RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive287

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 July 2018. 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>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <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>
, (new)(back)

5G health scare[edit]

I saw an article from InfoWars that says 5G technology causes cancer. However, one article he looks at is from 2016. The studies Alex Jones quotes are from valid sources (I think), however, these studies are from years ago, so 5G technology had time to change, right?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The big change with 5G is that the frequency it operates on is higher than good old 4G, so it has limited range. Which means instead of cell antennas being up on towers or on the 6th floor of buildings, they need to be down closer to humans, and there need to be more of them. Which makes some people nervous. (For some reason, these same people aren't nervous at all about carrying a cell phone in their pants pocket that transmits UHF signals continually every few minutes checking for mail and texts) All the human exposure studies so far are noncommittal; there's no compelling evidence either for or against it being dangerous. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, there's extremely compelling evidence against it being dangerous. There have been quite a few studies showing [edit: I meant "looking for", not "showing"] a link between RF exposure and cancer risk, and meta-studies of those studies. The evidence is strongly compelling at this point. There is absolutely no detectable pattern of increased cancer risk linked to RF exposure. It's not technically possible to strictly prove a negative with these kinds of studies, but for all practical purposes, any potential link between any sort of RF exposure and any increased cancer risk has been thoroughly debunked. There's also the issue that no one has been able to put forward a coherent, credible hypothesis for how RF exposure could cause cancer, even in theory. The energy levels involved are simply far, far to small to damage DNA, which is the only way we know of that cancer could be caused. We know a lot about electromagnetic radiation, and we know with a high degree of certainty that cell phone signals, even at the dreaded 5G frequencies, simply can't actually do anything to human cells. At absolute most, they might cause some extremely minor, local heating - so incredibly minor that it would amount to insignificant statistical noise compared to the molecular motion your body's own heat causes. And simple heating can't cause cancer, anyway. Whether the cell phones are operating on a 4G or a 5G or a SuperUltraMegaG network is simply irrelevant. The energy just isn't there, at any frequency, for cell phones to have any meaningful interaction with our bodies. (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the study with the rats cited here had to increase exposure time to 9 hrs a day over 2 years and increase power levels to 4x normal to get any effect, albeit a debatable one (only a small number of male rats got cancer), so all the latest hysteria is unfounded. Millennium Scallion (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Even that's kind of misleading. It makes it sound like unrealistically high level of exposure might have a small cancer-causing effect. It's not even that. The study didn't get an effect because they ramped up the power levels and exposure - it got an effect because the researchers kept looking for one until they found it. If they ramped down power levels and exposure time, and sliced the data finely enough, eventually they would have found a statistically significant result. The commonly accepted standard of statistical significance is p = 0.05, meaning that there's a only 5% chance that the correlation you're seeing is due entirely to chance. But that means that if there is no actual causal relationship, 5% of the time you'll see a "significant" correlation anyway. If you do enough RF-exposure/cancer studies, adjust the variables enough times, and slice the data enough ways, eventually you will find a "statistically significant" relationship. By definition, on average, one out of twenty statistical relationships you look at will be significant. But if there is no actual causal relationship, we'd expect some studies to show no link, and of those that do, we'd expect different studies to find different, weakly significant relationships, and we'd expect a failure to replicate any specific relationship. Which is exactly what we see with RF exposure/cancer studies. (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson[edit]

One of the pricks behind the EDL was arrested today. But, I don't know whether we can add it, because reporting on his arrest is illegal. Or something. Any comments? CoryUsar (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait. Legal trouble is not something we want. This is the Emergency Alert System serving the Rationalwiki area. Important instructions will follow --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait, innocent until proven guilty, etc. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
How did you find out he's been arrested if it's illegal to report it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Because it's apparently only illegal in Britain. CoryUsar (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
what are you talking about? it is not illegal in Britain to report on an arrest. as far as i know tommy robinson was arrested on friday. it was in the papers. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
tommy robinson arrested. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not illegal. The meme that it's illegal to report going around on places like breitbart is because his name was redacted in the official police reports (or something to that effect). Probably pretty standard practice until formal charges are filed. Petey Plane (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, found the snopes article on it. CoryUsar (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


I've noticed that several articles have a somewhat large amount of categories, many of which are redundant (examples include Nazis/Nazism and antisemitism, Anti-feminism/anti-feminists and sexism, etc.) Are these redundancies necessary? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that a lot of nav templates come with categories attached to them. For example, I'll add a politics nav template to a page about a politician, which is a good thing, right? But it then has the unintended consequence of putting the page in the Politics category, even though it's already in sub-categories of that and I wouldn't have added it to the main category if I'd had the choice. Spud (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Nav templates are pretty and all that, but they make "what links here" completely useless. Boredatwork (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
True, as I have found it when trying to remove links to deleted pages. Spud (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hm. I wonder if nav templates could be added as an extension, to make What links here useful. —Kazitor, pending 12:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, however I think being more aware that certain ideologies contain certain traits (Nazism is antisemitic by default, so adding the antisemitism category is redundant), not to mention actually going through our rather long lists of categories and organizing them into a meta-structure rather than the current slightly haphazard system we have now is also in order. This is completely cliché, but I can't do this alone. I don't have the time or energy to go through all of our categories and check them one by one to make sure that they are cached properly, and I am simply unable to go through every article and clean up the categories. Basically this requires a community effort on the scale of removing the Pri template from every article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Good post!
If there ever was a taxonomy or meta-structure in RationalWiki's categories. it is long lost and damaged beyond repair now. The category system here appears to be nothing more than a souped-up tagging system. It would probably be futile to attempt this on an ad-hoc basis. If there is interest, maybe this effort could be corralled into a special project so that multiple editors could work towards a common, agreed upon goal. This project could also address the problem with the navigation bars as well. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hepatitis A virus epidemic[edit]

Is good hygiene and vaccinations not good enough? These are not difficult. Does it have to get to the point where Hepatitis A becomes a pandemic and becomes more transmittable via mutation for people to get this? Rant over Wash your fucking hands --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

hep a vaccines are not offered to everyone, and some folk are inherently more at risk than others. its a little more complicated than 'just washing your hands' AMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Good hygiene does protect others who cannot get the vaccine (such as those with allergies to the ingredients). I know the virus cannot be stopped completely (i.e IV drug users and contaminated blood) but those who can get vaccinated (including having the money/insurance) should. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

as i understand it there is a nationwide shortage of the vaccine in the us, so no, those can probably shouldnt just yet. those who are at risk should. considering this includes homeless and generally poor folk with limited access to sanitation, or indeed healthcare and vaccines, it really is more complicated than you make out from your stigmatising rant. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I said, those who could get vaccinated to start with. As for hand washing, people who have access to sanitation should use it. Those who have sanitation resources should use them. You really think for a second I don't know there is homeless people? I am trying not to be rude to you. I really am not but I know full well not everyone can get vaccines. I have been on this wiki for almost five years and I am well aware of how the world works. Sorry I did not fully explain what I meant. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons I like being some distance from people, I rather not live in a city with the bad air and the people who 1) don't cover when they cough. 2) never wash their hands. 3)have to touch every single thing next to them when they are sick. 4) don't know what masks are for.(ノ°Д°)ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤRimuru Slime.png 00:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@rationalzombie im not really sure what you mean. the way you have phrased it, simplifying it to one of good basic hygiene and vaccines ignores the very real challenges in accessing these simple things by the people actually at risk of hepititis and slew of other conditions. it just reads like you are shaming sufferers and accusing them risking a pandemic, which i am sure you are not. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean to shame anyone. It is not fair to those who cannot get vaccines or the homeless if people who have resources do not use them. It is like anti-vaxxers refusing to get vaccines and exposing disease to those who cannot get vaccines such as the homeless(or those with medical conditions like allergies). Miscommunication on my part. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Our glorious founder has returned[edit]

Here are his words of wisdom!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Huzzah! RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


Should there be an article on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baizuo Tie Dye Ninja (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably, it sounds missional. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 04:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Do your own research[edit]

Ever notice how they usually forget to add "but only if it comes up with the same results as me"? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Those kind of people are generally really insecure about their sources or overly cocky about how well-supported their claim is. Often overlaps. To be fair, have you guys ever made an effort to look at sources that disagree with you or sometimes view sources from places you like as if they're sources from a conservative (read: poorly sourced and incoherent) site? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 14:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Depends on the source, if someone cited RT I'd laugh them out of the room. On the other hand if they cited The Dallas Morning News (conservative, but with high quality reporting) I'd go look. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice "Do your own research" is synonymous with "Don't believe mainstream sources", and can be applied to everything from gun death statistics to the melting point of Hydrogen (259.14 °C. Or so THEY say). Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I note that "Research" often equates to "do cursory google searches in language that selects for fringey sites that intentionally mislead and youtube channels with top hat avatars" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Search bubbles are a thing, correct? Can the effect of a search bubble be so bad that kooks searching for things return fringe sites by default? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Could be, but that’s also because of the almost infinite copy pasta by kooks, meaning that googling a characteristic phrase is likely to lead only to other parts of the kooky echo chamber. It may thus in part be due to a “the blind leading the blind”-effect, similar to the creationist Chinese whispers/echo chamber/PRATT phenomenon.
This is due to the various “kook spheres” (incl. most creationist ones) generally being filled with lazy readers and lazy/plagiarising authors who usually don’t bother trying to track down original sources, unlike, say, Jason Colavito, who has traced various spurious claims back a century or more. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

9 times out of 10, people who resort to the "do your own research" defense have the burden of proof on them and are too lazy to find their own sources. also, i've seen idiots before that got confronted with others asking for a source and they reacted with "well you're going to find something you don't agree with in my source anyway so i won't provide it". i mean, if you're THIS insecure and unsure about your own source that you'll get embarrassed over random weirdos online criticizing you, maybe your source isn't any good to begin with? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 22:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

How "Do your own research" would work but not in the way the weirdos say[edit]

If you are working in an actual science lab and doing real research; plus having actual qualifications in a scientific field. Such as studying particle physics and its effects on evolutionary biology. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Or if you can either interpretate scientific data obtained by others (ie: data from space missions that have studied the cosmic microwave background) or that plus having the monies to build and launch said mission. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Saw this the other day. A Congressman from Alabama who apparently "did his own research" before angrily confronting a climate scientist. Depressing. Millennium Scallion (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Millennium Scallion That is very depressing. At least the Congressman could do is calmly explain his reasons and engage in constructive dialogue. It happens at all ends of the political spectrum. I am Republican/Centrist myself but no need for an unintelligent rant. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The congressman (Mo Brooks) is a devout Christian. Which makes me wonder what is it that Christians get out of climate change denial? Are they looking to defend the belief that the bible says god created earth for man and is therefore an inexhaustible resource? Or is it just that they think mainstream scientists are all atheists and doing the devil's work? I really would like to know. Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Millennium Scallion Likely a mixture of both, in addition to a firm conviction that they cannot be wrong because they have "God's word" as the basis of their beliefs. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion besides the first one that, as Jesus will come sooner or later (rather soon according to them due to the usual "this is a world of where violence runs amok far more than in any other historic epoch and where young people does not respect blah, blah") and everything will be destroyed, is useless to practice environmentalist. That as well as (of course) that "enviromentalism damages our industry and destroys jobs", which may or may not be directly mentioned. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When will people realize that not all scientists are atheists? Plenty of scientists have religious beliefs. Not a new thing. Some of these fundies should pick up a science book once in a while. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

They care just about those that have expressed to be Christians. Everyone else are either evil atheists/demon worshippers (Hinduists, Buddhists, etc) or are twisted by them (when one is dead and cannot defend him/herself is much easier, same for deathbed conversions) so said scientists will look like believers, even if they were (or are) for example pantheists not believing in a personal God -much less Jesus-, which is irritating for people whose body is still warm as Hawking back in the day -Fundies know their sheepies are scientifically illiterate and will not bother to check what they said-. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's important to understand the difference between theology and science, and to recognize that people want to be accepting and want to be accepted.
It's bad theology to accept science and still say the ancient holy texts are true, and it's bad science to say the science is true but the ancient holy texts are also correct. It's a non-sequitor in either direction, one cannot lead to the other in either case.
You'll find it's more likely for a die-hard scientist to hold on to cultural religious beliefs than it is for a die-hard theist to give up a cultural belief in the face of science. It's not a fair game, given people tend to love their families and all that.
Hitler was an atheist, according to American church circles. No matter all the Nazi soldiers who did all the killing were God-fearing Christians, atheism=Hitler, and you'd better not tell your Grandma otherwise.GoshDarn (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This is just in terms of holy texts, of course. If you have some unwritten version of God, great, but I really suggest you watch this horrid libtard public funded video
If the embed is not Kosher, I have no complaints about its removal. Crash Course Philosophy Anselm is a concise search parameter. GoshDarn (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Counter Arguments?[edit]

I've argued that the semivowel /w/ in Indo-European, was a vowel, based on greek evidence, but is the scheme of the argument really compelling?

My argument runs like this: Ancient Greek dialects, for the most part lost the semivowel w, but evidence of its existence shows up in the poetic meter of Homer. The presence of these consonants would explain some cases of absence of elision, some cases in which the meter demands a heavy syllable but the text has a light syllable (positional quantity), and some cases in which a long vowel before a short vowel is not shortened (absence of epic correption). Heavy syllable in Ancient Greek meant a diphthong or long vowel. So given that the meter demanded a heavy syllable, aka a diphthong, this means that sequences of the so called semivowel w and a vowel were two vowels.

Lexical evidence comes from οὐρανός (ouranós), which comes from Proto-Indo-European *h₁uorseye-. The sounds /u/ (transcribed as w) and /o/ would've switched places from /uo/ to /ou/. [1] If there aren't any more examples, this evidence might as well be scrapped.

The most notable chink in this chain is that it rests only upon Greek (and not even every dialect, which is really devastating), so one could argue that w was a vowel in early Attic, not PIE. Doric has ϝέργον for Attic ἔργον, so clearly w was consonantal in non-Attic dialects. Are there other counter arguments one could use. BobRoss (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Look, if you're trying to get into debates about linguistics, I don't think this is a good place for that. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with the guy with the overblown self-opinion of his relationship with goats, here. Pseudoscience, politics, religion, stuff like that-- that's more the mission of this pack of lunatics (Myself included, of course). How something was pronounced long ago is somewhat less so... around here, people tend to be more concerned with what was said and how they said it, not so much how they pronounced it. Kencolt (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
there a couple of folk here who seem to have an interest in such things and there have been discussions very recently here in the saloon bar. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't go to Wikipedia and ask, hey, can you debunk everything I just said. That is however allowed on rationalwiki, which is why I'm here. BobRoss (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing here, but maybe Bigs meant there's not a large body of expertise here for this rather specialised topic. You can ask questions, but if the site is full of people who don't know the topic you're not going to get much of a response. Sorry about that. Boredatwork (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
And Mr. Bored said it far better than I attempted to. A debunk/debate over a political, philosophical, religious or similar topic is a lot more likely to find a working response here than one about-- if you'll forgive my personal opinion here-- somewhat obscure linguistic minutae. I don't believe we have that many contributors who are that familiar with that particular field. On the other hand, if I'm wrong about that (as I am about many things), huzzah! Kencolt (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. Even the people who are somewhat interested in linguistics (like me) may have no idea what this is or how to argue it, given that it's an extremely specific Indo-European phonology question, something wholly outside the realm of some parts of linguistics like syntax. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 02:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
To be more broad, what evidence is there to suggest that the semi vowels were underlying consonants /j/ and /w/. This is the mainstream assumption. I've tried to counter it, but the arguements above don't seem all too compelling. BobRoss (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to offer my opinion, but my doctor won’t let me ever since I’ve been diagnosed with irritable vowel syndromeAntigem (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Very sorry to hear that Antigem, I prescribe prothetic h's, just don't add numbers to your medication. BobRoss (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Being "spiritually enlightened"[edit]

The notion is kind of weird to me. I heard it in buddhism and then in a few other eastern religions and wonder just what it is exactly and whether or not it truly exist. It's a subjective phenomenon and yet people claim it exists even though we can't be sure.

Then I see stories like this and wonder to myself whether there is something to it:

How I became enlightened watching actualized.org videos and fallowing Leo’s Advice.

(READ WITH CAUTION! This is my personal experience and may not reflect the past or present experiences of other people fallowing Actualized.org)

I started watching his videos three years ago when I was living in a small village in China; broke and unemployed. I had been living in China 4 years by then and had been fired multiple times, failed out of college 7 times, and had my small businesses fail one after another. I became a depressed alcoholic drug addict with nowhere or no one to turn to. I had tried religion and personal development before, stuff like Tony Robbins and Jim Rohn, but still nothing would last and I would end up worse than before. I became suicidal.

But than I found a video called “How to stop being a victim” by a man named Leo Gura from Actualized.org and I really connected with what Leo had to say and the the way he said it. And for the first time in a long time, I felt hope again.

I continued to watch his more practical videos and tried my best to fallow his advice. I started questioning my beliefs, sobering up, walking and eating healthier. The change was slow, and I still had many relapses back into old habits. It seemed with all the great practical advice Leo was giving, something was missing.

Then I had my First enlightenment experience while watching the video “Enlightenment guided inquiry – The Neti Neti method.” The experience was so powerful it completely shifted the focus of my personal development from a practical nature to something more mystical.

Entering the world of the mystical uncharted waters of personal development was taking it’s toll on my psyche. Leo’s videos became difficult to watch. The even seeming small realizations I was was having were huge painful blows to my ego. I was now going through rapid changes without implementing any specific techniques or methods and felt as though I was losing control of the whole process. I would have massive mood swings going from a blissful peace and contentment to backlashes of depression and anger. And as I tumbled down the rabbit hole, I felt as though I was losing my mind.

Things continued like this for months, all the while still watching Leo’s videos for any advice I could get.

But then one afternoon, things radically shifted. After suffering for days in a state of rage, deep sadness and hopelessness, I discovered something. At the time it felt like a metaphorical small whole or crack in my mind or being and it seemed like a spring of light. Immediately the weight of sadness was replaced with light tranquility. Curiosity consumed me! What was this little thing I had discovered? I was expecting to relapse at any minute back into my irritable, angry self. But every train of thought, good or bad, kept getting interrupted by a pulling feeling leading my focus back to my new discovery. Observing it just felt so good, and like a moth to the flame, I couldn’t help myself.

In the beginning, I thought I was enlightened because I felt peaceful all the time and even had frequent moments of intense bliss. I quit drinking and smoking pot instantly and with ease. My diet changed radically and I lost 30 pounds in two months. Negative emotions would quickly dissipate and the pain of my past failures didn’t exist anymore. I lost all interest in entertainment and social interaction. Everything was perfect… at least for a while.

I became like a cat chasing a laser pointer, never able to grasp the object of my focus. I gave up spending time on my current business affairs, relationships, hobbies, and dreams and I just sat on my couch… watching this seemingly small entity ruin my life.

Criticism flooded in from everywhere, including from my own thoughts! , “You should be working. You can’t just sit around staring off into space! Don’t you have any ambitions or dreams? Your just a lazy bum! Your wasting your life!” I started to worry again, if I keep going like this, I’ll lose everything and everyone in my life. With great frustration I tried to reinstate myself into society… every attempt was futile, like hammering nails into water.

so I sought professional help from counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. They listened to my life story and my current situation and I was diagnosed with bipolar with a possibility of schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder, paranoia and Post traumatic stress syndrome from child abuse and my experience in China. I was given medication and took them as directed. but unlike many other patients with similar symptoms, the medication made me feel terrible.

Most professionals thought my detachment was dissociation. In psychology, dissociation is any of a wide array of experiences from mild detachment from immediate surroundings to more severe detachment from physical and emotional experiences.

Some thought I was experiencing a psychotic breakdown.

And right after I moved to Saint George, Utah, I was hospitalized.

I received the same diagnosis and was put on medications again. No matter what medications they gave me, I felt worse on the medications than off them. I was an unusual patient, I was convinced there was nothing wrong with me other than the fact I was wasting my life away. And even the idea of wasting my life or become homeless didn’t inspire me to action. The counselors thought that because I didn’t function in society, and I didn’t share conventional values, there must be something wrong with me. I was conflicted because I thought we were both right.

Despite every counselor and psychiatrist telling me I needed to be on medications, I started to reject the idea that there was anything wrong with me more and more. By chance I started seeing a new psychiatrist who had a different point of view. She heard about my unusual situation and started to meet with me. She started counseling me and after a while meeting her for a couple weeks she made a diagnosis: “I don’t think you need to be on medication.” she started. “What’s happening is that you’re dis-identifying from thought…” She had a look of amazement on her face “How did you get there, I mean, what did you do to get there?”

I told my doctor about Leo’s videos, my experiences, radical behavior changes and my insentient sitting around.

She said I would be fine if I would stop fighting against it. And if I would just let go and run with it, the faster new behaviors would blossom.

No medications were prescribed that day, only more youtube videos that she thought might help. “Stick to what you know is true and listen to yourself” she advised. I told her that somehow I knew I was right all along, but my thoughts kept seducing me not to let go.

The session ended early, there was nothing left to say. And as I walk out, I told her I would not be returning to the clinic, my doctor bowed her head in reverence and said “thank you for your blessed example.” And we parted ways.

I took the Doctors advice and sat around as much as I wanted. I wiggled out of my cocoon and three weeks later; I became Enlightened.

Much has changed since then. I’m back in society now and still watch Leo’s videos now and again for old times’ sake.

I have never commented on Leo’s videos until now.

I wanted to make this post in dedication to all Leo’s work with Actualized.org.

Thank you so much Leo!

This is the source site: https://www.actualized.org/articles/going-buddha#comment-75964

All in all, based on buddhism I don't think it's really the truth but more like a state reached through a set of practice. Yet part of me can't help but feel inferior some how.Machina (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm really glad that you're happy now. De-identifying with thoughts is a technique I practice as well. In acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), de-identifying with thoughts is called thought defusion. Congratulations on your recovery! —ClickerClock (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not me but I story I found that got me thinking about it. Also I doubt that one can "disidentify" with their thoughts.Machina (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this your own personal experience or just a story you found? I take it from your introduction that you found this story, and the parenthetical (This is my personal experience) is within the quote. So, boldly, I will tell you this is a common story. Because, good news, every religion has these "I was destitute, spiritually and morally bankrupt and then I found (x) and I'm so grateful and successful!" stories. Mormonism saves. Scientology saves. Zoroastrianism kinda like makes you choose a side, but you chose the right one!
It's not like it isn't worth looking into. Some of the happiest people you will meet also happen to be (in no specific order) Buddhist, Christian, Pagan, Nihilistic, Muslim, Athletic, Pagan, Married, Buddhist, Special Needs, Racist, Hindu, Homeowners. Feeling inferior to a genuinely happy person is why advertising works. Somewhere along the line, somebody is going to be perfectly happy to calculate that the earth is flat, to preach their gospel in the last remaining corners of the flat earth, or just enjoy the idea of knowing the earth is flat and everyone else is wrong.
It's not wrong to explore the ideas. But I offer this personal account (which is true)
"My car was broke, so I walked home from work. It was 7.5 miles according to Google maps. While I waited at a busy intersection, I heard a deep pounding bass. I looked at the source.
It was a car, which I had expected. The window was cracked, and a huge cloud of vapor left the opening. I knew it was a vape.
I said to myself "I wish I could do that." and then took off walking for two miles before I thought "But I'm too self aware."
It's not ideal to want some confidence it what you're trying to achieve, but you're in good company not being there. GoshDarn (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
And you're not wrong for wanting to land in a different place than "stupid loud bass and vape clouds" as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if that was unclear. GoshDarn (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly the response I was looking for.Machina (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Check this out[edit]

Turns out EiK doesn't like it when people troll his own site and is going to delete it because he can't handle it. Also notice the latest EiK sock doesn't deny being Colonel Sanders. Hey, RatWiki is known as the vandal site, go get 'em! What a Wonderful World (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain what's the fuss about?. The link is of a Baptist church. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ways to show how people can create Wikis out of Wikia, to dismiss RationalWiki as a "Far-Leftist Bias Machine" and things I want to say[edit]

Could you at the very least please format your rants properly. I am not sifting through all of this. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks... BabyLuigiOnFire MysteryMan9000 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So some idiot wrote something stupid on DeviantArt. So what? It might well have been written as a joke. But it really doesn't matter if it was or not. The person who wrote it is just some nobody on the internet, not anybody important or influential. Their stupid rant isn't going to get anybody to change their minds about anything. Far too much time and energy was [w]asted on this at the Saloon Bar and it certainly doesn't merit its own article of any kind.

This was for a different incident but it still applies to this. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

How flattering to be quoted like that. I'm so glad I only made one typo in that quote! So, yeah. If you look for it, you're going to find loads of nasty stuff written about RationalWiki out there. And, unless it is written by somebody important or influential, it's not worth worrying about. As Taylor Swift said, "Haters gonna hate." Don't let it bother you! And don't try to turn that hidden rant into an article because it will only get deleted. Spud (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Unban for F A[edit]

Out of curiosity...[edit]

I have been away for a while so forgive me if this has already been discussed but what do you all think about Trump's Foreign Policy successes with North Korea, and what do you all think of how well the economy has been doing under Trump? I'm a believer that actions speak loader than words and I'm hoping many of you will come to your senses and support him from now on. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean the summit he tried to quit because his skin is thinner than rice paper? And the tax cuts that predominately screwed over the working class by cutting taxes to the upper classes? Yeah, I'm sure those will work out just fine. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
We've basically crippled our monetary and fiscal means of correcting a recession, which will happen with these tax cuts. It's basic macroeconomics. Remember, the economy was great under Coolidge too. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
As for North Korea, well, Trump still needs to deliver an agreement with Kim. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean the fact that Trump has made more diplomatic progress with North Korea than any other president in decades, and the record low unemployment in the US today. GrammarCommie and RoninMacbeth, the way you spin facts is impressive. You could both pass as Huffington Post journalists. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I will admit that Trump gaining a summit with North Korea is...surprising. Sure, I'll give him that. Kudos. But the way you lack basic knowledge of things such as the business cycle is also impressive. You could pass for a Fox News journalist. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Me? Work for Huffpo? AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well its good you give him credit for North Korea I guess. I've spoken to people who want the summit to be a complete failure just because they don't like Trump, which is an outrageous view but one that I suspect many hold. As for the economy I guess only time will tell. Maybe when 2020 comes round you will have opened your eyes to the truth. And when that happens you will realise Trump was right all along --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My tax cut got me maybe 15 extra bucks a check, but my hours will be cut if he goes through with tariffs (Machinist) Also, when this recession hits, we're all fucked. And please explain how Trump would have been any better than a monkey with a somewhat legible signature? Republicans and the lobbyists write the laws and executive orders, a monkey could sign it, and the monkey wouldn't defend Neo Nazis and mock disabled reporters. So, no, he's been terrible. Any other Republican monkey would have done a better job. That's how low the bar is. Even TED CRUZ would have been better and he's the worst senator my state's had in recent memory. Asaac Isimov (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, what Asaac says. Well, I can only hope you realize are wrong, RWRW. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Asaac Isimov You're from The Lonestar Loonybin too? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Trump did not cause the NK thing. Kim Jong-un knows his country is falling apart, and has finally been forced to open up or face destruction by his own people. Also, hello fellow Texans. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
When I say I give him credit for it, I mean I give him more credit for not quite fucking it all up yet. Kind of like a "shitting on the kitchen floor instead of the rug" thing. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what Bigs said I'd like to point out that the leaders of both North Korea and South Korea had to work together in order to prevent the peace summit from being canceled. And all because trump can't handle some minor saber rattling from North Korea so that they can keep up appearances. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
My word you are bitter liberals. If Obama had arranged a meeting with 'lil'Kim, you would all be calling him a hero. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
To be fair to Obama, he didn't come the closest to war with North Korea we've been in a while as well. Again, it's like saying, "Lex Luthor saved the world from the forces of Apokolips, but if SUPERMAN had done that then you'd call him a superhero." No, Trump isn't a hero because he almost got us in a war with North Korea not even a year ago and he almost scrapped the entire summit over a slight. You don't get to claim Trump is doing it well when most of the legwork is coming from Seoul. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If Obama had let North Korean spy chief Kim Yong Chol into the Oval Office, Fox News would have imploded. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And in the economy, you can't say whenever Trump is successful or not because I think economic response lags a bit to president policy. I think it's fair to attribute economic recovery to Obama, which also includes continuing increasing corporate profits. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The alt-right is literally delusional[edit]

I know a righter of the alt who fervently asserts that fascism is left-wing. I can't even fathom the cognitive dissonance required to see no problems with that. This person has also pretty much said that anyone who doesn't agree with them is stupid. —Kazitor, pending 09:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor I had an even more disturbing thought, what if the Alt-righter you mentioned actually is to the right of Fascism? — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs
I think that just depends on how he defines left and right wing. It seems that people in America define "right wing" as very limited government or anarchism, and left wing as any sort of large government or centralized power. From that perspective, fascism is certainly left wing. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Aeonian I was thinking more along the lines of Evola, but your theory seems more plausible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
When did the phrase 'to the right of Genghis Khan' emerge - and why is he presented as being right wing (as he was an equal-opportunity conqueror and father of Asia). Anna Livia (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Livia Genghis Khan was the kind of tyrannical dictator you could get behind, the kind of guy who would push for innovation in murder and slaughter, the kind of guy who made sure the barbaric executions were both impressive and orderly. A man who believed in equal oppression for all!! Those were the days... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
But 'in those days' the political spectrum was quite different (and you could use an actual horseshoe on your opponents - though, technical question, would GK's horses have been shod?). Anna Livia (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's more a case of Jonanism: everything good = right, everything bad = left. Fascism is bad, so it must be left. —Kazitor, pending 21:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
You think that's crazy? I've met (on Discord) a flat earther YEC who thought gravity wasn't real and the New World Order is hiding this to turn people away from God. He would respond to any attempt at debate with memes and dodging the question then claim we weren't listening to him. With he finally realized this tactic didn't work, he started saying we were too far gone and banned me and four other people for criticizing him. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not crazy per se, but more "at odds with observable reality." —Kazitor, pending 05:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I met one flat earther at Patheos months ago. His arguments consisted on videos taken with a megazoom camera (google for the Nikon P900), claiming that an out of focus Jupiter was in front of clouds and that a picture of the Moon where something similar to this appears is because the holographic projector failed giving the Moon a broken look, or something else, and his replies to our debunking of that BS (showing not only he knew nothing of astronomy but also that he did not know how to operate a camera) were, of course, insults.

Panzerfaust (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone I disagree with is literally delusional[edit]

The only logical conclusion, saying it now before anyone else gets a chance. —Kazitor, pending 09:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I used to think that. Now I'm delusional.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's be honest. Everyone is delusional. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
That makes me want to literally... Towards-the Unknown (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If you can't tell the title's a joke, I pity you. —Kazitor, pending 04:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean... I was joking too. :P Towards-the Unknown (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, fuckos - what the fuck is going on?[edit]

What’s been happening round these parts? Who’s in charge these days? It’s been awhile. I expect no response from anyone but just throwing it out there. I think I have been here 10 years now. Wtf. Acei9 09:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked ColinR Briefly returned. As for who's in charge... I have no idea. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
ok I’ll be in charge. We need a steady hand at the wheel. Not all hero’s wear capes etc. Acei9 12:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked This has been the fastest Coup d'état I've ever seen. What's the first order of business? — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs
Too bad, I'm resisting! Vive la révolution! Or rather, lack thereof. —Kazitor, pending 12:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously I should be in charge. Gets thrown off cliff by sane people 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Quite the varied lexicon you've got there. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 18:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Please define "fucko". In my ignorance, I only speak language. Kencolt (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kencolt here you go. However, to be fair Ace hasn't responded yet. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
PS: @Spriggina I've said worse. Hell, I invented several swearwords out of sheer boredom, including "Twatwaffle". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Fucko just rolls off the tongue nicely. Like the word “salubrious” or “loquacious”. Anyway - first order of business for me is to find the old RW guard. Is there anyone left from the heady days of 2008 - 2012? We had ourselves some fun. Acei9 19:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked I see. I'm not sure who exactly was in the original old guard outside of you, though if you give me some names I can either answer or see if I can find out what happened to them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
2010 checking in. --Sophie (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
2010 is kinda newbie-ish. January 2009 here. Dendlai (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
March 2008 here. Ok, not under this name. But a legend nonetheless. LongLostLegend (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Be warned, the young eat the old. #2017UsersBestUsers 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ace. Hello newbie fuckos. It's me, Weaseloid. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Weasel! Sophie! Ah, there you are. I miss SusanG/Toast. I still talk with Nutty, Human and PsyGremlin though. Acei9 21:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You're two years too late for Nutty Roux. —Kazitor, pending 23:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Nutty is a dear friend. We still send each other homoerotic text messages on a regular basis. My girlfriend thinks it is odd though. Acei9 23:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I honestly thought User:Old guard was Ace, kind of surprised in a way to find out that it was Nutty. What a Wonderful World (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Meh, I've been around since approximately 2009, under various names. What a Wonderful World (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Is that you, Foster? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope. But apparently some new bastard thinks I'm some newfag troll known as "Elvis is King". What a Wonderful World (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It would probably help if your edits weren't incredibly similar to those made by several confirmed EiK socks. Just saying. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I miss PFoster. And that fucktard Nutty woke me up last with a flurry of text messages. Acei9 19:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ace! You been furloughed from the leper colony, I see. Welcome back! nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 10:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually a long-gone Conservapedian. I don't remember the password to that account; I do know I used a different password than I use for everything else because I didn't trust RationalWiki. I sometimes lurk here, and sometimes edit (usually as an IP). I had a different account too, but that's been renamed to something no one is going to guess. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

GDPR and sources[edit]

Because of the EU's new GDPRWikipedia rules, some US websites are blocking EU-based readers from accessing them. This means a shipload of links all over Rationalwiki are now inaccessible to a large chunk of us. What do we do? Boredatwork (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I imagine that we'll first need to find out which links are inaccessible. Then we should try and find Wayback Machine versions of the sources or find replacement sources. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a bot that detects deadlinks. Perhaps something like that could be adapted to find eu-blocking links here? Boredatwork (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps that could be adapted. @Kazitor? @FuzzyCatPotato? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we see what Wikipedia does about this and ape their strategy? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Not in the EU, so there's no way I could help, sorry. —Kazitor, pending 04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
There are workarounds, like using a VPN or Tor. There have been various websites and other tricks that serve up locally- or geo-blocked websites but I'm not sure of a current one to recommend (Google caching or online translators are possible). So while universally-accessible links are good (especially in WIGO:News, as there are multiple sources for most news stories), it's not a serious problem if the occasional link is hard to reach. And some sites, like NPR, seem to have removed their filters, so more are likely to become accessible again.
Also, from the point of view of being scrupulous about your sources and referencing properly, it's good practice to preserve the original URL as well as any copy/proxy/archive. --Gospatric (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
One of the kind folks at Wikipedia suggests using the internet archive. I'll continue monitoring Wikipedia when able. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Fox News-like network?[edit]

Do people pay attention to One America News Network? They seem like a Fox News wannabe network. Media Bias/Fact Check says that they have a strong right wing bias and their reporting is mixed due to their strong conservative viewpoints and the fact that they promoted conspiracies like Benghazi conspiracies and the murder of Seth Rich conspiracies. And it's clear that you can see their extremely pro-conservative and anti-liberal work in their broadcasting. To give you an example, they post some of their segments on their YouTube channels here, here, and here. The only ones that are really calling OANN out is Media Matters for America. Although we have an article on them, I think it definitely needs a some work. TheEOE (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Want something godawful? Check out the But It channel on YouTube. Plenty of far-right crap and conspiracy nonsense. They mainly mix around scientific distortions, religious crap and Nibiru. I think that one tops what you mentioned, not that I am attempting to create a contest of insanity. Slender Man is giving out candy --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Huh. You're right. Well I have seen similar channels like a channel named THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Maybe we need an article on these channels or at least add them to our conspiracy webshites. — Unsigned, by: TheEOE / talk / contribs
Some time next week I am going to Rationalwiki the hell out of the But It YouTube channel. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I added those channels to our webshites but back on topic, I still think that we need to work on the One America News Network article. I see a lot of Trump-thumping and some wingnuttery in their content and I think it should be addressed. Right now, the current article is a mess, but I'm trying to clean it up, but it would be nice if I had help. TheEOE (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah you are right. It is a good start so far. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Top15s & the people behind those channels[edit]

Shouldn't they be placed here aswell? I mean every single "Top 15" video they have has either Paranormal crap, Ghost woo and Conspiracy bullshit (I think the last one started after 2016, since I sometimes watched some of their vids and never found any of that shit in those Top15 videos apart from the Paranormal turds) in it. And I'm pretty sure they believe it aswell. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have a go at writing it yourself...? Boredatwork (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The stereotype that most people with special needs wear head gear[edit]

That is a very stupid stereotype. The last time a saw a person with special needs wearing head gear was about 7 or 8 years ago. Helmet wearing among the mentally challenged is pretty damn rare. Nibiru is coming to town --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

By "head gear" are you referring to bicycle helmets and the like? I'm somewhat familiar with that stereotype but can't think of any recent examples. MrEricSir (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen a single person wear a head gear, even when I spent time with pareducators (however you spell it). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

All together in my 24 years of life, I have only seen 3 people with special needs wear helmets. Keep in mind I have been around plenty of people with special needs as I was considered special needs in school. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

how common is this stereotype? its not something that i have observed. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Primarily in areas with large populations of people with special needs or in big cities (not 100% on the second part). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Going to add myself to the list of people who have no knowledge of this. Anything that prompted it? —Kazitor, pending 03:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The stereotype has been spread via media. They depict handicapped people wearing helmets. Here is a link- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=xq41x57bpr2ewn7za622vb1h --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And that TV Tropes page only lists 13 examples. And two of those are "subversions". It's not much of a thing yet, is it? Spud (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess that if a person is not around the special needs community all the time then people probably don't hear about it. My bad, I thought many people heard it but I live in an area with a big special needs demographic. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Downloadable RationalWiki[edit]

I know it's possible to download Wikipedia onto a PC, can we figure out a way to do the same for this site? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth I'd prefer a mobile-friendly version of the site honestly, though your idea does sound interesting. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It is. I have most of the wiki downloaded on my PC in the event that the site goes down permanently. Use Special:Export to download the XML; the names of all pages can be found using Special:AllPages. Just copy and paste each page of AllPages into the export box and download it. If you want to view the pages, you have to create a MediaWiki server, which is a bit difficult. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 22:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I recommend splitting the download into about 10-15 sections under 30 MB each. If the files get larger than that, it can be pretty difficult to open them and move them around on some computers. Looking through my archive, mainspace probably needs 4 sections, then one section for the rest of the namespaces (the RationalWiki namespace might need two, and possibly more for talk/user talk). Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 22:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth See RationalWiki:Content dumps. —Kazitor, pending 04:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I get a 404 for those download links. Anyone else?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see why you would think a 404 is client-dependent? I realise that page isn't exactly up-to-date, but thought it worth mentioning anyway. —Kazitor, pending 03:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)]
Because I've seen my fair share of bogus error messages on websites when using privacy software.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't actually aware that those existed. At any rate, for somebody who needs to take only specific parts of RW and/or split it up into sections for easier manipulation, the Special:Export solution is probably better. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 19:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Dumb question about uploading pron[edit]

Question about a side-by-side refutation[edit]

Should I make the side-by-side refutation here into a separate article or leave it this way? It's incomplete, I know. TheEOE (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like the current version is quite acceptable. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why fundies feel persecuted[edit]

It's always odd to hear fundies complaining about suppression or other persecution of Christianity, seeing as how abundant it is. But I had a thought: they feel persecuted not because of people targeting Christianity, but people targeting their own, special brand of it. Then they claim Christianity as a whole is at risk. —Kazitor, pending 21:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to think it's because it's mentioned on the Bible and supposedly marks the moment of the Second Coming being about to happen. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor They're told that they will be persecuted, and then when they don't get their way they mistake it for attack, and as thus feel threatened ("persecuted"). I'm unaware of any Christian groups in the United States that complain about being "persecuted" that are actually being actively discriminated against rather than merely throwing a tantrum because someone told them "no", or going into self imposed isolation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Just like cranks. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
They're so used to being given a massive unfair advantage that the fact that the footing is slowly leveling out terrifies them. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Doubt the fundies remembered that they suppress other religions, even now. Forcing creationism into public schools, attempts to stop LGBT civil rights, trying to start a theocracy, harass people with different religions/those without religion and sponsor hate speech rallies. How are fundies persecuted again? Drop me a line if you know. We are the New World Order --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why I find many "Christians" hypocritical. They don't seem to know what happens when church and state mix, many bad things. Last thing we need is the old forcing people to observe what you want them to believe on penalty of death. As a Christian I say, hate the sin, love the sinner, don't force your belief, if someone doesn't want to hear then leave them be, don't hate your neighbor even if they believe differently, and don't scream that people are going to hell just because they wont believe as you do.Rimuru TempestRimuru Slime.png 00:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Very good point. I know an evangelical who has never attempted to force down on me his faith (to be fair, I've often attempted to show her how the Big Bang theory has a beauty Genesis lacks). She respects me and I respect her which cannot be said of others, especially of that asshole who threatened me with Hell 'cause I was not interested on what she was preaching. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Why do fundies feel persecuted? Why do darkies feel persecuted? Why do trannies feel persecuted? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 10:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Why does nobs feel persecuted? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

nobs! Holy shit, you are back to spew crap! Been a long time. As for transsexuals/transgendered people "feeling" persecuted, here is the answer- BECAUSE THEY ARE! There is you answer. They chopped off my toes --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that might be his point, but I can't be sure. —Kazitor, pending 05:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor you are probably right. I am Centrist/Republican but nobs is just nuts. This time it appears that his targets are transgender individuals. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor That was what nobs going for, however he decided to JAQ off so I couldn't resist calling him out on it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out the irony in nobs equating Christians' persecution complex to the actual persecution of the LGBT+ community, who have historically been persecuted by said Christians. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In terms of religious persecution, non-Christians get the persecution. Not the Christians. In other subjects, Christians persecutes groups in fundie style; Evolution is bad, being LGBT is bad for some reason, religion should be forced into public schools, free speech is bad, so on and so forth. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How do Christians persecute LGBTs? Burning them at the stake? No. Refusing to hire them? No. Giving them a sandwich and blanket if they're homeless? Yes. Telling them they're sinners? No. It's hardly persecution if God instructed Christians to tell LGBTs they're sinners. That between the sinner and God. You're blaming the messenger for the message. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 06:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting point. If I tell someone that they should go kill themselves amongst other things, that's not my fault as I'm just a messenger of the message. It's between that person and whatever prompted me to say that, naturally. —Kazitor, pending 07:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily; if the messenger censors God's messenge - essentially playing God with God's orders by second-guessing God as too stupid to know what he's talking about and whitewashing the instructions, we got a rebellion on our hands and the masquerading messenger makes the message something else.
God's message is simple: You reap what you sow. Blowing a load of your seed up somebody's anus harvests a decline in the species. It's scientifically proven. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 17:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Graham Oppy[edit]

Has anyone here read Australian atheist philosopher Graham Oppy's contribution to the Cambridge Elements in the Philosophy of Religion series, Atheism and Agnosticism? The PDF is free to download (until the end of this year, from what I've heard.) What do you think of it (and his work more generally)? I found particularly interesting his comments on p. 18 onwards criticising the distinction between "strong"/"hard"/"positive" and "weak"/"soft"/"negative" atheism, which seems to be popular among many atheists. (((Zack Martin))) 12:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

We have already seen that atheists can differ in (a) their degree of conviction that there are no gods; (b) the robustness of their conviction that there are no gods; (c) the degree of their desire that there be no gods; (d) the robustness of their desire that there be no gods; (e) their degree of interest in the question whether there are gods; (f) the robustness of their interest in the question whether there are gods; (g) their attitudes towards those who do not believe that there are no gods; (h) their attitude towards the epistemic status of their belief that there are no gods; and (i) their attitudes towards the claim that it is meaningless to say that there are no gods. While, in a particular context, it might be useful to use ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ to mark some salient distinction from this list – or in connection with other features that might be added to this list – it is clear that no useful purpose is served by further stipulation of a context-independent distinction between strong atheism and weak atheism.

His claim appears to be merely that religious belief and nonbelief are more complicated than just "strong" or "weak". However, broadly speaking, the "strong/weak" distinction is just a rule of thumb to differentiate atheists along Oppy's points A, B, H, and G. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, Atheism is a complex philosophy, with many schools of thought on the matter varying greatly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What about 'lapsed atheists'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. You lack a belief in God or you don't. No other qualification is necessary. Your take on religion, disdain of the God myth or not, disdain of believers or not, ones preferences for metaphysical/epistemological/cosmological theories, politics, empirically based knowledge and critical thinking etc. is not a qualification of your lack of belief in a God. That is part of your world view. That lack of belief is a negative statement which doesn't remotely cover or do justice to how you see the world and if zombie-saviors and burning bushes are part of it. Strong atheist vs. weak atheist boxes us into a serious false dichotomy. It leaves out so many other world views that non-believers have including the "I don't give a shit" atheists all over the world or the "Never thought about God" atheist which, if we include millions of Asian atheists, is an enormous percentage of atheists. One's world view should come first. And by the way, I lack a belief in a bearded man in the sky. It may follow from your world view, it may not...quite possibly not matter at all. But I don't need to qualify my lack of a belief in a stupid ancient barbaric toxic sky-God. (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Survivalists and their Bunkers part 1: Black Holes (Basically hypothetical)[edit]

Knowing survivalists think their bunkers can survive anything, they would probably think their bunkers would protect them in the event of a black hole. In the event a black hole formed in the solar system for some reason, here is what may happen-

  • Earth getting sucked in.
  • If Earth's orbit is minimally disrupted, the orbits of asteroids would be disrupted and sent to Earth
  • Other planetary orbits disrupted and get sent to Earth
  • Earth flung out of the solar system
  • Combination of the first four possibilities

Not an astrophysicist here but this is based on what I known. I would like to know how bunkers would survive? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on my (admittedly patchwork) knowledge of architecture, engineering, and basic astrophysics the answer is: probably about the same odds as a snowball surviving an impact with the Sun. i.e. none. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Scenario one is almost impossible, and by extension number five. The only important difference would be a change in temperature, which could easily be highly significant or outright fatal. —Kazitor, pending 23:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the chance of any other object colliding with Earth as a result is also very low. Moving away or towards the Sun is the only likely threat. —Kazitor, pending 00:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I failed physics in high school, Biology is my thing. What I learned about physics is from the internet. Pretty much guess work on my end. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 I studied physics via children's' science encyclopedias. Oh, and PBS' science programs like Nova. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Black holes aren't that complicated. They're heavy, and they're small. Ignore the speed-of-light thing, it doesn't matter. —Kazitor, pending 02:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Depends where the hole was formed as well as of its mass, effects ranging from nothing to a huge mess on the planetary orbit that would render this planet unhabitable, even causing it to crash into other -not to mention asteroids going postal after disruption of their orbits- or even into the Sun. If it formed close to the Sun it would begin to suck it causing a nasty flux of X and gamma rays, that would render this planets uninhabitable. No bunker is gonna help you. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I know this is just a hypothetical, but a black hole can't just "form" in the solar system. You would need a mass of normal matter bigger than the sun to create one from.

Fortunately (?), there are plenty of other more probable catastrophes from which a bunker would not save you. A dinosaur-killing asteroid, a VEI 8 supervolcano eruption or even a direct hit from super X class solar flare would probalby destroy so much infrasturcture and/or do so much ecological damage that having a bunker or not wouldn't make that much difference.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Dogs and racism[edit]

We should probably cover the replacement of “races” with dog breeds in far right circles. Ie saying “pitbulls commit more crime than golden retrievers” (yes they do say crime, they only swap out the races for dog breeds). It’s been going on for a while in far right subreddits and probably many other far right online communities. EDIT: borzois are code for Jewish people (look like golden retrievers ie white people but have massive noses)Christopher (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, given the far-right's habit of speaking in very crappy code this sort of thing had to happen eventually. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There are hardly any differences in people with different skin colors. Racists don't make sense. We all have the same organs and general physiology. Humans evolving into different species will happen down the line but probably nothing to do with race but rather the climates people live in. The concept of race is very flawed. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Certain breeds of dogs are intentionally bred to be vicious or appear a certain way. This kind of selection isn't done with humans to this extent. However, a couple may choose not to have children if there's a major genetic disease in the family. Additionally, a sperm's size can determine whether it has an X or Y chromosome.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 23:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you name the far right circles that use these codewords?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 23:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I’ve seen it on r/CringeAnarchy and other racist subreddits. Christopher (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Those "code words" are obviously a racist give away. Maybe racists should think of better code words. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 There's only so many ways they can say "I hate everyone who isn't exactly like me, and I want to kill them all" in subtext before they start to repeat themselves. I do believe we have at long last hit that point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie You are right, there is only so many codes. Sure there is others that are fertile territory? Then again, these are the types that reject evolution. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying they use it as a dog whistle? I'm sorry. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 02:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It'll probably be a bit too small for a stand alone article but I can see it as part of an article that also mentions breeds as a reason why races would be different.Vorarchivist (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Perkele, can these assholes stop copying me for once? I started using the "dog breeds as humans" a couple years ago, and yes pitbulls as black people, but as a demonstration of the weirdness that is racism. Anyone that knows anything about dogs knows that pitbulls are naturally sweet dogs (if a bit stronger than most) that only have a bad reputation because of the abusive assholes own pitbulls, who own and abuse pitbulls specifically because of their reputation. This creates a vicious cycle that results in pitbulls being more likely to be violent, and this cycle could've happened to any other (similar sized) dog breed. Likewise, many black people were otherwise decent people that were abused because of their reputation as thugs and such, but it's the abuse itself that causes those people to become thugs and such, which is a similar vicious cycle. CoryUsar (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

YouTube's #ProudToCreate[edit]

This video is widely disliked because of anti-LGBTQ people, which can be observed in the comments section. However, it's problematic to even me. Why? Because the video delivers the message that queer people are special.

We are amazing because we are queer.

Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Last year I said on my Facebook page that the rainbow flag "like" feature was ridiculous because people were going to use it as an insult more than anything else, and some lesbian woman I had known since high school got so offended by that she unfriended me and encouraged everybody on her friend list to cyberharass me (and I was getting death threats over it). The sad thing is, even though I personally don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle, the comment wasn't attacking homosexuals at all but rather the abuse of an asinine function that (in my opinion) wasn't well thought out at corporate level. The first time I noticed the "pride" like function was on an Apple ad that had almost unanimously negative feedback, and I'm guessing the people "pride" liking it weren't proudly LGBTQ Apple users. I personally know people who are gay (hence why I would have a lesbian on my friend list) and don't treat them differently than I treat anyone else, but if these "pride" people can't take any form of criticism, they need to just shut up and literally go into a closet. What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Your comment sounds exactly like the Friend argument, yet if those same "friends" no longer want anything to do with you, perhaps its time for a good long look in the mirror. MrEricSir (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
LGTB+ people wouldn't need to express their "pride" with special rainbow facebook features if people like you didn't badger them with passive aggressive comments and your false expression of your tolerance of them. People don't choose to be gay anymore than they choose their eye colour. I would be surprised if you have ever expressed your "disapproval for the blue eye people's lifestyle" or the "left-handed lifestyle". You don't...because having blue eyes doesn't gross you out nor challenge your close minded definition of what it means to live your life. The "gay lifestyle" is nothing more than LGTB+ people trying to live their lives without disdain, harassment, prejudice, discrimination, insults, being kicked out of families and social groups and violence including murder. You may not notice or see most of this or believe your friends or others could do such vicious things...but it happens a lot...every day and not one single LGTB+ is without emotionally brutal cases of receiving harsh verbal and/or physical abuse. So when some dick tells such people to shut up and go back into the closet...you can expect a strong reaction from people who have not even remotely gained equality or protection from people like you. Perhaps you should move into your bigoted petty mean little closet and let people live their lives without your passive aggressive backhanded compliment making shell of a life. I'm sorry you got death threats, that's indefensible. But I'm not sorry people called you out on your ignorant stupidity. You were being stupid. Try not to be so stupid in the future and try not to judge people for living their lives authentically...as they were born. (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't get why bigots don't let others live their own lives. I am bisexual and proud of it. I am me and other LGBT people are who they are. Gay is okay --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I was reading around and apparently 4chan sent their army to dislike the video to death.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 I generally leave other people alone until they demand that I endorse their lifestyle. I don't expect Catholics, Mormons, atheists, pagans, etc to endorse my fundamentalist Baptist beliefs, so why should I put up with someone else insisting that I endorse homosexuality? You're gay, good for you, just leave me out of it. Does that make sense?
On the other hand, regarding the Facebook thing, anyone who thinks that an average American saying "Apple is gay," "RationalWiki is gay," or "Donald Trump is gay" with a pride flag reaction is complimenting the subject or otherwise flaunting support for the LGBTQ movement is delusional. What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Not Wonderfulworld...you clearly don't leave people alone. No one asked you to endorse LGTBQ+ lifestyle. You first concern-trolled facebook giving your dissaproval of FB helping LGTBQ+ express themselves for the ridiculous false concern that it would only lead to people mocking it. Why would you care if people mock it? That's bullshit. You dissapprove of the rainbow feature cause you disapprove of LGTBQ+ people and you clearly have no problem letting people know. But you still didn't leave people alone. You decided to bring it up again and directly express your disapproval of the gay lifestyle and your confusion that people would actually hit back at your concern-trolling. You don't leave people alone. You express your contempt on multiple forums in both veiled ways and also as clear as day. Consider actually leaving people alone. (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
An increasing amount of Gay Pride Month seems to be less about rights and more about the idea that LGBTQ people are special. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. We're not "special" just because we're queer - the point is that we're just like anybody else, but with different sexual orientation or a gender conflicting with natal sex. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 19:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue because they face unique challenges of being queer. I think it's harmless "feel good" messaging but I can imagine it can also get abused like fat acceptance. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I face challenges as an IFB, when are they going to have an IFB pride month? I sometimes have to threaten employers with EEOC action in order to get Sundays and Wednesday evenings off, it's not like I'm a favored class anymore. (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we a need a month dedicated to the Insurance Fraud Bureau. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think they mean Independent Fundamental Baptist, which is a laughable religion.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 20:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, because I laugh at evolutionists. In modern times, people have replaced people with silly looking robes and crowns for people with silly looking lab coats and beakers filled with Sprite, and just because these geeky looking men say something, people believe it. These men can't even cure the common cold, accurately predict where a hurricane is going to hit, and despite taking multiple antihistamines at a time, I still get post-nasal drip that chokes me up, but the can somehow tell me definitively how old the Earth is or where species came from? Baloney. Science is bull****. (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, you're on a very pro-science and atheist wiki. Just because scientists haven't found solutions for certain things, doesn't mean it hasn't for others. Millions of people happily use modern air conditioners to stay cool, which is a product of our advanced understanding of chemistry. Don't like science? Then give up everything that's a product of it. Don't expect scientists to understand everything, it's a process.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, reading your article on Independent Baptists, I would like to point out that I fully believe that the members of Westboro Baptist Church are headed straight for Hell. (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Facts have the last laugh as all the evidence is in favor of evolution. This is unless you're being facetious, though, you can laugh with them. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Remember that your "facts" mean about as little as my "facts," until you can show me some evidence that isn't reliant on the nonsense you've been taught over the years being true. This discussion isn't going anywhere productive though, so back to homework I go. I'm not here to fight. ;) (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
HAHAHA 40K likes to over 100K dislikes HAHAHA— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
So, I just watched the video. Looks like Youtube/Google is trying to Astroturf the LGBT+ community for fun and profit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Now we have a creation/evolution debate (Cute)[edit]

I would like to know how evolution and science are bullshit? I have religious beliefs but I don't ignore science. Just because there are still gaps to be researched and not everything is known does not mean evolution/science is shit. Genius, no one knows everything. Research takes time. By the way, science built the computer you used to post your crap. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Only on RationalWiki does an LGBTQ conversation turn into an evolution one in one day.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
And Discord. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Science is bull**** is probably a harsh way of putting it. Although I could make a valid argument about God creating the computers, the air conditioners, etc if you'd like, I believe scientific method itself offers utility. It's when people start dismissing all alternative explanations (like creationism) that you run into trouble. A lot of evolutionists seem like they want to scream whenever someone says that they don't believe in the same thing they do, and well, that kind of mentality of never questioning something is really quite anti-scientific. There is no way of testing these ideas, so really they are just that: ideas. Natural science involves things that can be tested, not wheelchair man's speculations. If we consider the outright ridiculous things people have believed over the years, it is not that "laughable" to reject the idea of an old-earth or evolution because society has been wrong many times about many things. At one time I thought evolution or old-earth theories might be true, but thinking of it objectively, I choose to believe in young-earth creationism. I get it, you think I'm full of baloney, but remember that people that disagree with you feel the same way about what you believe. (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

We have been proving it for over a century and the proof keeps growing. Meanwhile, creationism's response is just rehashing debunked and/or unfalsifiable arguments. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That's what you believe. I don't. There's where people of differing ideologies clash; most people (including myself) truly believe what they believe is fact, and because of that, a lot of people have a hard time seeing where the other side is coming from. While both sides can't be right, each has valid arguments or no one would listen to them. (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"Natural science involves things that can be tested"
Lenski affair
Evolution simulator
Also rejecting evolution is like denial of any well-documented historical event: you dismiss evidence (multitudes of transitional fossils), how evidence is formed and linked (heritability, genetics), the context of the evidence (which we can figure out from fossils and chemical makeup), and the framework that links the evidence together (which evolution is). People who reject evolution, like you, are also generally unqualified to make any statements because they know zilch about the subject. It's like having an average joe lecture me on art history and telling me that Leonardo da Vinci doesn't exist, and God created the paintings and documents, and the experts got it all wrong.
You can believe in Mushroom Kingdom mushrooms that God, who looks like a short Italian plumber, injects to kids that make them grow bigger when they get older but all the evidence disagrees along with Occam's Razor saying that it's an unnecessarily convoluted belief in how people get bigger when they get older. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Science is not bullshit also. If human life expectancy is anything to go by, science is a hallmark of humanity. Superstition did jack shit but when we finally understood that infectious agents was the cause of disease, we pretty much massively weakened one of humanity's major nemesis's: germs that are responsible for the high infant mortality rates. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Now now, as our CP guest said, all sides have some validity. Which is why I'm glad to announce the hentaism branch of Cthulu worship!!! While fully admitting it doesn't have all the answers, we're sure that tentacle/Woman intercourse has some validity!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess the poster of the nonsense does not realize that there are those who accept theistic evolution. There are plenty of (actual) scientists who have religious beliefs. While I am not a big fan of Bob Jones University, there is some actual science research there. Plenty of liberal Christian schools that do actual research. I guess the unknown poster never realize this? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I see I come too late to this, but my main problem with creationism is its literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm sorry, but what basically amounts to Bronze Age knowledge and legends, and written down with incoherences, both internal (two creation tales in one) and external (too-many-to-count contradictions with science) is very poor as a basis to explain the Universe as we know to be. An omniscient deity would have at least left clues of stuff as the Higgs, galaxies, etc. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Evolution isn't even incompatible with a creationist narrative. Sure, the amount of years required for evolution to be noticeable is huge, which contradicts the Bible (though the Bible contradicts itself on a regular basis).
I would still disagree on those who believes God played any part, but that's more of a difference on principle (mainly I think the God part is just an unnecessary contrivance to accomodate the uneasy feeling that God might not exist for those that are religious), and I am not all that willing to argue a lot on that. I just like when me and theists are on the same page on evolution. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't care if someone is atheist. Live and let live. Evolution and the age of the Earth are fact, I find die hard fundies to be annoying. If there is no divine then that is the end of that. The unknown poster steams my beans. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Are those beans soaked overnight in salt water? :P --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 Whether or not there are deities or an afterlife is irrelevant to our understanding of the universe in general and our world in particular. If they exist they do not interact with us, that much at least we can prove. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I love baked beans. Has anyone tried baked beans on toast before?
Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFaceI have, though it's been a while since I had any. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It sounds delicious. But maybe it's because I had only a bagel hours ago and I'm now really hungry. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Isn't baked beans and toast the national breakfast of England? When I was in London, that's what the cheap hotels served. The tourist shops even had postcards of the classic dish. It's amazing that English workers survive the morning with everyone eating that every breakfast.[1] Bongolian (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was targeted at the mystery poster. I was merely stating that there are scientists out there with religion which the mystery poster seems to ignore. Miscommunication on my part. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

When I was a Baptist kid and first learned about evolution, I just assumed God didn't wanna give Moses a couple thousand years of science lessons (assuming Moses wrote the creation story). Evolution is fucking complicated. It took God 40 years to show him how to get out of a tiny desert. And if he DID explain it, Moses only has so much room. No one would be a Christian if the bible was 17 million pages long. Asaac Isimov (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Survivalists and their Bunkers part 2: Asteroids (I am intending to do a series of sorts)[edit]

Note: I am not a geologist, astrophysicist, meteorologist or engineer

Welcome to part 2 of making fun of survivalists and debunking their weird ideas.

Knowing survivalists think bunkers can survive anything, lets begin the problems. While it is possible a bunker would be useful in surviving, it depends on the size of the asteroid, mass and impact area.

Probable outcomes:

(any sized asteroid)

  • Hitting a/or near nuclear power plant, then nuclear fallout that leaves you trapped for a while.

(Asteroid size: 100ft-1000ft)

  • Hitting your bunker directly.
  • If your bunker is near a coastline and the asteroid hits the ocean, you drown in your bunker from tsunami waves.
  • Earthquakes collapsing your bunker.

(Asteroid size: 2000ft-1mi)

  • similar outcomes to the first three but far more likely

(Asteroid size: 1mi-4mi)

  • probable extinction of several species
  • poor air quality for an extensive period of time
  • further Earthquake range
  • massive disruption of food and medical delivery system
  • pollution of many water sources
  • extreme heat from the blast

(Asteroid size:4mi-20mi)

  • certain mass extinction of most life
  • air pollution for an indefinite period of time
  • complete pollution of water sources
  • temperatures of 800 degrees for about a day (Bunker door might be welded shut, you are trapped)

(Asteroid size:anything above 20mi)

  • Extinction of most life on Earth, including humans
  • No breathable air for years to come
  • Multiple volcanic eruptions from the force of the impact. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 I think this thought experiment ignores one of the most obvious possibilities, i.e. the asteroids (technically meteorites since they make impact with the surface of a planet) simply impacting the bunker itself and overwhelming its structural integrity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I did mention direct impact of the bunker. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Big Problem[edit]

Read this, [1]. A storm is brewing. BobRoss (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This does not make sense, it contradicts all other information. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't find this particularly surprising. Life is evolving all the time and the very concept of "species" is something which we impose on animals. If you go back in time far enough every "species" will be sufficiently different from the current descendant that we would call it a different species. So what they have found is that this point in the post is broadly similar for many animals. I'm inclined to say "so what?"

In fact I often have a similar debate about languages. You will find people who claim that one language is "older" than another. But if you go back a few hundred years then any language is sufficiently unlike its modern counterpart that is really a different language. Sometimes this older language has a name and sometimes is doesn't. But the result is that most languages - like most species - are about the same age.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Does a language ever truly die? Latins not dead, it simply changed its form. Same thing with Indo-European, its not dead, just evolved. Every word we speak is an echo of some earlier form.
Indeed. Latin is now the fossilised ancestor of the living languages. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

When we say Father spits, sneezes, knows, and shits, that's an echoe of something like Paχtéːr sptjewti, pnewti, kʼneχʷti, skejti. Tried doing a rhyme, that's as good as it gets. BobRoss (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"the very concept of "species" is something which we impose on animals"
Also on sundered body parts like 🍎🥕🌽🍇 :) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Mark my words creationists are going to use that study as proof of their BS being real, even if 100,000-200,000 years are way beyond the time scales they use. I can tolerate their -probably- hollow threats of us, heathens, going to Hell because of no accepting Jesus, blah, blah, but treating evolution and the Big Bang as silly things gets my blood boiling. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Remember, even if you are a liberal Christian that accepts Jesus but accepts evolution and the age of the Earth, you are still a heathen. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And if you're a Christian that accepts Jesus but rejects evolution and the age of the Earth, you also also a heathen because you allow gays and contraceptives alike to live. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess the last period of glaciation (115,000-11,700 years ago) was a real buzz-kill for a lot of species. Again, the report refers to most species, not all. The order crocodilia is still more than 80 million years old. This looks like exciting times for biologists. Religious folk in America can continue to feel oppressed if they don't like it. Evolution is a tricky thing. Schools in countries where there is a state religion sometimes don't even teach it.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sad that fundies need an ultra specific bible interpretation to prevent damnation. Seems fucking strange. Once we die we find out. But evolution is proven fact. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
As well as the Big Bang despite some clueless -in science- pastors who see far more believable that the Sun turned off six seconds during Jesus' death. Also to prevent?. Do you mean to prove?. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The sun turning off for six seconds? A solar eclipse at the time would make more sense. It is cool to have religion (free country and what not) but evolution is still fact. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, six seconds even if no total solar eclipse lasts so little and nowhere in the Bible is stated that exact time -and the darkening appears just in Luke, I think-. I also think that I left in Luke comments about solar eclipses that took place during the crucifixion. However it's just a PIDOOMA from a preacher who loves them, has little knowledge of science, and seemingly does not know how thin is the line between a liberal interpretation of the Bible and lies. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Slightly off subject, few months ago I tried watching the waste of film equipment "documentary" Is Genesis History? It peddled the same exact creationist arguments repeated for heaven knows how long. Plenty of guessing instead of actual critical thinking and analysis. For the icing on the cake, it had some top notch scientists with undergraduate degrees from Bob Jones University and "researchers" from the Institute for Creation Research. When fundies go for literal Bible interpretation, they seem to forget that there are other views on the Bible. It is called interpretation for a reason (not targeted at anyone on RW). At religious schools there is bound to be courses on interpreting sacred texts but other interpretations should be allowed. I am kinda going off on another tangent here. Back to what I mentioned. How can you come up with a conclusion before the research and the research "proving" the predetermined conclusion? I will take a side salad --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Just see the mainstream Catholic church. For all their faults they at least treat now Genesis as an allegory and not something historical and respect science, at least the Big Bang and evolution even if it's theistic one. I cannot say the same of those evangelists that I've picked on the radio, who say both are BS because basically the Bible says so (and that's yet another proof against said book being the work of a divine being. Was that true there'd be just one way to interpretate it and there'd be far and deeper meanings than just Bronze Age/Roman Empire era propaganda and legends and other mumblings, deliriums, and nonsense. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Proto-science navbar and/or Category[edit]

I've noticed that we have several articles on now debunked but still scientifically significant theories and ideas. For example Alchemy helped found Chemistry, and Luminiferous aether (though, like Alchemy, debunked) help push our understanding of Physics, albeit by helping us understand that it was the wrong direction to focus on. My point here is should we not have a navbar or category for these "Proto-sciences"? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Eh, maybe a category, but I don't think we have enough articles on proto-science to really warrant a navbar. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 02:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If we do add it, should string theory go in there? CoryUsar (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Regular ol' science nav is good enough. We don't need 283 navigation templates. —Kazitor, pending 05:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor That would be somewhat misleading in the case of Aether, which is a falsified field of proto-science. I only threw the navbar idea out as one of multiple possibilities, including a simple category. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Falsification is a normal part of the scientific process. If the article makes it clear it's no longer accepted, why should it not belong as part of "Science"? —Kazitor, pending 12:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor In that case we should change the navbars on the Alchemy and Protoscience pages from pseudoscience to science. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably we should. At the time, they weren't pseudoscience-- they were science, or what passed for it. (Not as though Aristotle had access to an electron microscope-- or a microscope of any kind, for that matter.) Aether, the Four Prime Elements, the whole shebang-- at the time, they were legitimate attempts to explain the universe, with what little they had to work with. As best I recall, the distinction between philosophy and science could be pretty muddled (They called science Natural Philosophy for a reason, I suppose?) and most experiments were thought experiments-- just with often very flawed data. I don't know it needs an entire sidebar-- yet-- but yes, I can see a category being a thing. Kencolt (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, while cleaning up the Alchemy article I discovered that we already have a Protoscience category, though it does need cleaning up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If we ever do have a sidebar, you know those cute quips at the beginning? I propose "You don't always get it right on the first try". Kencolt (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I love it! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The problem is that protosciences are often pseudosciences (e.g. astrology). We already have a category for protoscience: it's good enough. Bongolian (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian Just pointing this out but Astrology is listed as a protoscience. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And it is (or was) one. Yes, thinking that the apparent positions of the planets among the stars is wrong-- that's true enough. So is the idea that lead can be (cheaply) transformed into gold, and look where that eventually led-- whiskey. (Oh, and chemistry in general.) True, Astrology may have failed (and still does) as a guide to the future and/or interpersonal relationships, but without it no-one would have cared much as to where the stars were in the sky-- only that there were pretty lights up there at night. Humans need a motivation for doing things, including making pictures of the skies in detail. Kencolt (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I started a new fandom wiki yesterday and I am the only guy there, any suggestions to get more noticeable?[edit]

I know there are specific keywords and negative keywords but I am not sure on how to use them. This wiki is for a niche community, specifically fans of Emergency Alert scenarios on YouTube. I only have a few pages so far. Link- https://youtubeeasscenario.wikia.com/wiki/YouTubeEASscenario_Wiki

Start a Reddit thread, though be forewarned that that idea could backfire. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The deceptive promise of free trade | DW Documentary[edit]

Enjoy! Nerd (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting. Imagine, the German taxpayer through government run media making the argument for Trumpism. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 16:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I like this documentary so much because it is well-researched and nuanced. It is way too easy, and indeed, misleading, to simply dismiss anything and everything Trump says as flat out wrong. Free trade agreements may bring joy to some but not to others. Nerd (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Democrats hated Reagan cause he was for free trade and wanted to destroy American jobs by sending them to China; now Democrats hate Trump cause he's implemented their own program. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 00:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
hahaha nobs, you're the best Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 01:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@RobSmith Well, it was Richard Nixon who persuaded Red China to open up their market to international investors. Context is of course crucial; he was trying to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split. Nerd (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Net neutrality is dead (in the US)[edit]

They killed it. They actually killed it. Twenty years went into protecting the consumer on the internet, and they destroyed it in a few months. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bigs Welcome to the hellhole I expected the moment I heard that Trump won the election. In addition expect things like child labor and conscription to make a comeback. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Mandatory salmonella poisoning in public school hot lunches could actually be less costly in the long run then government-subdidized healthcare for child laborers and the long-term Veterans Administration benefits associated with conscription. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 00:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Two things nobs.
  1. It's "than" not "then".
  2. The solution to those (unrealistic) problems with child labor and conscription you just mentioned? Yeah those can be solved by simply not giving a fuck as to whether those people live or die, or as I like to call it "what we're already doing because most people are either caught up in petty tribalism or simply don't give a fuck what our government does." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

TBH, I don't think Trump is as bad as the media makes him out to be. There is an entire government that makes the laws and not just the President. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 While it's true that Trump doesn't have as much power as many people (himself included) seem to think he does, it is also equally true that of all the candidates in the 2016/2017 election he was the worst choice. He possesses both an abrasive personality and demeanor in addition to extremely poor judgement, just to name a few bits of baggage that he drags with him. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I personally think that you can't get any worse than withdrawing from the Paris deal concerning climate change. But the president does hold quite a bit of authority and he's the one that generally does things and has a legacy, if you review history. The government is rancid too, as rancid as the president if not worse since they're complete enablers, accomplishing doing anything terrible just to get votes and maintain party loyalty. On the other hand, the media simply won't shut up about Trump. It's their problem they continue obsessing about every thing he has done and I believe that's super counterproductive. We're past the point of "just ignore him" but back then, we weren't. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The Duck's worst decision has been to withdraw from Paris and after what happened on the G7 summit I predict funny moments tomorrow in Singapore. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Climate change is bunk. It's the vestiges of the anti-capitalist, anti-Reagan defense buildup taught by teachers unions & Marxist professors in the 1980s. It's evidenced by the fact an entire generation under 40 thinks climate change in thirty years is a greater priority then getting nuked in the next five minutes by rogue nuclear regime. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 00:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Why can't we be worried about both? Contrary to your rather narrow understanding, some of us can multitask. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
But we don't see that at all. Trump gets criticized for withdrawing from both the climate change treaty and the Iran nuclear deal. What difference does it make if you get killed by carbon emissions in 30 years, if you get killed by an Iranian or North Korean nuke in the meantime? Progressives priorities were laid out fairly clearly by Obama. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The difference is we'd rather not die via either scenario, and as thus are working against both. You seem to be a perfect example as to what's wrong with U.S. politics, in that you only care about pissing on the other party's ideas and solutions, not actually solving anything. It's rather pathetic actually. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
How did the Clinton's giving North Korea $400 million in 1994 to build a bomb, or Obama giving Iran $1.8 billion twenty years later, prevent nuclear proliferation? You seem misinformed. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Spriggina is right, you are a moron. You haven't even read the Iran Deal documents have you? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The Iran deal was a deal for Boeing, to take the contract for commercial aircraft away from Airbus. It's a bandaid on a fracture in the Western alliance. Obama himself said it wouldn't stop Iran from getting a bomb, only slow it down. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Heh, you're an idiot. Please don't ever vote. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 01:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Climate change denialism is flat earther, but much more dangerous. Climate change deniers like you are a huge problem and are an impediment to humanity, to be absolutely frank. Honestly, we can do both, but climate change is far more of a threat, especially given the probability. Climate change is ongoing and is only going to get worse with potentially devastating long term consequences. Receiving nuclear missiles is far more unlikely scenario. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Go smoke a blunt. Your bullshit is old-school.nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 04:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly what kind of climate change is BS for you?. Natural one, man-caused, or both?. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Panzerfaust Climate change denialists often overlap with creationism and from what I noticed, bigoted views. The last part is what I personally noticed. @RobSmith Anyway, there is evidence for climate change. Yes there are blanks in knowledge that need to be filled for accurate climate change models/predictions, that is true; but climate change does exist. There might be some variables that are not discovered or factored in that could predict global cooling. This is merely a hypothetical. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. Nuclear war, AIDS, and climate change all represent a threat to the human species. Attacking the nuclear threat means attacking technological growth, the capitalist system, and the political status quo; attacking the AIDS epidemic means attacking conventional morality and unrestrained youth culture; attacking climate change is the easiest - it attacks the capitalist system through the politicization of science and avoids the tuff questions of morality and the political status quo. The debate isn't over whether it exists; it's over whether it is the number one threat facing the human species, and at what age public schools and tax dollars should be used to brainwash children that it is the number one threat. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 12:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Attacking nuclear weaponry means making war sane again (who the fuck whats glow in the dark real estate that's useless for the next thousand years?) and pushing against overly destructive weaponry. Attacking aids means not being a bloody fucking sociopath and instead helping other human beings. Attacking climate change means again, not being a bloody fucking sociopath and instead helping keep the planet inhabitable for future generations. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. You're making my point. With nuclear proliferation, you can be dead in the next five minutes. With AIDS, you can be dead in the next 2 or 3 years. With climate change and the politicization of science, you might be dead in 30 years, with the added benefit of destroying capitalism along the way. What makes climate change the biggest threat to the species? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Fuck it. You want to die so badly then do it, but don't drag the rest of us down with you. I swear, you omnicidal morons are half the reason we haven't solved any of these problems yet. "We're going to die anyway so what's the point?" The point is others aren't, and if you would get your self centered head out of your rear you'd notice that. But of course instead you're going to ask the same questions over and over again and ignore the answers because they aren't exactly what you want to hear. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you're the one arguing carbon emissions on a planet that suffered nuclear holocaust thirty years earlier is a bigger concern to our children than Trump staging diplomatic Kabuki theatre to win the Nobel Prize and get re-elected. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 14:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth, it is dishonest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a question for you Yanks[edit]

What the fuck is going on with your country? How is still functioning? From a foreign perspective and from someone with a deep interest and education in political science I'm staggered by the malfunctioning and deeply broken political system. Is there anyone in charge and what do you see as the outcome here - in 3 years time? Acei9 10:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Vaguely relevant SMBCKazitor, pending 11:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked I give us no more than fifty years before we go to war with someone and our economy and what's left of our manufacturing breaks halfway through. In addition it'll likely be iffy as to whether to U.S. has any allies by that point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The reason we've survived so long is honestly mostly luck. Luck that the British didn't absolutely crush us. Luck that Europe didn't get involved in the Civil War. Luck that we had a foreign entity to blame all our problems on for over four decades. But since the Cold War ended, it's been slowly running out. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Ace, your steady diet of fake news and commie agitprop turned your analytical skills into mush. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Things are fairly good, my opinion though--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

In 3 years time N. Korea is going to get some fine luxury hotels. Millennium Scallion (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Or NK will have nuclear-powered submarines: better strategically because then they don't have to deal with foreign influences. The US is in an existential crisis that can be traced right back to its founding. Does the US live up to the promises of its founding documents or cave in to the powers of oligarchy and slavery, and their latter-day manifestations (Jim Crow, segregation, Robber barons, payday loans, disenfrancisement of women & minorities, libertarianism, drug war/private prisons)? Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because America is not perfect does not mean its a bad place. If people hate America then stay out. @Bongolian all countries have their faults. England had authoritarian control of Ireland, India and China. France led violent invasions into other countries. Germany gave birth to Nazism. I will defend my country. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting me if you think I'm saying the US is a bad place. One has to look it the US with eyes wide open and realize that sometimes the enemy is within. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Countries that ignore the needs of their citizens, push highly aggressive foreign policy, and ignore their infrastructure inevitably collapse. Those are simple facts. This country is falling apart and it honestly seems to me that very few people in power have noticed, or if they have, care. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian The short answer? No, the U.S. does not live up to its ideals. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it does but often begrudgingly: Emancipation Proclamation, 14th Amendment, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, and various Supreme Court rulings. Bongolian (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The people who hate America are in charge of the country, Rationalzombie94. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that there are enemies with in such as domestic terrorists (i.e KKK) or the Constitution Party. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 if you are going to defend your country, you might actually want to provide some defence. dredging up past sins of other countries is no shield from criticisms of present US sins and is no defence at all, particularly when the US has been just as guilty of the same things that France and England have been guilty of. Considering its position in the world and the influence it wields, it is perfectly correct that we hold the US to high a standard, perfectly correct that we scrutinise its every action, and perfectly correct to be forceful in our criticism of its actions. you say the US is not a bad place. Im sure it isnt for many. but for people of colour, for LGBT, for the poor, for anyone getting sick, for women even, it looks fucking appalling. dont worry though, i will 'stay out'. for all the shit that goes on in the UK, with my health status i am at least able to live my life. In the US i would be dead. I have no plans to visit. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
anjd im not really sure thats what LGM means by 'in charge of the country' AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of you brought up past sins of the US. Now, Trump is not the only guy who runs the government. Take several laws that still discriminate against the LGBT community, many are local laws and not federal or even state. Unlike what you are being fed by your news outlets, we are not in an apocalyptic scenario with Trump as President. Society here has pretty much been the same. Many local laws that discriminate against the LGBT community or other religious groups are being phased out. It is not just a single person; there is an entire congress that makes laws. Democrats have passed laws that are just as stupid as the Republicans. If you count every state, county, city and territory there is a lot of different regulations. I am not going to pretend I know everything about every other nation because I don't. Laws and regulations are vastly different from nation to nation. So if you blame a single President then there is something wrong, especially if you are from another nation and does not know shit about the American government. There are worse Presidents such as Andrew Jackson. Trump is not the worst President and does not make every single law. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps my criticisms were unclear, I do blame the entirety of our government. That being said it is pretty clear that Trump has exacerbated existing problems significantly, such as when he basically removed all taxes from the upper classes. Or when he helped repeal the Iran deal. These are things he led the push for and ultimately signed off on, so yes, they are indeed Trump's fault. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I misread, my bad. ;) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The country has survived for decades with entire swaths of the population either not working or working in jobs that harm the country. Most countries have, actually. The world is surprisingly robust. CoryUsar (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Trump removed all taxes for the upper class" HAHAHAHA ! If your going to use stale commie agitprop and class hate to promote a return to rule by global elites, you need something resembling a rational argument. It's simply insulting otherwise. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Basically" is a key word here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
People like nobs are a large part of the problem. "The USA is great, anyone who says otherwise is mistaken/hates freedom/delusional/a libtard/communist/with the terrorisits/stupid, QED" —Kazitor, pending 09:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
What generally pisses me off is when people spew anti-American hate speech. You are right when the USA is not perfect, still plenty of problems to be sorted out. As for Trump, I cannot say I hate the guy. I still strongly disagree with the wall. That would not stop illegal immigration. Do the immigration process the legal way then there is no problem. Laws are laws for a reason. As for nobs, he is quite extreme for my taste. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Typical commie leftism - can't address the substance so you attack the man. The 80s are calling, they want their foreign policy back. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 13:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@RobSmith You do realize the RZ94 is a Christian and an OEC right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds of immigrant children including babies are being forcibly separated from their families at the US border under policies that come direct from Trump & Sessions, who want to create internment camps for them on military bases. Elsewhere, immigrants are being rounded up in military-style raids. In Puerto Rico, hundreds have died, thousands still don't have power and there's huge amounts of unrepaired storm damage thanks to the administration's failure to give a fuck. If you're hear to say Trump is "not that bad" or some such platitude, to hell with you. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Good post! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I am a Pagan though I incorporate elements of Gnostic Christianity into my beliefs. As for OEC, basically yes. I do not deny evolution and human evolution nor the age of the Earth. I do not want YEC's to misrepresent what I mean. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 My apologies, in some of my horribly sober moments I must have misread some of your posts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie No worries. My real concern is young Earth Creationists taking what I say out of context, such as a certain user. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Russia and the possibility of World War 3 (or 4 if you count the War on Terror as WW3)[edit]

I swear that each day we move slightly closer to war. I know American relations with Russia are near war, cannot say for any other country. From what I heard Russia is pissing off England. If you are from the UK, fill me on as I don't know. Thoughts on this? I am a Satanist according to fundies --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Bunch of empty rhetoric, mostly.
The minute China goes to war with any Western power, China is utterly screwed. China's entire economy is basically smoke and mirrors, their domestic policy motto has been "fake it till your make it", and going to war means that every country immediately cancels their debts with China. China's finances are all built around that debt they own, and if the countries refuse to pay (which they can do), well, house of cards and all. So no, they will NOT go to war, at least not directly. The most they would do against the west would be to fund various insurgent groups and then pretend they aren't doing so, but there aren't many groups they'd actually want to support. They might bully SE asia over maritime rights, and try to gain as much leverage as possible, but not direct conflict. So no WWIII with them.
Russia is incapable of winning a conventional war against NATO, and a nuclear war would mean their death even if they take out the world with them. Simply put, not enough meat for that grinder, and they know it. And their economy depends too much on having foreign partners in the EU to sell gas to, so even victory is a crushing defeat for them. They will grab a chunk of territory here and there, intimidate who they can, but in terms of open conflict they amount to, again, just trying to get as much leverage as possible. Recently, that has been their goal in Syria, to have a naval base in the Mediterranean so that NATO's leverage in controlling the Bosporous is effectively negated.
The US could win a conventional war, it just struggles with the asymetric wars. Oddly, the tactics that work when your opponents rely on perfidy are what Russia and China excel at; terrorists can only harass an occupying power, but they are absolutely useless against a genocidal power. But anyway, a massive war would hurt the US economy too much, and expensive as fighting in the shitholes that were Afghanistan and Iraq was, China and Russia would break the US's bank. It's far cheaper just to trade with those two anyway. So instead, again, it's limited to trying to get leverage against the others.
So no, WWIII won't be caused by the big players. It's the moderate players that are the problems.
Saudi Arabia funds every nutjob group, or at least provides them with all the moral support they need through the madrassas. Take a look at pictures of the mideast from just 30 years ago, where the women had perms and the men all wore suits, just 30 years, and now hijabs are everywhere. Iran is even worse. Erdogan's Turkey is pretty much the worst ally the US has ever had, so they belong in this bucket too.
CoryUsar (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
(ec)no, you are not near war. its funny that you think you are when earlier you were complaining about the apocalyptic tone of some news services. Britain's issue with Russia is that beside the general meddling in elections and such like that Russia has been doing everywhere, is that they have been murdering dissidents in the UK. and in incredibly reckless fashion with chemical weapons and radioactive materials creating huge public health emergencies, on top of the standard 'suicides' and dubious accidents. do you have no decent news in your part of the world? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree with CU, if any of the three superpowers tried to start anything resembling a world war they'd be screwed. However if one of the lesser powers started something, I wouldn't put it past the three (Russia, China, U.S.) to back existing forces to screw each other over in proxie wars. As stated above Syria is an excellent example of these tactics at work. In addition I'd be more worried about another situation like the Iraq war in regards to U.S. military disasters. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
True, the Ukraine is about to explode. False, that NATO, the US, or EU can or will respond militarily. If anything (as it has already done) Russia has demonstrated the utter futility of maintaining the NATO alliance. NATO talks big and carries a big stick, and uses the big stick to beat its own allies with - Gadaffi, Germany, Turkey, etc. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
As for news, liberal or conservative the information is nearly identical. Not saying there is some conspiracy. Much of the information I gather is from legit news outlets like the BBC. @AMassiveGay Many news sources do make things sound worse. Getting information to make informed discussion can be very limited. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely (assuming you're talking about the situation in the Ukraine). I just don't see Trump asking for an AUMF or UN Resolution to respond militarily. Neither do I see Democrats running in the Midterms demanding we go to war with Russia. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
As others have said - it's the second tier countries who might pose a problem. None of the major powers has anything to win and the virtual certainty of losing everything in a major war. (Caveat: This assumes a certain level of common sense being possessed by the leaders of those countries.) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
What if in coming days and weeks Ukraine, Syria, and Yemen all explode simultaneously, and it's obvious the Russian-Iranian axis is challenging the US-NATO-Saudi alliance? Are Democrats and Trump critics going to support the wisdom of sitting on our hands as Trump is likely to do, or will they put their money where their mouth is and scream for bloodshed? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 13:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Depends on the nature of the "violence" (technically riots, civil unrest, pro-U.S. revolutions using counter-Intel propaganda to prevent Russian backlash, etc all count as "violence"). Maybe use more specific terms? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
So when Would War 3 erupts in coming days and Trump continues to do Putin's bidding and subverting democracy, we can count on Black Lives Matter and the Pink Pussy hats marching in the streets demanding war with Russia. OK. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 14:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@RobSmith Congrats on missing the entire point of this thread. Hint: it has something to do with WW3 being counter-productive. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Face facts: Putin moving on Rostov on Don, Iran and Putin moving on Deir ez-Zor, and Iran moving on Hodeida simultaneously this summer would have caused President Hillary Clinton to nuke Russia and Iran to oblivion, saving us the problem of worrying about carbon emissions for the foreseeable future. The fact Trump won't nuke 'em is proof he's a Putin stooge. Alternatively, President Hillary could have used conventional weapons and troops (while our Saudi & NATO allies lend support and stand by and watch) and the Pink Pussy hats & Black Lives Matter protestors flock to Army Recruiting stations to support democracy. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 15:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dating in the Future[edit]

So, I've been thinking lately about the far future. Say just 100 years from now, assuming we don't have any setbacks as a species, I'm imagining a world where we finally 'fixed' obesity and all the other 'ugly' problems, where every guy is over six feet tall with washboard abs, and every gal has an hourglass figure, everyone is physically attractive so we would turn to additional standards for gaugeing sex appeal. Specifically, personality, intelligence and accomplishments. In such a future, where guys date girls specifically for their brains, what we today would consider to be "deep", would that be tomorrow considered "shallow"? I mean, are guys of tomorrow that are only attracted to women for their personalities truly any less shallow than the guys of today only attracted to T&A? CoryUsar (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Expect beauty standards to change within a hundred years. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
But I am. I'm asking under the hypothetical scenario where beauty is based on personality and intelligence, would seeking a partner based on personality be shallow. CoryUsar (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can see one aspect of society that would undergo severe emotional catastrophe at such a scenario-- the "incels". What do you do when the only excuse you have for not getting laid is the axiomatic implication that you, in fact, are an asshole? Kencolt (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that looks would only cease to have any importance if everyone looked absolutely identical. (And what a horrible situation that would be!) Presumably, in your future people would still have straight or curly hair, different colour hair, different colour and different shaped eyes and, yes, darker or lighter skin. Although I suppose those differences could largely disappear eventually. Anyway, I'm sure that in a scenario where everyone naturally looked what we'd consider to be conventionally attractive, a lot more people would modify their appearances more through tattoos and piercings and God knows what else. And that would result in some people looking attractive to some and not to others. Spud (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Physical standards of beauty have always been "whatever the most socially well connected people look like". Sickly, pale skin from never being in the sun? Sexy! Tanned skin from having the money to go on vacation? Sexy! Obesity, as a sign that you were one of the few who could afford to eat every day? Sexy! Leanness, because you never needed to worry about food in the first place? Sexy!
Of course that will always be the case. But I'm just wondering about the time when none of the physical attributes correlate with status, and the way to show social status was through 'proving' your intelligence and personality, which is exactly what poetry and music is all about anyway. CoryUsar (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Obesity, as a sign that you were one of the few who could afford to eat every day? Sexy! Particularly if you are inclined towards Feederism. My personal preference is petite rather than feeding up some whale of a woman for my own sexual gratification. Could be interesting I suppose. Acei9 09:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
People will #always# find minor differentials to fixate upon - and everybody has their own definition of what constitutes attractive (as a combination of person, personality and 'preferences' etc). Anna Livia (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I can now add to what I said before that I have trouble imagining a hypothetical future in which the small physical differences that do exist between people give no indication at all of their social status. However, if looks could be taken out of the equation altogether, well people would try to marry in order to improve their social status. That would sometimes mean trying to marry clever people. Would society eventually see fixating on someone's intelligence as shallow? Possibly, although I think it would take a few generations due to our cultural baggage. Would people still end up in loveless marriages? Definitely! And I'm sure that somehow people would still end up genuinely falling in love with the wrong guy or gal. Spud (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Beauty standards are definitely subjective. In ancient Rome, big boobs were seen as silly. In modern American culture, the bigger the boobs, the better.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFace It's been awhile since I looked this up but weren't plump women the ideal back in the 1500s-1600s? And now skeletal slim women are the current ideal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie: I found this thread from Google Scholar, however, a lot of the URLs are dead because the post is from 2004 (archive.org and archive.is is your friend). In one case, fatness was perceived as attractive because it was an indication of class status. If you were fat, it was because you could afford a lot of food. In modern times where food is abundant, it just means your diet is awful. Food being plentiful is a relatively new thing, it came after WWII if I'm not mistaken.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@CheeseburgerFace Sounds like what I heard more or less. The logic went that if you had excess weight it meant that you were successful at life and were healthy(er) than the average starving peasant. Or something along those lines. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Cory, what on earth are you on about? You're advocating (or at least predicting) eugenics on a global scale within 100 years for no clear reason. There's no way in hell it's going to happen. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Granted. This conversation does tap into designer babies, albeit it's not handled well.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why the GOP will get a shellacking in the Midterms[edit]

Rather than exploit the difference between Hillary establishment moderates and Sanders populists - both which should be prime targets for GOP coalition building, the GOP has as allowed Democrats to re-unite while it canabalizes itself, again. The Democrats are definitely better at organizing and playing the role of bureaucrat than Republicans. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 15:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Stay focused on the messaging from HQ and don't despair, nobs. Millennium Scallion (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a hyperbole to me. Politics is not all cut and dry nobs. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Both parties seem to be imploding under their own weight IMO. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Democrats have a serious corruption problem at all levels - state and federal - that many moderates and progressives are concerned about, whereas Republicans are more concerned about ideological purity and a circular firing squad, culling the herd, making anti-corruption Democrats unwelcome, and forming a minority. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 21:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Rob, both parties are corrupt as all fuck. In addition, they've been that way for quite some time. Welcome to the modern U.S., where democracy is dead and our opinions don't mean jack shit in the eyes of our leaders. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
A government is made of people. It is up to everyone to make a working government. Might be me being idealistic but differences can be worked out in a general level. Not everyone will be happy. I will take any political party over Libertarians, Tea Party, Constitutional Party, Communist Party or the Nazi Party. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Antivaxxers and pandemics[edit]

Just a hypothetical

We all know vaccines are a huge step in preventing pandemics along with hand washing. But antivaxxers are the ones who will probably be the cause of the next great plague. The problem antivaxxers cause is that they allow a pathogen to remain in the population. I will go with the Polio virus for my example.

Lets say the start of the hypothetical pandemic is in Egypt. Before the infection goes global the virus begins to mutate in a town with a population of 250,000 people. Vaccines are given out by Doctors Without Borders but an anti vaccine group campaigns against the Polio vaccine. Only 20,000 people get the vaccine, another 30,000 people cannot get the vaccine due to medical conditions such as AIDS or an allergy. The other 200,000 people refuse to get vaccinated due to conspiracies surrounding them. A Polio virus outbreak begins and the first victims of the virus is those with medical conditions. Those with AIDS suffer the most and minor viral mutations occur in the AIDS patients. The virus goes to those who refused the vaccinations causing severe symptoms (over a period of a few months despite quarantine efforts). Say after a year and a half the virus begins causing minor symptoms in those vaccinated. After 2 years and viral cases appear in other towns. The vaccine starts to slowly become ineffective. After another year or two of the virus becoming endemic in the region, new cases appear is surrounding countries like Sudan, Greece, Israel and Turkey. The anti vaccination campaign continues along with the spreading infection. Months after this the vaccine is completely ineffective and new strains of Polio arise from mutations. A global pandemic of a new strain of Polio starts. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Pulling out of the UN Human rights council...[edit]

Has to be, just about, the sole intelligent thing the Trump Administration / GOP have done this year. While it is true that no one else seems to be doing anything about Human Rights abuse in Israel/Palestine (from both sides) it isn't a surprise that the UNHRC condemns human rights abuse in Israel. That being said, they don't do it nearly as much for the flagrant human rights violations in Palestine. And condemning Israel more times than the rest of the countries in the World, is objectively demonstrates a serious bias. But in any case, it's much less the Israel focus that justifies pulling out, than the composition of the council has 11 out of 15 members from countries with a chronic problem of moderate to severe human rights violations. Out of 48 countries in Asia, 2 of the 3 council members selected were Pakistan and Afghanistan. As though that wasn't grotesque enough...the current High Commissioner is from Jordan (low on the human rights violation scale yet still a country where abuse is a serious problem. Except for Canada, the previous four commissioners were also from countries with moderate to notable human rights abuse. While the council does some praiseworthy investigations and condemnation of human rights abuse, it is effectively with dull teeth, ignores flagrant human rights violations in some countries and is far less effective than it could be. Human Rights watch for example does a far more thorough and less biased research and sees much better results. It should be disbanded and completely remodeled. (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be more symbolic than anything else since the Council has proven itself utterly useless, and as you said, the massively human rights abusing countries that have been on there. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If better and worse are subjective then how does one strive for anything?[edit]

How does someone work toward a better life when there is no objective measure of better or worse? If the notion is personal and subjective then doesn't the idea of improvement lose its value? Because objectively there is no such thing as better or worse, those are just value judgments.Machina (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's subjective, which means that someone working towards a better life aims for what they prefer. Don't equate "subjective" and "imaginary." —Kazitor, pending 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Their personal opinion is the only opinion that decides what they "strive" for. Nobody else can decide that. — Saj 05:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The problems start to arise when someone decides that their idea of "better" should-- and must-- be everyone else's idea of "better". Sadly, this is called history. Kencolt (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. — Saj 07:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

How is subjective not the same as imaginary? What point is there to striving something that is not objective or "reality"?Machina (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Subjective is how different people view reality. Imaginary is how we know one of them isn't sane. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That picture is well-made
  • That picture is poorly-made
  • That picture doesn't exist —Kazitor, pending 06:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Good post! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. How is subjective not imaginary if the qualities that we assign to things don't "exist" in reality (in the objective sense)?Machina (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Machina @Kazitor's explanation is as simple as it gets, if you're still having trouble understanding the differences between "imaginary" and "subjective", there isn't much more that can be done. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is that how does one maintain a purpose and goal when what they strive for is not some objective law of the land or end goal but something personal and rather arbitrary?Machina (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Machina That question basically boils down to how much you want something. For example, in the past I spent over five years keeping an eye out for a book, simply because I wanted it that badly at the time I first encountered it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not really what I am getting at. If good and bad are pretty much arbitrary and just in our minds then how can anything in life have meaning? Aren't we just living in a "fiction" at that point?Machina (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"Subjective" and "arbitrary" are not the same thing. Murdering 2000 people being bad isn't "arbitary." "Fiction" and "arbitrary" are not equal either. —Kazitor, pending 02:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Sadly even that itself is arbitrary. But how are fiction and arbitrary not equal?Machina (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
*audible sigh* Arbitrary: whether I decide to sit on a red or a blue chair. Fiction: there are no chairs in the first place. If the thing that is arbitrary still exists in reality, then it's not fictional. I really don't see why you can't grasp this. —Kazitor, pending 04:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Machina Since we're going into "the meaning of life" and such I feel obligated to inform you that there is no inherent meaning to life. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Or, if you will...

LIFE noun, plural lives [lahyvz] /laɪvz/.

   1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
   2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
   3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.
Does that help? Kencolt (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I must say "lahyvz" is the stupidest phonetic pronunciation I've ever seen. Why not "lighvz" or "leivz" or something? Or just stick with IPA. —Kazitor, pending 06:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't blame me. Blame the dictionary page I copied and pasted from. Kencolt (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

An interesting double standard[edit]

Imagine going to a typical SoCal university, a hotspot of millennial liberalism, and telling them this story:

A group of scientists want to build a telescope on a remote mountain in Texas, one which could fundamentally unlock the mysteries of the cosmos on a scale unlike anything before it. This mountain is publicly owned land. Unfortunately, there is a nearby fundamentalist cult who believes that Jesus is coming any minute now to divinely punish all those who are not members of this cult, and they believe that Jesus will return on that particular mountain. They consider the construction of the telescope an act of unspeakable sacrilege and demand that it not be built.

Most people there would probably say "How dare they impose their backwards ideology on the rest of us?", "Who gives them the right to stop scientific progress with their religion?", and "Fuck those science-hating Christians". But once you give them the actual story that is happening in real-life right now...

In Hawaii, scientists wish to construct the largest telescope ever, the Thirty Meter Telescope. They wish to build it on one of the best mountains for observation - Mauna Kea in Hawaii. The land is publicly owned. However, the Native Hawaiians believe that this mountain is sacred and are spiritually offended by its construction. They demand that it not be built.

...all of a sudden people would start saying "It's their heritage, you can't offend them", "You can't disagree with their culture", and "They were here before white people, we don't have the right to build on their land". Even though it's the exact. same. thing. --TeslaK20 (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, I go to a university that's a hotspot of millenial liberalism and I'm 99% sure that wouldn't happen. Even if it did, you can't really compare the two because you framed the first statement far differently than the second in an obvious attempt to influence opinions. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Gotta feel bad for those indigenous white Christians in Texas, amirite? MrEricSir (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@MrEricSir Hey! We Texans have a proud and noble heritage!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I have to think that there's a certain difference between a group of recently forged fundies who think Christ is coming next Thursday Well, that's what Hank says, anyhow! and an group of native inhabitants who have been revering a site for centuries. Kencolt (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, the ancestors of the "nearby fundamentalist cult" probably didn't own the mountain before it somehow became "common land". On the other hand, the descendants of the original inhabitants of Hawaii arguably should have some say, as whole island in some sense belonged to them before it was parcelled up and some of it was declared "common land". (Though I confess to ignorance in respect of the actual process which was followed.)
Nevertheless - many factors would need to be taken into consideration before building said telescope. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
How many non-Hawaiians/people familiar with the geography/geology would ask - what about the volcanos (and related geological activity)? Anna Livia (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@MrEricSir Hey, don't make fun of straight white christian Texans, we've been through enough. Also, are the Hawaiians as threatening as the Texan Mountain Cult of Christ? They sound more annoyed than anything. Asaac Isimov (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk article could use your help[edit]

After all, he's fighting the good fight against... Roko's basilisk. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato I'd suggest focusing the article on two major areas: Musk's often flip flopping political views and the Roko's basilisk dating incident. Of the two I'd judge the former to be the most important given Wikipedia itself is somewhat unclear on the subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
His relationship to fake news and press freedom (plans for Pravda, his possibly-a-joke fact checking site, etc) probably merits an mention too. --Gospatric (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Is chaos subjective?[edit]

Is it based on our interpretation of reality or is it something "out there"? I had someone ask me this when I responded about how evolution works:

So in your understanding about evolution there is no such thing as a”governing”principle that made the occurrence of your beloved “Evolution” possible in the first place?

You would simply give credit to Chance & Chaos or whatever you think it is?

And what is Chance? What is Chaos made out of?

What are the bones of your beloved creatures made out of? What is matter made out of?

And this is the site: https://www.actualized.org/articles/spiral-dynamics-stage-blue

Personally even if it is subjective, it still describes or gives a word to a lack of stability and agency.Machina (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If chaos is an effect of increasing entropy, and entropy is always increasing, then it seems non-subjective to me. —Kazitor, pending 00:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a little hard to suss out. What are you saying? I think the idea is that we interpret it as chaos, because we are wired to recognize patterns. I mean, I don't mind the idea, but the pattern is definitely there with evolution, and we have definitely recognized it.
I'm worried that somebody *ahem* is applying the second law of thermodynamics a little too broadly and stiffly. There's a whole universe out there. Unless the earth is flat.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by Chance and Chaos? I don't think anybody is following you here. GoshDarn (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Reads like someone has spent too long reading Creationist websites. Chaos isn't part of the normal conceptual framework of evolution. It doesn't exist as a person or force creating random combinations of creature-pieces like in a game of exquisite corpseWikipedia. Evolution is not driven by chaos but operates within a framework of statistical tendencies (such as genetic mutation) and deterministic principles (e.g. you must reproduce or disappear). Bones are made of calcium phosphateWikipedia. --Gospatric (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Death of a Euphemism[edit]

Found it when browsing YouTube. It's from May so I didn't want to put it on WIGO:B, so here it is. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Watching this right now. Good stuff!—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The far right makes the rest of us moderates look bad. Sorry if it seemed like I absolutely supported border control. There are several Republican candidates I would not vote for, Roy Moore is a prime example. I cannot say I would vote Trump in 2020 (edit- accidently put 2012), I prefer someone more level headed. Someone should expel the racists and morons from the Republican party, well that is what the ballot box is for. Get out and vote. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Serious WTF moment[edit]

The phone rang, my mom answered. I looked over and she had a shocked look on her face as she ended the call. From what I was told, the caller said, "This is the master. I am selling my anointed oil blessed by the saints". I did not know what to say, the call was shocking. Certain con artist. It was hilarious, me, my mom and oldest brother laughed. Any of you get a similar call? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit, that one's a first for me. Not that a religious con wants to sell you oil (I used to get a letter at least once a week, some 20+ years ago, informing me that I could get blessed oil a prayer handkerchief, and some kind of magical salt-- all in the name of Jesus, of course). It's the telephone bit that startles me, and the bluntness of the pitch-- "This is the Master" indeed.
Certainly a new one in my experience. Kencolt (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
At least he offered to sell that. I know others that offer that as well as similar stuff and help in theory for free, and give pamphlets about how going there changed their life -saving them from cancer and other borderline illegal sayings, etc-, the End Times being near, little mention of Jesus, etc. When you go there you find -of course- Pentecostals with prosperity gospel BS and "voluntary" donations with credit card/smartphone, etc (EDIT. They're these). Panzerfaust (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It was comical to say the least. When I heard the name, "The Master" for some reason I thought of the book series and TV show, "The Strain". It is about vampires created by a supernatural parasite AND virus. The head vampire is named The Master.

Probably similar considering con artists want money. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

When I first read your tale, what came to mind was neither of those things. Rather, what leapt to mind was the Doctor Who antagonist (Ah, how I miss Roger Delgado!) or the lead baddie in Manos, the Hands of Fate. The first of these is, in my opinion, an improvement over what came to your mind. The second, not so much...Kencolt (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
'You are the minion of the snake-oil-god?' said with a straight face might be an appropriate answer. Anna Livia (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

My mom answered the phone, not me or my oldest brother (Edit- my second oldest brother won't answer phones. He has social anxiety from severe autism). I gave a shocked expression when she told me and my brothers. I cannot help but wonder how many people fell for it? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't get that master oil? Damn, dude, I been lookin all over for that master oil. Keep him on the line next time and I'll get you my credentials, I really need some master oil. GoshDarn (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope that con artist calls again and I answer the phone. Not sure which is worse, the "blessed oil" BS or the Jewish media control conspiracy? Both are stupid in their own right? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, dear Light... I read your post Ratsy, and somehow it percolated through that part of my brain that is marked "What would a truly far gone conspiracy nut make of that?" And what came out was this...
The Jews control the Media.
The Jews celebrate something called Hanukah, which is about oil that God made burn for eight days when it was only supposed to last for one,.
If God made made the oil burn for eight days longer than it should have, then obviously he's blessed it.
Certain Christian Pentecostal figures promote a "Prosperity Gospel", frequently by television.
This Prosperity Gospel often has its suckers adherents use various magical charms holy focuses as a part of their prayers.
Most of these adherents are poor, and to some extent Christian, usually of a somewhat fundamentalist bent.
A common holy focus is "blessed" oil.
It is obvious that the Jews are secretly Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal preachers, using their total and utter control of the Media to infiltrate the houses of poor Christians , in order to spread holy oil so that they will all become rich. Somehow this will cause (fill in whatever bad thing here).
My brain hurted me, mommy. Kencolt (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Give the con artist enough time and he probably would mix in some racism and some conspiracy BS. By the way, today is the Rapture. Some nut claimed it. I lost track of the conspiracies and doomsday predictions, I swear it is all mixing together into a stomach churning pan of bullshit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I kind of thought I included both racism and conspiracy in the phrase "the Jews are secretly Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal preachers, using their total and utter control of the Media to infiltrate the houses of poor Christians"... Kencolt (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


It’s a fairly large campaign, I see a lot of spam related to it in lgbt places, started on 4chan fairly recently. It’s an attempt to divide the lgbt community by saying that the word “bisexual” is discriminatory against non binary people. Worthy of an article? Christopher (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wtf? You might as well argue that the G is discriminatory against women and L is misandrist. And plenty of bi people are attracted to nb people anyway. Probably worthy of an article like other 4chan disinformation campaigns. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The above. Bisexual, to put it in extremely non-technical terms, can be defined as "Guy? Gal? Eh, both are okay by me." Doesn't require the prospective partner to have the same inclinations. Kencolt (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Spriggina: If one is bisexual and is attracted to nonbinary people, then they're polysexual.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 23:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato kindly added a #DropTheB page today. Bongolian (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
At DropTheB, because you can't start page names with octothorps. --Gospatric (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Should we just make one page listing 4chan manufactroversies? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Leave it to homophobes, nothing better to do than attempting to impose their bigoted bullshit. This is not the 1960's, civil rights laws exist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m resigning from my position as mod[edit]

I’m just not active enough, unless people *desperately* want me to stay I’ll demod myself shortly. Christopher (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you want me to remove your status and promote an alternate, if the action hasn't been done yet? You should promote one before you demod yourself, and give an alternate a heads-up. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that the line of succession means that Spud is the new moderator. If another one resigns that means the second new mod will be...oh no. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Wait, are we talking regular promote or RW promote? — Unsigned, by: Spriggina / talk / contribs
Yeah, I suppose the word should be "demote".
Well, I definitely won't be resigning and I urge my fellow mods not to do so either.
I'd like to thank Christopher and I'd like to reassure you all that I will do my best by you as a mod.
I suppose I had now better translate at least one article into Esperanto, like I said I'd do in the election. Spud (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Why are one-third of our mods food items again? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
See ya, Christopher. Pbfreespace3 is not active enough to be a mod.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Cya. And I don't know, maybe information is delicious! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If Pb gets on the mod team (God forbid) and we counted "PB" as peanut butter, an entire half of the mod team would be food. This is a good AU. Btw, bye, Christopher. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 03:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I've come to the decision that I will be stealing CheeseburgerFace and making Spud into french fries for my lunch today. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Just think, a woman I went to high school with is responsible for Pbfreespace being nominated. And these other trolls replacing pages with nonsense amounts to something... What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I might be able to help a bit with the Esperanto translation, as well as that one other user who wrote the Esperanto article on Esperanto. I haven't used it in a while, though, so I'll probably need to have my grammar double-checked. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 03:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's nice! OK, which of these five articles on topics that interest me should I translate into Esperanto first, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Santa Claus, Halloween or the Loch Ness Monster? Spud (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Santa Claus. Such a universal symbol of creepy, albeit well-intentioned, invasion of privacy deserves an Esperanto article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. It looks like my first Esperanto translation will be "Kristnaska Viro". Spud (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t a goodbye everyone, I’ll still pop in most days, just not enough to warrant being a mod. Christopher (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How does thinking immigration laws should be enforced somehow make me racist?[edit]

On Facebook I ended up arguing with my sister and her friends about illegal immigration. They assume that I just mean immigrants from Latin America BUT I clearly stated, it applies to any immigrant. I normally do not reply to my sister's political posts but the image she posted was mere click-bate. If I hated other races I would not be going to my Indian-American primary care physician or my Iraqi-American psychiatrist, I would not say hi to people who are not white.

It is not like I follow Trump blindly, like a God. I think the wall idea is extremely stupid and a waste of resources. Just an example of something I disagree with.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 All I can say is at least you're consistent. Most of the anti-immigration crowd seems to believe that all immigrants come from Mexico (they only recently rediscovered South America) and more recently, (once they figured out that boats exist) from the middle-east. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I feel a compromise can be made but there are laws for a reason. Not sure what kind of compromise at this point but something. — Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs
That's what one can expect from political discourse on Facebook. Don't dwell on it too much. However, be aware that "I can't be racist, I talk to people outside of my race" is a really, really unconvincing argument. (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I am aware. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 Don't bother with social media discussions in general. That's where the trolls come out. Nerd (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A little off subject, I found it shocking yet funny that the actor Randy Quaid illegally immigrated from the US to Canada. He has the money for the legal process but he went illegally. Off subject, I know. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump is separating children from their parents & putting them in cages. If you don't find that shocking, yeah you're a racist. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not unreasonable, I am willing to compromise. Both Republican and Democrats should compromise

So immigrants are an single ethnic group? There are immigrants from other places other than Latin America. Children have been separated from their parents and detained long before Trump. Besides, I mentioned compromise a little bit ago. Can there be better ways for children of illegal immigrants? Yes. The parents were the ones not contacting the US beforehand and endanger their children. Immigrants are not a specific race or ethnic group. The reason we hear about Mexican immigrants is because that is the biggest demographic. Illegal immigrants from Canada get sent back all the time. I literally have nothing against other races/ethnic groups. Just follow the laws. There are much worse immigration policies.

By the way, other nations have worse immigration policies- https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/121114/5-hardest-countries-getting-citizenship.asp

I am not an unreasonable man, I am well aware of the extremist anti-immigration crowd unwilling to make compromises. There are moderates who are willing to compromise.

After some thinking, here is a fair compromise- make citizenship process more straight forward and increase the amount of time for studying the citizenship test. But there still needs to be laws and guidelines. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at yourself & what you're defending. Jesus Christ dude. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Weaseloid Like I said, compromise can be made. I am not actually defending the way things are being handled. We chatted before for over four years and not once did I post anything supporting racism. Why would I need to hate people because of skin color or ethnicity. Laws can be changed. I am aware of extremists and I don't like their ideas. Those ideas are fucked up. I am 100% reasonable. I am not getting angry (a little annoyed, yes), I see how people are getting upset with the current handling of this. I feel that it should be changed for the sake of people looking for a better life but still have some sort of laws. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 The suggestion to make the U.S. immigration process much more straightforward and less of a bureaucratic hell is one I've heard before, and in fact agree with. If we must have a process it should be reasonable and less reminiscent of the Iron curtainWikipedia. However, none of the immigration policies in any of the countries dealing with the refugee crisis (both from Syria and from those fleeing increases in violence and unrest in Latin America) seems to have been built for the sheer scale of humanity they are now faced with, which is another problem immigration reform must face. i.e. how to deal with such a crisis should one arise again in the future. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I basically agree. I am sure a reasonable system that can be set up that makes both sides happy on a general scale. ;) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I have a small suggestion to make. Why not pass legislation that sends CEOs and business owners to jail for hiring illegal immigrants? This necessitates a national ID registration system, which, conveniently, makes collecting payroll taxes easier. Thoughts? Nerd (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


This YouTube channel is coming to front of my face when i browse my recommended videos (this video is about someone who eats gummybear vitamins as breakfast) in YouTube home page. I tried to search negative facts in Google about this channel, but most searches only resulted in one negative results and the rest are the ones that aren't focused on this channel and maybe including channel itself and also positive results about this channel. Can someone investigate this channel? It looks more real and believeable than any YouTube channels that i ever seen, because i look to the ratings about it and believe it or not, many agreed with the premise (and videos) of this channel. This looks scary. I hope the investigations will end in mass clickbait, but what happens will be seen later on by us. SMB99thx XD 23:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vitamin overdosing is a real thing. Not sure about all the tiny details but these effects don't surprise me. But I am surprised the kid isn't dead.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I wrote the section on megavitamin therapy on our vitamin and mineral supplements page if you want to see what some of some of the known effects of vitamin overdose are. Note: doses on the page are for healthy, non-pregnant adults, not children. You've got to dig into the cited references if you want to find those out. Bongolian (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I really didn't understand what you were talking about, are you complaining about the channel or people defending megavitamin? The channel seemed to be a bit clickbaity but the dude was showing the consequences of eating a shitload of vitamins and telling people not to do it, idk how it's so terrible. KOMF 02:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Best continent[edit]

Europe isn't a continent. Vote (Eur)Asia! Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 21:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I can say, with 100% certainty, that you are completely wrong. That doesn't happen very often. —Kazitor, pending 22:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. Europe isn't split from Asia by waterways or a thin strip of land, being completely continuous. It's not a continent. Culturally, maybe, but then we should split the Middle East into a separate continent from Asia because it has little in common with Japan, China, Vietnam, etc. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 23:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
you of course know continents arnt just geological features but can be, and in the general parlance, geopolitical ones too? Europe is a continent, unless you use a tedious symantic argument AMassiveGay (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Has RationalWiki ever been known for sticking to inaccurate general parlance over scientific definitions? Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 00:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that the "scientific definition" of continent excludes Europe? Somehow I sincerely doubt that. —Kazitor, pending 00:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"a continent is defined as a large, continuous, discrete mass of land, ideally separated by an expanse of water."
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. North and South America could be considered separate continents due to the Panama Canal and Africa and Eurasia due to the Suez Canal, but Europe doesn't have anything similar and only really works as an arbitrary geopolitical grouping of states in northwestern Asia. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 01:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The cultural element can be seen by how Europe generally includes Cyprus, which is geographically part of Asia but majority Greek and hence European; and likewise sometimes Armenia and Georgia (and even occasionally Israel[2]). According to some persnickety geographers, the full list of continents also includes Madagascar, two plateaux in the Indian Ocean (neither of which is Lemuria), and Jan Mayen island in the North Atlantic.[3] Although that link also says that geographers accept cultural definitions. In the spirit of micronations, maybe it's time to start declaring your own continent. --Gospatric (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Does the OP not realise that the Americas are technically only separated by a man made ditch? (Panama Canal) and that exactly the same can be said about Africa? (Suez Canal) And that both these happened recently? There is a common sense reason the continents are defined the way they are. In the spirit of micronations though, I declare Greenland to be a continent. It is completely detached from all others, and there's no clear reason for it to be part of North America. Perfect. Also any nutjobs who want to belive that can freeze their butts off somewhere with no reliable internet. Dysklyver (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@sprggina - again, the geological definition of continents is not only decider of what they are. Scientific definitions are irrelevant when you arent discussing science. convention has the usual continents, and we look like idiots if deviate from that for no better reason than pedantry. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Technically it is Asia-India-Europe-Middle East-Africa. And why not include the ancient continents? Anna Livia (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia tells me: "A continent is one of several very large landmasses of the world. Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents ..."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
'I know you say we are on an islet - but it self-identifies as a continent.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Whether it's man-made is irrelevant so long as it's an expanse of water. The Suez and Panama Canals qualify. Greenland and Madagascar could be considered continents, as the meaning of "large" is rather unclear and they are some of the largest islands. @AMassiveGay, convention in Latin America is to include the Americas as one continent, while convention in many Eurasian countries and Japan is to consider Eurasia one continent. Why should we use an Anglocentric form of convention here as opposed to any other? Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 19:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
and yet i have never met anyone who describes themselves as eurasian. where are you going with this pedantry any how? you think anyone is going to stop referring to europe in favour of eurasia? or is enough to be that guy at parties? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, @AMassiveGay, "Eurasian" is a common (and even official) racial category in some parts of Asia, particularly Singapore/Malaysia for people of mixed European and Asian ancestry. Bongolian (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
ive still yet to meet anyone from malaysaia or singapore who have described themselves as that. or any thai, vietnamese, laotian, chinese, indian or japanese. though too be fair i do know a taiwanese fella of mixed heritage who does describe himself a such. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that we need a few sources for the surprising assertion that the only way to define a continent is "something big surrounded by water". I can find various sources which - like wikipedia - state that social convention is one of the considerations.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sure, but this is a global website. The Anglosphere's social conventions should not be favored. I have nothing better to do than argue about what a continent is online; I can do this all day! Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 20:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

it is, however, anglophone.AMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but... that's not entirely true. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 21:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
is there no end to your pendantry? this site, the one we are conversing on, is most definitely anglophone AMassiveGay (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
¿O es eso? Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 22:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't say you're acting particularly intelligently here. Just quit being so pedantic, accept that maybe "continent" isn't as rigorously defined as you thought, and move on. —Kazitor, pending 06:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Nunca abandonaré la pedantería. ¡Déjanos luchar! Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 14:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it really so hard to say "I got it wrong?"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Sí, señor. Es especialmente difícil cuando no estabas equivocado. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 17:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
tedious in any language. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Estás en lo correcto en esa evaluación. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Europe is a continent because Geographers, teachers and textbooks say so. It's division is historical and cultural, not because the URAL mountains are a logical, rational objective boundary. If water divisions trumped any other, then the world would have 100,000 continents (as a conservative estimate). If it was purely a cultural division, then Antarctica wouldn't be a continent. If it was a case of connected thin peninsulas, you'd still have 50 continents. Spanish speakers claim NAm, CenAm, SAm and the Caribbean are one continent and that it should obviously be so. English speakers claim NA and SA are obviously the right division of continents and if you poll the average English speaker they will never agree which continent Honduras or Barbados belong to. Some will say they are sub-continents...whatever that means. Like it or not, the continents in the English language are NA, SA, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and Antarctica. If you have a problem with it, you should find a way to lobby at the next International Summit of Geographers and Cartographers...wherever and whenever that is. ShabiDOO 16:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Do remember that a continent must be large, i.e., not any old random island. But there would certainly be many more continents. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 16:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Without disagreeing with any of the reasonable arguments presented here, I have wondered about this myself. I don't suppose it is a coincidence that the Asians tend to resemble one-another, or at least tend to be non-white, while the Europeans are white and their geographers drew the line.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I vote North America because that's where all of the superior, AMERICAN made white girls come from! (I'm not lilly white myself, and I honestly can't stand racism) Antarctica because it's so cold I wouldn't have to deal with oak pollen. What a Wonderful World (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Open borders[edit]

This (pdf warning) gives a pretty good case for completely open borders helping the economy, thoughts? KOMF 02:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion poll[edit]

This is an optional poll created by User:Right-wing RationalWiki to attempt to see the levels of support for the Conservatives and Right-wingers alliance

In general, do you support or oppose the aims of the Conservatives and Right-wingers alliance?

I support the aims of the Conservatives and Right-wingers alliance



I don't support the aims of the Conservatives and Right-wingers alliance



If a moderator election was held tomorrow, would you vote for User:Right-wing RationalWiki?







Thanks for taking the time to complete this opinion poll. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I love how this poll is completely anonymous and can easily be rigged via proxy IPs. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I love how people keep adding broken polls. wait no I don'tKazitor, pending 02:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I love how pathetic this is. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I love the utter and complete futility of this. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
So I'll admit that the numbers aren't looking great at the moment, however, as User:GrammarCommie points out polls like this are "completely anonymous and can easily be rigged via proxy IPs". I suspect foul play is at work here, possibly by User:Bigs who is clearly triggered by my presence here (see his negative slander on my talk page) --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
You know I'm right. It's sad at this point, and do you really think anyone gives enough shits to proxy vote on it? There is no foul play. Your trolling isn't entertaining anymore, it just creates unnecessary sections on the saloon bar. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 09:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Calm down, you lot need to lighten up. All this blocking of users after two edits needs to stop. RWRW has been, from what I can tell, more helpful and less obviously-trollish as of late. —Kazitor, pending 09:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The fact that he posted this would appear to contradict that. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 14:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I cannot say I support RWRW. It is just a little too extreme for my taste. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If Papa smurf were to eat too many smurf-berries, would you vote for Oscar the Grouch as a rationalwiki moderator???







If I would vote for Oscar the Grouch regardless, what should I put here? Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 23:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You say "Yes," because you would in that event. —Kazitor, pending 05:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
If you choke a smurf, what color would they turn?




























Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This looks more like a pointless poll to me. —Kazitor, pending 05:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If any of you vote Republican, would you support Right-Wing Rationalwiki?







Hell No!!!



No way in Hell!!!!



Keep your far-right bigoted bullshit away from me fuck face!!!!!



Because it won't let me vote on my own poll, I would go with the "Keep your far-right bigoted bullshit away from me fuck face!!!!!" option. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A rather biased opinion poll I must say. 1 favourable option and 4 unfavourable options. --RWRW (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well RWRW, just because someone is Republican and supports immigration laws does not mean everyone is extreme. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
To be fair I voted mostly Republican in my state's last midterm, partly because most of the Republican candidates ran unopposed, and partly because most of them were the best choice. Even more bizarrely, one of the supreme court races was more civilized than the presidential race, with both of the finalists (both Democrat and Republican) endorsing each other. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think of myself of being very extreme. Extreme compared to most of the editors here perhaps, but I know plenty of people in real life who are more conservative than me (most of my family for instance).
Ayyyyyyy good on you GC! Always knew you was a closet conservative :p --RWRW (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No. I'm a pragmatist, unlike most of my rather moronic fellow Americans. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@RWRWJust because someone votes Republican a few times does not mean someone is conservative in a general sense. I am centrist leaning conservative. I am not fully conservative as I support LGBT civil rights, I am against racism (despite a user misunderstanding me in a post downwards), I am for free speech and so on. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Calling yourself a pragmatist instead of a conservative is interesting. It means what, you want slow, gently creeping progressive change? Because that's the moron's gambit if you ask me. Nobody fixes shit if they don't think it's very broken. GoshDarn (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
i think your definition of pragmatist is different to everyone else. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, to a point pragmatism is different in every situation. The parameters are what set pragmatism, let the pragmatists defend themselves. Saying you are a pragmatist and not a conservative is a clear example of not even wrong. GoshDarn (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thats complete arse. pragmatism is just looking for solutions that can actually work. its idiotic to infer anything about someones political beliefs on only that. it tells you nothing. they could be n the right or the left of things or anywhere in between. i consider myself a pragmatist and i am most definitely on the left of things.AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of the Democratic party, I would vote for them quicker than the Libertarian party or the Constitution party[edit]

Considering the discussion of political extremes, figured I would mention this. The Constitution Party is way too far right for my taste and though not as bad, Libertarians are still too far right. Bigotry towards the LGBT community, basically theocratic, unwilling to compromise on the issue of illegal immigration, bigotry towards non-Christians and forcing creationism into public schools (they have their own private schools, the public schools are bad off enough already). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Politics... ugh, they think they know what's best for us when each person needs a different something. What makes a farmer happy wont always make a city dweller happy, and vise versa. Recently politics is getting out of hand, both sides hating on each other just as bad. I think we have the internet to thank for that.Rimuru Da NinjaRimuru Slime.png 00:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A lot of fundies seem to be like incels[edit]

It seems like the some of the "marry me or I throw you off a roof" fundies and "God doesn't want you to date" fundies likely stem from the same source as incels, with the former claiming divine justification to make people date them, and the latter claiming they don't date because God doesn't want them to and not because they're assholes. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 00:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of incels.... — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You can't be a neckbeard if you got electrolysis.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 03:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Heard a kid at work complain that the excitement about Fortnite is due to a bunch of "normies." As much as I don't think he knows what he's saying, I don't think people who identify as incels know what they're saying either. He's a good kid, though, we have fun. Got another new kid playing Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson podcasts on his speaker though. The new generation is not a given, at least not as much as I hoped it would be.GoshDarn (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
On one hand, David Hogg and most of RationalWiki editors are of the "new generation," on the other hand, I'm seeing a lot of people from GenZ that you would call alt-right, far-right, gun nuts, and fundamentalists. The one thing they all have in common is that they seem to land further from the center of the political spectrum one way or the other than us millenials, and they're quite vocal about who they support. What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I would also venture that they have an American Evangelical upbringing, which is unfortunate, because that is the demographic that is especially reactionary right now.
There's this weird idea that just because it's important to listen to somebody, it is less important to listen to anybody else. I have seen Prager ads before my youtube videos that feature Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. (Disclaimer: If the stupid things these guys said were chopped up and taken out of context, well, they worked with PragerU. Reap what you sow.)
Peterson claims that Colleges don't teach white male literature. Shapiro swings in with the combo, claiming white men are the least important people due to social pressure. So while Peterson literally claims English majors can receive a degree in English without ever having experienced Shakespeare, the old whit man, Shapiro waxes wise on how your problems only matter if you aren't a white man, and how it's worse if you aren't a gay trans woman etc, and yet somehow the world keeps turning.
These arguments are so incredibly spurious that I can't even start. They are like gish gallops packed into little pills. And the worst of it is, they work, even out of context, which is why Prager has made them ads and paid for them to play before liberal videos.
There is no greater point to this, I can't wrap this around to something else. Non sequitor: Listen closely to the morally bankrupt, they are very busy making up reasons as to why they are not wrong. GoshDarn (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The world is perfect?[edit]

Something that just bothered me is all:

Yeah, it's tough not to judge the lower stages. You really gotta grow into deep Yellow and Turquoise in order to be able to look upon Blue and the other stages without animosity. At Turquoise there is a deep realization that everything within reality is necessary and perfect. When you realize that, you see that every person is precisely where they must be. It makes no sense any longer to blame or criticize people for their ignorance because they know not what they do and they cannot help themselves.

The only way to attain peace for yourself is to totally drop all judgment of people and reality. And this can only happen by becoming conscious of the truth of nonduality. You have to realize that self/other are literally identical.

If you accomplish that, you will be left with unconditional love for all. You will see the world the way God sees it: perfect as it is.

One of the biggest obstacles to enlightenment is giving up all your judgments, demonizations, and criticisms of reality.

Imagine being unable to judge anyone or anything ever again. Such a notion scares most people. Unconditional love is very radical. The ego cannot stand it. It's too dangerous from the ego's perspective.

At the deepest levels of nonduality all action is pointless. You could just shoot yourself and it would be okay. It's all perfect. Teaching is pointless of course. But in practice you will probably just carry on with life, for shits and giggles, and probably teach.

The world cannot be improved in any way at all. It is an Absolute singularity, and everything is already contained within it for eternity. But this is not something that can be explained, and it certainly sits outside of Spiral Dynamics so I don't even talk about it. You will only discover this for yourself, at the very deepest levels of nondual consciousness. At which point, you will no longer need me or anyone else to guide you.

It's based on this: http://www.cruxcatalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/spiral-dynamic-image.jpg and this is the thread: https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/22271-leos-stage-blue-video-is-good/

It just got me twisted about whether we are just kidding ourselves about making things better.Machina (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Machina Lay off the LSD, you're using too much. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought we agreed that actualized.org [sic] wasn't worth your time. —Kazitor, pending 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry about the jokesters. You are experiencing nihilism. Let me Google that for you. Nietzsche! [[4]]
(damn I was close on the formatting, excuse me) You won't find all your answers here. But would that make sense? The world CAN be improved, as long as [i]somebody[/i] decides it's improved, so improve it by your own standards because why the hell not? You ain't got shit else to do, as far as I'm concerned.GoshDarn (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
(And there will hopefully be somebody like me, telling you that you almost have it right if you would just research the questions you keep asking)GoshDarn (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@GoshDarn I wasn't joking. All that technobabble is basically commercialized Hippie rambling. It literally has no meaning if the person spouting it isn't high off their tits. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The world is gradually improving, though our focus on the bad makes it hard to notice. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

From what I gather I think the argument is based on trying to be objective by clearing all our judgments away. Saying that anything such as good and bad, right and wrong, they don't exist outside of our own heads. That by labeling things in such a manner we cause ourselves suffering. That in a sense we are clinging to these "illusions". That there is no way to make the world better or improve it because not only is the notion a human construct but that everything in the world is contained within itself. You would just be moving parts around even if you got it from another plant or the like. The notion of improvement is just a human construct when the reality is that we are just moving bits and pieces around the place almost akin to a child playing with blocks. To be honest I don't really buy the "must be" or supposed to bits of what he is saying because that implies some kind of designer which is a colossal leap even for me. At most I would say that reality just is. If he is preaching "nonduality" then saying it is perfect is a mistake since that implies an opposite of imperfect to compare it to and even then it would just be his own subjective understanding. But what gets me the most is this bit about him saying that he is at peace or "enlightened" and a few things about being beyond the conceptual or realizing that this isn't a material universe. It makes it seem that by not listening to him that I am in fact choosing to suffer rather than seeking peace and liberation. There are also other people on the forum he has that make similar claims about the results they got from listening to him which makes me somewhat less inclined to dismiss him so quickly.Machina (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Machina Like I said above, all of that nonsense isn't enlightenment, it's technobabble. I'd also like to point out the lack of results from "mystic" rambling vs actual activism, science, and critical thinking. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
How do you know it's technobabble though? That seems like a triffling dismissal. I don't like writing people off as crazy without showing why.Machina (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It fits the lingistic patterns of technobabble. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
that guys beard on that site should tell you all you need to know AMassiveGay (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking for more philosophical counterpoints rather than blithe dismissal. I've already tried blithe dismissal but it doesn't work.Machina (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Counter Argument[edit]

All words are made up. All meaning is made up. We can define 'better' how ever we want. We can judge what is better. 5.6 million children under the age of 5 died of malnutrition in 2016. If in 2025, no child starved to death, that is better. People can still suffer even if they choose happiness. Depression is a mental illness. People with depression can do everything in their power to be happy but they can still have depression.

You can improve the world. I can prove it's possible to improve the world. Humanity eradicated smallpox in 1980. You can google how devastating smallpox was, how many lives it has taken. Maybe being indignant and angry with what's wrong with the world is not a flaw you have to fix. Use that negative emotion as motivation to help someone. Maybe humans need negative emotions; eg: judgement, hate, anger; to function. Anger can be good. Sadness can be beneficial. Go watch Inside Out.

'Unconditional love for all'? I don't believe that. Do these people who claim to love everything love mass shooters, abusers, parasites, leeches, spiders etc? Is unconditionally loving all good for you? I don't think so. There are abuse victims who love their abusers. There are people who love Trump, Ray Moore, or Harry Kissinger.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof. There are people that think that homeopathy cured their cancer or falsely believe that vaccines gave their child autism. A woman who can personally testify drilling a hole in her skull bought her to a state of higher consciousness.

ClickerClock (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add something there @ClickerClock if it's alright with you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead, no need to ask. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Most of this nonsense is the far end of New Age woo. It generally consists of a hodge-podge of legitimate Eastern philosophy that's been oversimplified and watered down to the point where it's barely recognizable as such. Then an extreme extent of existentialism was thrown into the mix. Then some vaguely hippie-ish terminology was layered on along with a hefty dollup of bullshit and anti-intelectual (i.e. the bit where you're told to throw your critical thinking skills aside, always a red flag for horseshit) retoric. Part of how I know this is because I used to go to a New Age convention (Woo-Con if you will) with some family members, and partly because I actually research philosophy as a hobby. Trust me when I say that anything that tells you to throw away your critical thinking skills and doubt everything is probably a load bunk. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I found the following in response to what I tried to post on his site: Hi Leo, this was very dense and full of eye opening material, As I watched and heard, as you spoke, I noticed some of the ‘Blue’ aspects inside me, especially taking one for the team, but also a sense of honor backed by guilt, or a sense of judgmental-ism also back by guilt, what you speak on resonates with me as I also come from an even more ‘Blue’ past, growing up home-schooled and strictly christian, programmed with certain beliefs about God, the world, people, and myself that I have struggled to overcome. I see that there is more to work on! I have not worked through it all. I am excited to see and hear the next five stages you will speak on, in past moments in my life, or even prolonged periods of time I can look back and see just how ‘Blue’ I was, and can also see areas of my life that continue with parts of that mindset.
I am guessing it refers to his video, which I did not watch (not only for being 2 hours but because based on what I see from the diagram I posted this whole Spiral thing was just made up by someone).Machina (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically you did not prove that we improve the world. You only show that we assign value and judgment to originally valueless statements. All those events you describe are objectively empty, as in they aren't good or bad. They are just events. You cannot prove that it is possible to improve the world for it would just be one's subjective statement about what is better or worse. Based on what he, and the people in the thread say, that is what they are arguing. Personally I can't find a hole in that. We do assign value to things that inherently have no value. As for the unconditional love, yes they would love those people and things. Likely using some base of a free will argument in that they were born into conditions that led to such actions and as such are not to blame. Personally I don't think unconditional love exists, and there are others "like him" who can say the same. Even some who are not like him have arguments that love doesn't exist. But that is another matter. It doesn't change that improvement is in the eyes of the beholder. It is subjective, though as others have told me that doesn't mean it does not exist. BUt that we cannot point to any objective notion of better. Then again, I believe spirituality is all in our heads.Machina (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

So it's subjective but it doesn't really matter that it's subjective. How we see color is subjective, what we hear is subjective, pain is subjective. So really it's a trivial point. Does it really matter if how we define better is subjective or not? —ClickerClock (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
So what you're experiencing is a juvenile level of nihilism. The fact is, it does matter in all senses. Color is subjective, but there are artists who can use color to express ideas that transcend words. What we hear is subjective, but that doesn't diminish what is said. Pain is subjective but it is an experience any living thing has. Don't be so selfish, give the rest of the world credit. They've got us this far with their subjective observations, get us farther (further?) with your own.
Nihilism means you can't place value on something objectively. You have the responsibility to value things yourself. The less value you place in the things you think are important, the less value you have in the world.
It's a difficult concept, don't go throwing it around. GoshDarn (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Good post!ClickerClock (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
But they seem rather obsessed with "objective" and claiming that peace can be found through suspending judgment. Also "far" is subjective as well.Machina (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Or to cite one of his lines: "The only way to attain peace for yourself is to totally drop all judgment of people and reality. And this can only happen by becoming conscious of the truth of nonduality. You have to realize that self/other are literally identical." Of course I am not positive that nonduality is truth.Machina (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like oversimplified Jungian theory mixed with watered down Buddism to me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
How so?Machina (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw this today[edit]


  1. REDIRECT [[5]]

Close enough, moving forward, I saw this decal on the back of an SUV while waiting in line at Burger King today. I did a sideview mirror check, it was a middle aged woman driving the car.

Does she know this decal is on her car?

I liked The Punisher comics when I was like, 10; I thought they were awesome. G.I. Joes didn't kill anybody, boring, THE PUNISHER KILLS EVERYONE. I never got vigilantism mixed up with actual policing, though. Somewhere along the way, somebody got a misunderstanding of either the police, America, or THE VIGLANTE KILLER OF ONLY BAD GUYS THE PUNISHER, or some mix of all three and made a decal that PEOPLE PUT ON THEIR CARS. People who aren't Rodrigo Duterte. Pray for the poor people in my community, I guess is what I mean. How frustrating can one world get? GoshDarn (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be bought to the publishers of Marvel Comics... and by association, Disney. It's trademark infringement at the very least. And I somehow doubt that they are licensing that image for this purpose. The Mouse ain't that insane. Kencolt (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Do it, Disney will likely sue them out of existence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
why exactly would they object to? do disney not do bumper stickers? whats to say that image isnt officially licensed? or maybe they can sue on goshdarn's assumptions of the car owners political beliefs? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Fair point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you guys missed the point... I don't want Marvel to copyright The Punisher logo out of existence. I want people to understand that The Punisher would be a garbage police officer. I didn't think that needed to be explicitly stated. Help, please, somebody help.
Also, to AMassiveGay, it's not really an assumption of political belief if I'm genuinely hoping they don't think the Philippines have it right, and they just bumper stickered something, is it? I asked, "does this lady know this is on her car?" That's something that really goes through my mind. GoshDarn (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
To elaborate, this is similar to the confederate flag. Does somebody who flies the confederate flag really know it's about slavery? They might not. Is it my political belief that they shouldn't fly the confederate flag? Well, among other beliefs, I suppose so. But is there something I think they are missing about the message they choose to send? Yes. So back to The Punisher symbol, I really think these people who fly it proudly don't understand what it is about. It is not an assumption of political belief, or me just picking on a political belief. The Punisher kills bad guys in a fantasy universe and I am very familiar with that. I like The Punisher. However, I don't want people confusing that with the real world police. Politicize it if you'd like, but let's be serious please. GoshDarn (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
'Politicize it if you'd like, but let's be serious please' you are the one politicising it. its so not like the confederate flag, which has definite and well known associations. displaying a punisher skull is no different to displaying a batman or basically any superhero symbol - they are all generally vigilantes of some description. what your saying is that everyone who watches the punisher tv show, flms or reads the comics, except you dont understand the punisher like you, that only you know the difference bewteen fiction and reality? people know the difference. aznd if they dont know its from the punisher? its a skull with an american flag on it. i dare say they think it looks cool. i gotlots of skulls on things. they dont look to dissimilar the punisher symbol. you can infer fuck all from it except maybe they like the punisher AMassiveGay (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the concern involves the fact that the blue line flag was originally designed to symbolize the sacrifice that law enforcement officers make. Discussions of problematic associations with "Blue Lives Matter" aside (i.e. adoption by white supremacists), I think this is a good message. The problem comes when we tie a symbol associated with real-life police officers with a fictional character who is at best morally ambiguous. If this does represent idolization of the Punisher as a character, which seems a fair reading, the concerns are obvious; it is disrespectful to real police officers and degrading to our concept of humane justice as a society if we respect a hyper-violent character like the Punisher in this manner. That being said, there is also another potential reading of intentional irony. Tying these symbols together could be seen as a clever satirization of the militarization of modern American police forces. I somewhat doubt that the bumper sticker was being intentionally ironic, but I actually have some respect for that reading. Samstr (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
or they just like the punisher. you read too much into someone who the only thing we know about them is they a have punisher sticker on their car. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How can people stand the taste of beer? That shit is gross[edit]

A few years ago (At the time I finally was at the legal drinking age) my second oldest brother was drinking a beer and I was curious on what it tasted like. My mom and oldest brother told me how gross beer was. Now me, I was curious. I should have listened. I took a sip and spit it out, that was so damn gross. How can people drink it? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

how can people stand the taste of coffee? or any kind of food that isnt immediately tasty. i am sure you have heard the phrase acquired taste? the fact that beer gets you pissed tends to get people to persevere. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
And when we Brits say "pissed" we mean "drunk". He doesn't mean beer makes you angry. It's true the fact that it makes you drunk is it's biggest attraction. I remember chuckling when I read, "Non-alcoholic beer. Based on the idea that for centuries people have put up with getting drunk in order to enjoy the taste of beer." Personally, I didn't really develop a taste for beer until I was in my mid 20s. But I love it now! Spud (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@RatZom: If you're USian then I'm not surprised you didn't like the beer. American beer is awful; appalling; atrocious; depressing; dire; disgusting; distressing; dreadful; frightful; ghastly; gruesome; harrowing; hideous; horrendous; horrible; horrific; horrifying; nasty; etc. etc. etc ... (from) Godot (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh please. Judging American beer by the stuff that comes in 30-packs is like judging all of British sports by Manchester United.
There's a history to US beer. The US used to have some of the best beer in the world, but there was a problem; the people making it were German, and the US had just gone to war with those bastards. So in the 1920's the US made beer and whiskey manufacturing illegal, but left loopholes for wine. A decade later, the US decided to allow alcohol again, but the damage was done; all the tiny breweries were gone. Not to mention the depression. So what rose from the ashes was the mass produced pilsners, like Coors and Bud Light, and eventually in the 1980's the microbrews made a return.
The stuff that gets exported in large quantities? That's junk, because there isn't enough money to be made on the small batches.
But now, we have an even greater threat to American beer; the frackin Dutch, who are gobbling up every last microbrew they can find.CoryUsar (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it okay to say I love beer? Especially with pizza. I like the Taiwanese stuff but I'm new to this whole beer thing. I like the fizzy, bright ones that go well with pizza, and I do like sake as well. Beer is probably meant to be paired with other foods though. If you're tasting it by itself, you're not really doing it a favor. Anyhow, I don't drink beer to get drunk, I do it to provide a dimension to the food I eat. I like being tipsy, but I don't think I like to go beyond that. I treat beer like soda, so no more than one average bottle for me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Of course it's OK to say you love beer! I do! Mind you, I hope the one that you like is Taiwan Gold Medal Beer (green and white can, green glass bottle). That's lovely stuff. The regular Taiwan Beer (blue and white can, brown glass bottle) is terrible. Spud (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Spud The beer seems to be Tsingtao and it's in a green bottle. But hey, if I do ending up liking the "terrible" one, I might give the "good" one a try. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It's true the fact that it makes you drunk is it's biggest attraction. Very true, and to a greater extent for other alcoholic drinks as vodka, whiskey... name them, and that's why cocktails or mixing them with Coke exist. As for coffee, well, sugar is added for some reason an when you want that high don't care very much about tastes -shit, while not with coffee I like to mix energy drinks with juice to get something that does not taste like gummy bears-. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Just stating my opinion on beer more or less.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94, have you tried BRAAAAAAINSWikipedia? Bongolian (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Brain are meh too. Dysklyver (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I like coffee black. :) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Many years ago I hated hte taste of beer - 2 things changed me - first after a hot weekend out at an Air Training Corps weekend camp my dad popped in to see his cousin after picking me up and they gave me a glass of cold beer - very quenching. Then 4-5 yrs later turning up for my Corps Training (2nd half of basic) at an essentially closed military base (due Xmas/New Year holidays - ie height of summer here in NZ) the only thing open was the bar - an the beer was cold and 40 cents/pint (circa 1979) - again that just hit the right spot. Since then have developed tastes - can't stand the over-hopped bitter lip-pucker stuff that passes for most "craft beer" these days - like a mellow malty taste with just the slightest hint of hops. Local "brew your own" place has a recipe for a Scottish ale that is bloody delicious - make that a couple of times a year now :)Aloysius the Gaul 00:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
One time I tried "Mike's Hard Lemonade" and it tasted good. Again, my second oldest brother bought it. I rarely drink as it could fuck with my psychiatric meds. I do know at the one liquor store five miles from where I live they have home brewing supplies. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't really like the taste of any alcohol. I basically didn't drink until I turned 21 (I still am 21 but my birthday is in a few months, yikes!), and by that time I had no real desire to start drinking. I probably could acquire a taste for alcohol, but I don't see any good reason to do so apart from avoiding some awkward social situations. All that said, don't even bother talking to me in the morning until I've had my first cup of coffee. Samstr (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)