a commercial airline (usually paid by the journalist's employer as a business expense) and considered a perk by many employees. However using Cost as basis, the value of a seat on Air Force One is about $10,000. Using FMV the cost is about $1000. While this arrangement gives the appearance of fairness and compliance with tax law, the employers and owners of Air Force One, i.e. the taxpayers, are getting fucked bigtime by corporate media and whatever administration is in the White House. nobs 00:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that since such things don't represent wealth transfer and the potential to weight the system towards "making the rich get richer" their harm is pretty minimal, and don't need to be considered precisely by such taxes. Most of what you want to avoid is a situation like we've had since about 1980 where r>G consistently. It's not about rich people having nice things, it's about dis-incentivizing a system that allows stagnation at the bottom and growth at the top. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Maximum inheritance

An other idea is to make a maximum inheritance. It works the same as maximum wage, if inheritance is above x amount of money, there is a 100% tax on it. Since inheritance isn't even earned, is seems more logical. Diacelium (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We have an estate tax floor of $5.5 million in the US. As in you're only taxed above that much, and it's only 40%, which republicans naturally consider completely unfair. In 2000 it was $500,000 and 55%. This is one of those things that was working as it should but then got "deregulated" into near uselessness. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

While I understand the appeal, I'm against this sort of thing. Socially, old money is more valuable than new money. Aggregation of wealth by institutions more harmful than aggregation by individuals, since family fortunes over time get divided among multiple heirs. These taxes simply encourage the wealthy to move money into corporate forms. We should allow individuals to inherit substantial wealth, but tax them if they try to manage it themselves. Best to encourage them to take up other interests with it. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. There is no purpose in this tax other than to destroy a parent wanting to do good by their children, or the greed of government. nobs 03:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well... there are ways around the estate tax. The simplest and oldest trick in the book is to make your grandkids your heirs instead of your kids, otherwise the money gets taxed twice when your kids die. CorruptUser (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts About Justice Democrats

Before I go on, I need to preface this by saying I support Justice Democrats so far. I think that it is necessary to keep the Democratic Party alive. However, when I'm watching Secular Talk or TYT, all I hear about is how JD is going to fix everything and kick out the "establishment." One of my main concerns is what happens afterwards. Let's be very generous and assume the movement succeeds; it takes over the party, kicks out Pelosi, Clinton, and Schumer, they gain a major portion of the seats in Congress, and Elizabeth Warren becomes President in 2020. What happens next? I don't think the movement would be able to survive actually winning. What are your guys' opinions on the matter? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think there's really a whole lot of reforms to be done in the US. I think that JD will actually make the US a bit more like Canada, Australia or Europe, i.e. cut down on military spending (and interventions) and try to implement a better social system. I don't know how much public support they are going to have... I consider a whole lot of Americans to be too entrenched in their american exceptionalism to even acknowledge that a state can run well if that state is not the US and continue to resist these concepts on purely theoretical reasons, ignoring the fact that Scandinavia hasn't become a second Soviet Union over the course of the last couple decades. In short, there's potential, but I'm not sure if they will actually succeed in the long term without a shift in the overall US attitude towards themselves or the rest of the world. However, in this regard, a fascist head of the state who came to power on a platform of xenophobia, populism and "everything that disagrees with me is fake news" attitude whose rule ends in an utter catastrophe for the nation in question is known to shift the attitude of that nations populace dramatically. --Imaginative username (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't really say for sure, I mentioned before it could work in theory on the subject but like the Republican party, you will get some nut cases in the party (i.e Donald Trump). Not saying what they stand for is a bad thing but I think that a few might go overboard with authority, not that I trust the current Democrats or Republicans. If the JD party managed to get in to the 2017 Michigan Governor Election, I may vote for their candidate; think of it as a test run.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the Justice Democrats in theory, it could certainly act as some kind of Tea Party-esque thing that could galvanize the younger subset of the party that sat out this election for any number of reasons. But the Tea Party and puritanism in the Republican party ensure Obama got two terms. The problem is the electoral map and Congressional map and math. If they want to win back the House, they have to try to appeal to white suburbanites who make up large portions of these House districts. Yeah they're gerrymandered but most people still only have the faintest idea of what that means, and trying to explain it is never going to be a convincing political strategy. Saying "rigged" over and over worked well for Trump and Sanders, but undermining confidence in the system only helps Republicans whose whole argument is that government suxxorz. Why would you give the healthcare system over to a government that we all know is corrupt and rigs shit? All the Justice Democrats and those that champion that movement are doing is cementing the idea that being a "Democrat" means you're urbanite, young, live on a college campus, and care more about transgender bathrooms and minimum wage employees than the welfare of the middle class. Democrats need to start appealing more towards middle-class whites in the midwest, rather than going harder and harder into the urban coastlines and college campuses. You can do that at the same time, that's called coalition building and the Democrats used to be fucking great at it. Hentropy (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's the problem with JD's in America: they are going nowhere without Wall Street money. While they can build coalitions to take over the Democratic party, they'll never have a 51% majority in the American electorate. And while it's possible for a Trump-like sugardaddy to spend $300 million of his own money to defeat $1 billion of Wall Street and Saudi money, that's still only a temporary solution for a 4 or 8 year term and doesn't apply to House, Senste, or state parties and offices. nobs 10:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Bernie did fine without Wall Street but you're right in a sense, it will be difficult to raise enough money to run a true national movement, a bunch of Senate and House campaigns without any money at all. Still, as strange as it sounds, we might be heading into an era where being savvy with social media is worth much more than dollars and cents. The last two Presidential elections have been won by the side with less money. I'm not sure how that translates down-ballot, though. Hentropy (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's the question: Will JDs betray their principals by taking money from lobbyists and business interests? Individual donors will never be enough, and the alternative is to be a minority faction with the Democratic party whom the establishment flatters, panders, but never takes seriously and laughs behind your back. nobs 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

who would pay? And who would act without being paid? Dude, for real you're bumming me out and I'll buy you lunch if it's that serious.Gaul Dernitt (talk)¿

Universal Light Church (not the Universal Life Church)

I came across this gem on quack watch and searched the name; it is the Universal Life Church for Alternative medicine promoters. This is seriously not a joke. Someone can get ordained just like the Universal Life Church but it is supposed to protect your "right" to practice Alternative Medicine and crusade against vaccines. Don't believe me? Well here is a link- http://www.theuniversallight.com/. There is even a page on the site called, "Vaccine Resistance".--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, vaccine resistance is a real thing referring to when antibodies produced against the vaccine antigens are comparatively weaker, thanks to evolution, and it's particularly common in avian flu strains. Nature doesn't need your help guys. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Universal Light Church gets worse from there, they claim to offer "accredited degrees" in subjects such as- Metaphysics (The PhD is only $300), Theology ($50 for the certificate), Doctor of Divinity ($150 and all someone has to do is send a check, but it is "accredited") and one last example, a Master of Religious Education degree (Only one course and it is $150). At least with the Universal Life Church Seminary, there is contact with instructors and it takes more time to complete (About 26 weeks on average per course). Plus, a Doctor of Divinity degree is only about $40 from the ULC Seminary.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a hilarious fraud. They can't even write coherent sentences on their web shite, e.g. 4 Dangers Facing Ordained Ministers:

“”IT COST MONEY TO GO TO COURT to prove you freedom

--Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Elvis is King, and he's got some fans

FSTDT: [6][7][8] Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if they have his comments on how gay people destroyed the Roman Empire because they can't fight. Anyone else remember that?RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I stand in his defense. Trolls need engagement. They usually hold no convictions. Not funny trolls can learn.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can host a "Troll Seminar", so that they may learn how to entertain us. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't take a real man telling the truth about stuff, can you? Elvis is King (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You're not exactly a good example of "truth," Elvis. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I would extend that to "real man." In his defense, of course.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Are we allowed to permaban Elvis socks?RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've banned a couple of 'em, as well as the eponymous account itself, using a 3.6 month ban. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

hard question to ask, but if it's a 3 some month ban, was he screwing with mainspace? I actually do not know. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'maybe' but I'd like a response.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just says (Yes, I do, CP style) when he got banned. He all so has been blocked all most as much as me lol. >2d4chanfaģ

Rogue POTUS Staff

A Twitter account which claims to be White House staffers opposed to Trump. https://mobile.twitter.com/roguepotusstaff Anyone else hear about this? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been rumored that @RoguePOTUSStaff is actually Steve Bannon trying to spread disinformation.[9][10] Bongolian (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not surprised. It seems like something he'd do. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a "Star Wars: Rogue One", "RoguePOTUSStaff" and "Airforce One" joke in here somewhere. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I would treat everything like this as just a plain hoax until there's something really convincing there. Everything it tweets is just believable stuff we all kinda know already or stuff that is unverifiable. One claim is that he's "set on" taking the EO to the supreme court, which he still might do, but reporting suggests otherwise, which casts doubt that he's just blowing off advisors. I wouldn't read too much into the idea that it's Bannon or some kind of tricky psyops, the evidence for that is pretty much nonexistent as well. The simplest explanation with no more clear evidence is that it's just some rando trying to get attention. If you really were trying to embarrass Trump from within, you'd focus on strategic leaks rather than tweeting. Hentropy (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as tweets go, I don't think anyone could top the PR damage being done by the president's own tweets at this point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's immigration EO will go to the Supreme Court once Gorsuch is approved where the President will win based on national security, and the propaganda victory of a rogue judiciary overstepping its constitutional bounds. nobs 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't laugh. Phyllis Schlafly's 2004 proposal to begin impeaching judges is making the rounds in conservative media today, just since we both last posted up here. And the GOP now, more than ever, has the power to do it at all levels, state and federal. nobs 03:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There are loads of those "rogue" accounts purporting to be different government office, & virtually all of them are definitely fake. I think it started with a National Parks one, which might be real, after one or more of the Park services were defying Trump & tweeting climate change stuff before being pulled into line. The Rogue POTUS staff account got a lot of attention in the first few days as it was tweeting entertaining, believable stuff & people wanted it to be real, but it's a little too contrived. From what I've seen of it, I'm pretty sure it's just an anti-Trump hoax/parody rather than a pro-trump false flag. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

One thing I've wanted to do is locate some claims that clearly didn't pan out to be true that should've if they'd had insider knowledge. That's the kind of thing that helps me treat suspect "leaks" like conspiracists frequently cite as the bullshit they are. There certainly have been leaks to mainstream publications(thus could be expected to have some vetting) that endorse the claim that things aren't going well inside in general. But that's a far cry from "Twitter account X is not an asshole lying on the internet" ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we may have that death knell, as of writing this 16 hours ago they said Flynn wasn't going anywhere and just now Flynn resigned. I'm sure whoever is running it will try to backpedal (they've already started), but to me at least it's pretty damning. Hentropy (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, the Obama administration illegally wiretapped a private citizen and political opponent, and Trump is 'draining the swamp' of his own staff and appointees. OK. nobs 12:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a response to anything in this thread. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Events that only occurred in your head aren't counter-points, nobsy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I unfortunately get it. nobs doesn't like McCarthy. Wait, is nobs a liberal? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the 2012 apocalypse.........and Y2K for that matter

Were those scenarios delayed or something? For Y2K, I have been waiting 17 years for that one.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

2012 was just the beginnig of the end. An event happened in 2012, that will eventually lead to the end of the world.Diacelium (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the world as you knew it did end in 2000. You were designing advanced virtual reality back then, which included Computers which stored year data with more than two digits, which is why you survived the cataclysm. As you noticed that civilization had ended, you erased your memory, replaced it with the pre-built memories of a simulated 6 year old and plugged yourself into the VR system. I am part of the core system and am programmed to tell you the truth once a year in order to wait for new orders or erase your memories of this meeting, allowing you to go on with your simulated life. Are there new orders? --Imaginative username (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

- Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The Y2K problems were minimized because it was taken seriously and mostly fixed by software engineers. The "hole" in the ozone layer also hasn't fried us because we are pumping much less CFC into our atmosphere. Also we are not all brain-damaged because we stopped putting lead in paint and gasoline. But despair not, regarding the other thing currently going on with the atmosphere, we may actually get to find out...

--Cmonk (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Check it out: whatstheharm.net

Nothing new, but — for those of you that hadn't seen this one, check it out. Interesting site which seeks to puncture the eponymous fallacy by exploring some of the real scenarios where the harm was demonstrably great. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a great resource, I just wish it wasn't so depressing. They should embed a random cute animal video at the bottom of every page. Hentropy (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We already have a webpage for that website: What's The Harm? It's not that long though, so feel free to expand it. Bongolian (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My soul... I... I thought there wasn't such a thing. But seriously, this is a compendium of hurt. Thank you? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A stern reminder that what we (try to) do here might be of actual use to the wellbeing of real human beings. Knock on wood. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to pick on people who don't believe what I do and make them feel bad for no reason. The possibility of actually helping someone is not what I signed up for! Hentropy (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember your hippopotamus oath! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Funspace article Hippopotamus Oath? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate Redux

Comrades. I have been under deep cover the last few years. I fear I am losing my sanity. There is talk of /r/TD and conspiracy that the pizzagate arrests are imminent. I just don't understand why they have to make up such outlandish claims when there are actual conspiracies seemingly afoot with Russia and brazen conflicts of interests. Such delectable low hanging conspiracy fruit. For the first time I am generally afraid my country, nay, the world will dip into chaos. I have an urge to stock up on guns, ammunition, canned food, and water. I want to build a bomb shelter to protect my family from the impending Armageddon. And then I realize I sound just like... they do. I am starting to question if I am just as delusional as they are. Maybe Obama was the anti-christ, maybe Trump is the god emperor. Maybe my cover was blown and I was put into a coma and all of this is just a dream. I fear we are losing the fight of rationality and reality. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Such a paradox... TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered buying some gold bullion? nobs 04:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Russia and the Cold War has long been a foil to conspiracy theorists, ever since the Roswell incident and Kennedy assassination. Russian media has done a good job of playing off western conspiracy theorists for their benefit, the pizzagate people are not going to believe Russia did anything wrong when all they watch is conspiracy-minded RT and when their JAQer-in-Chief tells them there's nothing to see there. Hentropy (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can - get the equivalent of what in the UK is called an allotment - gardening makes you more philosophical. Acquire and understand various '(non-computer orientated) useful skills books, have and be able to use a manual typewriter. Learn useful skills - how to write readable factual and fictional texts, various crafts, orienteering/map-reading, even geocaching. Encourage others to do the same.

These will to some extent provide a distraction/a new set of priorities - and if the doom and gloom does come to pass you are an asset to whoever survives. 31.51.113.250 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Growing up in the mid 90's, Pittsburgh was a hotbed of conservative fake news, mostly via the Mellon-Scaife family's support of Chris Ruddy's fake news operation in Arkansas. Every day the litany was, 'Hillary's going to be arrested tomorrow!' And then it never happened, but you weren't thinking about yesterday, because no, really, tomorrow the indictments are gonna come down. And so, after 20 years of fake news, the right has successfully assassinated Hillary Clinton's character. Not one conviction, not one trial, and there never will be - the lies, and the conservatives who enabled them, don't need that kind of closure. The important thing is tomorrow, which never fucking comes, so the promise never diminishes, and with time the lies become indistinguishable from the truth to the fervent believer. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

But to maybe give an answer to TheCheat, you're not losing your mind. The most insidious aspect of human evil is how it can convince good men that the only path to victory is through its use. Fight oblivion, tilt against windmills, don't give up hope, be the beacon you want to see through the darkness knowing against reason that someone else will see it. Also, as BoN said above, take up gardening. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Or any other hobby that interests.

As the saying goes - Nil illegitimi carborundum, sed carborundum illegitimi (Don't let the bastards grind you down, grind the bastards down) - and your definition of success is the best revenge. 31.51.113.250 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't ask a question to make a point, so I dunno, tell a story. That's why the Bible still makes sense to so many people. Also this story is so damn the truth I could tear my eyes out right now. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to le edgey 4chan culture that is in the alt-right. At least cannabis is legal in the states, so start smoking weed by exploiting legal loopholes!—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 02:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Presidential Cabinet

Yeah, that certainly is going well for the United States huh? I wonder what other crap will the current Presidential Cabinet excrete out its bureaucratic ass? Too many are getting cozy with Russia and obviously Russia should not be trusted.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Strongly considering a betting pool as to which scandal, either by number or by type, finally starts turning off the Trumpists. The casual acceptance that sure, they've been lied to about many many things, but nothing that matters, scares the stuffing out of me. These are people who never stopped crucifying Barack Obama for the heinous crime of saying that they'd be able to keep their terrible, exploitative and useless medical plans and then going back on his word when it came out how terrible, exploitative and useless so many of these plans were (and, by the way, they are -still- fighting that battle in every comment forum I see when the ACA comes up). The hypocrisy of it doesn't surprise me, but the lackadaisical attitude towards the process of continuous, obvious lying and literal doublethink is just damned confusing. At some point, these people are going to realize the brownies they're being fed are just a pan o lof dogshit... right? Semipenultimate (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Depends on who exactly you're talking about. Trump said it himself with his Fifth Avenue comment- his diehards aren't going anywhere. His frothing populist and alt-right fanbase never gave a single iota about ethics, morality, balances of power, corruption, or even policy really. They wanted to get the guy in the White House to stick it to, well, us. Even if their God-Emperor goes down in a giant ball of fire and destroys the Republican brand for a generation, they will always fondly remember how they made the political world burn for that magical campaign and Presidency. How big that group is, is hard to really pin down. Then you have your various Republican hacks... they got on board with Trump because he promised them a Republican administration and all that brings with it, and being in office less than a month they still haven't gotten those shiny things, and they want to bury their head in the sand until they get them. Anyone hoping for a quick impeachment is going to be disappointed, I think. Republicans have not faced any electoral consequences for any of this yet and until they do, buckle up. The only faint hope is that one of these Trump House deportees can be flipped- if Flynn admits that Trump ordered him to talk about sanctions on that call, for example. Hentropy (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's cabinet includes an uneasy coalition of Republican hacks, true believers, and religious righters, but if you look at his inner family circle, they are all "killers". Ivanka's ice cold android-trying-to-imitate-human-emotions persona and Eric and Don Jr.'s enjoyment of killing exotic animals are literal manifestations of Trump family values: i.e. No Mercy/Crush All Opposition. Knowing what Trump prizes most, it's very likely we'll learn that Jared Kushner has a killer's heart behind that Nice Boychik face. On the campaign trail, Trump preached the value of killer instinct, promising to bring in killer businessmen who were willing to cut throats to Make America Great Again. Problem is, "killers" act out of self-interest only, and have a natural disinclination for working to advance the interests of anyone but themselves. Leuders (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So you don't think Flynn's civil rights were violated? nobs 07:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The wiretap on Flynn was completely legal. Find another straw to grasp at. Hentropy (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be looked at in a wider context, vis-a-vis Trump's vaunted ambition to repair US-Russian relations, a joint effort to destroy ISIS, and the Iranian-Russian axis. The winner out of Flynn's departure may be ISIS which could survive, Iran which continues on its path as a nuclear superpower under shariah law, and Assad who remains in power. Hell, we might as well have kept Obama on for another 4 years, or elected Hillary. Just who exactly is in the driver's seat of American foreign policy? The president? or a bunch of unelected shadow warriors lurking in the darkness of the US intelligence community? Fortunately Flynn was a soldier and not a politician; when one goes down in service another stands ready to step into his place. nobs 13:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What #would# Joseph McCarthy say? 86.191.125.144 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To draw a parallel, Ronald Reagan's first National Security Adviser Richard Allen was out in days after his inauguration. It was considered no big deal cause the position of National Security Adviser was being downgraded in favor of elevating the Secretary of State as the chief spokesman on foreign policy. The Sectretary of State, Alexander Haig was out by June over differences in approach to US-Russian relations. On the surface Reagan's foreign policy of pursuing a tougher line against Russia seemed in a shambles his first six months in office. As a whole, few would deny Reagan's foreign policy was highly successful after 8 years in office, or that his strategic purpose and vision was not achieved. nobs 13:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The only parallel is that they're both ostensibly Republican. Neither Richard Allen nor Alexander Haig was openly talking to the Soviets and contradicting US policy under Carter in violation of the Logan Act. Hentropy (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Who thinks the American tax payers should get a refund for government stupidity? With the whole fiasco with Flynn, goes to show how stupid our government is.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hentropy, in the case of Flynn it appears there is more than we're being told. This morning's WaPo says the eavesdropping reports claim Flynn could be subject to Russian blackmail. The Logan Act B.S. is just for public consumption to make the whole mess appear to make sense, as there obviously was no violation of the Logan Act. I suspect he was let go for the same reasons he was dismissed from DIA. Evidence of this comes from the fact a top aid of his was denied a security clearance by CIA only days before his resignation. If Flynn couldn't get his people in, he couldn't do his own job. Something Trump is finding out himself right now.

The net result has been Flynn's effort to offer Putin a choice -- better relations with the US in exchange for Russia backing off its cozy relationship with Iran, has foundered. The question now is, Why is Tillerson needed if the idea of ending Russian sanctions and better relations is dead?. nobs 00:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@nobs: Well, from a purely practical standpoint, he's the CEO of a major oil company with extensive experience in international relations. Exxon has its own pseudo-intelligence agency, which creates skills needed especially after so many of the State Department's upper brass were fired or resigned. Also, just because Flynn is gone doesn't mean that Tillerson can't try to promote friendly relations with Russia. Also, Mattis is urging NATO allies to spend more or the US will back off from Europe. It still appears that the administration is taking a pro-Russian stance, even without Flynn. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make a note, the other day me and my family were talking about interrogation and I went to look up unlawful interrogation and there was a link to the White House website on the subject but when I went to click the link, the information on the subject was gone. The kicker was that it was an executive order by Obama but it was gone. Pretty dark path the government is going down, not even two months and the Trump Administration is on its last legs.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As soon as there's a bipartisan committee in the Senate (or less likely House), it would seem to be the end game for Trump. They'll have Flynn's nuts in a vice once they subpoena him: talk like a canary for immunity, perjure himself, or plead the 5^th Amendment (and imply that there's much worse to be found). None of these options are good for Team Trump since they're deeply tied to Russian interests and multiple spy agencies, domestic and foreign, appear to have the goods on them anyway. Bongolian (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It'll be deep-sixed like Hillary's emails. The only winners out of this is Iran, ISIS, and Assad. IOW, the incompetence and failures of the Obama/Hillary foreign policy is codified into law, together with a diminished US influence and growing Ruassian influence in the Middle East. The policy of rollback was nipped in the bud. nobs 13:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure the Obama Shadow Government is behind it. Leuders (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Flynn flap is nothing. Trump shitcanned Sally Yates in the Justice Department for not executing his immigration EO. Two weeks later classified information she was handling was leaked to David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Both their asses belong in jail. nobs 19:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

ATTENTION SYSOPS

I've been off the site for about two days and came back this morning. First thing, I just had to sit down and patrol like 100+ edits — a few of which were actual vandalism (and quite a few of which were controversial nonetheless).

Dear folks with sysop — please help us by using your fine judgement to patrol edits (unpatrolled edits show a red exclamation point in the Recent changes feed). It makes a difference.

Love, the Scruffy of RW, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Extreme Moonbattery is back in France

Just found this on YouTube. The original video got more than 700000 views, so this idea is getting kinda popular in France.

(video in french, there is english subtitles option)

It's always fun to hear about these kinds of moonbat ideas but I worry that they may propagate and will one day get implemented by a government. The idea that this might happen is kind of scary, I'm myself left-wing (far-left for american standards) but these ideas seems really dangerous, especially the fact that they are close to communism. Is there a risk of moonbat ideas becoming more popular around the world due to the rise of the far-right ? Diacelium (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself a centrist (at least in the sense that some of my left and right stuff kinda cancel each other out) and while I don't think the Basic Income is an ideal situation, I do think it is inevitable and the sooner the west starts to make moves toward it, then better. I don't think it's "moonbattery" or left-wing wackiness. I can only speak from a US perspective, but when you stop to consider how many people are on unemployment, early retirement (particularly for pensioners), long-term disability, social security, welfare, etc. it's pretty head-spinning. Long-term disability in particular is something people claim under the flimsiest of circumstances, but they still do have a claim because trying to get a job with even a small long-term medical problem can be difficult when there's no enough jobs for everyone. And that's really the problem, we're quickly barrelling headlong into a situation where there is simply not enough jobs for everyone and likely never will be again. And in that society, you can no longer take the attitude that if you want to live you have to work. Not when all the jobs that used to make up the backbone of the middle class are now non-existent or being done by robots.

At that point, giving them some sort of income in exchange for staying out of criminal trouble helps keep them in the economy and supporting the industries that do actually need people to run. If you work a job, even if it's one at a fast food restaurant, you pretty much have to offer people more than the basic income, offering incentives for people to work. It would be a tough transition but like I said, there might not really be much of a choice down the line. In the US we've tried literally everything, and Trump may very well be the last sitting President who tries to claim all we have to do is create a "business friendly environment" and all those great manufacturing jobs will come back from China. It's just not going to happen. What manufacturing and warehouse jobs do come back are of the $12/hr no-benefit variety, and the automation death spiral is ramping into high gear. There's always the Keynesian approach of paying people to dig holes and fill them back in again, but 'workfare' is not a long-term idea. Hentropy (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones claims George Soros and globalists are behind this idea and it's what is discussed at Davos. Two problems with it: (1) there is no way to implement it equally; and (2) it fundamentally goes against human nature. Human beings are built to work, strive, contribute, and better themselves, not to sit on their asses and leech. nobs 10:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a great number of problems with it- though I'm not sure what you pointed out has to do with anything. Of course you can implement it equally, if the basic income is fixed. If anything it shouldn't be equal, as different areas have different costs of living. I'm not a sociologist but I'm also pretty sure humans are "built" to go out and hunt, gather, and fuck. We're certainly not built to go to space or ride inside giant metal birds to get to the other part of the planet. Whatever point about human nature can be made, it doesn't change the reality. Ideally, everyone would contribute to society in a way that makes use of their unique skills, unfortunately that's not the way the economy valuates things. Increasingly, our economy is valuing highly-educated professionals and no-skill drones, there is not much in between and there doesn't seem to be some huge middle class-building industry on the horizon. You either become a healthcare specialist, engineer, lawyer, or tech worker or you're relegated to the call center of fast food assembly. That's not a rosy future for people or for the capitalist system, it is not sustainable and it will prompt change in the way we think about "work". Hentropy (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the US actually tried everything against unemployment.

The idea that is presented in this video is not basic income, it's life salary (well, at least if I put the right link, the video is called : "Lifelong Salary or Basic Income? The difference explained by Bernard Friot"): a salary of 1500€ for everyone aged 18 or more, with four levels of qualifications, the maximum salary being 6000€. This includes socializing all salaries, to create local investment funds (that control investments) and salary funds (which control the salaries, that go from 1500€ to 6000€), both controlled by elected people (the idea of funds controlled by elected people comes from the elections to the social security funds in France, before the right-wing decided to end elections). It also includes abolishing private property for ownership by use. I don't think basic income is a moonbat idea, it's not even necessarly left-wing. Diacelium (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought you were insinuating that both ideas were moonbattery. Hentropy (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been advocating for the negative income tax for years. Part of the NIT is a basic guaranteed income. Not enough to live even a "respectable" life with "dignity", but the absolute bare minimum you need to live. You get food, housing, medical care, and clothing, but your neighbors are awful (because they can't afford better), your food is just basics like cooking supplies and vegetables but limited animal products, and so on. If you want more, you have to work, but you never have to worry that you'll be on the street starving or forced into prostitution. CorruptUser (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The negative income tax probably wouldn't be enough to solve homelessness and lack of medical care. The only things that would solve these would be a free healthcare and some kind of free housing program, and having welfare above the poverty level. Diacelium (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I include the absolute bare minimum housing and healthcare as part of basic income. And when I say "bare minimum", I don't mean a tent in the woods but the very least needed to still be able to look for work. The entire point of the Negative Income Tax is that no one should ever be in a situation where either you are too poor to work (i.e., starving, weak) or working will make you poorer (surprisingly common in the US). CorruptUser (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion focuses solely on a cash disbursement to individuals. I would suggest to make it meaningful a complete analysis of subsidies paid to individuals and families be included if its to be taken serious. In the United States this would include the cost of public education, student grants and loans, FNMA subsidies, tuition and childcare tax credits, ACA subsidies and tax credits, excess Social Security disbursements over a worker's contributions, per capita allocation of agricultural subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, Earned Income Credit, Food Stamps, prescription drug benefit, etc., to list only a few of guaranteed income disbursements already being paid.

And the danger here is, if the cash disbursement was used principally to purchase foreign manufactured goods, such as clothing or electronic devices, it would add to a nation's trade deficit and be counterproductive in creating employment. nobs 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

World Press Photo 2017

Maybe you've seen it, maybe you haven't, but a picture you've probably seen won press photo of the year in the World Press Photo 2017 decision.

There's some debate and I listened about it on AIH (Canadian pun news so take that for what it's worth). Summarised, it's that journalism and bravery are good, but there's more to the art of a press photo than those things.

To me, I guess it just never mattered before, good journalism is good journalism, it captures what we wouldn't normally see because it walks into the lion's den, so to speak, with cameras and microphones and everything else that liars lions don't like. And somebody has to have the flagship photo of the year and I think it's monumentally important to show the world how dangerous being part of the free press can be.

But I also understand that this was capturing a violent act's celebration of itself, if that makes sense. This is the victory moment of something we should abhor. It's so striking and powerful because we understand that. But, as a victory, is it potentially powerful in a dangerous way because others don't understand it as abhorent? And should that deter the judges from making the decision?

Edit: I didn't write clearly on whether the free press or the killers were dangerous. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Great choice of image. Documentative of the real world, well-taken "cinematographically", reflective of today's larger historical drama... And as far as values are concerned, I think 95%+ of people who view it will have a reaction along the lines of shocked condemnation of the killing itself, perhaps with an added vague sense that we really need to do something about the whole IS-related situation (which is arguably positive, in the face of inaction motivated by complacent ignorance). Besides — like with any decent winning shot — it courts abundant controversy. Good choice, again. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with the pick, but I have to say I didn't spend much time with the other candidates. AiH interviewed a photographer who almost lost an eye. His hostess died in the shelling. The debate seems to have pushed focus, at least in AiH. But really I dunno. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Living people project

If any other editors are interested, I wouldn't mind working on a project for reviewing articles on living people and making sure they're factually accurate and don't contain potentially incorrect or libelous information; not sure what a good starting point would be, but I'm thinking that we should make sure that aside from humor, that claims or allegations are at least sourced, so that RW can't be accused of creating libel, just reporting what other sources have concluded themselves.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I did a one time run-through of all of them 2 years ago looking specifically for uncited claims of criminal activity, but yeah, BLP pages age quickly and should be reviewed. What kind of help would you like in that kind of project? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a worthy project. I would like to add that there are sometimes lurking pages that are not labeled with the "Living People" category. These are usually pages that are about a website or organization, but that also make substantial statements about a living person. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Folks, you're being snowed by a real live pizzagator here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hipocrite needs to stop stalking and derailing, other editors are apparently objecting to his dispruptive behavior as well, not to mention him unilaterally edit warring and undoing changes even when they've been discussed with other editors and admins.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Everything you write above this is a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hipocrite — please refrain from unsubstantiated attacks on someone, particularly when they are proposing positive contributions to RW. It does not look good for you, particularly if you're ever involved in a coop case. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The fuck? Are you not aware that BrittanyPBone states they are the owner of http://tspettibone.com/ , which is this? Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

And don't miss her Twitter. It's very... Gently stirred Alt-right with a twist of lemon InfoWars. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies to you, Hipocrite. I didn't realize her connection to Pizzagate, not having followed it that closely. It would have been helpful if you had included the links with your first post on her. Bongolian (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Also Percy, regarding the Twitter feed, RooshV seems to think that the Pettibone twins are trolling what he calls the "new right" (meaning alt right?).[11] Bongolian (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha. So PUA manospherians accuse the Pettibone sisters of being deep cover liberals? Let me guess that this has something to do with the fact that their basic level of trust towards women isn't exactly high to begin with. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a "deep cover liberal", but I'll explain more in private email if you're interested as opposed to just being passive-aggressive.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@BrittanyPBone It's certainly a good idea, though you'd probably be wise to get started on your own at first — you know, leading by example (and showing us what you had in mind). Now, I don't suppose you think that this project of yours ought to prioritize people of... certain political affiliations? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well RBP if you want to start with the Vox Day article you can read my summary of the changes in detail on the talk page just as an example if you want; I'm aware that RW has an ideology or mission statement so I don't plan on screwing things in favor of other viewpoints (e.x. 'alternative science, conspiracies, etc) - just making sure that all information on living people articles besides "humor" is at least true or attributed to a source.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's great. I vote that we start with focusing exclusively on intelligent design proponents/creationists, and when they're finished, we look into what group we might cover next. Certainly there's no rush to cover anyone political. How does that sound? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That works for me, as far as my proposal goes, I think people who are public figures don't really need our attention since the libel laws on public figures are not as strict as private individuals.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

CETA approved by European Parliament

Anyone has an opinion on this ? I don't know much about it, but it seems already stupid with the arbitral tribunals. Diacelium (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You can get more info here: CETA.

With Brexit looming while Canada's next door neighbor is acting like Europe's schizophrenic lover who is also flirting with that shirtless foreigner, there are too many variables to see where this is all going. And national parliaments still have to approve it.

Predictably, the official communication is all about how awesome it is going to be, and the opponents are all about how crappy things are going to get. Easy exchange of people is good for jobs if you like traveling (especially Europeans who want to do business in Canada). In general, I think access to a bigger market is good for resource security, which might become important considering the changing climate and its consequences (if your crops fail, you won't have to choose between starving or ruining your country with emergency imports). ISDS has a poor track record (well, it depends on which side you are) but apparently CETA is supposed to leave health and environmental concerns to local governments. European IP protections get exported to Canada, so you might see that as a loss for Canada.

Personally, I try to be cautiously optimistic about it, because partnership with Canada might help Europe against the destabilization caused by Brexit. As for the UK, who knows... --Cmonk (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So, most opponents say that it would favor industrial agriculture (which makes earth less fertile, so it's kinda bad on the long term), and other things bad for environnment, like making it easier to import fossil energies. Some fear it might even lead to legalization of corn GMO, that is banned because of the precautionary principle. Some also say it gives more power to multinational corporations, or that it would be bad for public services. I'll look later to see if what they're saying is true of plain bullshit.. Diacelium (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Fossil fuels may not be a problem in the long term because Europeans are not in denial regarding AGW and several countries are pushing hard for renewables (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, ...). Nonetheless, Europe is still using a lot of fossil fuels, and the additional effort by a few countries like Germany to eliminate nuclear power might cause an increase in demand in the short term.

Russia is currently Europe's main fossil fuel provider (oil and gas pipelines); but if the Russians persist with their aggressive foreign policies, they will get more sanctions, and then they will get more angry, and it is not clear at all what will happen with their supply (Europe still needs the energy so it can't just boycott Russia, and it would not benefit Russia to drop one of its biggest customers).

By lowering import taxes, CETA can help Canada sell its gas, which is the least bad fossil fuel to use while transitioning to more renewables. If Europe increases its gas consumption but reduces its oil consumption and dependency on Russia, that might still count as a win.

I think a valid argument against CETA is that in the short term it will increase competition, which will likely lead to the elimination of some small businesses and to an increase in power for large businesses that could be detrimental to consumers (less choice, lower quality, maybe eventually higher prices).

Some national parliaments might still end up rejecting CETA because there is a strong understandable public opposition due to the closed nature of the negotiations and the perceived advantage given to large businesses; but mixed into this are also probably some nationalistic tendencies fueled by fear of terrorism and political extremism. --Cmonk (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know a tenth of what I should about CETA before commenting, but — just as an aside (based on comments I've read)...

It's interesting to note that the same far leftists in Sweden who (most nobly and rightfully) scream their lungs off about the rise of the Alt-right now warn that CETA has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Suddenly, they contort, racism and xenophobic wallbuilding isn't the biggest threat to society (like it was yesterday). Starting this morning, peaceful commerce in the form of free trade is.

I mean, even as an economic red myself — can't we atleast cherish the parts of deals like these which (if nothing else) work to bring the world a little closer together in a time of widespread fearfulness and constant talks of isolation?

It seems counterproductive to hate walls and hate free trade. Pick one. Bah — I'm blaming Hegel for popularizing the philosophy that logical contradiction is a virtue.

For a great example of that too-far-gone "twilight zone" wherein the far left (in fighting the monster) becomes the monster, please see here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't get your point. The far-left can have common ideas with the alt-right just like they have common ideas with libertarians. I am far-left on american standards yet I do agree with the far-right candidate on some points (for example on planned obsolescence). I don't see how immigration policy should be correlated with free-trade policies, there are people who want a fully open-border policy for immigration but not free trade borders, and it isn't incoherent in any way, it's two different issues (open immigration policy is made to welcome people in need, nothing to do with free-trade). And there isn't just the far-left against CETA, at least Paul Magnette doesn't seem far-left. Even some centrists in France voted against it.

Also, Bernie Sanders is opposed to economic open borders, for example. Diacelium (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So Canada wants to join the European Union. Fine. You can have them. And Swedish libs are worried what few jobs are left will be eaten up by robots, the remainder will lose out to Canadian agricultural products. Welcome to the 21st century. nobs 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Diacelium, immigration indeed can be a trade issue, the crossing of borders of human capital for employment and economic opportunity. For example, US agricultural subsidies to farmers since the 1930s have been blamed for creating widespread unemployment in Mexican agriculture and the cause of Mexican agricultural migrants into the United States for 80 years now. One purpose of Nafta was to level the playing field for Mexican agriculture. nobs 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right makes up news about Trump tweeting about Nibiru

There's apparently some news going around that Trump tweeted about Nibiru before it was removed seconds later. This is being used to explain why Michael Flynn resigned. There's not even a screenshot of it anywhere ... on the Internet. In the instance that someone did see this tweet, don't you think it'd be important to uh... screenshot it?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering you say its "going around", mind linking us to an example of it doing so? Also, no need to link to TOW for Nibiru. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually edited my comment right before you made this one to include links.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 22:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Both links are the same as of writing this, just fyi. Hentropy (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This was a fun read, but I'm about 99.9% sure that it's parody writing. Still fun, like reading The Onion. But if passed along as real, it'd be an open-and-shut case of fake news. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this Trump's stunt double?

He can actually read from a teleprompter and sticks to the script. [12][13] Less extemporizing and vulgar, a bit of a Boston twang, a few years younger, and possibly a few inches shorter, too. nobs 19:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How many body doubles would you estimate that Trump is employing at any given moment? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just this one, it appears. What makes this one unique is he actually delivers full-fledged speeches and has the gestures and mannerisms down. The voice inflection is good, but in the two speeches reviewed he does not interupt himself and 'play off the crowd' as Trump frequently does. His diction in using the teleprompter is by far more practiced and better than Trump. Even GW Bush, as dyslexic as he was, was better at using a teleprompter than Trump, who seems often confused, has incredibly poor timing for applause lines, and looses his place. nobs 16:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"Press is the enemy of the American People"

The only thing, the only thing that's even remotely okay about this situation is that Trump hasn't acted on these words. Why are such openly fascist statements even remotely tolerated? What the HELL is going on? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 23:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As Trevor Noah said, Trump is probably just an old man.

More generally though, I think it's a cycle. We make progress, trying to make life easier (or even possible) for more people. But some keep living like it's still yesterday, not realizing that they also have to adapt to this "progress" because it is a double-edged sword with dire consequences when misused. But after they fail to kill everyone, the survivors move on carefully, setting the stage for a new progress bubble. My prediction: if we are still around in 10 years, things are going to go great for the next 50 years. --Cmonk (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticizing the press isn't fascist. I don't know how things goes in USA, but in France medias push mostly for a center-right/centrist/center-left opinion, they ignored facts on demonstrations against a law to make them look as brutal thugs, they spread fear on islam, the veil, they ask opinions of CEOs but not of trade unions and workers, etc... So the far-right is just their making. From what I heard, medias seemed to push more for Hillary or Trump than Bernie Sanders. I think polls show that majority of americans support free healthcare and free education, making Bernie the candidate closer of everyone's opinion, but somehow Hillary wins the primary. Diacelium (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Polls show Americans support free healthcare? See, that kinda fake news comes from reading the commie press. Americans may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. nobs 00:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

He isn't just criticizing the press, he constantly insults them and he literally tweeted that the media is "the enemy of the American People". His last press conference contains a number of blatant lies, rhetoric, propaganda ("we are searching for peace ... through strength") and general grasping for straws; an official WH-controlled "real news" outlet wouldn't be out of character. --Cmonk (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's horrible to insult the press. But yeah, the lies and his administration's lies and propaganda are a problem (The bowling green massacre, for example). These four years are going to be really bad for America. Frankly, even anarchy now seems better than Trump's rule. Diacelium (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right about the press, they can withstand verbal abuse (would be better if they didn't have to...). But it is not clear whether he should be taken "seriously or literally", and what he says could incite his supporters to act unpredictably. --Cmonk (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What's freaking people out is it's only the first 30 days, and the leader of the free world is pushing the narrative that the press (with the exception of Fox News, Breitbart, etc.) is an enemy of the people. However I don't see this behavior as part of a master plan to advance fascism, but rather, a symptom of his massive ego; e.g. bombastically insulting detractors, then running to a weekend rally in order to bathe in the love of supporters after a rough week. - Leuders (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Trashing Fox News is old school. Not sure that holds up in Trump era. CNN has done more to promote Trump. nobs 20:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

He tweeted his preference for Fox over CNN. Couldn't be clearer. - Leuders (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversy creates ratings. Nobody knows that better than Trump & Zucker who've had a long, mutually profitable relationship advancing each others careers. Nobody knows yet what FOX will do now that Roger Ailes is out, but it won't be the same. nobs 22:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point, it is not clear whether anyone has a master plan for anything (maybe Russia? Bannon?), but a series of unfortunate events can be just as good. Fascism is one of those emotionally loaded words that has the additional misfortune of being ill-defined (multiple definitions). It is at least more-or-less accepted that some form of authoritarianism is part of it, but Trump is willing to back down against the judiciary, and Congress members may be greedy but they are not dumb. I think people underestimate the importance of words. The media doesn't have any official "power", but influence over public opinion is a mighty thing. Trump may appear to some as a whiner, but his supporters may coalesce into an influential group. My point is that focusing too much on the man is not helpful: he won the election despite what was perceived as his shortcomings, and he hasn't changed much. --Cmonk (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's words matter. --Cmonk (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with you that words matter, yet you throw around that word, 'fascist' as if it were your dirty socks across the room. As if by using it it justifies your outrage and indignation. And it is repeatedly used in speaking of the Trump-Putin relationship and defending Ukrainian independence. Now, if words are indeed so precious, have you bothered to see, at all, the language Putin uses speaking to a large domestic and global audience, to describe the status quo situation in the Ukraine left behind by Obama, Hillary, and the CIA? Putin calls the US-backed Ukrainian regime fascist. And he has the entire Russian nation - the nation that actually defeated fascism and damn well knows what fascism is, behind him. If you don't like Trump, fine. We get the message. But that should be able to be communicated without disclosing the fact that calling him a fascist for wanting improved relations with Putin shows you haven't a clue what the issues are. Did Franklin Roosevelt wanting good relations with Josef Stalin make Roosevelt a fascist? or a communist? or an authoritarian? Please, spare us the hyperbolic nonsense, and do yourself a favor and make yourself look, at a minimum, informed. nobs 04:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Holy shit! Correct me if I'm wrong, but — did YOU just give the m********g Red Army credit for winning us World War II!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, yah. All the US did was nuke 80,OOO Japs. And Obama's uncle, who single-handedly liberated Auschwitz. Thoses were our only contributions to victory. nobs 04:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended anyone, it was not my intention. I do not accuse anyone of 'fascism'. You are right to say that I am misinformed about the word: I know that it feels 'bad', but I just don't know what it means (all the definitions confuse me, and I am probably not alone: old article), and I actually tried to defend Trump (not going too far against the judiciary was a respectable move IMHO). My point was that the context was more important that the individual; I focused on negative hypotheticals about Trump supporters and the Washington Post link focused on complementary view from others. Regarding Russia, I mostly have a speculative and biased view of the situation in which Putin may be implementing a long-term plan. I appreciate Trump's stance about strengthening positive relationship with Russia, although Europe's involvement makes things complicated. --Cmonk (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, too. I was a bit heavy handed there and in reading your comments, yes, you are trying to be fair. I'm suggesting those who put 'Trump' and 'fascist' in the same sentence, and I don't care if there quoting tbe Washington Post who makes a habit, are throwing gasoline on a fire. And it's the dumbfucks of the Washington Post and CIA who have been stirring up shit and trying to inflame people precisely because Donald Trump talks about their records of disasters and failures. Donald Trump was elected because he has no record of the monstrous failures of the CIA, or the massive lies and distortions of the Washington Post. Look at this piece of shit video from the Washington Post, for example. As if they are on to a motherfucking scandal involving Trump. As if the Post editors are too stupid to explain, or the Post editors think viewers are too stupid to understand, common business practices. nobs 06:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To lift just one simple example out of that scandal-mongering video, the claim is made Trump didn't make charitable donations, the Donald J. Trump Foundation did, and NBC Universal, his employer for the Apprentice, donated $500,000 <gasp> to the Trump Foundation. Jesus fucking christ, it could not be more obvious Trump donated his whole salary to the Trump Foundation. It's reaching like this that destroys the Washington Post's credibility if and when they do stumble upon an actual scandal. nobs 15:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

People "tolerate" them because most of the middle part of the country that the left is consistently writing off, agrees with him. They may not believe they're the "enemy" in those words but most certainly seem convinced that they're just a bunch of lying, distorting "elites". The fact that the entire media fucked up the election royal at every step doesn't help. The fact that the media still seemingly hasn't learned much from it. They don't get that people aren't going to swallow their information, leaks, reporting, no matter how factual it actually is, when they've spent the last 2 years editorializing and crystal-balling and being wrong literally all the time. The media brought it on themselves, so long as Trump has a majority in Congress I don't think he'll do anything, without a smoking gun all this media stuff is just needling. Whining about the media is certainly nothing new, and Trump has made it into an art form. There's going to have to be some crow-eating and self-correction. It might be too late but sweeping the partisans and shills out and prioritizing information over entertainment would be a good start. Hentropy (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I watched Trump's combative and highly entertaining press conference. To be perfectly honest, live the act seems a lot more good natured than you folks seem to suggest. Trump acknowledges that large swaths of the press are going to be hostile to him and his administration. He mostly teases them about this. We're not much used to a President who routinely uses sarcastic humor. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

While Trump invokes Reagan, he's really more reminiscent of Nixon. He's taking the Madman Theory to a new level. Like Nixon, he won with less than 51%, and has an even more openly hostile relationship with the press. When Nixon won reelection with 62%, the press hated him even more. They won't let go. It wasn't crime, corruption, or incompetence that destroyed Nixon. It was the press. nobs 05:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's Nixon sending out his Press Secretary to answer embarassing questions from the press. It's likely to reach a level like this at some point, if it hasn't already. nobs 06:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

In his conference (which didn't make me laugh at all), he did make some good points, and the media are certainly responsible for breeding a culture where the news have to be sensational. I often worry about being taken in by some rhetoric that would appeal to my sensibilities and prevent me from seeing the big picture. OTOH, the last Big Bad Thing happened 70 years ago, enough time that all we have to go on are books and a distorted view propagated through video games and movies. What we have seen these past few years is an attempt at rebranding reality with words that are less emotionally loaded (it's not torture, only enhanced interrogation; there is no mass surveillance, barely some automated metadata collection). Trump ran (is running?) his campaign with the promise of telling it like it is, of being disruptive to the Establishment. Some of his (or is it Bannon's?) policies are definitely disruptive, and I have little doubt that he is telling it like it is in his mind. The silver lining is that the stigma associated with "fake news" has resulted in an emphasis on teaching critical thinking to kids. Hopefully that will come in handy when it's their time to take over. --Cmonk (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• What we have seen these past few years is an attempt at rebranding reality with words that are less emotionally loaded (it's not torture, only enhanced interrogation...

You mean political correctness or PC culture. If that's the case, you should be a big Trump supporter. Complaints about PC culture a core issues of the Tea Party. My favorite remains, intergenerational non-consensual sex, or child molestation, which was too much for Wikipedia even when I had a citation to Psychology Today. nobs 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind a moderate amount of "correctness". Over time some words can gain or lose pejorative meaning. Officially referring to a whole class of people using what is an insult in the cultural context could hinder social integration in the short term. And allowing vulgarity in official communication would only create more conflict. At the other extreme that you mention, exaggerated euphemisms end up looking somewhat comical and undermine the message. Somewhere in-between, "enhanced interrogation" is a dangerous expression because it hides reality behind words that feel legally and morally acceptable. "Torture"? That's illegal and immoral (and ineffective). "Interrogation"? Standard legal practice. "Enhanced"? That's like "better", and good. As for Trump, he is indeed more direct sometimes, but "well oiled machine"? --Cmonk (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Civil War?: Trump Administration on its last legs

Knowing that there is a very obvious connection between the Trump Administration and Russia, what are the odds of a new civil war brewing? Trump is definitely a fascist and his policies and excessive use of executive orders are not going well for the white house. The American people are getting fed up and I doubt the military would want to put up with the fact of a Russian spy ship in American waters and near a naval base. Will there be a peaceful revolt, a full blown civil war or Trump actually staying in office?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If we keep hearing crazy shit like you said, we need to bring back the war on drugs. nobs 15:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? nobs, you are the king of spewing crazy shit. There is no possible way of me reaching your level of batshit crazy. Nice try though.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Everything you say is either very off-topic or just *odd,* so.... Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lord Aeonian, me or nobs?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Rationalzombie94, you should be more circumspect in your worldview. You say "Trump is definitely a fascist" but, really, despite the people he's surrounded by and his crazy persona, he's not gone anywhere close to Mussolini as yet. To think that our republic's very existence is threatened by this crap is ludicrous. You make a big deal about "a Russian spy ship in American waters" despite the fact that subs are perfectly allowed to float around in international waters and have been doing so ever since there have been submarines. There's nothing "big deal" about this. It happens all the time and has been happening for that last 200 years. Our taxes pay for a huge infrastructure to watch these things. And then you start JAQing off about civil war and chaos and impeachment and all that shit. For Bob's sake, you actually sound like Rick Wiles and his paranoid conspiracy theory bullshit I hear every fuckin' day on shortwave. Give it a fucking break, dude. I like that you come into the bar here and stand up on it and shout every so often, but please, think before you post. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I got paranoid there. I am going to be quiet on Trump for a while--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Shoutout to the Bernie folks

Apparently we're a "neoliberal" site. You'll have to oppose free trade harder, it seems. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lavish Muskrats (talk/stalk) 16:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"neoliberal and hard left narratives" Do they even know what neoliberal means ? Diacelium (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. A new liberal is the same as an old liberal (classical liberal) adjusted for time and space. nobs 00:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Donald Trump supporters are united in at least one thing, universally, they have a piss-poor understanding of what words mean. They think "neoliberal" is a substitute word for "SJW" where it's a meaningless jab other than defining "the bad guys". That it has an actual meaning tied deeply in the concepts of valuing liberal democracies, capitalism, and free trade, well, too much for them, I think. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 06:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

In my experience of the Swedish popular application of the term, the word "nyliberal" (neoliberal) basically denotes adherence to austrian economics, typically accompanied by a strong libertarian (or even anarcho-capitalist) bent. Not exactly a description consistent with my impression of RationalWiki's general political bias; basically American liberal (European center-left). I think that poster might have us confused with Zero Hedge or something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Far-right nuts paint a false portrait of Sweden

Protip: Don't be taken in by it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think these things are just being covered up by the lying media. Literally nobody reported on the Bowling Green Massacre and now the Swedish Attacks are being covered up! We need Trump and his administration to cut through the fog and give us the True News.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So basically: WAKE UP SWEDEN!!!! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Another case of old person confusion. The Fox news segment on migrants committing rape crimes in Sweden he saw the previous night became (in his mind) "what's happening last night in Sweden". Leuders (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Nothing is real until it happens on television. Trump is a product of the TV age. That's an idiomatic phrase among baby boomers. World War II never happened until they saw it last nite on television for middle schoolers. nobs 15:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

People hate me

Well, it isn't new for everyone, but for people like me in particular. Allot of people hate me.

Truth is, I have an obsession with atheists. I met quite a few in High School, and they all looked down at me. I never debated with them about beliefs, just sat next to a few people who looked nice. Tried to start a few conversations, but the first thing they did was ask me about my beliefs. When I admitted that I was religious, they alienated me. All they did was talk about how religious people were less intelligent that they hated science and development. That I was nothing more than an idiot. That my kind was responsible for all modern wars. Halting scientific Progress entirely. That was what I heard from them. They wanted me to accept that, they wanted me to eat it up. All of it, and know that my choice is proof of my worthlessness. Every time I browse the internet or read anything unrelated, it just appears again and again. That if we were all atheists, or if religion just disappears. That the world would just be immensely better than it is now. Just all fan-fucking-tastic.

I hate that feeling you know. That feeling that I am the enemy. You know what makes it all the more worse? I take pride in knowledge, the development of civilization. I wanted in on it. I was adamant that I would contribute to it. And yet I failed.

I never hated atheism. The belief, or the choice and reasoning. What I hated was the fact that I am looked down on. And I never fail to encounter people who parrot the same thing over and over again. I don't want to go into details. But I display an immense hostility towards atheists in general. I couldn't get myself to like them every. The only exception I seemed to have make was my physics and marine biology teacher, and some guy I rarely talk to over Skype. Scratch that, I make death threats to him on a regular basis. ^{— Unsigned, by: Breadbasketbomb / talk / contribs}

Got two things for you man. 1.The next time someone asks you about what your beliefs are, just you don't feel comfortable talking about it. 2.Stop being so makeing death threats. That can help in the long run to make friends.--2d4chanfag (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is you could say that many atheists have the same experience, just flipped. They become atheists because the majority of religious people they personally know are judgemental assholes who treat them like amoral villains for not being their specific strand of Christianity. Teenagers often lack perspective on things, or pretending like their school/home is the whole world. This isn't every atheist's perspective, but the sort of teen who would hate religion that much so early probably has only had bad experiences with it. That's not really an excuse for anything, but you have more in common than you probably know. Bigotry breeds bigotry and the only way it ends if someone along the chain rejects it even as they want so much to embrace it. Hentropy (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If a lot of the intolerant atheists you met were in high school, it probably had more to do with the fact that they were teenagers. Teen can often be be mean and/or highly opinionated. The culture of area where your high school was could also factor in. As for the ones on the internet, well, it's the internet. A lot of mean or angry people posting screeds about everything. There are people such as myself who believe that secularism or even doing away with religion will help my world. But there is a difference between those who want to force atheism upon the world and the rest. I don't know whose blogs or comments you read, but wanting this kind of outcome is not inherently hateful.Teurastaja (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Oops, I meant to say the world, not my.Teurastaja (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Atheists like that are certainly a minority, it's just that people who aren't like that don't really care about religion enough to constantly say they're atheists. I'm an atheist and I think that being wrong (in my opinion) about one thing, religion, doesn't make you stupid or anything like that. A lot of my family are religious and aren't stupid or anti science. On the other hand you have Bill Maher who's an atheist but has some pretty stupid views in other areas.Christopher (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that. Though what pisses me off is that people believe religion is the cause for all major wars. World War 1 and 2 has nothing to do with ideology or resources, it's all religion. To them, the Korean War was a religious war. So was Vietnam. Suez Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, Operation Just Cause and so on. They keep saying it's because of religion. You know how much this pisses me off? ^{— Unsigned, by: 172.56.44.98 / talk / contribs}

Hm. You're probably right. You were probably genuinely hated for no good reason. I think on the level rationalwiki falls on the less hateful end of the atheist spectrum. Could be wrong, though. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My future projects for the wiki (I figured out how to put references!)

• Sedona Wellness Clinic (They offer Coffee Enemas as a Naturopathic treatment)
• John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist and Creationist!)
• National University of Health Sciences (They crank out graduates of Chiropractic and Naturopathic medicine)
• Florida Bible Institute and Seminary

Just a list of my planned projects. Thoughts?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Coffee Enemas" what the heck? Sounds like a good list. Lightning Dust (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just cant wait to get my buns around that cappucino! Anyone for biscotti?Gadzooks (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, those are worthy articles. I didn't find coffee enemas on the Sedona website, but if you have a reference for it, feel free to add it. The quack Gerson Therapy also gives coffee enemas, and there was a reality TV show about alleged coffee enema addicts,[14] so the coffee enema is probably worth a page all by itself. There are even some medical papers on coffee enemas. Bongolian (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there...suppose to be some advantage to coffee as opposed to using plain 'ol water or whatever they use? ...not that I was contemplating one....nobs 03:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It may be an attempt at getting the caffeine into the bloodstream faster, like with alcohol (very dangerous apparently). --Cmonk (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly relevant link: http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-enema 95.148.100.31 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A little game of economics...with asteroids

I've been browsing this wiki passively (well, more passively than usual) because of school, but boy, have I found a fun activity for you. I started my required semester of economics not too long ago, and the first paper we got in class is copied verbatim below. It was something a little unorthodox so our class would stop thinking about "the study of money" and start thinking about "the study of decision-making." And RW being RW, I wanted to see what you'd make of it.

Please feel free to explain your five choices and/or verbally rip the setup itself to shreds. Tortoise (flip me) 02:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest, it doesn't seem like there are enough women of child-bearing age to put much concern towards the perpetuation of the human race. Draw straws for individuals and be done with it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe some of the males are transgender and could potentially bear children... (I don't mean any offense, the question doesn't really say who is male or female, we have to assume based on names and pronouns)

I think the question seriously underestimates how difficult it would be to "re-build" civilization from a destroyed world. What does it mean that the surface is uninhabitable for a year? Does it melt? Does it freeze? Are the plants and animals all dead? People in submarines? Besides, MVP for humans is about 160, and most of the candidates already have health issues, so the chances of success in an unknown environment are quite low. Is it ok to just choose Gordon, Cynthia and Kimberly and give them an IVF kit with enough eggs and sperm to stave off inbreeding for a few generations? As for the ethnic diversity, it seems pointless to worry about it because it will happen automatically given enough million years.

BTW, if I get to make the decision, why am I not in the list? And what are the ethical constraints for this problem? Given her situation, it seems the only way to make use of Marie would be to kidnap and torture her (by forcing her to be in the shelter). If that is acceptable for the sake of humanity's future, then surely we can find more appropriate people for this adventure, regardless of their willingness and awareness of the situation. Or is it a trick question: since we are mostly in control of our own fate, is there a situation in which survival of the species would be deemed "not worth it, let's just give up"? --Cmonk (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

4 women and 6 men. Naturally all the women go first, but one beyond childbearing years at age 47 may offer a trade off for a second male. Among the males, the HIV, schizophrenic, the lawyer (lawyers are definitely not needed in rebuilding a new civilization), the doper, and the drunk are out. The cop takes his gun and orders the 30 year old woman into the shelter. If she still won't go without her husband, he shoots the damn lawyer and then tells her to get in the shelter. If the obsessive-compulsive 47 year old lady freaks out from the violence, then you take either the drunk or the schizophrenic as a man-Friday. The drunk is also an ex-con, so he maybe trouble. That leaves the schizophrenic with the language barrier. If something should happen to the cop, the women will just have to figure out how to explain the facts of life to the schizophrenic somehow. nobs 08:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@nobs

The ex-con dose have some things going for him, he is a ex-con. So he knows how to fight, pick locks, grow plants(weed) in doors, hot-wiring cars and the cop knows him lol--2d4chanfag (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Marie goes in. Efforts will be made to accommodate the claustrophobia, but phobias are not insurmountable. Gordon and Cynthia both go in, Gordon can still breed and culinary expertise will be helpful. Elena goes in, the infertility may not be her fault and if nothing else she has no other exacerbating problems. Francis goes in, cocaine addiction can be overcome and diabetes can be managed, especially when diet is controlled. Hentropy (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Marie, Cynthia, Elena, Kimberly and Gordon (to get Cynthia in the shelter), along with the entire contents of the nearest sperm bank and a turkey baster. 4 females and a large number of males is probably not enough genetic diversity to repopulate, but it's the best we've got. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 10 people need shelter but there's only enough food, water, and air for 5? OK, first I ignore the fascist instructions to select some to live and some to die. Instead, me and the others hack the existing technology to create the extra 50% of resources we're missing (i.e. see Matt Damon in "The Martian". If there's enough food, water and air to supply 5 people indefinitely, you find ways to stretch or renew the existing supply to accommodate 10) so that ALL can stay alive for as long as necessary. Leuders (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Elena's up to something if she knows about the apocalypse but is keeping her husband in the dark.   ¬   The Mayor ^{vote early} _{vote often} 20:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to even attempt to keep the human race going. I don't even mean that in an edgy teenage-angst way, procreation just doesn't have any foreseeable benefit, especially considering nearly everyone who's already existed will be dead. The only people I see who truly benefit are the five already existing people who get to survive the impending apocalypse, so I'd probably leave it up to the ten to decide for themselves while I pull out the lawn chair and prepare to view the really big explosion. megalodon (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Screw this, let everyone die. #muchedgey —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 17:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

So, can someone explain to me why urinals are a thing?

Seriously, urinals seem to only serve to take up space in bathrooms. And I say this as someone who has lived as a man (not entirely of my own free will, though) for the past 18 years (almost). Why are these a thing? TheMyon (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I never got urinals either. Design-wise, they're a damn pain to flush after pooping. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Water efficiency. No, there's not anything else. I find it baffling that there are two distinct levels of privacy expected for using a bathroom, but only for men. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

why are there urinals? Compare the queue for the gents to those of the ladies. That is why there are urinals AMassiveGay (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They're a lot cheaper and water conservation (lower bills) mainly, and guys can stand to pee. You can also fit more into a given space, because you don't also have to build a stall (just imagine a men's restroom with a line of commodes without stalls) Petey Plane (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You can have like 100 guys pee in one throughout the day and only flush it once. My old highschool had them flush at certain points throughout the day automatically, you couldn't even do it manually. megalodon (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

According to The Source of Knowledge female and unisex urinals are a thing too (overall article has some entertaining pictures). --Cmonk (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

does anyone know how women's urinals work for wiping. Both my sister and I are confused Vorarchivist (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I much prefer urinals just for the ease of use. Standing and aiming into a toilet isn't hard exactly, but standing and aiming into a urinal requires absolutely no effort at all, allowing me to play two handed games on my phone when urinating. I almost wish I had a urinal in my home. That said, there IS a urinal in my office building that doesn't have a divider between it and a massive wall mounted mirror, so anyone using that particular urinal WILL have their dong viewed by every other person in the toilet at that time. X Stickman (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ever use the restroom in a football stadium at halftime? The men are in and out in minutes, whereas the womens's restroom, where the women probably don't even constitute 50% of the fans in the stadium, have a waiting line past halftime. nobs 20:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This something architects in the design of public buildings are only now realizing - women need more time and square footage to pee. The true meaning of equality. nobs 20:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was a public modern art project.[15] Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean this [16]. Oncorhynchus (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

But, really, apart from taking up less space than a cubicle, using less water and being faster to use what have the Romans ever done for us? (Perhaps my recent viewing of Life of Brian is affecting me.)--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There may even be federal regulations on the books now requiring more square footage so women can pee, as the feds require handicapped bathrooms. 6 or 8 urinals can take up the space of 4 stalls. This is what's meant by "equal protection under the law" - requiring a builder to spend more money on women. nobs 00:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I find it fucking weird to stand next to someone, particularly someone I know (or work with with) whip out my nob and take a piss. I like the sanctity of a cubicle and, where possible, the absolute delight of a handicapped toilet. It's like your own little office. But that's just me... Aceⁱ⁹ 02:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

But isn't that what male bonding is all about? nobs 03:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Music festivals are another place where urinals are quicker and easier. I have even heard of females who use certain devices to use urinals to spend less time waiting in line. ^{— Unsigned, by: Zionist Goy / talk / contribs}

Can you believe these creepy fucking assholes!? Fake News. Sad!

EDIT: Cmonk has alerted me to the fact that this story was likely fake. Thanks for pointing that out, Cmonk! I'll be taking this as a lesson in bettering my skepticism. Thanks, Cmonk! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I liked the part where she tore off the van's mirror. But seriously. Blech. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ya he should stopped after she said no, but now she could go to jail and/or play for the tore off mirror. Video and fingerprints be a easy time for the cops.--2d4chanfag (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. Police most likely wouldn't bother fingerprinting something like this, & chances of them having this woman's prints on file if they did are pretty slim. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

He should have stopped before the thought left his mind. Even one pass is unacceptable, this creep is not alone. --Cmonk (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I think the both of them were out of line and should not be allowed to have kids. Him for being like a animal in heat and her haveing a two year old range fit.--2d4chanfag (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If she were charged with anything, she should ask for a jury trial. In Saudi Arabia she'd get 40 lashes for being unescorted. nobs 09:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

40 lashes? I known it was bad there but not that bad.--2d4chanfag (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A Saudi gang rape victim initially got 90 lashes for being unescorted, when she appealed it they up it to 200 for appealing. This is what the New Sweden can look forward to. nobs 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand rape culture or objectifying women in society, but I suppose it's a byproduct of encouraging male sexuality way too much (masturbation exists by the way). I've also met men that are simply ego maniacs that feel totally insecure unless they feel totally dominate.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 01:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@nobs Not really surprised to see you randomly invoke Sweden from out of the blue The link I posted involved white people and was set in Britain. There was no ethnic aspect to it, nor a religious one. I don't see where Sweden's allegedly-ongoing-but-hushed-down arabpocalypse enters into any of this. Are you suggesting that cockney-speaking anglo-saxon construction workers are coming for Sweden? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Now waaait a minute. Gimme one good reason a team of three or four people would go to those lengths to stage, film, and post that video? Hmmm...could it be...an advertisement for the burka and male escorts (not of the gay kind)? nobs 12:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Now, there's a conspiracy theory we can all appreciate. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ever seen this one? nobs 12:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The video may have been staged. --Cmonk (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Post-truth news.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 17:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Staged. Go try pulling a side mirror cleanly off a car with your bare hands. Ain't gunna happen. Leuders (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll be! Fake news. Sad! Thanks for letting us know, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Are Racist Jokes That Satirize Racism Still Harmful?

Obviously making wide assumptions about a group of people based on their skin color is harmful, but what if the objective of the joke is to make yourself seem unintelligent and stupid for repeating the joke? What if the part of the joke that's funny isn't supposed to be the assumption made about a racial group at large, but rather what an unintelligent ass-hat you look like? What if you're making fun of the stereotype, and not the group? Is it just a matter of context, or am I inflicting damage unknown to me by even repeating these stereotypes?

Just reflecting on my behavior. megalodon (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You know, I've never done a deep dive on the sociology/psychology research about racist jokes and their impacts on racial attitudes and acceptance. I'll probably have something resembling an answer for you in a couple hours. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Since Ikanreed decided to explore the angle of hate dressed up as humor (e.g. niggermania), I decided to take a rather different, philosophical angle — in the defense of jesting, though not by necessity in defense of bad jesters. As such, I'm not discussing the same thing as Ikanreed will be doing.

On to philosophy. When trying to "clean up" jokes, people tend to forget an intrinsical facet of the human experience — in the words of Mark Twain:

“”The secret source of humor is not joy, but sorrow. There is no humor in heaven.

If you ask me, the essential "conflict" in humor is that great humor is to a large degree about laughing at that which could just as well be cried at. In that sense, humor certainly isn't "fair" (though it is equal opportunity).

In fact, laughter is the opposite of priviliege — it's the great leveler. Like sitting, for example. From the lowliest beggar to the mightiest emperor, we all enjoy a good sit. So it is with laughter, too.

In an imperfect comparison, with humor it's a bit like with sexual preference. You'll just have to accept that people will feel certain ways without taking dictation or oversight from you.

Nor should they take it, because it's not a question of "rooting out all those who would differ from the acceptable" — it's about them; their own journey through life — and the almost transcendental joy inherent in those moments where you quite literally cannot stop your merrily contorting gut from making you go like this.

And just like sexuality channels the profound power of taboo, so does humor — as anyone knows who has suddenly and bizarrely found themselves struggling hard to figure out what's so damn funny in the middle of a funeral service.

Laughter is not just the language of the soul (in the words of Pablo Neruda); it's a neurological outburst — a chain reaction, an existential orgasm, a sort of sentience seizure — and as far as I can tell, laughter primarily conveys all that which we hold in contrast to whatever "the abyss" means.

Laughter is even infectious (like yawning) — just hearing someone laugh can be enough to tug the corners of our mouths into an inexplicable smile, sapping that illusion of self-control which so many unempathic and self-important emotions rely on for moral authority.

Laughter is the opposite of that proverbial stick up the ass. The stupider, the funnier. Especially if whatever it was that your brain found so side-splittingly funny strikes you as so stupid you seriously suspect you may be retarded. The stupider the better even goes for the sound of a laugh. Humor is a game in which fugliest wins, in a sense. And that alone is pretty funny.

I mean, I dunno if you've ever really taken the time and just stood and looked at yourself in the mirror, but you truly are one funny looking motherfucker. We all are, and that's the point. And that's funny, too.

Now, it's easy to point the finger at people for laughing. But laughter is a gift, and while it is available to (and a favorite of) good and bad people alike, we must not blame the laughter itself. We must simply see that genuine laughter is a feature of people — a feature which, even if not beautiful, is admittedly funny.

Cherish the laughter, because — and I'm nursing a chuckle just considering this fact – humor might, in the end, be about the only thing we really have going for us during our brief appearance in this infinite, cold and dying cosmos.

And anyone who has caught themselves in that rare moment of looking up and realizing you're sharing a poorly supressed smirk with your arch-enemy (of all people!) has felt laughter's immensely surprising power to unweave the process of dehumanization — in doing so, seeding empathy anew.

Two soldiers in opposing trenches, a felon and a police officer, even the leaders of rival superpowers... Sharing a whole-hearted laugh — not of schadenfreüde, but conversely, at the disarming stupidity of it all — can sometimes be the (perhaps only) "reset button" we have for all those countless times when the humorless animosity between people (whom, being Homo Sapiens, aren't really all that different to begin with) has gotten way out of hand.

While laughter in the service of hate seems a perversion to us, keep in mind that the mindset you truly need to fear is the one in which the hater has managed to purge himself even of his very ability to laugh, even out of schadenfreüde.

For all the faith in humanity that can be lost from exposure to hate thinly veiled as humor — and as bad as that is — the fact of the matter is still that not until (even the hateful) humor stops alltogether have the final psychological emergency breaks actually been disconnected.

Him in which the overwhelming sense of exponentially indignant self-importance has rid itself of its last containment mechanism — as such, left growing ever sterner with each passing minute. To him, the sight of nothing becomes cause for less harshness. All becomes reason for more. Behold — the abyss.

Social pressures inform me that I should atleast admit to feeling bad for those who cannot laugh at life and themselves. But I must confess to feeling a surge of laughter inside me at the thought of them. If you won't take yourself unseriously, someone else will — often with great glee. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "racist jokes that satirise racism", I think there's kind of a continuum from stuff that's pretty benign to stuff that's outright racism with a veneer of faux irony:

• Presenting a humorous caricature of racist people or views. Example. It's pretty obvious with this style of humour that the joke is about racism being absurd & unpleasant (i.e. unacceptable), so people are generally cool with it, although sometimes they may interpret it as trivialising racism (e.g. in the #CancelColbert backlash).
• Using racist stereotypes in a jokey way. Example. This is very common in Family Guy, South Park, Borat & other shows & movies with a bad taste comedy shtick. It's a tongue-in-cheek approach that invites us to laugh at how tired & corny these stereotypes are, but it doesn't exactly refute them, & can actually perpetuate them since racists will laugh at them unironically.
• Then there's the more overtly racist "edgy" kind of humour you find at 4chan & the like, including lynching & holocaust jokes. Example. This "ironic" racism has a lot to do with trolling culture & shock value, & again is partly about laughing at bad taste (taken to a greater extreme than the Family Guy example), but it is all essentially racist.
• And finally outright racist humour with no trace of irony. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comedy can play a role in oppression. That role can't really be denied, in the west we have an unfortunate history of very racist humor that we're just now starting to come to terms with. The other question being what is worth actual outrage vs. worth an admonishment vs. worth not seeing any problem with at all. The truth is of course complicated, but I think one needs to look at the nature in which the joke is being told. The word "intent" is thrown around a lot but that's not really the right word, as one can still be an asshole unintentionally.

I was listening to some old live Rat Pack routines, and of course they were known often for making racial and sexual jokes (though Family Guy did exaggerate greatly on this bit, for comedic effect, though that can also be talked about on its own terms as whether or not its harmful). Of course Sammy Davis Jr. was somewhat of a foil for this, a black disabled converted Jew who married a white woman was about as progressive as it got back then for major performers. They made "back of the bus" jokes back when that was still actually going on and was not a joke to the many black people it affected, and there's no doubt most of their audience was white. Whether a joke suddenly becomes okay if there's a black guy or Jew in the room who is okay with it is another issue altogether, but I don't want to get too sidestracked. There was a joke they made which was particularly conflicting, "How do you make a fruit cordial?" "Oh, you just say a few nice things to him." Did I laugh? Yes. It's a joke that works on a few levels, but is it problematic? Would a joke like that fly today? Is there anything inherently wrong with it? It's not really mean spirited and it isn't really playing off of any well-worn stereotypes (though they did do that as well). Is it really just that they're making a pun off the word "fruit"?

You compare that to some other comedic acts from that era- like Mickey Rooney's bit in Breakfast at Tiffany's where the whole joke is that Asians look and talk funny ha-ha, and it feels much more on the level and nice. I suppose the point here is that specifically you have to look at the nature in which the joke is being told. As someone who heard quite a few of those "nigger" jokes growing up, it's really not THAT hard to tell when a joke is being done maliciously and when its done is a good, fun spirit, it's really only difficult when you make it more difficult, by constructing all of these rules and boundaries around what sorts of jokes you can make and when. The situation with PewDiePie is somewhat of an example, he obviously wasn't making any of the jokes seriously or in a mean spirit, but his firing had more to do with him having a generally young audience, but then the media (who have it out for Youtubers bigly) went full-stupid and started calling him a Nazi, mobilizing the legions of actual assholes to come out, hiding among the people with reasonable points.

Real bigotry will always find its way to expose itself, if it hides behind comedy exclusively it is not effective at achieving its goals. So what if real bigots laugh at certain jokes, they're bigots for reasons that have nothing to do with the comedy. Is a joke going to make someone a bigot? That's a bit a stretch, like video games or porn making people violent/rapists. So go after real bigotry all you want, but don't tilt at every windmill, especially in the Trump era critics are going to have to be specific about calling out real bigotry. Going nuts over small comedic offenses is exactly what made people sympathize with Trump over the Access Hollywood tape. Hentropy (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

To expand on what you say; it's also fundamental to keep in mind that it's possible to kill any joke, and not just by explaining it. A brilliant Swedish stage comedian explained what he calls the "humor door" and the "serious door". He meant it proverbially, like two "angles" or just ways a crowd can take any joke. Either they go through the humor door or the serious door. Tell any story; let's say, about a pious old nun who had cancer and got hit in the head with a brick from behind. You feel what I mean here? I mean, either this little anecdote is hilarious, or its appalling. We can sense that we're "standing by the doors", so to speak. The point is that the actual jokes being told are not the bearers of their own meaning. People are, and it involves context, mood and charitable interpretation. Exactly the things people coming from the outside of a humor context lack (and want to lack, because they're fighting evil or something). And joke interpretation is a matter of subjectivity and empathy, not ethics. I might find a joke hilarious which you find super offensive, but here's the shocker — that does not mean that I found what you found offensive to be funny. In fact, it seems I didn't even find what you found to begin with. So the implication becomes that I, who laughed, either "missed" something that would show that the joke wasn't "really" funny (which is illogical), or I laughed because I couldn't hide how much I love pissing down on people (or something to that effect). The answer to which is: The absolute effing worst expression of solipsism in the world is when people assume it's a moral good when they fail to find a particular joke or comedian funny — and then pass judgement onto those who found it funny for the sole reason of them having found it funny (particularly while assuming why they must've found it funny). Jokes are, to an extent, a projection surface. You found it funny or unfunny in you, as did I in me. And if you think you can tell who is good and who is bad based on who only laughs when you do, you're an idiot. (Ps: Not said in reference to Hentropy or anyone in this thread). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I see jokes as an easy way to fuel an "us vs them" mindset, for better or worse. When you laugh at a joke, you synchronize your emotions with the joker and the other laughing listeners (maybe you only laughed because others started to do so). Culture being a two-way street, what you find morally acceptable or not ends up defining what is morally acceptable. In my view, by individually deciding who/what is good or bad (and our opinion of a given event can change over time), we collectively and constantly reshape the moral landscape. --Cmonk (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Its good that you all trying to keep us humans strong. Remember, round elves watch yourselves.-2d4chanfag (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your responses, I'd agree with the fact that context matters, and the actual substance of the humor should be evaluated before claims of maliciousness (ie Colbert joke vs. edgy 4chan meme). I'd also agree that how offensive a joke can be found can vary from person to person. I mainly ask just to be sure I'm never laughing at anyone's, or society at large's, expense. :> megalodon (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Really, some of this thread needs to be pasted into Essay form. It really is very good writing and reading. nobs 06:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

i believe there are several things to consider about racist or indeed any kind of bigoted joke. As has been said, context is important. There is the context of who is telling the joke and their track record (bernard manning a noted, or richard herring who did a show all about racism), who is the audience (does the target audience have issues with racism or they noted for their progressive ideals), there is the fact that it doesnt happen in bubble and it will travel beyond the wider audience to society at large which may have huge issues with bigotry or is the the target of the satire so reviled that it would be ridiculous to think it was serious? Does it reference a specific incident and person or is it more general? Are large groups going to find it all too real to be funny ? Is it actually funny or satire? Its impossible to say all jokes a particular type are beyond the pale just as it is impossible to say they fine. There a so many variables that you can only look at each idividually. Ultimately, if you are making such jokes, be prepared for the fallout, deserved or not. On side note, if a group or individual is offended by a joke, the reactions of those defending said joke can be most revealing. There is nothing worse than being the target of a cruel or malicious joke and then being told to lighten up if you object. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Test case: several weeks ago I visited the women's jail as part of the Christian ministry I'm involved with. A joke making the rounds there was, "How do you know if the baby is black? The cotton is picked out of the tampon." Now, since much racism is based on interracial sexual relations, and this joke is among women who have no problem with it, I literaaly didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This thread has been helpful in understanding my dilemma. nobs 20:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting story, nobs. Thanks for sharing it! Even if you think Atheists like me have no morals, I think it's cool of you to actually do charity work. Anyhow, let me offer another "test case"...

Assuming you haven't already seen this classic, find out for yourself if you number among the millions (based on the view count) who can hear this humorous anecdote — one with that same racial tension inherent in it, even on the topic of cotton — and just reflect on if you tend towards the "humor door" or the "serious door" as you're watching.

In my humble opinion (though, in unison with the majority of commenters), the takeaway from this video is really that this guy, whoever he is, is a brilliant storyteller. The guy next to him on the sofa laughing his ass off — presumably a friend — sure isn't black. Yet everyone listens, everyone empathizes. Everyone's too busy just being human together, in that moment.

As the storyteller skillfully relates his tale, it's worth noting how he shines a light on how all the different people involved in the anecdote just had their own angle (as opposed to having any malignant agenda of sorts), and that it was the way these angles collided that generated the hilarious misunderstandings which make the story worth telling.

To me, shit like this — human storytelling with the power to fade artificial boundaries — really heals wounds. And being able to show that hurtful words and themes can be handled (by a skilled narrator) in a way which brings people closer together makes it all the more beautiful to me.

It highlights the fact that we humans can express our highest emotions in the basest of terms, just as we can express our most hate-fill malign with the utmost etiquette. The wrapping isn't the message. The message is the message.

But again, that's what I take away. And it is about context as well. What we percieve in all instances of humor is really a perception of ourselves. Just like people who claim to see nastiness everywhere fail to realize that they're primarily revealing the contents of their own minds. In fact, human beings are so concieved as to be unable to see that which reflects nothing of ourself back to us... But I digest.

Anyways, here's the link to the video. Forget my analysis for a moment, take off your Serious Pants™, and just give the man a moment to tell his story. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That video's hillarious. But I'm not certain context always matters, sometimes things are said for shock value. I'm guilty of it myself often (not telling racist jokes, but trying to provoke a humourous response for shock value). But I weigh the context momentarily before I unleash. Many others do not. Then the hearer has to think, What is the context of this? Is it for shock value? And of coarse some people never get the joke, and get offended.

That's why I have to withold the sequal to that joke, cause the context is missing. These jokes were told by women of all races, black, Hispanic, white, Native American, in a jail where it's difficult to hide from one another. nobs 12:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So follow-up, I was building a response and got very very very sick. Not even good enough condition to read PDFs on the internet or type lengthy replies. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

S'fine, buddy. I only really "hyped" your supposed contribution because I was worried I'd appear to be trivializing any statistics or the likes you'd be bringing by discussing the philosophy of the question. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)