# RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive289

This is an archive page, last updated 8 August 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (back)

## A silver lining to those who fly the swastika flag or wear swastika clothing

While Neo-Nazis are bad, there is a silver lining to them having swastika flags in their yards- it is basically a huge sign telling you to avoid those good for nothing racists. It makes those racists social outcasts much easier. Thoughts? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also a huge sign saying what they believe in so likeminded Neo-Nazi folk can wave as they drive by. Maybe it also helps to keep people off their lawns... nothing like a massive Nazi flag to stay don't mess with the crazy dude. Dysklyver (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
or it tells you whose lawn your dog can crap on. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, my intuition is the overall rate of "undercover" nazis hasn't changed much with their resurgence. They've just successfully recruited massively from the "center right" into both camps. I even think we have 1-2 regular posters here who are very deeply embedded in internet nazi culture and repost their carefully constructed "liberal friendly" propaganda here, while maintaining exactly the same plausible deniability you now feel relief from because the dimwitted Richard Spencers of the world think that somehow Trump lets them rule openly.
There's no way to say "hey I think there's a literal hidden conspiracy of one of the most evil ideological forces in history pretending to be a different group and constantly trying to undermine our institutions" without recognizing the kind of conspiracy ideation I'm engaging in by saying it. But if you look into actual Nazi spaces, where they feel they can talk openly, that's exactly what they discuss doing, from planning to implementation. TBH, I think the open in public nazis should make you more concerned about racists rather than less. They've found welcoming subcultures to the extent that they won't feel ostracized if good people hate them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It is concerning no doubt. What makes things worse is the pseudoscience they say is also said with science sounding words. Nazis are a good incentive for proper science and social studies education. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
There is another problem as well, one that's a bit more complex. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Those who mask their beliefs in public are far more dangerous than the overt promoters of unpleasant beliefs - as it is much more difficult to see what is happening (including the 'critical mass' for a transition to a state that reflects their goals.
Given the range of views on/snarky nature of RW any NNs here in the longer term are likely to be provoked into revealing their nature. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We can block people for being Neo-Nazis, right? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Most Neo-Nazis are blocked anyway when they try to touch the Holocaust article and say the thing doesn't exist. But we block for bad behavior (which includes sea lioning and otherwise JAQing off), not for their beliefs. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That's correct: we block because of behavior not ideology per se. Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. I've never seen a Neo-Nazi who didn't immediately make an ass of himself. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, that only indicates that you may well have met people who did not make asses of themselves, and, therefore, you never learned were in fact neo-Nazis. Not all evil advertises. Kencolt (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
See toupee fallacyKazitor 08:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
or see the trial of adolf eichmann and the banality of evil. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

## Overpopulation

So I know overpopulation deniers are generally religious conservatives but I actually saw this posted on a progressive group. The basic argument is that cities are too populated, but there is plenty of space otherwise. Why is this such a contested issue? https://overpopulationisamyth.com/Alec (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There are absolutely a ton of leftists(like communists, socialists, and the like) who are anti-neomalthusian, on the grounds that questions of overpopulation tend to emphasize the average resource use per person when the wealthier people(not rich but what we'd call middle class) waste so much with extravagant lifestyles that pure population growth is a negligible factor in the environmental catastrophe that's brewing. They think that it's essentially calling for genocide of the people least responsible. I see these people's point because the 5% of the world population that lives in the US consumes about 40% of all extracted resources. At the same time, 7 billion is a lot of humans, and too many of us cannot be sustainable, especially as we approach a fairer standard of living for all. Also, I try to stay away from the term "overpopulation" because I can't identify a population level that's a "correct" limit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The issue is a simple balance between how much production there is and how many consumers there are. The Romans thought they were overpopulated, but their farming and industry was meagre compared to now. In the mists of time when humanity was about 10,000 cavemen they probably were complaining about overpopulation, global warming, and the extinct of mammoths through overhunting. Stone age environmentalists were unsuccessful though, because their species went extinct, the world heated up somewhat, and the mammoths were hunted to extinction. Shucks. — Dysk (contribs)
So your argument is basically "We're all going to die eventually anyway so why worry about potential long term environmental change that will in all likelihood kill off most if not all of the human species (not to mention many other forms of life)?" That's one of the most self-centered, pig-headed, and idiotic arguments against sucking it up and dealing with climate change that I have ever heard. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
GrammarCommie: What? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It sounded like he was saying we shouldn't bother doing anything about climate change because we'll all die out eventually anyway. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence is nonsense, yeah. I don't know what Dysklyver's point was either, so I would've held off the strong remarks until I get clarification. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Well since the last bout of global warming caused the extinction of the neanderthals, the latest and ongoing set of Trump-approved global warming should by rights be taken seriously. Copying the neanderthals is not a wise course of action. But really my point is that people will probably always be complaining about overpopulation, because the population will always grow to use up the available agricultural and industrial capacity of that era.
I don't personally subscribe to the idea that there are too many people for the planet to cope with, merely that they need to be aware of the effect they have on it. Also I am speculating that when the neanderthals died out their leader was probably large and orange with small hands... Whether this is coherent is another matter, I am sure I am saying something dire in there somewhere. — Dysk (contribs)
So much 'environmentalism' seems like just more austerity to me. It's another theater of moralistic performance by the wealthy and educated classes, who get to claim that their weird and expensive dietary regimes and similar practices are all about saving the earth or some such. Most people don't have either the time or the energy to change their carbon footprint. Proposed policies like spiking the cost of fuels will fall heavily on the people who are least able to afford them. And when proposals to reduce human populations are trotted out, everybody knows who the expendables are. Smerdis of Tlön, ɚ̥ɵʷê̬̏e̥̽̊˞ə̃̈ʼ . 19:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I mean, the ecosystems we massively rely on are melting down pretty much continuously getting into worse and worse shape and it's actually hard to understate the harm that ignoring it does, and how without the very very basic protections put into place over the mid-to-late 20th century, we'd be in indescribably worse shape, sucking down giant piles of sulfides like people in beijing currently do. So when you go "environmentalism is performative because people like pandas too much" it misses that the wallpaper we've put up is what's currently holding the house together. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't really think overpopulation by itself is going to be too much of an issue. Technology has always increased the planet's carrying capacity; 1000 years ago, 7 billion people would have been absurd. Also, most of the developed world has seen its population growth plateau as living standards have improved. It's not unreasonable to predict that this trend will continue as the rest of the planet gets develops as well. Check out this graph from the World Bank showing population growth percentages per year for all nations. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

## Conservapedia schools itself

So I was reading Conservapedia for fun, and I decided to look up their article about the Huffington Post. In that article, they talk about how the Post has been listed as one of the top ten worst anti science websites. The irony here, however, is that the website, which my MBFC Chrome extension has told me is Pro-Science, also rated Conservapedia #9 on that list. Simply put, Conservapedia is celebrating itself being a worse offender of being anti-science then a newspaper it called that very same thing out for. Bisexuatheist (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what to say here, choosing between how Conservapedia is being hypocritical, or whether I should be worried that it is rated #9 on anything... — Dysk (contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

## Mark Zuckerberg on Holocaust

So, apparently, Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg think that some Holocaust deniers may be in good faith and does not want to ban them. This from a man who has been censoring political opinion. In light of this, I want to introduce my own internet law. "Any adult, who publicly admits to denying the holocaust, should automatically lose all credibility in matters of history or politics!" -Damian's Law (has a nice ring to it) Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is he protecting outright deniers, or actual, honest history nerds? Because, much like any event in human history, what we've written down is not 100% correct, merely the best we've been able to come up with given the evidence. It's possible that, for example, Hans Groperstein was actually sick the February 8th 1944 and thus was not present for a massacre and thus he was only responsible for 42 murders instead of 44, and those murders were actually committed by his friend Franz Fuhkburger who was covering for him that day and thus Franz murdered 18 instead of 16. CoryUsar (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
His business model is based on people volunteering to write for his site and share material they find of interest. Running people off the site is likely only to send them into the arms of one of his competitors, which is not in the best interest of his bottom line. Being a major destination on the Net has advantages for the rest of us; if one of your neighbors is some kind of Nazi, I'd rather see that on that relatively public forum rather than having them build their poison bubbles on some little message board that caters to that trade. Finally, we should be gravely suspicious of giving some corporation run largely by algorithm the power to set limits to acceptable opinion. Don't tell me that it isn't a problem just because Facebook is not the government and not answerable to First Amendment law. Those who say that crap need to be more careful about what they wish for. - Smerdis of Tlön, ɚ̥ɵʷê̬̏e̥̽̊˞ə̃̈ʼ . 19:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Facebook isn't subject to most laws concerning its users' freedom of speech, but I agree, it should be. Same with all the social media sites for that matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"It's"
Anyhow, I challenge people to find Holocaust deniers who aren't Neo-Nazis, even after further prodding. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Fixed the typos. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

## Holocaust Denial: My argument against denial

When racists and general uneducated jackasses claim either that the holocaust never happened or "it was not that bad", we all know it is just bullshit. Anyways, my main target in this argument is towards, "it was not that bad". Lets pretend for a moment that the holocaust was not as big as it actually was. People in the camps still suffered inhumane treatment. It is still murder and murder by proxy (Some did die of natural causes but brought on by starvation). There was still horrible medical experiments, which did spread disease. Yes, mass deportation of "non-Aryans" but those who were still in occupied Nazi territory were still sent to the camps in massive numbers. The Holocaust happened and uneducated idiots should know this. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The number of Holocaust victims can never be known exactly. The names have been gathered by Israel's Yad Vashem and as of last year, there are about 4.7 million names of real victims. The collection process continues.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
All we really know is that there were lots. — Dysk (contribs) 16:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I have been meaning to bring this up. While it is true (in a sense) that many people did die of natural causes, malnutrition and dehydration caused by Nazis allowed the quicker spread of disease. This would be compounded by those subjected to medical experiments spreading their infection to others. I would assume there were many cases of Strep and Staph infection due to being cut by contaminated metal such as nails. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
And of course some were killed accidentally by fighting or killed as a result of the allies cutting supply routes. What matters is that the Nazis were responsible for killing 6+ million people. Wondering exactly how they achieved that is a mostly irrational argument unless you have a reason to trace a particular person, there was death in all its forms and more besides in every which way. — Dysk (contribs) 00:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I cannot see how anyone could by into denialist bullshit. If people are intentionally starved, dehydrated and overworked then what do denialists expect? Of course disease would spread. These morons do not seem to get that brutal murder happened, even if on a hypothetical small scale. Historians are correct and denialists are wrong. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

## Should the Democratic Party Be Abolished

In recent years we have seen a change of attitude towards history. More people are starting to feel conscious about the historic legacies of certain things. People in USA are renaming schools that were named in honor of the Confederate Officers, want to take down statues, and ask for a less biased historical perspectives on, among other things, Christopher Columbus, colonialism, imperialism, war crimes etc. So in this climate, is it time to start thinking about the historical heritage of the Democratic party? Isn't this the party of Andrew Jackson? KKK? Anti-civil rights party? Pro-segregation party? Is it time we bid farewell to the Democratic party? Why or why not? Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Southern strategy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I did NOT say that the Republicans were flawless, though. But regardless, we can't ignore the abhorrent legacy of the Dempcratic party!Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You're thinking in terms of parties, as if they are incapable of changing or completely abandoning their worldviews. I'm speaking in terms of policies which are independent of parties. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Abolish the Democrats and then do what? Create a new left-wing bigtent party for everyone who was previously in the Democratic Party to join? Because in that case, you have accomplished nothing. Or should we just leave the Democrats abolished and allow the GOP to rule a one-party autocracy? In that case you have destroyed the republic. Besides, a party's "legacy" doesn't matter. What matters is what the party represents now. Vote for or against the Dems based on that, not based on whether some old racist dude did bad things in the 1800s with a D next to his name. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Would we feel uncomfortable by asking a Jew to vote for the NSDAP despite its history? Is it acceptable to ask a black man to vote for the Dems, depite its history? Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to be able to grasp that the Democrats are currently run by people who oppose the policies that their party used to support. That is the result of the Southern strategy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Asking a Jewish person to vote Nazi would be terrible because the Nazis have never given up on wanting to persecute and kill Jews. Meanwhile, the modern Dems don't support segregation, slavery, or racism against black people. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
If the NSDAP had changed its policies, would it be ok then to ask a Jew to vote for it? Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Perchance you need glasses? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting moral hypothetical, and I have two answers for it. The first is that the Nazis wouldn't have had a chance to change their racial policies, because they would have killed everybody they didn't like. The second is that the Dems currently go out of their way to benefit minorities in America (whether misguidedly or not), and the Nazis would not have done this. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Look, I am NOT saying that Democrats are bad. I am saying, if the Democrats support this new climate where everything is reevaluated with its historical context, shouldn't they start with their own party? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That movement has always struck me as more about acknowledging history than removing it. The only times I've seen people remove things is when it's about foul individuals, or organizations whose purpose revolved around a foul agenda. I'm sure there are some wackos who want to dissolve the US over the native genocides, but those wackos have no chance of actually gaining significant power in the Party. And I don't see anything wrong with either of what I just listed. Acknowledging prior crimes is a good thing because it ensures that people will understand why they shouldn't repeat them. And why shouldn't we take down statues of war criminals and racists? Put them in museums and textbooks alongside passages of text explaining why they were such shitheads. [EDIT: I think it should be noted that I'm fully aware that this can and sometimes does go too far. But I don't think it's the majority of cases, and I have no problem speaking up when there's a problem.] Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Calling modern Democrats and/or their policies bad because of their political party's historical legacy is an infantile and stupid tactic, frequently used and abused by right wing pundits and blowhard radio idiots as an ad hominem when they have no other good arguments. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that any institution with bad stuff in its past should be abolished then I think you should think bigger and start with the USA itself.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Abolish the USA? — Dysk (contribs) 08:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

## Conservapedia Hate

Looks like Karajou REALLY does NOT like this place.[1] Oh well! Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

He seems upset, I wonder why that is? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: What's a "Conservapedia" again? I forgot. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Here. I think you are just trolling, since I've seen you on WIGO CP pages, but it is supposed to be a Conservative version of Wikipedia. Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so those people with the soopa seecreet clubhouse that dirty dirty lefties aren't allowed in because said lefties have things like cooties and facts. Huh, they do realize that most of the editors that they booted out of their soopa seecreet clubhouse left RW ages ago right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Possibly. But that is not entirely true. I think some original members are seen here and there, though, they probably moved on from Conservapedia. Additionally, I suspect that they have semi-trollish editors themselves. Take a look at this. Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh look!! A terrible ED ripoff aimed at shaming Atheists written almost entirely by Kennyboy Conservative! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why Andy tolerates this type of material. This is trolling (whether intentional or not). By NO STRETCH of the imagination is this a serious encyclopedic article. Neither is this educational or anything of the sort. This is pure childish trolling from a man who will be turning 56 in 11 days or so. Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It's actually pretty simple. Ken toes the party line on almost everything Andy says and his trolling keeps CP from dipping too low in the search results. Though I will agree that this level of immaturity masquerading as an encyclopedic article is truly shameful. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I say this, because not so long ago, I added the article about Identity Evropa. I did it as a sock, and got blocked. But Andy, at the time, did NOT know I was using a sock account. The article was written from mostly neutral point of view, and was researched ok. So, Andy deleted it pretty quickly. He explained that the article was not educational enough and was not encyclopedic. I don't know how he can look at the article I showed above and conclude that it is either educational or encyclopedic. Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Has someone brought the problems mind uploading has that I've outlined on its article, that are also extensive to the uploading of just memories -that seem to be more realistic-?. Long history short, a mind and/or said memories would be equivalent to a computer file and one could mess up with it in a lot of nasty ways, not to mention that no equivalent of DRM or any other form of computer security is 100% safe. It may be just a theoretical issue, but it helps to convert that in something still less desirable. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also the argument that the uploaded "immortal" you wouldn't really be you, merely a copy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
But isn't information the only thing that matters? After all, most of your cells come and go. Nerd (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd Possibly, though if the hardware or software wasn't advanced enough it's possible that "you" could lose some features or fail to retain the ability to learn and grow. Add to that the fact that you would lack several senses (touch, taste, and smell) and "you" might be fundamentally altered to the point where "you" fail to retain your original personality. There's also the argument concerning the nature of clones vs the original to consider. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The whole concept of "mind uploading" is bunk. "Minds" as such don't exist. The concept is implicitly based on the idea of dualism - that the mind and brain are two separate and divisible things. They are not.
Consciousness/minds are a byproduct of brains doing stuff. If you want to "upload a mind" then you would need to capture a "brain state" (how) down to at least the synaptic level and then probably down to the chemical/electrical level within a living brain. This would be a truly vast amount of information.
Wikipedia tells me that an average adult has 100 to 500 trillion synapses. If you want to somehow obtain the chemical, electrical and connectivity state of each one then then you can start adding multiple orders of magnitude.
You would then need to reliably simulate the wet analogue brain in digital silicon. We have no idea how to do any of this. It won't happen soon and I suspect not before the heat death of the universe. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Not only that but your personality suffers the influence of hormones released by other organs. Bad programming that did not account for it and you'd be quite different to your former self. As for being a copy if the change was gradual (one neuron and its synapses being changed by a silicon or whatever artificial equivalent) perhaps you'd still be the same. Or perhaps no, like the swampman and other similar thought experiments it's quite tricky.
Then full stop. Not to mention with so many synapses and neurons the number of brain states is ludicrously high (saw one calculation once and it was quite jaw-dropping), of course not all corresponding to someone lucid. Screw one thing and enjoy with the simulation of someone batshit crazy. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because there is another thing to bear in mind. (Ho ho) Not only do you have to somehow obtain this truly vast amount of biological data, you also have to obtain it non-invasively but you also have to obtain it at about the same instant.
So we can't get the data, and if we had it we would have no idea how to process it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This mind-uploading idea reminds me of the Star Trek teleportation concept. I have never been convinced that the person stepping into the transporter would be the same person stepping out somewhere else: I step in, get disintegrated, and a clone of me steps out. The continuity of identity is not falsifiable. On the other hand it is different from an upload because the original is not destroyed in any version of system upload that we now understand, so we really are talking about cloning.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

## WW£

So as it's on the WIGO that the EU and Japan are signing a trade deal. (Didn't Hitler and Imperial Japan do this?). Anyway Brexit looks like it is in major trouble, maybe even a no deal. What's the thoughts on all this. — Dysk (contribs) 08:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this new trade deal will have any adverse affect on the Brexit trade deal (but yes, the negotiations don't appear to be going very well). In any case the Independent is not a reliable source. Despite its name it is essentially a mouthpiece for the Lib Dems. --RWRW (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh no not the all-powerful Lib Dems with their international conspiracy to control the media!? (In fact The Independent is majority owned by Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev, who also owns the respected Novaya Gazeta and the less respected Tory mouthpiece the London Evening Standard.) --Gospatric (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think its a conspiracy or anything, but reading the Independent is almost like reading the Liberal Democrat manifesto. --RWRW (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes those pesky (((Russian))) oligarchs. 82.132.238.124 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean those pesky «« русский »» oligarchs. :D — Dysk (contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, if you have an issue with something, it's best to talk about the actual issues like faulty reporting, spin, distortion, and others rather than just say "it's a mouthpiece for the Lib Dems". What are the sources you like? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I like the BBC. Nothing better than good old-fashioned slightly left government sponsored journalism. And somehow Trump calling it fake news did not put me off one bit. — Dysk (contribs) 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
To be fair I use the BBC quite often too. It will no doubt ruffle feathers when I say that my Newspaper of choice is The Sun. As for the Independent it is complete garbage. Most of its stories contain negative coverage of Brexit and the Conservative Party (and formerly UKIP, but they aren't really relevant anymore). Media Bias list is as having a centre-left bias, which sounds right to me. --RWRW (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Says The Independent is not a reliable source because it’s claimed to be “a mouthpiece for the Lib Dems” and then professes that “my newspaper of choice is The Sun”... I hope it’s not necessary to point out that having a general ideological bias does not, in and of itself, make a newspaper an unreliable source, right? By contrast, being a red top tabloid (and Murdoch’s UK flagship to boot) is pretty much the definition of an unreliable source, but I guess someone’s just trolling again. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, The Sun... :D — Dysk (contribs) 22:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Being Murdoch-owned to this RWRW guy is probably a good thing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

### Brexit poll

 The UK will leave the EU without a deal 4 The UK will be split into tribal kingdoms ruled by barbarian chieftains 5 The UK will become part of France 2 The UK will become an American State and appoint Donald Trump as King 6 The UK will become a Russian Oblast 0 The UK will nuke Brussels with Trident missiles after mistakenly making Boris the defence secretary 0 The UK will revert into a new Victorian age with Camilla as an overweight queen who permanently wears black after Charles dies and decides to build a massive fleet of wooden ships to take revenge against the treacherous EU 3 The UK and EU will both be conquered by the Democratic Republic Awesome Empire People's Republic Banana Republic of Goatistan 7

— Dysk (contribs) 12:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

PSA: Please do not create polls if you don't know how to do it properly. Someone who does know can easily do it for you if you ask. —Kazitor 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep no worries/ — Dysk (contribs) 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
LONG LIVE GOATISTAN! 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What "democratic republic"? Goatistan is an EMPIRE. Death to the enemies of the Great Goat! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. — Dysk (contribs) 18:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Blood for the Sky Goat! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The Goatistan People's Party has taken control of this land. Glory to the revolution. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Blood for the . . . People's Goat? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
El conquistadors! — Dysk (contribs) 11:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In reference to the above poll, I rather hope for the Victorian option/outcome. If nothing else, it should produce some excellent, and seminal literature, an increase in the UK's output of lovable urchins (which are globally in short supply, and could be a major export) and the revival of the Music Hall, a source of inexpensive and informative entertainment. Also, there seriously needs to be the groundwork laid for the second coming of William McGonagall, to improve the poetic output of the English Language as a whole. It should also be noted that all the best episodes of Doctor Who are the one that take place in the Victorian era, and with a version of said era as a default, she show would rise to heights never dreamed of before. Kencolt (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

## I am actually shocked that I actually have 4 subscribers on my YouTube channel

I have been doing Emergency Alert System scenarios and I have actual subscribers. My videos are even getting views. Hey, I am not going to complain. Tell me what you think of my channel. :)

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You have subscribers o_0 wow. I quite like the BBC one. — Dysk (contribs) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! My work deals with unrealistic, paranormal and science fiction scenarios. The only realistic scenario is "Neo-Nazi Terrorist Attack EAS". This is an emergency action notification sent out by --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Subbed. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ditto.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool. My notifications on YouTube said I had a new sub. This is an emergency action notification sent out by --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My flagship series is, "A Very British EAS". I am doing it in style of YouTuber Matt Yarnold who's flagship series is, "Final Minutes: Australia". --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

## Secret Language

Theoretically, in order to maintain secrecy, a secret society could communicate via a language few people know, and one that few people are even able to know. The perfect candidates are indigenous tribal ones, like Khoisan or Australian Aboriginal. Right now I have a collection of data on the Khoisan languages, and since their click sounds are fun to make, it's a double bonus. Barely known and aesthetically pleasing. Here are a handful of Ju|’hoan words (not every word has a click), and a link to how it sounds when spoken. [1]

• ᵑ|èʔé, one
• ᵑ!ànì, three
• ǂáí, many
• dàʔá, fire
• kùʔú, to burn
• ᶢ!ú, night
• ú, to go
• ho, to see
• tsàʔá, to hear
• kò, to say

Is this genius or insanity? You tell me. BobRoss (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It would probably make more sense to invent a new language entirely, since presumably a few people would still know it. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It depends on who you want to keep the secret from. The Navajo Code Talkers were enormously effective during WWII against the Japanese. I'd say that using an indigenous language would work just fine as long as you're not operating in their area. Plus, it's just easier to deal with. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly Moosolini, the US government has no Khoisan projects that the general public (including me) knows of. I don't wish to invent a language because that's too artificial, I'd like this society to be grounded in reality. BobRoss (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion that is thousands of years old. I'm gonna just encrypt my communications. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This is why I speak Cornish on IRC. Basically any language that isn't in Google translate may as well be martian code, by the time people figure it out, it's much to late. — Dysk (contribs) 17:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Now that’s an fantastic way to put it Dysklyver, even most linguists I’ve chatted with admit that they don’t even know what Khoisan is, and the majority of them only speak Indo-European languages, sad. BobRoss (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, mind you African languages are probably the most unknown ones around. I doubt many people who haven't lived in Southern Africa know of it at all, let alone speak it. And Google is not helping much when it comes to spreading knowledge of indigenous languages. — Dysk (contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I only learned about Khoisan when I was researching for the Scramble for Africa page a few months ago. Very obscure language. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Khoisan is not a language, but a term given to dozens of separate, unrelated languages in South Africa whose ethnic speakers are the Khoi and San. Possibly the only feature they share is the use of click consonants. BobRoss (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
My first sentence in Juǀʼhoan: à má šē hĩ !ka tšá á. BobRoss (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Oops. I clearly misunderstood something that I read. (I looked back to see what I got wrong, and it turns out the reference was to Sarah Baartman being a Khoi woman. Luckily, I never put that information in the article, so it should be okay.) I haz reading comprehension skills good. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that stuff about Baartman is a really touchy subject. Good luck translating my sentence fellow rational members, haha! BobRoss (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Even better, using two not well known languages and alternating languages each sentence with a few English sentences (scrambled) thrown in. Run some sentences backwards, add pointless double consonants, a few sentences that confuse the subject matter, a few meaningless sentences and why not add "God save the Queen" at the end. Then translate all of that into Madagascarian braile. ShabiDOO 21:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
That’s called an overkill. BobRoss (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your best bet is probably to learn a conlang. For cryptographic security I recommend Ithkuil. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷom teḱs. 17:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC) UTC)

No! You’ll never take me alive! I’ll die before the conlangs get me, and that’s a fact. BobRoss (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

## This Might Just See The End of Me

So, User:Karajou claiming harassment from me, has doxxed my real name and reported me to Toronto police. First, I have some admiration for the ingenuity of finding out my real name, but regret for my stupidity of leaving it out too much. Second, I am SORT OF tempted to reply to him, but knowing that he does NOT care about a rational discussion, but rather, wants to misuse my information, makes it less desirable! Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Then ignore him and prove your innocence to the police. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
LOL. He did NOT just dox my name to the police but also to other Conservapedians, including, what he claims is, a member of the press. That feels like new low for him, but not surprised really! Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want my advice you should stay away from CP and the Sysops there (if you really want to edit there again appeal your block in a few months) and all this disputing will clear itself up. And the police won't do anything either. --RWRW (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It is unclear whether he is ALREADY serious with the police or will get serious if I reply to his e-mail. I mean releasing my name to the police is one thing, but letting other people, including Andy, know my real, full, name seems a bit unnecessary! Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
: If it wasn't clear already, Conservapedia is telling you to fuck off. If you don't want to be doxed again, abandon your old usernames and use Tor Browser. I suggest operating systems like Tails or QubesOS.127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 14:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You provided your real name on your CP talk page? That was a really good idea. Once they have your first name and general location (from your IP address), it's east to figure out who you are.—127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
That is NOT how they figured out who I am! Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Funny, I haven't seen squat about your name or real life identity, and I'm on the CP mailing list. You know, trolling is one thing, but you really ought to stop making things up. Regarding the police, the Wikimedia Foundation suggested I report you to the police over, well, you know. I elected not to go to the bother though. . What a Wonderful World (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Please, STOP THREATENING ME with legal action. IT IS AGAINST THE RULES! I have enough mental anguish! Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
* dons Mod Hat *
This conversation is over. I'm archiving this discussion. RationalWiki will not be your platform for this discussion; move it somewhere else.—127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 16:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

## Out for the count

Getting close to the 2 million act(ion)s mark - rather more than CW. Now RW should try and top the CP page count. Anna Livia (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

{{expand acronyms}} Whats CW? — Dysk (contribs) 22:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Meant CP. Anna Livia (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you drop this already? I took care of it last week. And now the "surprise" is ruinedKazitor 00:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Quality is more important than quantity. We need more Gold-level articles than we need more stubs. Bongolian (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Both are good of course. — Dysk (contribs) 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
When I did a brief 'random page flitting' (as one does) round CP there were a number of 'looks like a WP article (and not really CP relevant/flavoured)' and title-only articles. Anyone operating in the Wikiverse will have had 'one or several' of their brief entries developed into respectable articles.
And, Kazitor, some of us are willing to be amused by considering such things (and a harmless activity if not over done) - and French Wikipedia has been celebrating 2 million articles for some time now. Anna Livia (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I am going outside today. —Kazitor 23:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Happy 2 millionth edit day rationalwiki! Kravdraataf (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
What exactly, is an "outside"? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
All enclosed structures subdivide space into two regions, an "inside" and an "outside." The inside is the area enclosed by the structure, the outside is that which would be left remaining if the structure (and inside) were removed. —Kazitor 00:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I am surprised by how much sense that answer makes... — Dysk (contribs) 15:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

## A better π approximation

My favourite approximation is definitely ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {355}{113}}}$. Simple and easy to remember, yet accurate to 6 decimal places. (Compare ${\displaystyle 3{\tfrac {1}{7}}}$ which only gets 2) —Kazitor 23:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not bad. — Dysk (contribs) 00:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to just memorize the decimal approximation given by my calculator, namely ${\displaystyle \pi \approx 3.141592654}$. Oh, and there is a great way to calculate ${\displaystyle \pi }$ to a high degree of accuracy quickly, devised by Srinivasa Ramanujan, should you ever need it.
${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\pi }}={\frac {2{\sqrt {2}}}{9801}}\sum _{k=0}^{\infty }{\frac {(4k)!(1103+26390k)}{(k!)^{4}396^{4k}}}.}$

Nerd (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Summing to infinity is always convenient... but yeah, I don't actually use such approximations either; I go to 3.14159265358979, 5 more than you! And I think the next 3 are 323, so maybe even 8 :P —Kazitor 02:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the series converges rapidly. Try just the first term and see what you get. Nerd (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I abide by the engineer's motto on accuracy: measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with axe. 3.14 is good enough since most real world applications don't require more accuracy than 3 digits. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Blasphemy!!! Different "real world applications" have different error tolerances. Nerd (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I use three significant figures for gravitational acceleration too, though not for lack of trying; I have standard gravity memorised, it just varies too much from place to place to be useful. It's only (very) recently that I memorised four extra digits of pi; I used to stop at the third 5 (which is actually wrong when you stop there). —Kazitor 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Since you mentioned ${\displaystyle 3{\frac {1}{7}}={\frac {22}{7}}}$, there is an elegant proof that ${\displaystyle {\frac {22}{7}}>\pi }$. You can find it on Wikipedia. Archimedes would approve. :-) Nerd (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I said that solely because the impression I get is that ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {22}{7}}}$ is some magic number, with people seemingly unaware it's nothing more than 3 and one seventh. —Kazitor 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, most seem to forget mixed numbers work. Nerd (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Pi is exactly 3: 1 Kings 7:23. Decimals in the place of fractions are also witchcraft. Smerdis of Tlön, ɚ̥ɵʷê̬̏e̥̽̊˞ə̃̈ʼ . 14:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Laughing in ancient Greek. Nerd (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Two Cornish pasties make a circle and approximate a pie. 88.105.153.230 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
— Dysk (contribs) 17:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about, π/pie jokes are completely unfunny. —Kazitor 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Speak of ${\displaystyle \pi }$, I regret to announce that ${\displaystyle {\frac {i}{8}}}$. Nerd (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd You'll have to explain that to me. Something about "I ate"? On a slightly related note, I was legitimately disappointed when I received a shirt that said ${\displaystyle i\,2^{3}\,\Sigma \,\pi }$ "...and it was delicious." I prefer more originality in humour (or at least a valid equation!) —Kazitor 23:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I overate, mate! Nerd (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
*approximation of a facepalm* See, I kept saying "i on 8" :) —Kazitor 23:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a template for that, , should you ever need it. Nerd (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I know, but I didn't actually facepalm when I read it; I just made that sort of expression. —Kazitor 00:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
So... ${\displaystyle {\frac {i}{8}}}$ two Cornish Pasties, and now the pi is inside me. :D — Dysk (contribs) 08:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

## Two million edits

I don't really care about it, I just want an excuse to say I posted this before anyone else. Unless you count all the people who did it in that other section. Happy two million. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 23:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

soon we'll have 3 million! Kravdraataf (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I spent today outside watching nature after last night's flash flood and missed the magical two million mark. Could be responsible the magic 2,000,000th edit? Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Surely 2718281 and 3141593 are the edits that matter. --Gospatric (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yay. 2 million edits. — Dysk (contribs) 08:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
yep, e doesn't get enough love :( Everyone obsesses over pi because I guess its more of a "popular mathematics" thing in that anyone can measure a circle, but not too many are familiar with the applicability of natural logarithms. I also claimed 2097152 is an important number, as it's 1000000000000000000000 in binary. —Kazitor 09:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Just missed it. Probably impractical to have a 'holding pattern' from about (x million - 10) to (x million + 10) (and similar for numbers of articles etc) so that everybody active during the relevant few minutes can make the claim, rather than depend upon how quickly they clicked the 'save' button. Anna Livia (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
For technical reasons it is almost impossible to say with certainty who is responsible for the two millionth edit. It has however been ascertained that it was not a troll or vandal. — Dysk (contribs) 12:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

## I made an article on Criminal Transmission of HIV and I could use help fixing it (I swear no one uses the talk pages)

It has been a while since I made an article (Last time I made an article was like, I think 8 months ago). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

## Men's "Rights" Movement damages actual men's rights

I am well aware of MRA's and their nonsense. These are the types who want men to be "macho" and ignore actual male issues. My main thing with this is that these are the type of guys who ignore male rape. They shame male rape victims and damages the mental health of the victim. Victims of male rape are much more less likely to speak up. How can you say you are for "men's rights" when you damage the reputation of men? I find this subset of morons to be a blemish on the male sex/gender, much like TERF's are a blemish to the female sex/gender. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"MRA" is just a flimsy excuse for people to hate feminism while pretending to do something positive. Terry Crews describes himself as a feminist, and he did more for men's rights during that senate testimony than the entire "MRA" movement has in its entire existence. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
When I was in middle school, I was a victim of 4th degree sexual assault. I think one of the reasons it took 11 years for me to say something was the attitude from MRA subculture. My biological "dad" had a similar mindset. My sister also had a similar mindset but she is more akin to a TERF. Then again, where I live there are people who have a Libertarian/Far Right mindset. Me, I am just a centrist/conservative. Because of the mindset where I live, many sexual abuse victims are too scared to say anything. Many don't seem to get that abuse is never okay. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That really sucks Zombie. I can only imagine the horror. It's terrible that in general Western culture is less than totally receptive to victims of both genders and that it is far less receptive to male victims. Do you predict this will notably change in the near future? ShabiDOO 02:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
In my neck of the woods, probably not. Half the churches in my area (like 30 or so) are fundamentalist. Another thing that does not help is the TERF's. Oddly, there are plenty of them here. One time, I was helping my mom with laundry at the laundromat and some other woman said my mom was against women for wearing a dress. Fundies and TERF's are the types who actually prevent assault/rape victims from coming forward. So certainly, not anytime soon. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

## Does PHD = Automatically right?

Does someone having a PHD automatically make what they are saying correct? It's just a thing that has always bothered me really.Machina (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Dpends on the PH.D, if it isn't in the relevant field then they're talking about something they are not qualified to speak on. Even if it is in the relevant field they might still be wrong if their idea(s) fail to pass peer-review. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. If someone with a PHD is speaking out of that specialized field, it's no better than a layperson. I read in that Bullshit book that there was "research" or "statements" that was based on sloppy archeology and sloppy astronomy; the archaeologists thought the astronomy was good, but the archaeology was sloppy while the astronomers believed the archaeology to be solid, but the astronomy was bad! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
No. Why would you think it might? —Kazitor 03:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't even mean they are automatically right in their field. That's why scientists can disagree with each other. But in their field they are certainly more likely to be right than someone who isn't.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
A PhD is just someone who has done a doctorate, they are rarely correct of of their field, and even in there field, but if talking on their PhD subject they tend to be pretty good. — Dysk (contribs) 09:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Nothing works well automatically, that's why I drive a standard.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
And six months after the doctorate has been completed is the person still an expert on that topic if they no longer work in that knowledge environment? Anna Livia (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
After six months yes. After six years, probably not. — Dysk (contribs) 17:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Fun fact: a mere bachelors degree in my particular field includes being right about everything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

## A prophecy of stupidity.

So, for those of you who aren't into Gaming or Gamer culture there's a game currently in development called Cyberpunk 2077. The reason I'm bringing this up is because the game is supposed to feature full on nudity, up to and including genitals. Now, can anyone guess what's going to happen when this game is released in the U.S.? If you answered "it will be censored" (possible) or "Some random American will buy it for their kids after doing little to no background checking" then congrats. And the reason you should care is that if/when either option happens it'll be the next red Starbucks cup panic.

TL;DR: Get started on your rough drafts now, because opinionated wackos will flip out within the next year over shit they know little to nothing about ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I hear it also has very "flexible" romance options. —Kazitor 00:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Given the themes of the game, not to mention the amount of player freedom being advertised it might, just maybe, be possible to aug your character in a way that changes their gender or outright blurs the lines. I'm not holding out hope for the game going that far but it's possible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The original source material (The tabletop RPG Cyberpunk 2020) treated gender surgery as more or less cosmetic-- in other words, in its version of a dark future, it didn't really matter to anyone. It was, gamewise, a non-issue.
Far more important was having that one augmentation that boosted your reflexes and accuracy to shoot that beggar who wanted your ass dead. Seriously, trans issues are most likely to be a not-thing in this genre-- you're going to spend your euros (which was the cash back then) on a better aim, not a different gender. Kencolt (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Especially if you were not a solo and had to face them -you know, that combat sense of them and how death there was very cheap-. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The way I hear it combat will be optional, with Techies and Netrunners able to talk or trick their way through levels and missions. In addition the classes are supposed to be more fluid, allow combat skills from solos to be usable for techies, or in my case full-on technical godhood via the Techie/Netrunner combo. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice to know it, even if I doubt I'll play CP2077 -when I played the game our director or whoever is called the DM in CP2020 suggested not to pick Netrunners, as they required a part just for them while everyone else just was looking even if stuff could be happening in meatspace-. Wonder if will be so easy to die there as in the old RPG, where if you were lucky almost everyone could be killed with a well-placed bullet. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
When you say Netrunners required an extra part are you talking about the datajack/dataport/jackpoint implant? As for gunfights I hear the demo wasn't really that impressive in that regard, though the actual game might improve those mechanics. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
. I've not expressed well, sorry. I meant the virtual reality part, where only Netrunners could do something while other character classes, unless Chromebooks had options to fix more or less it, were forced to at best sit and watch the Netrunner acting, even if they could, for example, protect him/her while connected -especially if you, say, had slipped into a corporate building-, not to mention having to create an adventure just for the Netrunner. In all the CP2020 games I played there was just one time where someone of that class went online and was more akin to RL hacking than the CP2020 version, but just in case I warn it was loooong ago.Panzerfaust (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh! The digital campaign! Yeah, those can be tricky to pull off, even in video games. A lot of the HBS (Hairbrain Schemes) Shadowrun UGC (user generated content/campaigns) lacks Matrix areas for Deckers (that's the Shadowrun version of the Net and Netrunners respectively), making them less fun for me, who plays almost exclusively as a hacker type character. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, something is conflicting edits.Teurastaja (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, now it works. Well, what I typed before was it will have an M rating, so shouldn't have much if any heat to the video games moral panic.Teurastaja (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It's actually surprisingly rare for games to feature full-on, bare breasted, nuts dangling, penis wangling nudity. Even with M for mature. Even GTA never went that far. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, they can try flirting with the A rating but once they earn the A rating, the game's sales will be in for a rough ride. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think CDPR might just have what it takes to take a game into A and actually get away with it. Their reputation among Gamers is still pretty high after launching Gwent online, Good Old Games.com, and the Witcher 3. Plus the hacking incident and the Youtube demo leak incidents were handled very deftly by their PR team. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not about PR, it's more about how stores refuse to carry copies rated A. Even GTA San Andreas had to make adjustments to avoid the dreaded A rating. Twitch also bans any sort of streams of games with this rating. Finally, if it has the A rating, it will not be able to be released on Playstation or Xbox as the console manufacturers refuse to have any A games made for their console. I don't know if Steam wants to host games with the A rating, but it doesn't seem to either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Steam sells Postal 2, Party Hard (a game about murdering your neighber slasher style because they won't shut up at 6:00 am in the morning), Carmageddon, and the first Manhunt game. Hell, Steam even has Leisure Suit Larry. Somehow I think one the most hyped titles of the last 5 years, from one of the most respected publishers of mature RPGs/Action RPGs will survive just fine. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, none of those are A rated. Any chance that game is going to be A rated? I've never seen what it takes to have a game be A-rated... don't post, I'd rather not see it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing "A" is some Yank thing for "adult" right? What age limit does that represent? —Kazitor 07:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It's an ESRB rating. Stands for Adults only (AO) and means 18+ "Games with the AO rating are considered by the board to be suitable for players age 18 and over". — Dysk (contribs) 12:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and critics call it the "kiss of death" sales-wise. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Part of the problem with the A rating, at least from what I've seen and heard of it, is it has become a dumping ground for games that either went a overboard in some way (at least in the eyes of the neo-puritins) or probably shouldn't have been released to begin with. When the likes of Mortal Kombat (fun fact: the original Mortal Kombat is part of why the ESRB system exists to begin with), who built their franchise on the over-glorification of violence and gore can be played at just M but a mature Role-Playing Game (RPG) risks the A rating over showing genitals, yeah... Something is wrong with that system. CDPR built their brand on mature RPGs for young adults and older, as well as challenging industry standards, so I honestly hope Gamers get everything they were promised, nudity included. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what it takes for a game to have the dreaded A rating. Maybe explicit genitalia is fine. "Strong sexual/violent content" isn't defined though, so I don't have a clue. My bringing up the possible A rating from explicit genitalia was just a thought from me, but maybe in reality, it's a nonissue. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
You open the door to your teenage daughter's room, and you find a boy with her in the room.
Would you prefer that the boy was naked, or covered in blood?
The movies you let your kids see, are they more likely to show nudity or blood?
Why the discrepency?CoryUsar (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd imagine it has to be because of the scenarios of the movies; violence is not easily emulated, and kids under 18 can't legally consent to sex. I'm not sure why nudity in of itself is a problem though, aside from being gross to look at, but you can't ask me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
i believe it is far easier to explain to kids and hormonal teenagers and be understood that violence is pretty much always wrong whereas sex is fine but but not for you right now despite what your hormones are telling you and your crappy sex ed being wholly inadequate. as an aside, when 'adult content' in video games amounts to a bit of t and a, its really not being marketed to adults. who the fuck buys a video game because they get to see a bit of gratuitous fucking in the uncanny valley? it almost certainly wont add anything to the storyAMassiveGay (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
That depends on the story, the setting, the game, and the dev team. Most games that go that route either do it because they're basically just pornos or they do it for the shock value. However, with the romantic sub-plot element becoming more and more common in RPGs sex is becoming increasingly refferanced but rarely shown. And again I bring up the hypocrisy of showing over-the-top violence at just M but uncensored nudity and sexual intercourse that's being heavily implied in most RPGs anyway earning the dreaded A rating. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
i can count on one hand the amount of mainstream films where the sex scenes added anything beyond uncomfortable boners with ya parents present. this isnt prudishness, they literally add nothing beyond that you might get to see some tit. its doubly so with video games where the 'romantic sub -plots' are horrifically cringe worthy (im looking at you dragon age). it really adds nothing but questionable pr. i agree there is often an over reaction to sex in video games, i dont think there is so much a double standard with violence, its thats one is infinitely more complex than the other. violence can simply being advised against, whereas sex is a pleasurable and usually likely experience that its tough to explain to explain to the hormonal why they should hold off when they are already barraged by media with mixed messages, objectification, and the ham fisted relationship missions in videogames when sex ed in general is lacking and warnings from the parents is going to sound very much 'do as i say not as i do'. also with violence in video games, with a few notable exceptions, its very much unreal, exaggerated, almost cartoony. we have been desensitised to from infancy with likes of tom and jerry and such like. less so with sex.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to those games and I'm not a gamer, but like most people I do watch movies. I agree that sex scenes in movies are a waste of time. I mean, what do I get out of them? A sense of how affectionate the players are supposed to be? Doesn't acting do that? Ariel31459 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
When I was playing the Witcher 3, I found the sex scenes nothing but awkward. I wasn't even watching them, really. —Kazitor 21:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

## Chess

Does anyone here play chess?Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I do every now and then. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I am very good at chess. — Dysk (contribs) 23:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't touched a chessboard since Karazhan. That's a World of Warcraft thing-- there's one dungeon in it where you have to play a pseudo-chess problem with you being on the board. I know, an old trope, but it's still chess. Sort of. In a way. A little bit.
I'll shut up now. Kencolt (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. TheEOE (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I do indeed.Kazitor 05:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know much about chess, but I do know the horsey moves in and L and I get to start with two extra queens instead of castles. GoshDarn (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
*cough*knightrook *ahem* —Kazitor 06:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't played that game in years. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 08:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Casually. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

## On Determinism

I spent my freshman year of college at a private faith-based university. I scored a full ride, they had a good pitch, I went. I transferred out after a year, I won't get into the details of that. But I did take one class that has always stuck with me for reasons. It was called "Ethics and Film" (not Ethics in Film, this was 2007, way before Weinstein was outed). The textbook was "Ethics for Modern Life" by Raziel Abelson.

We touched on a lot of things, should have used a lot of philosophy, but generally it was like the philosophy was already set, not that it was meant to be explored. So we watched "Citizen Ruth" and talked about abortion (actually a good movie that satirizes the politicization of abortion), which was a lot of fun for me, at least. But we also watched "Billy Budd" and tried to explore Kantian ethics which was a favorite of the prof. Basically, a fun innocent boy named Budd gets targeted by a cruel first mate who hates him for his fun innocence, Mate gets so mean that Budd smashes him over the head to death, and then is unpopularly hanged by the captain because "the laws of the sea" and whatnot.

I missed the Jesus parable entirely and tried to bring up determinism, which my professor didn't like. My basic logic was "The decisions we make in the present are based on the past. The future is based on the present. The present is so fleeting we can't really pin it to a real time, so it's better described as a moment when we can consider the past and future simultaneously. But because we cannot change the past, how can we really change the present or the future? How do we judge a person's actions by such unwavering laws when every past leading up to every future is so subjective? And how do we ever justify amending those laws?"

The response I got was "You'd be removing free will with determinism, so determinism is false," which I'd say isn't as much of a philosophical issue today as it was 10 years ago.

Biography over, my past leading to this question today: Can we change the future? Would it not require the same kind of magical acrobatics as changing the past? Does it matter in terms of culpability, reward, punishment? I'd love to read your thoughts on this subject, ratwikers. GoshDarn (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the large issue with any of this free will/determinism stuff is that it is completely untestable. It feels like the universe should be deterministic, but can you say the same of quantum events? Would that atom have decayed at the exact same time if you went through it again, or is it truly random? How would you even test it, without reverting the whole universe to its earlier state (yet still maintaining knowledge of what happened the "first" time)? —Kazitor 06:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Free will is necessary for Christianity, because it would be unfair for an omnipotent God to punish you for all eternity for doing things you had no control over. But in the real world, that consideration doesn't apply. On a short-term utilitiarian view, it's beneficial to society to punish people whether or not free will exists. --Gospatric (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, unless the sect of Christianity is hard-line Calvinist, in which case you might as well not bother with free will. You're either saved or damned to begin with and nothing you do can change that. Probably why few Evangelicals are Calvinists-- I mean, what's the point of preaching to the pre-destined? Kencolt (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It's highly debatable whether everything is fated to happen. I personally believe in free will, but I know many don't share this. I feel that free will is pretty much required for western culture in general, but it's not actually required for the current state of the legal system. — Dysk (contribs) 11:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I've made a simple experiment to determine whether you have the potential to have free will or not, by testing to see if you have voluntary control over the thoughts in your own consciousness. Might be worth a try. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷom teḱs. 18:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I'm a hard determinist who believes that on a social and philosophical level free will should be treated as "real," because we can't know the future, at least not yet. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Human future does not already exist. Either that is true or humans can not accurately predict the future with respect to their own activity. The proof is trivial: if one could predict ones future, one could resist its manifestation. Certainly there are events beyond ones control, but most events in our lives require our intervention to reify.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's get into the fucking weeds of it. Determinism is a metaphysical idea. One grounded in the intuition of cause leading to effect. In the strictest sense, this is not a scientifically validated idea, what with god seeming to THAC0 rolls on every single electron orbit and beta decay.
But forget the facts of determinism being unbounded. The grossly overstated implication that it is somehow oppositional to free will is absurd. Cogito ergo sum is not just a statement that establishes existence. It establishes a role. Even in a purely deterministic universe you are still a thinking part of it. Your thoughts and actions shape the future. Remove the thinking, feeling, acting part of the deterministic universe that is you and keep the same deterministic rules, and everything is different. Everything you are, everything you know, everything you do shapes the world, the universe for untold millennia.
To me, that's a more beautiful role for us than than this idea that minds just decide how things are whimsically and their effects are erased but the infinitely mutable destiny of a "true" free will. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Crazy as it sounds I never had any real course content on free will during both my philosophy degrees. In hindsight it seems ridiculous and I really wish we had studied it back then. I came across Daniel Dennett (one of the four horsemen of new atheism) who is a philosopher and he wrote a few books on the topic of free will, he is a compatibilist meaning determinism and having free will are not mutually exclusive. He makes a good (though less than perfect) argument. Only little analogy (not the best one) he makes is comparing a chess program with pre-programmed strategy that never changes vs. a computer program based on deep learning which adapts, learns from games, tries random strategies and even random moves often based on probability rather than working out the actual odds etc. The second program may still be run on a digital device but you can argue that the second program has far more freedom than the first one and that the actions of the computer are highly internalized or embedded within itself. This of course hardly is comparable with human decision making but this analogy at least sets up your mind to understand his broader theory. The book is "Freedom Evolves". It's a little challenging at times but i highly recommend it. ShabiDOO 14:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it's a definition of "free will" and the potential of the future that are at odds. I personally wouldn't discount anybody's massive potential to make any number of decisions at an given time. And I personally don't think we can go predicting and playing these odds like some kind of preset program. That's not what I mean by a deterministic outlook. It's more that, kind of along the lines of ikanreed's response, it's not oppositional to the notion of free will for all potential futures to necessarily whittle themselves into one actual future, it's just that we're not going to get any future different from the one we're whittling. And I think it's worth asking and getting good responses on, because lazy philosophy and pop metaphysics drive a lot of magical thinking. As someone who doesn't take part in magical thinking, it's frustrating for me to see people exercise lazy ethics. Either some god will sort it out, or you have to, but if some god will sort it out, why would you think you also have to? It's a rabbit hole, I'm not trying to go all the way to Wonderland here.
Back on topic, from what I can tell, the future is not certain as far as we are capable of predicting, as per Ariel, but future as an idea, from both a practical outlook and on a metaphysical level (which I'll agree is not scientific, as it's not testable and therefore can't make testable predicitions) seems similarly immutable to the past.
I appreciate the real consideration put into everyone's responses. Words like "fate" and "beauty" and "random" usually don't show up as key considerations of one topic, but they have so far done so. And not in the stupid hand-wavey kind of way I'm used to.
Adding: The term Fatalism just came to mind. At its definition, I can't really disagree with it. Employed as an excuse, it's not that great for me. GoshDarn (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

## A comedy emergency warning for Jehovah's Witnesses (Based off a YouTube comment I made)

 “”This is an emergency broadcast. The following instructions are vital to your sanity. Close and secure all entrances to your home. Do not respond to knocks on your doors or windows. Do not respond to any quoted Bible verses, they are distorted versions. If any Jehovah's Witnesses gets inside your home, flash your crotch. It will distract them so you can reach a secure room. Do not interact with any Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not pick up any Jehovah's Witnesses literature, it is nonsense and garbage. If any Jehovah's Witnesses get close then used armed protection. Remain silent and keep your lights off. If you are a minister of a Christian church, tell any hostile Jehovah's Witnesses why your branch is better. If you are a Jewish Rabbi then quote the Torah. Instructions for other religions or atheists are the same as the previous mentioned religions. Do not listen to that Jehovah's Witness garbage﻿.

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Other alternatives:

• 'I am going to give blood' (and/or, possibly 'I identify as a vampire').
• 'Can you come back tomorrow' (By which time you will be dressed in appropriate (hired or own) religious garb: sky-clad is not recommended)
• 'I am a very busy Druid/Pastafarian/Militant Atheist - can I read my sermon to you? Anna Livia (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I just smile and nod politely though I'm too shy to tell people that I don't believe in it and I won't follow it, but thanks anyway. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
When I was a teen, either a Witness or Mormon came to the door (both groups have temples in town) and I asked, "What me to read a passage from Charles Darwin's Origin of Species"? They left. Was funny though. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
How about, "If you are a Scientologist, offer them a beverage-- preferably non-alcoholic and non-caffeinated, have a seat, read carefully anything they offer you, and listen with an open mind. You'll hopefully wind up both much more tolerable and much more financially secure in the long (or short) run." Kencolt (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
whats wrong with 'not for me thanks' and closing the door? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You need a certain character to pull that off. — Dysk (contribs) 21:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Got ones some weeks ago, a Saturday (maybe Sunday, who cares) morning. I did not even bother to open the door, and I later discovered they were JW. Would have been funny to talk them about the goddess Mielikki, Our Lady of the Forest. Or her Greyhawk equivalent Ehlonna (damn, so many years since the last time I played D&D and still remember them. I'd have to delete all those manuals in PDF format, even the AD&D ones).
Jokes apart, the tactic I see they use is to be on squares and streets simply waiting for someone unfortunate enough to fall on their webs. Never mind the weather and that seemingly nobody gives a fuck about them, you'll find them in the same places day after day. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I remember when I was a child and when I rode the bus to/from school, I saw two guys dressed in formal attire everyday and in the place everyday. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
When I go to the farmer's market, I always buy corn from this group of Mennonites. I can't say much for their belief system, but holy fuck they know how to grow some damn good corn. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps there could be a Speakers Corner area where the 'fail to convert the non-listening passers by' people can be corralled and they can then have some interesting discussions.
'By their deeds shall you know them' and 'When all is said and done, a lot more is said than done' apply. Anna Livia (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
With the Mormons (we get way more of them than JWs) if I have thet ime and patience I'll have them in and ask them 'while I can't be sure that the Bible is 100% correct, I have a high degree of confidence that there really are places such as Jerusalem, Jericho, and Egypt. What happened to your'n?' Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷom teḱs. 16:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

## I wish Libertarians would stop getting mixed in with conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

RWRW is just... not a quality poster. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Being a crazy right wing goon is much easier if your cause is not well known or mainstream. The problem with Tramp is that he is too big and fucking massively high profile. Every crazy nutjob under the sun has swarmed in to praise him, and that leaves the legitimate right fighting for space while being steamrollered by other people with odd views, this has caused a right wing mismash of ideas all tacked on the the Trumptastic bandwagon. Dysklyver (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The legitimate right IMO should just vote Democrat to show how unacceptable what the "new" right has become. Once the crazies lose power, then we can get some saner right-wingers opposing the Democrats again. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It's an option, maybe something for someone to pedal against Trump 2020 (if they can get a candidate with less dodgy Emails). My guess is that this is why the UK for some time had three main parties. /shame one of them died out :D Dysklyver (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The GOP deserves to get shithoused in November and then shithoused again in 2020. No question about it. I only hope that'll be enough to tame the Trumpist wing, the same way the Moore snafu seems to have fatally weakened Steve Bannon. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 21:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Are Americans stupid enough to vote for Trump a second time? I don't have enough faith in the public, honestly.—127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 00:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump supporters generally don't express regrets even today, if countless interviews are anything to go by, so I have no faith in them. At least my state didn't want Trump. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of gullible morons in the American electorate, but I honestly think they're outnumbered. The only thing any of us can do about it is vote. The biggest problem during midterms is always turnout. There might be some really competitive and interesting elections this time around if people actually give a shit. I'm in Kansas' second congressional district, and our Democrat is outraising all of the Republicans combined. It looks like the Democrats in my state have learned from the Conor Lamb example because I'm perfectly happy to vote for him. Plus, a lot of people here are pissed. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 01:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Everyone I know where I live abhors Trump. And also, I regularly vote whenever I can and I beg for people my age range (18-24) to freaking vote more. 🙏 I haven't voted Republican ever since I registered, so easy for me whom to vote against. And the GOP needed a roundhouse kick, it was overdue since 2016, you know, for being a pain in the ass Congress during Obama. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I reckon Trump has a good chance of winning again in 2020. Voters will look and see that all of the fearmongering that the Democrats whipped up about Trump hasn't come true. And I doubt that the Democrats will be fully united either, its quite likely the neoliberal wing and the socialist wing will squabble amongst themselves again. I also don't think the Democrats will do as well as everyone thinks they will in the 2018 Midterms.The Democrats don't seem to be offering anything to the voters other than "we hate Trump", they won't be taken seriously. --RWRW (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
As strange as it might seem, where I live many people have very little idea of who Trump is. And far less idea of what his policies are. So my view is entirely based on what's on the internet. I think Trump has a very good chance at 2020 if he can turn his presidency around and get some real results. I suspect many people would vote for him if they feel it's best for the economy for example. I feel that Obama held on too long doing nothing and Trump is the overreaction of that. (i.e the opposite of Obama), so unless Trump gets his act together the Democrats could field someone who people would turn to as an overreaction from Trump. But whether the Trumptatic wing is bigger than the Tramphate wing is debatable. Dysklyver (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
"Are Americans stupid enough to vote for Trump a second time?" I want to say no, but we Americans gave Bush a second term. It took a few years after he left office for his voters to admit that they made a mistake.98.110.32.113 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Libertarians are of two stripes: (1) pure ideologues who are very few in number, make up the party's organizational apparatus, and don't mind life on the margin; and (2) libertarian leaning conservatives (small "l" libertarians) who use the label as a vacant parking stall in years GOP approval ratings are low, but still do their private business in the voting booth. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Lol, just lol, you shat the bed, now eat it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
RWRW: Paris Accord. Clean Air Act. Iran deal. Trade wars. Scott Pruitt. Betsy DeVos. Tax cuts for the rich. Deregulation of the same industries that screwed us over. Police brutality. Migratory Bird Act. Net neutrality. Charlottesville. Supreme Court. Vacant positions in Congress. Wealthiest Congress ever. Multiple firings. Skyrocketing military budget. Trans people in military. Puerto Rico. Children in cages. What are you saying again? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario: Massive diplomatic progress with North Korea, tax cuts, creation of over 1 million jobs, highest economic confidence in almost 20 years, strong borders, well needed shake up for the establishment – to name a few examples. As a spoiler alert I am planning on writing an essay about why I think Trump is a good president sometime this week. I am quite certain I can turn even you into a die hard Trumpian. --RWRW (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
'massive diplomatic progress with north korea' hahaha you are a fucking joke. nk gets nukes and trump gives them every they wanted while getting nothing in return except a mouthful of kim's cum. combine that with backing out of the iran deal, and hes shown iran exactly why they need nukes. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW Massive diplomatic progress with North Korea? After Kim made no promises, Pompeo got frozen out, and our KIAs in Korea won't be returned? Or perhaps negotiating from a position of weakness and impatience is some super-secret Trump strategy for success that I've never heard of. The tax cuts are stupid because they're essentially a deficit-funded fiscal stimulus when we're already in good economic straits. That's fiscally irresponsible. I'd be fine with it if the tax cuts were only to actual taxpayers, but instead it's primarily going to corporations who plan to do jack fucking shit with the savings. The strong borders argument is a dumb one to make since most of that "strength" comes from immoral actions. It's not like we've built the wall yet, and it's not like that would even do anything anyways when most of our illegals are here because they overstayed a visa. Also, trade wars are fucking stupid. As for the "needed shake up for the establishment"? Don't make me laugh. Whenever someone says that, what they really mean is "Trump makes the libs mad, and that's what really matters." That's what Trumpservatism is. No substance, no policy, no redeeming qualities. Just "owning the libs." So you're gonna have to work pretty hard to convince me that Trump is some kind of misunderstood genius. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 20:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
"I am quite certain I can turn even you into a die hard Trumpian."
I'm not supporting anyone whose track record on science is utterly abysmal. Luckily, the entire Republican Party has its work cut out for me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I will address many of the above points in my upcoming essay. AMassiveGay,DuceMoosolini and LeftyGreenMario: once my essay is published I will notify all three of you and invite you to read it. Be prepared to get blown away by my powers of reasoning. I will open your eyes to the 'right' way of looking at things get it? right as in right wing AND right as in being correct. LOL. You will all be GOP fans by the end of the week. --RWRW (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I am probably slightly centre right and I find that idea dubious for some reason... but I am interested to see what you come up with. Dysklyver (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Good luck, I guess. I'll take a look at it, but I can't promise anything beyond that. DuceMoosoliniNovus Forum Romanum 01:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
another day, another dictator fellated. trump sure loves tyrant jizz AMassiveGay (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
How do Trump's policies "shake up" the Establishment? He's a fucking billionaire and his policies are designed to benefit other such bourgie cutthroats under the auspices of "job creation". That sounds more like trying to benefit and enrich the establishment, almost as if he was a part of it big thonk.'Legionwhat do you want from me 09:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump's very election was enough to "shake up the establishment", since he was opposed by a majority of politicians, opposed by most of the media and by most celebrities. --RWRW (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
That's because Trump is literally one of, if not the least qualified individuals to hold the office of POTUS. Despite how corrupt most of the political class is they aren't morons, they actually know what they're doing. As for your essay... Yeah, something tells me it will be very underwhelming.
PS: A few members of the GOP are worth voting for, but yes, as a whole they really are quite corrupt. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
, and - as promised my pro-Trump essay is here at Essay:Trump is a good President. I fully intend on continuing to expand on it at a later date. I would have uploaded it earlier but I have been really lazy 'busy in real life'. --RWRW (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it also a point that RwRw said "was" opposed but before he even took oath we saw a hard turn in many of these circles? Now that he's the populist leader of a major party, that party is all "No, we support him fully, we were always this way too, he was only wrong when he was showboating!" The point being that they tried to distance themselves and shame the man until they realized there was something to ride there? And now you think they aren't in his ear telling him exactly what he needs to hear to do their bidding? I mean, the man seems to exist upon the Schadenfreude of whoever upset him most recently, whether they did it or somebody told him they did. I'm not saying he hasn't been a prolific president, but effective, or by any stretch good president is a tougher sell.
Also, your essay is a joke, right? You didn't put a single negative or even example of refutation on there. This isn't as bad as when a Breitbart opinion piece links several pages of Breitbart opinion pieces, because you don't get paid per page load, but it's very close. You even listed increasing military spending as a positive. Name a country with a higher military budget or stronger global military presence than Obama's military. Obama's military was the same exact military as Trump's. Any problem you can think of with Obama's military just got more expensive, is all. GoshDarn (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
True, the Republicans realised they had no choice but to join Trump, but I don't think they have much control over him. It would have been the exact same if Sanders became President since Sanders was an outsider on his own party's leadership. The essay is no joke I'm afraid. And I didn't think, it needed any criticisms since this wiki is already overflowing with anti-Trump propaganda. --RWRW (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@RWRW When said your essay was a joke they meant it was terrible, poorly written, laughably biased, etc. Add to that that you simply parroted a bunch of talking points rather than addressing criticisms of the Trump administration and you have what is generally called a "Puff Piece" or "Fluff Piece" which are notably characterized by simply saying nice things about the subject and dismissing and/or ignoring any form of criticism. You claimed that this much vaunted article would change our views, and much like many cranks making similar claims before you, what you produced was underwhelming to the extremes of the word. Here's a thought, maybe actually address the criticisms being leveled against your subject, rather than sweeping them under the rug and ignoring them! That might actually make us consider your worldview. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, when I asked if it was a joke, I rolled forward assuming it was a bad joke and gave Rwrw better options for trolling. I really still hope and honestly think it's some poorly executed deep trolling. I think that's why Sanders was addressed, and why the phrase "anit-Trump propaganda" is also used. Unless Rwrw really can't tell the difference between complaints, criticisms, questions, and propaganda, this is a deep troll attempt. Like anybody thinks Trump is the reason his policies suck?
If it's not a troll, hey, no, his policies don't reflect his election campaign and we are getting the same hard-right theocratic mismanagement that has always characterized the fringe evangelical republican base, and also it's Trump who also sucks. I'm glad the government is willing to bail out the agricultural sector. They fucked that up with fiery rhetoric, now we all pay for it. But hey, that's a socialist policy!
I don't have a problem with bailing out the agro sector, but these guys don't actually play the long game. At best, they will be hung out to dry if they don't follow through, after every single other person in America is hung out before them. GoshDarn (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I wish that libertarian wasn't just used to mean right libertarian Comradegreen (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

## Democrats on the wrong side of history (AGAIN)

So are Democrats going full communism? They aren't even reserved about it. Many openly call themselves socialist Democrats. The problem of course is, that the boat left. Today, nationalism and new right wingers are on the rise, and radical left are on the wrong side of history. Just remember 2016. Everybody predicted that Hillary would win easily, but no. Even Donald Trump could find enough voters to win the elections. Now imagine if that was someone more experienced? It would be a route. Same thing happened in UK and Italy. In Germany AFD is rising. Even there, in Germany, the country of liberalism and globalism, people are annoyed by their center-right government, let ALONE a socialist or radical left. But the United States is SO MUCH MORE right wing than any of these countries. USA is a country where up to 40+ % of people admit that they would NOT vote for an atheist president. Just on the basis that he is an atheist. I am NOT saying that is good. But how does ANYONE think that in modern times adopting a far left stance will make you popular? People are beginning to feel more patriotic, more nationalistic... Why would ANYONE think that America is on its way to abolishing ICE, opening its borders, and pretty much turning into a refugee camp instead of a country? Is ANYONE delusional enough to think that the American people would ANYTIME in the near-future want OPENLY socialist or Anti-American policies? Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that you might be a moron. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
What's your point? Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
If you ask enough questions based on shitty premises (and ignore the answers you don't like), and someone notices, it is not inconceivable that they might come to the conclusion that you might just be a partisan ideologue whose understanding of political theory can be boiled down to "my party good, other party bad". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't even live in the USA. And I did NOT say that I support the GOP. Do you disagree with the fact that nationalism is on the rise? Do you disagree that radical leftie ideas are unlikely to prosper in USA? Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Define "radical left". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Depends on the country. In the case of USA, which is more right wing than others, radical left would be more to the left than Democrats used to be. Democratic party was supposed to be a centrist party, with some center left leanings. Now you have a Alexandria Occasio-Cortes, a woman who is surprisingly dumb (especially about geopolitics, if you know what I mean), who supports abolishing ICE, socialist reform and has a lot to say about capitalism being bad... That is RADICAL LEFT... And the more democrats push it, the less likely they are to win. Simply because most Americans do NOT agree with radical leftie policies. ESPECIALLY, policies that are un-American and unpatriotic, like, open borders, abolishing ICE. etc Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The answer to this entire discussion can reasonably answered with "no". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
So you disagree that nationalism is rising? Do you disagree with the examples I gave? Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
"So are Democrats going full communism?"
No.
"But how does ANYONE think that in modern times adopting a far left stance will make you popular?"
Depends how you define "far-left" but Bernie Sanders ain't unpopular.
"Why would ANYONE think that America is on its way to abolishing ICE, opening its borders, and pretty much turning into a refugee camp instead of a country?"
No one seriously thinks that way unless you count those made of burning golden agricultural by-products.
"the American people would ANYTIME in the near-future want [...] Anti-American policies?"
implying trump isn't anti-american. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Given that the modern Democratic party is pretty much where the Republicans were fifty years ago... Yeah, I think they'll survive a few Socialists like me getting elected (fun fact, I'm not a full on Socialist but instead a third way style Socialist) without embracing Communism. Then again you have already demonstrated that you don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism, and that you think everyone to left of the Democratic establishment is an evil socialist/Marxist/communist coming to destroy the U.S., capitalism, and apple pie. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
No! I don't think so. Plenty of left wingers are patriots, they support their countries. I have also said that I think healthcare is a right (many leftists hold this view), I also would not be against free education, though this isn't a priority (yes, I changed my mind). I just think that many leftists today are open to more unpatriotic positions, do NOT emphasize the importance of nationalism. I am saying that this is NOT popular with the voters, whether this is good or bad. It just is NOT! Majority of US voters want to keep their country. Now can you be a patriot and simultaneously support open borders? I don't see how (maybe I am wrong). Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you can support open borders and be a patriot. You can argue that we're a nation founded by immigrants and a nation proud of our cultural salad bowl, and our own Statue of Liberty welcomes newcomers with motherly-like arms. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If they didn't care what happens to their country they wouldn't be running for office. I also don't think you understand what Nationalism is, chiefly because you keep using it interchangeably with Patriotism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The two being distinct, but often go together. — Dysk (contribs) 00:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
True, however one can be a patriot without subscribing to Nationalism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ironically I am a nationalist but not really a patriot (at least not in the American sense). — Dysk (contribs) 01:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────American patriotism is basically nationalism anyway. *duck* —Kazitor 01:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
A Nation of immigrants... How can you have a NATION, if there is no borders? How can you have a country if ANYONE from any walk of life can come in? It is not a country, it is a permanent refugee camp. And we all know how that works out, right? Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's destroy the Statue of liberty then. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You are missing the point. USA is a NATION of immigrants. I am NOT denying that. But I emphasize the FACT that it is a Nation, a country. So how does a country exist without border control? Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
While a compromise can be made, there still needs to be law. The US was born from immigrants but that was when the US was not an actual country. I support straight forward immigration laws where the process is not a red tape nightmare but there are still laws. Other nations have immigration laws much worse in terms of who can immigrate and in terms of red tape. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think any mainstream Democrat politician actually wants to "get rid of borders." Some of them might want amnesty for law-abiding illegals currently living here (I'd support a pathway to citizenship myself depending on the details), and some of them might want change immigration enforcement, but I've never seen anyone outside of crazy leftie nutjob twitter argue for abolishing borders completely. Even Ocasio-Cortez only wants to pass a DREAM Act and to replace ICE with NICE, according to her website. The thing about the really crazy lefties is that they tend not to gain major political power. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Typing random words in ALL CAPS during political rants makes you look a bit dumb. I don't make society's rules; I'm just here to tell you how it is. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
DuceMoosolini, that's what he does. Any time you catch him spamming all-caps, feel free to ban him as long as you want, as he'll just unban himself. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Should The Democratic Party Be Abolished?...Democrats On The Wrong Side Of History: Again. Recycled conservative lib-trolling. And not every good trolling at that. Seriously. What's next? Democratic Party endorses child molestation ? Millennium Scallion (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It was a nation of European conquerors then it was changed into a nation of immigrants in 1965. That's why it sucks. 109.144.210.240 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I have read the platform of the most leftist party of the United States and still has an elected representative in a state legislature, and their policies do not even remotely approach the political norms of Northern European countries and Canada/NZ/Japan. Last I checked those aren't communist countries but mixed systems. So no. The answer is not just no...but you don't seem to understand what being a communist government means, the platform of the Democratic party nor much at all about international politics. Now is the best time to read up on it. ShabiDOO 14:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
"then it was changed into a nation of immigrants in 1965"
don't know if you're referring to rhetoric or not but either way, immigrant stuff goes farther back than 1965. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you made it clear that you are not a resident of the US: that explains your paucity of useful information about American politics. You must be conflating the US with Europe. We have very good borders here. Canada keeps a watchful eye to the north and there have been more Mexicans going south than travelling north for years during the Obama administration. While it is true that the nutbag right has lately been on the rise, there is little general enthusiasm among traditional conservatives to do what the Trumpistas have wanted to do: raise tariffs, increase the debt by lowering taxes without cutting spending, separating young children from parents at the Mexican border, insulting America's allies and kissing Putin's ring. You can talk about getting rid of the democrats, that's true. Trump has already immolated the GOP. That's gone now. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

### Sorry you're used to center-right democrats who lose to bloated idiots

No really. I'm not too much a fan of leftist politics, but the democrats can do far far worse electorally and morally than just utterly destroying anything republicans believe in. And if that means a dash of communism, I'm down. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

🤣🤣🤣I am a Democrat. First off, Democrats are not commies. If you think that Democrats are immoral, then look at proper statistics. The US has the most guns by far, and we Democrats want to reduce that number since -- guess what -- we have at least over 80 guns per 100 people. Simple as that. --UglyRat (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I... what. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see. "Democrats are not commies" – response to "a dash of communism". "If you think that Democrats are immoral" – response to "can do far far worse ... morally"; because I guess saying A can be much more X means that A is still very X anyway? Reducing guns is I guess evidence of morality. Thanks, I'm here all week—Kazitor 05:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I can imagine Ikanreed's style of "communism." Class politics subservient to ethnic identity politics, no state atheism or scientific socialism cause that might offend some ethno-religious minorities, etc. Would there even be a strong state to keep the vanguard of the proletariat in power and their policies being enacted? Or would it devolve into local democratic rule, and from there into decisions made along ethnic and cultural lines? I imagine many of the most extreme Republicans wouldn't have too many complaints with this new order! Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
KD1 is conflating Communism, Socialism, and Social Democracy into one homogeneous mass that must be feared at all costs because, you know, anything left of the center is scary and bad. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Communism is what's supposed to follow after a socialist state dissolves itself, right? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
In a according to communist models, yes. According to Socialists, no. To put it another way, to Communists Socialism is a means to an end, to Socialists, Socialism is the end in and of itself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
And so since socialists never want to give up their government powers, you never get to the communism part. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you need to read up on Socialism as well, since you don't really seem to understand it beyond "socialism = bigger government". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
GrammarCommie: seemingly more knowledgeable about Communism than grammar. —Kazitor 04:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes yes, I'm aware socialism describes a system for managing the means of production. I was using "socialist state" to refer to the specific "dictatorship of the proletariat" Marx was aiming for. Problem is, even if you get a dictatorship which enacts socialism, how do you get the people in charge to then sign away their authority? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
You still seem to be using Socialism as a euphemism for Communism. The two are related schools of thought yes, but as I explained above, not one and the same. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the far left ideology is, it can only be viewed as a temporary solution to anything, kinda like FEMA disaster relief assistance. In the long run as the crisis subsides, cooler heads prevail, and a return to normalcy, leftist ideology looses its appeal. 1917 Russia. 1959 Cuba. 2008 USA. Barack Obama for example, was elected in 2008 less on personal appeal or mass conversion to leftist ideology, and more by a war-weary public and financial collapse that rejected those the public blamed for the crisis. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 01:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you and your buddies at CP still running soundbites claiming Obama was far-left rather than being center-right on most issues? The guy was nowhere near as left-wing as Bernie Sanders (a watered down Social Democrat) Let alone actual Socialists like myself. (And given that I'm actually skeptical of the ability to achieve the Socialist ideal itself, I'm a moderate) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
A progressive globalist is hardly center-right. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 02:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

## Could virtual nations be recognized as independent?

Technically the actual cyber space is not on any land but the computers and software are in claimed territory. I doubt it would ever happen. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I could see this being done in some kind of government-approved tax evasion scheme. But I'd say the fundamental basis of law is still physically being in a place where armed people can come drag you away without other armed people wearing a different uniform stopping them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
So when is The State of Rationalwiki going to be launched? What treaties will it have with WikipediaLand Conserve ape dia? How will it collect taxes and pay pensions to contributors? Anna Livia (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We obviously should militarily annex Conservapedia. It's the only way. Everyone there is better off living under an RW colonial regime, preferably with the name "Moosoliniland." Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
What sort of government would Moosoliniland have? — Dysk (contribs) 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
And how would the military intervention take place? Besides the natives are revolting (in both senses). Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The Democratic Republic of Goatistan will annex every virtual country and rule cyberspace. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You know this would not be difficult to organise. Set up a constitution, flag, anthem and stuff, send a letter to the UN. Who wants to start a micronation? — Dysk (contribs) 17:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You may like the creation part, but I personally cannot wait for the next micronation to be destroy by the navy of fucking Tonga. A nation being utterly annihilated by a 30 meter motorboat is just perfection. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The Democratic Republic of Goatistan would of course be an enlightened republican democracy. However, certain compromises must be made for the administration of the colonial territory of Moosoliniland. We're on a Mission to Civilize, after all. We must liberate the Conservapedia barbarians from their savage lifestyle and introduce them to the better lives they could be spending on our rubber farms and in our gold mines. As such, I propose that Goatistan's first colony be known as the Moosoliniland Free State and be placed under control of the DuceMoossolini Trade Corporation. I promise everyone that while my corporation is using these prisoners with jobs to produce industrial and luxury goods for the empire, we will also be civilizing the poor peoples of CP and introducing them to our enlightened culture and lifestyle. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We are just as democratic as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

### I declare the Republic of RationalWiki

This is a declaration of indepedence! Ha! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

But.. but I wanted a principality. **sniff** Kencolt (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You can be the prince. I call dibs on foreign minister. — Dysk (contribs) 19:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Become my protectorate or be destroyed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be commerce minister as well as colonial governor for any conquered territories. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The Republic of RationalWiki is its own nation that will not stand down. Long live the Republic of RationalWiki! This is a declaration from President Schizo Zombie --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd certainly be interested in a position in this Republic. Chief of Staff maybe. --RWRW (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not? The RoRW is centrist and various political views are allowed. Free speech and the like are allowed. Message from President Schizo Zombie --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of political views, I think we should turn the entire Republic into a gigantic Italian restaurant. The nation's means of production should be seized by the state and dedicated to one goal: the creation and export of huge amounts of cheap Italian food. I'm not saying this should be the nation's main trade product; I'm saying it should be our only trade product. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I nominate you as secretary of state or commerce. I Like your attitude, plus Italian food is great. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I accept the post of commerce secretary. My economic plans will begin ASAP. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I propose a measure that gives economic benefits to those who sell their products for government export. If someone produces a surplus of say, tomatoes and are willing to sell their product to the government they get a grant to buy more land. If people have a surplus they benefit from production grants. A bill proposed by President Schizo Zombie. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
That could be an idea. I haven't decided yet if we should do a straight-up totalitarian command economy, or some version of a corporatist state. I'm kinda leaning towards the latter. The economy will need to be vertically integrated with different factories and farms producing different basic food products to be combined into larger Italian dishes, so we could organize the economy into a number of state-influenced cartels (National Confederation of Pasta, National Confederation of Tomato Sauce, etc.). That being said, a lot of extraneous industry will need to be converted or removed. We'll only be making Italian food, so I'm not sure what to do with things like automobile factories and chemical plants. We'll just import that stuff. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You would want to have some private ownership so the civilians don't rebel. China is a good example. The USSR is a bad example.

If we are going for state influenced cartels then we will need a sub department to handle that. We will hold an election, need some candidates. Won't be too difficult to find someone for director of the evil, Illuminati, communist Department of Food Production and Procurement. If you know who wants in then nominate them. We also need a director for the right wing, authoritarian Department of Food Security. Got to make sure we have state police law enforcement to protect our nation. President Schizo Zombie --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have an idea for law enforcement. We should put together volunteer assault squads and call them Blackshirts "The Boyardee Boys". They'll be responsible for suppressing dissent, which they shall accomplish by beating the offenders, tying them to a tree, and forcing huge amounts of olive oil down their throats. The Boyardee Boys! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 05:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget security cameras all over. Got to suppress any attempts at revolt. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

#### Consider yourselves invaded and occupied

n/t ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Launches rockets at your capital city. President Schizo Zombie --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Our server is a long way away from Tonga. :D — Dysk (contribs) 23:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
"Invaded and occupied"? To Ikanreed: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE RATIONALWIKI REPUBLIC AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

#### I declare the RationalWikian's Republic

Because why not? —Kazitor 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to make an alliance. President Schizo Zombie --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
##### I declare the State Religion of the Republic of RationalWiki

Instead of a subservient BDSM relationship of blind faith with a patriarchal, masochistic baby killing god, join the state and become equals with the world spirits. You like having wild occult orgies that grant you special powers? We got that. You like cosmic dances? We got that too. Like being anointed with menstrual blood and getting tattoos of blind eldritch gods covered in sinewy flesh with crores of gaping mouths and barred teeth? Hell yeah we’ll give you the whole package! Just don’t ask us to show those eldritch gods as the sight may kill you. BobRoss (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Everyone knows the Super Mecha Death Goat is the one true god. Nothing will change regardless of what you do, They will one day eat the world. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
We should try offering it sacrifices of Italian food. We'll have plenty now that I'm commerce secretary! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hail Super Mecha Death Goat! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
A false dichotomy Bigs, we worship the goat too, not exclusively because he is too busy dallying with nymphs to get involved in our affairs. BobRoss (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

### Suggestion

The several states mentioned above coexist in a (fairly) peaceful manner (unless it is otherwise expedient), and it is accepted that the inhabitants can appeal to whichever legislative and other systems that are to their immediate advantage.

The military has a number of contingents of 'cute goats' and 'tree goats' to distract invaders - and are followed by hoards of sellers of overpriced tat and expensive holiday 'foodstuffs' who will extract sufficient of the military budgets allocated to said forces that they cannot afford to continue (as well as increasing their dental and medical bills). Anna Livia (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

### Also

Is this the perfect way for Randians/libertarians to "Go Galt"? They don't even have to move anywhere, just declare independence online from the comfort of your living room. Count Bezukhov (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

For the second time, no. This is a functionally useless idea for the terminally internet poisoned. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
As opposed to a functionally solid and practical idea for the wise and enlightened Libertarian, which "Going Galt" is-- oh, wait.Kencolt (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a peefect idea. — Dysk (contribs) 13:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I came here just to say that officially, the Mushroom Kingdom is not recognized by the United States government. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

### Geocities

Yes, it's possible. Just use GeoCities.—127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 03:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

### Is it possible to privately secede?

Like in a freedong on the internet way? Oh, wait I just glanced a Galt reference above, I assume I am now free to be any level of shit I choose to no consequence. Email me your Randcoins if you want to find out how to be shit like me now. Theeeeaaaanks! GoshDarn (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I notice I have been edited. Further proof of the vast Ratwik conspiracy to silence the true form of editing. Meet me on my boat of crazy people, and I will once again accept your Randcoins. Theeeeeaaaaaaanks! GoshDarn (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

## Atheists and agnostics are insane people...

...at least according to one (as usual) old-age Fundie pastor using also as typical the Bible to justify his BS and naturally including threats of Hell (mixing as usual Hades, Gehenna, Sheol, etc), everyone bowing his/her knee upon Christ -even those who were unable to know about him as Buddha, Confucius and people like Stalin-, etc. Others run the entire gamut from considering them misguided people to Godhaters.

Frankly it gets boring when all they can use as justification is a book as faulty as the Bible so they keep regurgitating the same stuff again and again, PIDOOMAing things without bothering to think someone will notice the BS (now the Crucifixion darkness is "The Sun turned off for six hours", when the same man said that "the Sun turned off for six seconds and that's far more believable than the Big Bang or evolution"). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What's the comparison between Confucius, Buddha, and Stalin going on? And since when are people supposed to bow down to Christ> Who is this guy? — Dysk (contribs) 22:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Fundies- they do not want people to make up their own minds on religion or science. Who cares about independent thought? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
As I have said before - Hell is likely to be a much more interesting place with all the interesting people sent there than 'Christian Heaven' occupied by do-gooder zombies perpetually singing the praises of the local tyrant (and the occasional visiting Viking explaining that Valhalla is the real heaven and this is nothing but a milk and dishwater hell). Anna Livia (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
There's also the fact that with so many smart people being sent to hell a Coup d'état is likely to have happened already, meaning that Hell would likely be more of a paradise than Heaven. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Stalin, Buddha, and Confucius walk into a bar... Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to add Muhammad and Pol Pot to the list. Anyway, the thing most hateful of them is their moral superiority -everyone that does not follow Christ, or better their version of Christianism, either worships just statues, demons, is misguided or worse, and will rue not having recognizing God's existence or worshipped him when Christ comes. However, I've to admit thanks to all those idiots bothered to read in depth the Bible, know more about their divisions and BS (biblical literalism, prosperity gospel...), and became even more skeptic. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

According to protestants, ted bundy is in heaven. think on that as you burn in hell. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even know Ted Bundy was dead. I just sort of assumed he fucked off to somehwere else, which I guess is still true. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
jeffrey dahmer's there too, while we'll fry for havingbetter things to do on a sunday. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
No, Jeffrey Dahmer's in hell. I know because I saw Book of Mormon. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, God has a plan, He's probably absolutely frying heaven as we speak. GoshDarn (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

## Wikipedia

So, now I am blocked from Wikipedia too, have been for several days actually. And, as usual, an indefinite block. Oddly, I do not have the energy to beg some idiots on wikipedia to unblock me. Conservapedia claims moral high ground, and they won't unblock me, so I think begging wikipedia will be an exercise in futility. Maybe I will do it if I have the energy some time later! Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never managed to get myself banned from tow, and I'm... kurt... to say the least. How did you managed to get banned enough times that their default action is indefinite ban? ikanreed
No. This is the FIRST time I have been banned from Wikipedia. They don't really like me there. I never understood why. I don't discuss things there or anything like that. But if there is a discussion going on, usually people gang up against me! This is the first time they have blocked me. And they defaulted to the infinite ban. Much to their credit, they have better policies to appeal blocks than Conservapedia or even RW, but I simply don't have enough energy to appeal my block. Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Wait, what reason did they give? They say it has been removed from WP's public records, so what the hell happened there? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage in discussion about this because I have better ways to use my time as probably does the RationalWiki community, and I'm going to leave it up to the OP as to whether he wants to 'fess up to what exactly he did there to merit the block, but do you really have to ask that question considering whose page he was posting on and what he was doing on RationalWiki? What a Wonderful World (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. I don't know what he did on WP, and I'm not willing to extrapolate based on his behavior here. Also, for someone so apathetic about many goings-on here, you seem to post about them pretty often. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
we dont generally give a shit about of wiki behaviour. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I did NOT behave bad there. I am a good boy when unprovoked and MOSTLY even when provoked. People on Wikipedia DO NOT like me. That is why 2 of my articles are nominated for deletion even though there is a CONSENSUS that they should be kept! And both of those articles are important. WP folks have it in for me! Also, I am not apathetic towards Wikipedia, I respect the project so much, I just don't have the energy to beg people who INITIALLY refused to EVEN oversight PERSONALLY identifiable information! Additionally, WWW has been blocked several times on Wikipedia, so he should not be lecturing me. This is the first time I got blocked. I am no stranger to blocks. On twitter, where I go by my full real name, I am pretty sure I hold some block record. I am even blocked by none other than psychic John Edward himself. On instagram, I also have been blocked often. People do NOT usually choose rational discourse with me, they go straight for the banhammer! P.S I am ONLY blocked from the English Wikipedia, I can still edit the Russian wikipedia.[2] And can contribute to its sister project, Wikiquote.[3] Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Take care on Wikiquote then, because if you are blocked indef on two projects the stewards can global lock your account at their discretion. — Dysk (contribs) 20:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Point taken! Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You're randomly ALL-CAPS-ing words again. Seriously, it doesn't make you look good, and it doesn't add any value to what you're saying. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Make no mistake: You were being a dick with the worst of all...threatening a user. That is super toxic and it gets you blocked. Plus you did other dickish things. Instead of trying to figure out why you were unfairly blocked on several wikis (which is impressive) you might want to think how you can be a more constructive editor on a collaborative project and not a dick. ShabiDOO 22:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
What a Wonderful World (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it was more of a bluff than a threat. I agree, it is impressive I am blocked on several wikis! Not everyone likes me! Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to give away pictures only with the hope of someone finding them useful, nor to spend my time knowing how painfully long can be to create an article, between looking for references and Wikifying it, just to have an idiot threatening to delete my work just because he/she thought I was infringing someone's copyright. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. Some people on Wikipedia are REALLY intolerant. Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Copyright generally lends itself to be more hassle than it's worth. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I am going to address one thing that was said by the OP. What kind of drugs are you on to think I have been blocked numerous times on Wikipedia? I have NEVER been blocked on Wikipedia except one time when I left my account logged in on a public terminal (oops), and the administrators could tell it was compromised without even asking. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Another thing... I hate to sound mean about this, but considering his actions on Conservapedia, I'd almost put money on the OP showing up at SPI... and getting community banned... and getting his IP range checkuser blocked... SMH What a Wonderful World (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I can see 4 blocks in your Wikipedia block log! And stop spilling hate about me! Thanks. Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding my nonexistent block record (except for the compromised account incident that I had already mentioned, which happened nearly ten years ago when I was still a minor), I'll let RationalWiki decide whether you're an idiot or not. What a Wonderful World (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

## Gotta brag a little bit

I've been working at a small business for 9 years. I got everybody who works under me a raise today. I don't really have anywhere else to brag about this, but I have 10 people who are all going to be paid $1 more per hour starting Wednesday. Honestly, a few of them deserved +$2, but that's a different bridge to cross for which I don't have all the data ready to lay out (but I'm working on it).

Long story, we had two veteran high paid members in my department quit, so I took over management of said department (which got me my own raise), one month has passed and everybody's work is consistently getting better. There are still a few things that aren't getting done without extra man-hours, but the day-to-day operations are absolutely humming, and our guys are going to be ready to multitask on that stuff soon.

All we had to do was reorganize the division of labor and we made the 80 veteran-man-hour deficit disappear. The other guys quit because they thought they had too much to do in a day and thought nobody was doing anything to help them (which was always shitty to me because I did a lot to make their jobs easier, and never stood around and bragged about it, which might have been the only way they would have noticed that).

My current guys are great, they are making me look like an incredible manager, and I have nobody to spill this to because I can't tell them about their raises til Monday. A few people want to make a work environment toxic for themselves and others and then call it a toxic work environment, and I don't really miss having those people around (except when I catch rookie mistakes or really need a veteran second opinion on something). Mostly, it's just work, and if you need somebody to thank you every day for that, you had better put your hours in.

We did this without raises in wages for a month. I spent the last three days trying to get a minute with the owner to tell him all of this explicitly.

Today I got my chance after a couple failed attempts to have some free time with the big boss. I stuck to my main point of how impressed I was with my guys, he said he was surprised there hadn't been a single hiccup since the big two left (which isn't true, and I gave him an honest and optimistic report of our current problems), and he agreed with my assessment that a raise all around was a damn correct idea.

Thanks for letting me spill. GoshDarn (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Well done! — Dysk (contribs) 11:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

## Non-WIGO but still fun to read

Robert S. Mueller III and Donald Trump Jr. spotted at the same airport. Welcome! You're under arrest! Nerd (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

## Gab

Are any of you present at social media site Gab? Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Didnt'cha know Facebook is selling your datas to the Evil British/Russian electioneers? # — Dysk (contribs) 18:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Nazi Twitter? I don't even have normal Twitter, not to mention that I rarely use Facebook these days and that I only use YouTube to watch videos I like. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Given that Google and Twitter are likely doing the same sort of crap on the sly your jab at Facebook kind of loses it's edge very quickly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Social media in general isn't my cup of tea. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
All I have is Twitter. That's it. And I feel like things move far too quickly for my tastes. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah i'm not on Twitter either. Can't quite seem to shake off Google, they are everywhere. — Dysk (contribs) 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I only have Twitter. I'm pretty sure I can only manage one social media account; Twitter occupies way too much enough of my attention as is. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I’m on instagram and Facebook. I used to be on Twitter but I quit (partly because I got fed up with it and partly because I had an embarrassingly small number of followers). -RWRW (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Twitter (but for nazis) seems like a really redundant idea when Twitter is already full of nazis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Given how decent and innocent conservatives often get banned from Twitter, I very much doubt ‘Nazis’ are prominent on it. -RWRW (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Read your own stupid article. It says something very different than what you think it does. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
”mounting charges of left-wing bias and suppression of right-wing viewpoints.” Seems relevant to me. And with or without the article it is common knowledge that Twitter censors conservatives in favour of left-wingers. -RWRW (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
"Last month, in response to reporting by The New York Times, Twitter closed more than 1 million fake accounts. Military analysts continually express deep concern over Russia’s ability to manipulate bots to ratchet up anger across American social media and deepen partisan divisions. Last year, the bipartisan Alliance for Securing Democracy created a program to track Kremlin-backed Twitter accounts. The Alliance’s Hamilton 68 project watches for pulses from Moscow that appear to amplify corrosive cultural debates in America. Late Thursday, #TwitterLockOut was the leading hashtag being promoted by accounts linked to the Kremlin."
This why reading skills are important folks. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, it's important that right wingers are retarded and believe saying "happy holidays" at your own discretion is suppressing right wing view points. "Mounting charges of supressing right-wing viewpoints" is evidence of less than nothing. "Charges" from right wingers are, with only the most occasional exceptions, indistinguishable from lies. RWRW knows this because he read his own dumb article and still posted it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is retarded to say that there is a taboo on saying "Merry Christmas", yet it is considered fine to say things like "Ramadan Mubarak". The fact is the left don't care if they offend Christians, but they will go out of their way to be respectful to non-Christians. --RWRW (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW Somehow I doubt that saying "Merry Christmas" is now taboo. It certainly wasn't last year when I went to a Christmas party, hosted by Christians. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
They know they're lying for fucks' sake. He knows absolutely goddamn well that no one in the goddamn history of this country has ever faced punishment, whether corporate or government for sincerely wishing someone a merry christmas. It has literally never happened. There's probably like one or two cases where someone would constantly harass a coworker of a different religious background with christmas bullshit until it became an actual problem. But he knows he's lying. Right wingers are stupid, but mostly not so stupid as to believe their own bullshit. I don't think RWRW will admit to it though. :-/ ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I never said they faced punishment for it, but the fact is people are dissuaded from saying Merry Christmas and are encouraged to say happy holidays. Even Trump picked up on it. --RWRW (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Almost all of the holidays are celebrated on the calendar are those that are significant to Christians, and Christians alone in many cases. Besides, "Happy Holidays" is preferable to my homemade private version of "Happy adultery Day!" (cue religious outrage in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...) Or me celebrating Easter by saying "Happy torture and murder day!". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You won't get much 'religious outrage' from me, whilst I consider myself to be a Christian I am about there furthest thing from a Bible-basher there is (though I do find your calendar to be slightly questionable). --RWRW (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@RWRW The reference to "religious outrage" refers to, and is directed to, third party readers who might encounter this page. After all, if a plain red cup during Christmas is irreverent, what does that make my blunt renaming of Christian holidays? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

## Nightmare Fuel responds to us.

I think that we need to fix some of the things he adressed in his article. TheEOE (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the article looks better now. TheEOE (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Pbfreespace3 added that section.[4][5] Go figure.—127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
He also added that doxing section. Not surprised...—127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 22:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
i really dont get the hate that pbfreespace3 gets. i dont recall anything especially egregious from them, but a hell of lot from others acrive around the same time AMassiveGay (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
IIRC, a lot of it has to do with abusing their sysop powers and getting into debates.—127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 23:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Just goes to show that the best way to get deSysOped is to go around unilaterally deSysOping people. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
That's... not ironic. Why do so many people struggle to understand what it is? —Kazitor 00:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@cheeseburger - so literaly nothing of note AMassiveGay (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

## Curriculum development for Pagan seminaries

Okay I have thought about this for several years. We all know that, at this point there is no actually accredited Pagan theological schools. While I have no degrees in education, theology or educational administration, I thought of a potential strategy for Pagan seminaries to gain recognition. This sounds like a thesis.

Abstract

Most seminaries/theological/divinity schools have degrees in general ministry (Master of Divinity, Master of Ministry and Master of Theology and Doctor of Ministry), leadership (Master of Arts and Master of Business Administration), education (Master of Religious Education, Master of Divinity, Master of Arts and Master of Education, Doctor of Ministry and Doctor of Educational Ministry) and theological research (Master of Theological Studies, Master of Theology, Master of Arts, Doctor of Theology and Doctor of Philosophy).

Now there are a number of unaccredited seminaries that offer degrees, diplomas and certificates relating to Pagan/Metaphysical theology. The bottom of the barrel is limited distances learning degrees that only offer program that lasts only a few months. The middle level is degrees that last about a year and involve a dissertation that is equal to a college freshmen thesis. I would like to note that are two metaphysical schools called the University of Philosophical Research and the Holmes Institute School of Consciousness Studies. These schools possess national accreditation with qualified faculty [6] [7]. These two schools offer masters degrees in metaphysical studies. I will refer to them down the screen.

The problem

As stated before, there are no actual ways for a hypothetical Pagan seminary could obtain regional accreditation. National accreditation is possible as there are fewer boundaries of educational standards. This gives leeway for the use of nationally accredited credentials and even unaccredited credentials. If someone had a Master of Arts degree in Science Education then said person who has a diploma from a Pagan school could create a curriculum revolving around Pagan education

Creating a degree program

• For a religious education degree, someone with an education degree could coordinate with a religious scholar to map out each religious subject into a class
• As for a general Master of Divinity, there are many Christian seminaries that have nondiscrimination policies relating to beliefs. Same applies to degrees mentioned above for general ministry.

I will continue tomorrow. I am getting tired. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References don't belong here. Just little blue number external links will do.
And for fuck's sake! Getting a degree that qualifies you as pagan priest. I'm not impressed. Fucking woo! Spud (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Pagan studies seems to be a reputable academic subject, with various universities doing courses in paganism, witchcraft, etc[8][9][10] although nobody yet seems to offer a degree in it. An excellent starting point if you want to be a qualified pagan priest. Although based on some of the people coming out of British divinity courses, where belief in God seems optional, I suspect you could more or less go to one of those, study paganism, and come out a qualified Church of England/Church of Scotland dude believing or worshipping anything you want. --Gospatric (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
So this gets sorted out and people can get degrees in magic pixie dust. wooo weee — Dysk (contribs) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Not all Pagans practice magic. No need to be rude. I am aware that you do not need a degree to be a Pagan priest, the idea is to provide extra training. I could say a thing or two about atheism but I have zero intention to do that. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Surely it's possible to do a degree in theology with a focus on paganism? — Dysk (contribs) 14:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Or... Or to study a theology... Without maybe... Needing to ascribe to said theology? I mean, we don't have to dial the theology major back a thousand years, do we? Can't you do that on your own without professors and courses dedicated to it? History majors do sometimes think Rome was the shit, but generally they are assholes who like to talk endlessly about how Rome would have done things... But if you major in History and Theology with a pagan focus, well, I don't know if you're going to be able to go to only one university anywhere for that. And why would you want to stay at home for that? Sounds like RationalZombie94 needs to do his undergrads and get a documentary or book deal. GoshDarn (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What exactly would be the raison d'être of a Master of Pagan Theology? The reason we have Christian theology degrees basically springs from mastering the necessary linguistic and analytical(‘ish) skills to discuss and define what constitutes orthodoxy in the light of the various religious scriptures in the variant Christian canons (and you could easily substitute Islam or Judaism for Christianity). I’m not sure whether Paganism has a similar “problem” in want of a “solution”. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Paganism has an even larger problem of that sort: it's based on 'folklorism', or rather, nineteenth and early twentieth century ideas about folklore. It is largely literary in origin; not only stuff like The Golden Bough (J. G. Frazer) and The White Goddess (Robert Graves) are founding texts, but also children's literature like Kipling's Puck of Pook's Hill snd Grahame's The Wind in the Willows. Sorting out the foundation texts of paganism is a fairly big field for interested scholars; Ronald Hutton has begun the work, but there's much more to do. I'd suggest a Unitarian seminary might be the best bet to find academic interest in that sort of thing. - Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷom teḱs. 20:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Inded, you could legitimately dispute whether it makes sense to talk about “paganism” in the singular, since it encompasses a wide spectrum of beliefs and traditions, even compared with the diverse traditions within, say Islam, Christianity and Judaism. This also feed into the problem that it makes little sense to have a “Pagan M. Div.”, since the common ground among various pagans is so small that a discussion of orthodoxy becomes rather pointless. So again, I’ll return to the question of what would be the raison d’être of a Pagan theology degree? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

## Conservapedia

Does Conservapedia welcome normal editors anymore? All of their regular editors simply have their pet articles which they spend their time on. I actually tried to build a bit more respectable encyclopedia. I don't care about their controversial articles. I could add to history articles, biographies, perhaps some medical stuff. But they just won't unblock me! Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

CP won't let you add respectable content to their site because they don't want respectable content. It seems to me that all of CP's actions can be easily and simply explained by the fact that they just aren't a good-faith wiki project. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Why would you ever want to edit there? Also, B A N _ E V A S I O N.127.0.0.1  (talkstalk) 02:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Uhh, that was my impression after reading Conserpedia's entries here. They're probably editing like this for a loooooooooong time now. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No. I don't mean that I will change up their POV. I would just create articles about neutral themes. The thing with them is that the editors are obsessed with non-neutral articles, and everyone has their pet themes. 1990'sguy is obsessed with Donald Trump, RobS is obsessed with "Russiagate" and "Obamagate", Ken is obsessed with Atheism and Homosexuality so this leaves a disparity between the depth and the importance of articles. For example, this is their article on an invented word, Obamunism, combining Obama and Communism. Now compare that with their article on Charlemagne. Doesn't Charlemagne deserve more attention than an invented word? But because Charlemagne is not in the interest of long time editors, no one pays much attention. That is what I offered. I could create actual encyclopedic content without altering their pet themes. Much to his credit, Karajou, did actually at one point add some encyclopedic content. Mainly concerned with Biblical history or military history. He actually studied history in a University, so that is why, but he rarely adds substantial edits now, he is content reverting trolls. So, what you are left with is a blog. Now it resembles a blog, because all most consistent editors care about, are political or religious topics where they insert their POV. So the greatest European leader and the first Holy Roman Emperor like Charlemagne doesn't get much attention, while some conservative pundit's invented word gets more attention. That was my point! Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, CP doesn't want you to add neutral wiki encyclopedia content, because they aren't that kind of wiki project. They're a blog because they want to be a blog. CP is a lost cause. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Originally it started out creating historic entries. And it was supposed to be a general encyclopedia with Christian and Conservative leaning, not a an encyclopedia concerned with conservatism only! I know Andy values being concise, but there has to be some fairness, right? I mean Charlemagne is MUCH MORE important than a word invented by conservative bloggers! And to play the devil's advocate, they have neutral articles, it's just that no long term editors care about those. Unless it is a controversial theme, between liberals and conservatives, they quickly lose interest. Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Your idea of what CP should be is very different from what CP actually is. If you try to actually improve their site, they will resist because they don't want their site to be improved. The whole thing is a circle-jerk. I feel like you could save yourself a lot of time and grief if you accepted that the whole thing is a lost cause. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) The sooner you realize that Conservapedia is a silly, stupid fucking joke, the better off you'll be. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
That is PRECISELY why I find it fun to contribute. If it was not a lost cause, I would be less interested! It keeps me distracted from my anxiety! Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
CP was founded with the express purpose of being an echo chamber. Given that fact it would actually be surprising if it hadn't ended up the way it has. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Look at wanted pages, for example. These are not really generic subjects that are inviting to a new editor to fill in the blanks to prove himself useful. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 04:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
all you edit is Russiagate timeline. That's all I see lately. Lol Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Not that it should matter to you anyway, Kingdamian1 because you're blocked there. And stop writing in all caps! Spud (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there anyone in the world who uses CP as their primary general encyclopedia? Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have to ask your CP questions here, you're in a tight spot. GoshDarn (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No. As an encyclopedia, the project was stillborn. Nobody goes there to read articles about Charlemagne or milk. They go there to read things like "Atheism and obesity" or "Bestiality and Godless Britain". Either because they're rabid right-wingers who also believe that the atheists and the gays are out to destroy the world or because they think the site is funny. And, Kingdamian1, I've just been reading Karajou's blog post about you. You see, that's what the admins there are like. Utter cunts. So why would you ever want to go back there? Spud (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here if you're curious. —Kazitor 07:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I find it odd how, after so many years, CP still comes up a fair bit on this site. Is it just that interesting, or are there still enough long-time users, or does reading through the "archives" give people enough background information to analyse it themselves, or something else? —Kazitor 07:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it may be partly because it’s still fairly easy to run into “legacy stuff” about CP here on RW, partly because CP is simply too much of a cluster fuck not to engender the kind of horrible fascination you get from watching a train wreck, and partly because CP reflects the “alternative facts” blogosphere approach that Trump has made mainstream. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I just found my absolute favorite CP article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
As a conservative, I would gladly distance myself from this nonsensical website. Conservapedia's motto should be-
 “”Welcome to Conservapedia! Drop your brain and accept any distortions we give.

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope! I'll spare you any of the long explanations.-【﻿ＤｉａｍｏｎｄＤｉｓｃ１】 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The articles on Atheism are hilariously bad. While every school of thought has some sort of extremists, Conservapedia acts like there is this "global atheist plot". At least that is how I interpret it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
cp hasnt been funny for a long time. now its just deeply unpleasant with its inherent bigotries more and more prominent. let it die. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kingdamian1, good observation. The problem for several years now (dating back roughly to the time of the Snowden leaks) is having a coherent historical narrative of these times. The deluge of mainstream fake news since about 2011 or 2012 (some say as far back as Iraqi WMD or the Truthers) is one after another false narrative has been knocked down. Information comes to us in tiny bits and pieces that, over a period of months and years, can finally be assembled into a reasonable explaination of events. Technology is outpacing not only our ability to comprehend, but laws intended to regulate. Right now, I'm just sifting and sorting information gathered over months and years to produce one sentence or paragraph of historical narrative, seeing that even Google searches on subjects from just a year ago are totally contradicted by what the same 'authorative' source says today on the same subject. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
TL;DR version of Nobs' post: "Evil left-wing fake news surrounds us!!! Only Conservapedia, the Trusworthy encyclopedia, is safe!!!" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

### Conservapedia should be renamed "Paranoia Wiki"

Who would really want to trust them? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

## Story is a few days old but....

I only just saw this. Good ol' CNN released a 'definitive' ranking of the 2020 Democratic Party candidates. Bernie Sanders was ranked #5, and was that far down because "he's white male". #1 is.... Joe Biden! I don't know about you but Biden looks suspiciously like a white male to me. CNN is worth reading for the comedic value if nothing else. --RWRW (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"1. Joe Biden: The former vice president may not seem like the perfect fit for this moment in the Democratic Party -- he's older (75), white, male, and has been in electoral politics for more than four decades. And yet, Biden has something that no other candidate in the field has. First, he's on top of early polls gauging the 2020 field. He's leading in national polls, early primary state polls and in a matchup against Trump. That's no guarantee Biden wins the nomination -- but if history holds, it's an indicator he'll be right there until the end."
You have to love people who lie through omission just to try to stir up shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I hate CNN too but don't do that attempting to prove your point RWRW. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
IOWs, the Democratic party is leaderless. Rest assured, the next nominee will be a woman, and likely a minority woman. That's how the Democratic party works. Trouble is, other than Oprah, there is no minority female figure capable of gathering a national consensus at the moment. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 19:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Nobs, I know it's difficult for you to understand the concept of "change" but please, do at least try. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

## I tend to treat "no one's talking about this" as a red flag. Is there a word for that?

The best example I can think of is how it was claimed that "no one is talking about" a net neutrality repeal on April 23rd, when the reality isn't so cut and dry. Or a meme complaining no mention about how in Saudi Arabia you need permission from your husband or father to drive when that's not quite true

There are exceptions to this "rule" obviously, but still...--DoomTay (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It's similar to "they don't want you to know" and "the X they tried to ban/put in jail". Sometimes it's genuine, because the media does have biases and blindspots. But certainly it's often the case that nobody's talking about it because it's rubbish and they don't want you to know because it's not true. (Although there's a lot of "20 secrets insurance companies don't want you to know", which may be useful although some are still untrue). And in fairness "everybody's talking about" is usually also a lie. I was going to suggest a list of red-flag phrases, but it would fill up the servers. --Gospatric (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

## I am impressed with your level of restraint

Of the 18 people who chose to answer what they were doing in light of a recent event, not one admitted to complaining! This is highly surprising. —Kazitor 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

## Joke (RW edition)

Uncle Sam is generally depicted with a goatee. I want you to think rationally!

What do you call a beard of a RationalWiki editor?

A Goatee! Goatee (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Heh. Too bad I am not beardy right now. — Dysk (contribs) 15:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Then you could have a RW-beard competition (see various displays on the net). Anna Livia (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

## Is knowledge relative?

Mostly from having read how Buddhism refers to things as relative and so it got me thinking. Something is only big relative to something else, but that doesn't make it inherently big though right? Even when it comes to our body parts where exactly is the cutoff between things like the head and the neck? Or is it in relation to other areas? IF this is the case then how can we make objective claims? From what I know all things are made of atoms, that the forms we see are just these things arranged in different structures. Yet is there really any sort of basis for us treating such things as "separate" when in fact (to quote Degrass Tyson) it's all made of star stuff?

Additionally, do what extent do these "Stories" that we create based on observation affect our reality?Machina (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge is the result of our observation of facts, facts are the result of experimentation, experimentation is how we prove theories, theories are the result of questions, and questions are what we have when we are ignorant of a particular subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Your epistemology here is a tad naive. You cannot know the results of science are valid without first accepting that the philosophy used to construct the scientific method is valid. And worse still, the hermenuetics of science innately reject accepting its current conclusions as absolute truth. It cannot be enough to go "SCIENCE!" as a solution to all epistemology. It sure is helpful though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
It's just that a recurrent theme in Eastern philosophy concerns relative knowledge of the world. I know that science has worked so far for us that way, but they like to say that such knowledge is relative. That it isn't the capital T truth and that one must go beyond that. And a few other five dollar things like "non conceptual" and "absolute reality". My question is that how can they know that such things are not relative, or if that really is the end all be all? I am reminded of the phrase "you don't know what you don't know", yet they seem to act like they do based on personal experience. The other bit about that I posted in regards to the stories we build was about that lady saying to unplug from the grand narrative, but the tale she weaves requires a leap of faith to believe. The "grand narrative" is based on our observations and testing about the world and then we give a best guess about what things are like. I doubt it's something made up that shapes our reality to the degree she says. But the relative bit does get me, because I thought science was always solid and concrete.Machina (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I see, therefore I know ~ Discount Descartes — Dysk (contribs) 20:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Truth" just like there is no such thing as "God". That type of thinking is the naive musing of people who want a magic answer to everything, and to put it simply, reality doesn't have magic answers. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Knowledge is relative, always, but when you and others agree to a standard form of making claims and backing them up, challenging them, eliminating bad ones and building on this...all in the most objective, standardised, methodical way we can to the best of our ability (critical thinking and most of the sciences) then the claims that stand up to scrutiny make quest for knowledge is a whole lot less relative, at least for those who participate in this kind of knowledge project. If several other people can all answer the question "on what basis do we evaluate claims...on what basis can I confirm or falsify this claim", give a similar answer and all of them apply that method and end up with mostly the same result...then we have less relative knowledge (contingent on accepting the principles of critical thinking and science). What makes this knowledge project attractive is its reliability, knowledge stability, predictability, practical results, knowledge applicable in every day life, standards etc. But yeah...knowledge is always, in the end, relative. ShabiDOO 22:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Makes me skeptical of that spiritual ones who claim to have the capital T truth, when really it is ultimately a belief.Machina (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This is one heck of a question, . Your question opened up with measurements and observations, you need conventions and frames of reference. But said things are not fundamental. Your height does not change if you measure it in, say, feet rather than centimeters. When solving a physics problem, you are free to pick whichever (inertial) coordinate system most convenient to you. The answer does not change. The basic laws of nature do not change with respect do locations in space or moments in time.
Objective claims are best made with careful observations and experiments, both of which must be repeated, perhaps with some variations on the theme, to check for consistency and width of validity. is correct that the scientific method is the best way to distinguish truth from falsehood. (I'm assuming you are thinking of the physical reality, so I will leave out pure mathematics.)
A word of caution, Comrade, you cannot prove a scientific theory by experiments or observations. You would need infinitely many to do so. Science does not prove; it only disproves. This is why it is essential for a scientific hypothesis, model, or theory to be able to make definite predictions that may be falsified empirically. Pseudoscience tends to keep things vague so that some minor tweaks here or there is sufficient to avoid falsification. Nerd (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd I was indeed mostly referring to physical reality. However I must disagree with you when you state that Science can only disprove, that is to say the very act of disproving a theory proves that said theory was incorrect, and thus that it was wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
That's just a logical artifact. Proving the negation of a statement is equivalent to disproving said statement. Some years ago, I would agree with you that science can both prove and disprove. But now, my understanding of scientific epistemology has improved. The highest status attained by a theoretical framework in science is "not yet disproven." That is what we mean when we say that a certain scientific theory is the best game in town for a particular field. In other words, we do not make observations or conduct experiments to prove or confirm anything, but to disprove a specific prediction made by a scientific hypothesis, model, or theory. Only by attempting to disprove something and failing can we be sure that it is an accurate representation of nature. What changed my mind? I learned about Popper falsifiability (Yes, it's one of those videos on my user page). Nerd (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd So you're saying that I'm mistaking the semantics of an argument for the argument itself? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly, no. A scientific theory is not the same thing as its negation. When constructing or extending a theoretical framework, you are working on the assumption that it is all true. When conducting an experiment or making an observation, the right way forward is trying to disprove a specific statement from the relevant framework. (Perhaps I misunderstood what you said?) Nerd (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd "That's just a logical artifact. Proving the negation of a statement is equivalent to disproving said statement." was what I was referring to in my last post. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Nobody ever talks about "negative natural selection" or "negative general relativity," only said theories. Negation of a negation is the original statement. If you try to disprove the "negative theory," you are trying to prove it, which is something Karl Popper discouraged. Nerd (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd Ah I see what you're saying. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the other aspect with relativity is sort of the "cutoff points". Where do we decide that one thing ends and one begins? If everything is made of matter which is made of atoms and smaller particles then how can we treat things with "separateness"? I recall one branch of Hinduism referring to illusion as anything that changes or is impermanent, but that is too broad and rather nonsensical to me. However I am struggling to work out how we treat objects as such when there is no "ness" to them. Kind of like taking a car apart makes it no longer a car but just parts, and so on. I guess it is relevant in terms of determining cutoff points. I do know that how atoms are arranged matters, and that genetics clearly shows that matter/atoms aren't necessarily silly putty. But still...Machina (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with what religions say. Here are the facts as we, or rather I, know them. Ordinary matter is made of atoms, yes. But atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Electrons, as far as we know, have no internal structures; in other words, they are fundamental particles. Protons and neutrons are made out of quarks, held together by gluons, carriers of the strong nuclear force. Quarks are fundamental, as far as experiments can tell us. So to answer your question, the "cutoff point" is the Standard Model of particle physics. It is analogous to the periodic table of the elements in chemistry. All non-gravitational interactions are explained by the Standard Model and gravity by general relativity. All arrows of explanations lead, eventually, to these two incredibly successful scientific theories. If you wish, you can think of them as the Grand Central Station of physics. We do not know much about dark matter and dark energy at the moment. (In case you did not know this already, there are four fundamental interactions in nature: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear.) Nerd (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

## Climate Changer deniers

Everyone and their brother knows about people who deny climate change and many will say the Earth is getting colder. Lets pretend for a moment there was something undiscovered that could cool down the Earth within the next 10-20 years (not saying its impossible), it is still climate change. There are those who state climate cannot change at all. What ever way things go, it is still climate change. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

They are confused between global warming and climate change. I prefer to use the phase "(anthropogenic) global climate change." Nerd (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Meh. It's important to realise that climate change is not a big deal, it's only the fate of our entire species and the future of the planet. Chill man. — Dysk (contribs) 19:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd is right. When you call it "global warming," it just gives the dumbass coalition an excuse to wait for it to snow in January and then say "Well, I don't see any warming here!" Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The planet itself will be fine regardless of the outcome of Climate Change. The various lifeforms dwelling on or in the planet on the other hand... yeah, not so fine. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the world will go on regardless of the fate of humanity. Nerd (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Long live the reptilians thermophiles. — Dysk (contribs) 15:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

### If a climate shift causing extreme cold occurred (A scenario)

Now who would like to change the world? Nerd (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see it all now-

Snow falls outside

Kid: Mom, are you aware that the climate is shifting

Mom: Don't worry, it is only a minor cold front.

Kid: It is July and we are in for a blizzard.

Mom: It is just a cold front. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I do hope the asteroid kills us first. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope antiscience folk grow a brain and not one split between two people. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
It intrigues me how Yanks always use months when they mean seasons and vice versa: they'll talk of "July" as a descriptor of the weather, and talk of "Summer" as the specific time something will happen. Why is that? —Kazitor 11:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a force of habit. Not sure how it all started. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, just remember that for some people, those terms mean the opposite of what you might intend :) —Kazitor 13:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
From what I know, only us Yanks do that.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Do people still debate climate change? I thought it was replaced by the nuclear warming threat? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 20:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Nuclear Warming"? I do not know how to respond to this one. Huh? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

To combat Nuclear Warming, you buy a large freezer and put the world leaders in it. — Dysk (contribs) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

## I hope we can find a non-racist connoisseur of Bigfoot erotica, because that's exactly what America needs

This guy sounded like exactly the kind of person I would vote for until I discovered that he was also a white supremacist. That's a damn shame. The politicians in Washington have spent too long ignoring the needs of the American people, and what the American people need is Bigfoot porn. My fellow Bigfoot enthusiasts and I deserve to be represented by someone who isn't a racist. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, the Republican Party ruins everything. Here's a reminder of when Bigfoot Erotica was innocent fun. --Gospatric (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't complain, start your own (search for more). Anna Livia (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh! I thought those would be links about starting to write your own Bigfoot erotica. Spud (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So if the racist label don't stick, you switch to 'devotee of Bigfoot erotica'. That's a new one for the playbook. nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 21:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
'Try 'AO3 Bigfoot' (if you are so inclined) - every flavour you can imagine (and some you would not until you read it). Anna Livia (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

## When homophobic bigots will use their kids to harass other kids with gay parents

I know there are kids who are manipulated into bullying others with gay parents. Here is my point- If someone is gay and or has gay parents, it is none of their business. Do homophobes have nothing better to do than harass gay people or kids with gay parents? Seriously, it is none of their business unless someone wants to hook up with a gay person. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Homophobes are just sad people with maybe their own sexual insecurities. Of course they have better things to do, they just have a rancid moral outlook on life. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

## Graphs from science papers: fair use?

Say I have found a science paper, and in that paper(and also in the press release for the paper), there's a really informative graph that would supplement information on one of our articles. Everyone who's pretended to read our fair use page knows that "educational purposes" is a valid fair use criteria. Do you think transcribing an informational graph that was originally designed to provide educational value would have a valid exemption? I'd prefer to discuss this question purely in the hypothetical, but here's the graphic I'm considering in this case if context matters a lot. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If the graph was originally intended for educating others, and wasn't say, private information about the finances of a company, then I'm fairly certain it falls under fair use. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I would assume it is fair use but cite the original paper and author. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The {[fairuse}} template already requires that, I'll make sure to also cite the paper on the page it's included on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you either ask the authors for permission, or make the graph yourself based on the data in the paper (if that's not itself a copyright violation)? —Kazitor 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I know for doctoral dissertations you can cite other works as part of research. While this is not the best source (Liberty University) but it is an example- https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1636/ --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You might also check to see who paid for the research, which is usually stated in fine print in the article. If the US government exclusively paid for it, it's in the public domain regardless of what the journal may claim. Bongolian (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

## Biological weapons designed to kill non-whites, is it possible (Not that I want it to be)?

I have heard of the concept of an ethnic biological weapon in the science fiction novel The Dragon Factory by Jonathan Maberry. As twisted and fucked up it is, would someone be able to tailor a virus to mostly affect certain races? I know it is mainly science fiction. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really, though it would be easier to make one that targeted Europeans than Africans. Africa is where we're ultimately all from, so genetic diversity there is maximized. Western Europe is pretty samey by contrast.[11] In less diverse and isolated populations like the Americas and Australia, something of the kind already happened when smallpox and measles were introduced to microbiologically naive populations. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷom teḱs. 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Short answer: yes, but it'd not be especially effective at that goal.
Longer answer there's a one reason why it's sort of possible, and a bunch why it'd suck at it
It could be sorta barely done because some very specific ancestries of human beings have higher frequencies of SNPs that produce chemically distinct cell receptors. With near-future sci fi technology, you could probably simulate protein folding enough to find a protein coat for a virus that would target these receptors selectively.
So now for why it'd suck
1. The highly specific protein coat we're talking about would almost certainly be easy to target antibodies for. Regular old immune systems would be able to kick its ass unlike viruses that evolved for literal eons to dodge immune responses. That goes double for making a vaccine, if this virus was released without the explicit help of the medical community.
2. "non-white" isn't really a thing. There's no way to describe that subset of people biologically, much less target them genetically. I'd imagine with a great deal of certainty, but cannot prove there's no receptors "missing" selectively from white people. You could kill most of specific non-white ethnic group, statistically, and get some white people with the same vector.
3. Any specifically structured virus like that is probably not going to be especially good at spreading airborne. Since it's all conjecture about protein folding, I suppose we could conjecture it also copies the adaptations of influenza and some cold viruses towards targeting the lungs. But as virus complexity increases, this becomes harder for it to do.
4. Viruses don't actually "want" to be lethal. That doesn't maximize their spread. A very deadly virus can actually be controlled very well with quarantine unless it's a "sneaky" "long term" retrovirus like HIV. And then it's not wiping out your "targets" but making their lives harder and more miserable. The super deadly bioweapon versions of bacteria(not viruses) that are bred in labs are basically designed to go crazy overdrive on producing toxins, and are designed to bred en mass then spread by people, not naturally spread through a population like an epidemic.
5. And of course, if you're microtargetting a single receptor, good old evolution will make the virus more adaptable by cutting the coat design to be more flexible in targeting multiple receptors within a single victim, and from there, you're affecting white people again.
In conclusion, I think the practical science is pretty far-fetched. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. A virus that kills everyone would be effective at killing non-whites. And whites. Omnicide is the solution to everything, as my Parli team figures. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Given how globalized and diverse Western societies are, Thanos-snapping away all "non white people" would cause enormous levels of economic and societal chaos, especially to the US. And God help you if any significant number of people in other countries survive the virus. That might actually be an interesting backstory for a far-fetched dystopia novel. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Are Slavs white? I heard they are green from eating too much cabbage? nobsI survived a vast leftwing conspiracy 20:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Does no one remember the camelpox bioweapon developed by Iraqis who had a ntural immunity to camelpox to wipe out everyone else? (not that Iraq ever had any WMD's so it was probably bollocks) — Dysk (contribs) 20:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
(Psst. "Natural immunity" in this case refers not to anything genetic, but a pseudo-vaccination from regionally endemic disease. It has nothing to do with race, except inasmuch as the concept of race overlaps the concept of national origin.) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Given the genetic diversity of most populations (in the northern parts of England there are people who have genetic markers from soldiers from the other end of the Roman Empire, and a significant part of the population of Asia, and probably even beyond) is a relative of Genghis Khan) etc) would make it difficult. Even if specific genes/combinations thereof are targeted (lactose tolerance?) they can arise again - the Queen Victoria syndrome.
The question is - why would 'someone' wish to do this? Anna Livia (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thet're either extremely racist or extremely bored. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I would not want that to actually happen. I read it in a science fiction novel and there is an actual Wikipedia article on it- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's probably a valid topic for a RW article, especially with some of the conspiracy theories about Israel developing weapons that would target Arabs but not Jews.[12] A "white dog", as featured in the Sam Fuller film, is a much more low-tech ethnic weapon[13], and again may or may not be mythical. --Gospatric (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
For completeness purposes, a weapon of that type appears also on "Titan", a sci-fi novel of Stephen Baxter, targeting Han Chinese (and just that ethnicity). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

## Is RationalWiki an Encyclopedia?

Well, RW states that it is not an encyclopedia. But there are several things about this. Encyclopedia is a compendium that gives information about several topics. RationalWiki does this. It has information about countries, it includes biographies, historical events etc. Additionally, RW has vereifiability rules. And articles that are rated higher, typically do provide information. Wikipedia includes RW as an online Encyclopedia. What do you say? Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The intention of rationalwiki is not to provide comprehensive information about all subjects, but, if I may paraphrase our mission with a great deal of liberty, rebut broad classes of misinformation. We have supporting articles that elucidate on concepts that are helpful for that end but focus on directly discussing the pseudoscience, propoganda, and bullshit.
The "We're not an encylopedia" point isn't about accurately categorizing our content, but helping shape what content we don't want that detract from a broader mission. Sincerely, if you just want to inform, go to wikipedia. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Although we provide factual information (or fact-based opinions/analyses), RW isn't an encyclopedia because it covers only a narrow set of topics. 19:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Encyclopedia can be covering specific topics. RW is a reference work, that has information on a lot of things, with a specific focus. I believe that meets the definition of an Encyclopedia. Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Then, per your definition, Snopes and PolitiFact are both encyclopedias. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not my definition. No! Fact checking websites are NOT encyclopedias. Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Why not? Both cover a broad set of topics, both cite sources for their claims, and Snopes at least covers Biographies and historical events. How do they fail to meet your definition? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Why do you insist that it is my definition? Snopes is a fact checking website. It documents CLAIMS, and tries debunking them. RationalWiki is an encyclopedia with a SKEPTIC focus. So it is not a fact checking website. Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What difference does it make in the slightest? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you treat it like an encyclopedia, then you can start treating depth and technical correctness as a higher priority. Personally, those are not priorities I value. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not how I treat it. It's how it is. Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
We're undeniably not a general encyclopedia because we don't accept articles on everything and anything. But you certainly can get encyclopedias that have a much narrower focus and don't have articles on anything and everything. Like The Junior Colour Encyclopedia of Space. I would, however, expect encyclopedia articles to have a neutral point of view or at least try to be fair and balanced. That's not something we have to do here. The way I see it, claiming not to be an encyclopedia lays us open to a lot less potential criticism than claiming to be an encyclopedia would. And we get enough well-meaning newcomers trying to improve articles by removing opinons and trying to make articles unbiased whose work then has to be undone. It would be even worse if we claimed to be an encyclopedia.
But if you think this site is an encyclopedia, fine. You can think that. It really makes fuck all difference and i think it's a fucking stupid thing to try to start an argument about.
And stop writing in all caps. Spud (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You wouldn't expect an encyclopedia like Britannica to include Category:Essays, and you probably wouldn't even buy that volume from a travelling encyclopedia salesman. Although god knows Wikipedia has enough tedious essays too. --Gospatric (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Entry for 2018-08-01 I know Adams is a "questioner" of climate change, but what exactly is he actually trying to say here? —Kazitor 05:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. When the clever Dilbert says, "Some say climate change will get it done", what he really means is "no". That's because he's smart enough to know that climate change is not real. But Dilbert also knows that his pointy-haired boss is an idiot. That means that his boss believes in climate change and will interpret Dilbert's remark as meaning "yes". What a shit strip! Spud (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
But no. Dilbert is saying that the only way to solve the bug is for humans to stop being racist, sexist, idiots. He is proposing that the extinction of humanity might fix this. His boss will have no idea what he is saying as normal.
Dilbert is pretty suicidal and the strip is quite dark and cynical, joking about the end of the world is fine. Adams is a questioner of climate change, which is why it is phrased as "some say" rather than as a definite.
— Dysk (contribs) 10:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
What Dysklyver said is what I thought at first, but it seemed/seems odd to me. I'm still not really sure, but thanks anyway @Spud and Dysklyver. —Kazitor 11:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Dysklyver probably got it right. There must be a better way to indirectly say, "This problem will only go away if all humanity goes extinct" that still sounds clever but is a bit more readily understandable that Scott Adams could have used instead. Spud (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
What was 'the sum of all opinions bot' on whichever social media that was shut down for behaving as described in this strip? Anna Livia (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Microsoft Tay suffered that fate, more through targeted training by 4chan neonazi shits than the internet in general being bad. (The internet in general is very bad though). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

## American Exceptionalism

Why is American exceptionalism seen as a "conservative thing"? Isn't it factual that Americas history and USA in general is different from others? Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you see liberal or centrist networks constantly talk about how amazing their country. Additionally, nationalism (which American exceptionalism is) is irrational loyalty for the country and comes with conservative. Your last statement needs some 'splaining. What exactly do you mean "is different from others" and how does that exactly translate to "better"? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The U.S. is one of the few advanced nations on Earth where you have the right to be shot by gun wielding maniacs (who have a God-given right to those guns!!!) and die from the wounds because you can't afford healthcare (those private companies have a right to prioritize profits over your life goddammit!!!). There, that's how the U.S. is different. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Now hang on, they're not maniacs, they just work in mysterious ways.Kazitor 01:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Liberal Americans have been keener to see their country participate in international bodies, agreements, peacekeeping, etc, such as the UN, international criminal court, climate change agreements, etc, which embody the view that the US should be treated the same as other nations and should abide by international norms and laws. Conservatives are more likely to believe that the US should do what it likes without regard for international opinion, the rule of law, etc (George W Bush's presidency being particularly notable, but Nixon and Kissinger indifferent to morality). There are exceptions, with Reagan a convert to multilateralism and Obama fond of extrajudicial executions, but that's the general trend. --Annanoon (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
American Exceptionalism does not mean "America is different from other countries" it is just a nice name put on an arbitrarily large number of double standards for how countries may act. Special pleading applied to invasions and tax policy and torture. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Americans exceptionalism may not mean "unique" but we have to admit the USA is very unique. All you have to do is compare Canada with the USA and you'll see how exceptional the USA is. America started with a violent revolution and civil war with a constitution was drawn up by idealistic intellectuals afraid of tyranny annexing new states. Canada pecefully emerged through devolved rights from the UK. Very different.
Social mobility, economic innovation, national parks, free speech, mass immigration, equality written in law and secularism (for a while) were virtually done first by Americans (in modern times...not the slave times). It was the first modern cultural powerhouse and still is. It is the worlds only superpower. All of this was exceptional, is exceptional and will be exceptional for some time.
In the 1st world, only the USA has a war on drugs, no universal healthcare, homeless people with no government support, walk out of a shop with a gun, government paranoia, two party state, death penalty (Japan also), unlimited corporate donations to parties, no university tuition limit, never ending election cycle, a powerful senate. There isn't another country in the world in modern times that has been as exceptional as this and it's likely the USA will be exceptional for a long time to come. It's a pity the not so good exceptional qualities are forgotten by hyper patriotic folk. ShabiDOO 21:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, each and every country is different and special in its own way, much like each species has its own ecological niche. Wikipedia has a better article that goes into the history of that term. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Nerd. But in this case, on the questions of Medicare, execution, welfare, corporate donation, university tuition, ease of gun purchase, two party system (all very important policies) we are talking about every single Western developed democracy plus Japan/S.Korea/Singapore/Tailand which comes to about 50 countries doing it one way and the United States doing the other. It isn't different governments doing their different things, it's one country having an exceptional difference to all the other in significant areas of goverment policy. I never directly said it is a good or bad thing...I only pointed out that on many important topics America is exceptional and that there is no other western country that is as exceptional on as many topics as America is. I agree with the different strokes argument...but America is still exceptional...that's all. Judge it how you like. ShabiDOO 02:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Singapore sentences people to death for carrying tiny amounts of illegal drugs (by hanging). Switzerland asks people to vote on all kinds of things, including whether or not to purchase new fighter jets (the JAS Gripen-39) to replacing some aging ones (F-5 Freedom Fighter). Nerd (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Being different does not necessary mean being better. That's like comparing apples to oranges. Being a constitutional monarchy works for the U.K., but not for the U.S. And the people on each side of the North Atlantic are perfectly fine with it. Is an F-15E Strike Eagle better than an SR-71 Blackbird? Different planes for different missions. Different governments with different philosophies. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I never said otherwise. All of what you said may be true...but America is still exceptional. Is that a good or bad thing is a different question. I personally mourn for the number of Americans who suffer because of these policies but again, that's a totally different argument. As I noted earlier...some of Americas policy after a period of being the only country to do it followed by every other western country adopting them after America's lead...which shows that other's don't consider all of American exceptionalism a bad thing...which I totally agree with. ShabiDOO 02:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe in self-determination. Americans get to decide how they want to run their country. A certain Quora user whom I admire put it best. When some European criticizes America as being "backwards", what that person really means is that America is not like Europe. This brings up all sorts of issues. Why should America be more like Europe? In what way? Also, like I mentioned above, what works for one country does not necessary work in another. There is no way the U.S. can successfully ban addictive drugs the way Singapore does. Drugs come from Mexico and the countries further South. Singapore is an island an city-state, where it is easy to control what comes in and what comes out.
Here's another gem I found on Quora. A key difference between U.S. and European politics is that the former focuses on individual freedom to do things while the latter freedom from things. The two need not be mutually exclusive. You can have the unalienable right to own a firearm as a responsible member of a well-regulated militia and the freedom from medical bankruptcy. A comedian once said, "The Internet is where critical thinking comes to die." Hence the wild nonsense one sees on the Internet propagated by idiots, sitting on an armchair thinking they are the experts, yet behaving like edgy teenagers. Well-educated and well-informed people are a lot less likely to have extreme opinions. Only ignoramuses would think the U.S. should become another Europe. Nerd (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd There's a theory about that last part. The US is exceptional because, for better or for worse, it has an exceptional history. America broke free from a colonial power and justified that act with the concept of liberty from tyranny. These ideals permeated the American population; our first attempt at building a government was damn near anarchist. But even the Constitution itself and the ideas that built it are built on a fundamental distrust of government. That became the American national identity. We don't have as many social programs and economic regulations as Europe, because we don't trust the government with economic power the way Europeans do. Americans love individualism because the alternative is increased collectivism, which we view as tyranny (especially after spending half a century tussling with the Soviets). And I'm betting this is why American society is more aggressive than in Europe as well. Individualism means you need to shoulder a lot of your own burden of self-defense; this was especially true in the 17-1800s. More freedom included more freedom to be violent. Compare that to Europe, where the population has been disarmed for centuries and governments have always been larger, more protective, and more controlling. That's the theory I subscribe to, at any rate. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 05:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing. I share your views completely. Nerd (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Killing enemy combatants counts as "extrajudicial executions"? Yeah, let's put U.S. service members in unnecessary danger just to apprehend some guys who would blow themselves up if it means they could kill some Americans. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
So why don't US police forces use drones to kill suspected criminals? It's not because police officers are never at risk while apprehending suspects, but because it's considered unconstitutional and an affront to the rule of law, at least domestically, but foreigners don't get rights. I'd question whether a drone program that antagonises America's allies and offers a propaganda victory for America's enemies is really making anybody safer.[14][15] So yes drone strikes are the quintessence of American exceptionalism. --Annanoon (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's a false equivalence. Criminal suspects are not enemy combatants. The U.S. is not a battlefield. About those links, of course it's Pakistan, the very country that houses Osama bin Laden. Nerd (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, people living in poverty in the U.S. do have some government support, namely Medicaid, food stamps, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The problem is that such support is insufficient, not that it is non-existent. Nerd (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Why are people trying to be deliberately obtuse. United States is a superpower nowadays. There is a reason the whole world monitors its elections. And it is considered the leader of the free world. Most military actions are either initiated or approved by the United States. This isn't a conservative or a liberal thing. Just factual. Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is not easy to be nuanced. Things are rarely as simple as they seem. People of all political stripes can be intolerant of other groups. I find it funny that many criticisms of the U.S. — not just on the Internet but also in real life — are either Anglo-, Euro- or U.S.-centric. Have you actually been outside of the E.U. (including the U.K.) or the U.S., Mr./Ms. Critic? America is "behind" because it does not have (as many) high-speed railways as some other countries? Really? I guess Iceland, Canada, Singapore, and Australia are backwards, too, eh? (Cough, cough, geography, socioeconomic development, and population distribution.) More or faster is not necessarily better. And no, you don't need a maglev train to go for 30.5 km from the airport to the downtown area. Talk about a white elephant. America is a "Third World" country. Yes, but not in the sense you intended. "Third World" could mean non-aligned in the Cold War. That means parts of the U.S. look like Switzerland in the winter. I could go on. America-bashing is lame. People need to bring in more facts before they criticize something or someone. Nerd (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Forgot this. Whenever there is a major natural disaster somewhere, people look to American for humanitarian assistance because chances are, she will provide substantially. The U.S. Navy patrols the high seas so that international commerce can thrive. We now have fewer wars than ever before in human history, thanks to U.S. and allied military actions. The U.S. is a leader in multiple fields, from renewable energy to supercomputing. Pax Americana is a beautiful thing. Long may it last! Having said that, I think the U.S. government should focus more on domestic issues, and there are many that need urgent attention, such as aging infrastructure. Nerd (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
American hegemonic power (combined with nuclear peace theory) has done an exceptional job of preventing the kinds of great power conflicts that plagued the world for most of its history. But I also think that we as a country need to accept that American leadership cannot and should not attempt to prevent and intervene in all wars. The point where we have soldiers dying in west Africa is the point where I think the US should step back and realize it has its hands in a few too many pies. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 05:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I would not be so assertive when it comes to military operations, since the people in charge clearly have more information than we do. French and U.S. forces have been conducting counter-terrorism operations in Africa for a while now, but without much media coverage, as they should. But I agree that the U.S. should avoid overstretching herself. She should also refrain from unilateralism, extraterrestrial application of domestic law and signing free trade agreements of dubious value to American workers. Nerd (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd when you say earlier 'Killing enemy combatants counts as "extrajudicial executions"?' do you mean drone strikes? the documentary 'dirty war' suggests that the war on terror and drone strikes specifically creates more terrorists than it kills. (im in no way qualified to comment on the veracity of that film. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Not necessary drone strikes, but also special forces raids, sniping, artillery bombardments, fire fights, and other means of eliminating an enemy combatant. Nerd (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Historically the phrase "American exceptionalism" originated with Stalin. During the Cold War America's mainstream left-leaning politicians tended to distance themselves from political views of the USSR. MrEricSir (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
As they should. But now that the Cold War is over and social democracy is becoming increasingly popular in the U.S., they should focus on educating the public on the differences between social democracy and socialism. One system works quite well; the other is an abject failure. Nerd (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
There are many, many people who don't understand the difference between government models and economic models because of propaganda, which might be a Cold War holdover. Raise the children on anti-socialism propaganda, it becomes legendary canon by the next generation. Now socialism and communism mean the same thing to a lot of people who don't even accept that Russia was our ally in WWII and our enemy in the cold war without direct citations. Literally, people think we were also fighting Russia in WWII which is why we don't like them. We don't like them for reasons that pre and post-dated WWII. But that's history, which is boring. Let's talk about the US getting things wrong right this second.
I think the best example for 'Murica not understanding the difference between socialism and a socialist democracy is how US loves Medicaid (https://www.kff.org/medicaid/poll-finding/data-note-10-charts-about-public-opinion-on-medicaid/ or at least doesn't much openly dislike it), which runs on a socialist model. Meanwhile Obamacare runs on a government-subsidized private insurance capitalist model, and people argue about it only because it was originally Romneycare but now it has a Democrat's name in front of it. We've got our whole country confused, because everyone is supposed to have private insurance whether we pay for it or the government does, but we still pay the high cost deductible for our plans out of pocket and an ambulance ride still costs more than a week of wages for most people.
So the church coffee circles (here comes the poe, because they do talk like this) are still convinced socialism is for Nazis, and we love our Medicaid but it can't be for everyone because the poorest of the poor are not paying the same dollar amount of taxes as the richest of the rich, and we'd sure hate for one poor jackass thug to get a free life-saving ambulance ridge because ambulance rides are so expensive, and Janet who can't even break even at the donation center needs that ambulance ride for her diabetes comas. We'll chip in for that because it's Janet, but everyone paying for everyone is what Hitler would have wanted.
It's a not-even-wrong situation. I'd say US health-care policies are like corporate socialism, just a bunch of regulations forcing people into unfair markets and using tax dollars to cover whatever the private sector says is lost profit. And that's the only way it will ever be heard out. American Exceptionalism is just shallow nationalism that nobody is allowed to argue with. Like, "I don't want a dollar of my money going to welfare" / "Poor people are Americans too" / "Well then they should take advantage of what America offers them" / "Society doesn't work that way" / "You talking shit on yourself right now, American?" / "No, I love America." / "Me too, conversation over." GoshDarn (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Every country is exceptional - no 2 are alike - the term "American Exceptionalism" has come to mean more than just America being different from others tho - it is now a dog-whistle term that means (to me at least several thousand miles away) that the person using the concept thinks they are somehow better human beings and deserving of more than anyone else, that the US is allowed to do things that other countries are not, or shouldn't be held to standards that other countries are, etc. Aloysius the Gaul 23:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)