RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive296

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 16 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>
, (new)(back)

Against Jesus Mythicists[edit]

Thread moved from here to Talk:Jesus myth theory by Dysklyver

One of the biggest political myths[edit]

ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISCONCEPTIONS in the world is that Patriotism and Nationalism are opposites, or that Nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism. This is BULLSHIT. Nationalism is an IDEOLOGY, patriotism is a feeling. I am a Serbian nationalist, BECAUSE I support the cultural unity, and the sovereignty of Serbs. BUT I AM NOT a Serbian patriot because I have never been there and have not developed this feeling of patriotism. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

If you support ethnic cleansing in Bosnia you can fuck right off. Avida Dollarsher again 12:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
this isnt a misconception anyone was making, fucknut AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The real misconception is that Nationalism is the source of all evilsTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
No. Stop, examine the criticisms of your ideology and actually think them over. Stop these bullcrap knee-jerk posts. Someone has criticized your ideology. What do those criticisms consist of? What points do they make? What are the implications of those points? Are you perchance at odds with your own ideology on certain issues? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not a fan of nationalism in the sense of all other countries are evil. Not that sort of thing. Now Patriotism I support. You can stand for your country but recognize any faults the country may have. I know the United States has it's problems but what country does not have some kind of problem? Now I do support adding term limits on politicians. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's post seems to be a reaction to Emmanuel Macron's Veterans/V-E Day speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/to-mark-end-of-world-war-i-frances-macron-denounces-nationalism-as-a-betrayal-of-patriotism/2018/11/11/aab65aa4-e1ec-11e8-ba30-a7ded04d8fac_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a3c810df79e3 pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kingdamian1 How many times do you have to be told? Knock off the bloody all caps. Spud (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never understood how other people often view patriotism as unyielding admiration and pride for one's country - to me there is no greater devotion or civic responsibility than to be honest of your country's problems, measure their scope and qualities, and dedicate the effort needed to surpass them. The continued pursuit of excellence in all things, to strive for what is greater, to look for new heights is to me a greater love for one's country akin to a parent wanting their child to have a better life than they have.

Looking upon the past as a golden age instead of looking to the future as a golden age yet to come, one which challenges us and provides new opportunity for achievement is sad. Eponymous (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That is patriotism to me and I have no problem with it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Nationalism is supporting your culture; patriotism is supporting your regime. Hence we speak of Arab nationalism for example, but few Arabs support the regimes they live under.
Some forms of identity politics are built on nationalism. Black History Month for example, is a celebration of Black nationalism. RobSmithGrab 'em by the nob! Nobs for Mod! 06:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Black History Month is stupid, just like Morgan freeman saidTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
What a rat's nest. It's not a misconception that nationalism and patriotism are different things. So, shit, cool everything, Rob and Dark are not on point. I only have to refute Rob to leave dark out, so here goes.
There is no difference between patriotism and nationalism. Both can exist at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. There is, in the statistics world, a number of people who poll a certain way when asked. But you are missing that in the poll, the problem boils down to each sovereign state. So go be sovereign citizens, if you don't like the poll and have your own definition. I can help you woth your official tax wordage for $50 a skype session. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

An apology[edit]

I went and made a user page on a guy I didn't agree with. I posted on his user page instead of his talk page. I barely remember this because I was drunk and upset when I did it.

The wiki record is very clear. I was out of line, denied it, and it took me some time to realize that I screwed up. I have some pent up frustrations and anger that I tend to funnel into boards. I also have some very real emotions that I cannot express anywhere else. I am sorry for dumping here like it doesn't matter.

I didn't believe I did, but I have been drinking lately, and I checked up on my activity. Turns out I've misplaced some anger and frustration here, and I'm embarrassed about that.

I will try harder to respect userspace, because I always wanted that respect myself, and I have not always got that. I will go to the talk page if I have criticisms of a user. I will use a more epistemological approach before I go smacking anybody down.

I'm sorry, I did the bad thing. I was too cool for school. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It's good of you to say that, and it takes guts to apologise. However, don't agonise too much about it, as on a wiki anything that's done can be undone. Avida Dollarsher again 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Not so sure about that... here on RW moderators have told me about "reputation" many times. -Lankaster (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Avida Dollars: That's true, don't agonize over it. I believe you just made a mistake, and I'm just going to easily overlook that sort of stuff in the future.
Lankaster: Scuse me but you're a whole 'nother matter and try not dragging drama around as you've just done. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
If I cared about reputation, I'd probably remember my password. I come here to enjoy myself, to read a rational slant on things I'm not ready to speak about, and I guess also to not be an asshole. That last one is on me. If I want the other two to continue, I can't snipe trolls. I mean, I can do it other places if I'm that into it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been caught! Hahaha, I don't know how to undo this, undo it at your leisure, what a world. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You are made of stardust[edit]

I think I remember Neil Degrass Tyson making a remark about that on Cosmos or something. It seems easy to understand, I guess, since everything in the universe is made up of the same base atoms. But then I wonder if people jump to that onto "you are the universe" or how the sense of separate and independent things is just an illusion. My guess is that (just to illustrate) that the universe is clay and despite all the different forms it might take it's still just clay and not separate from anything else. That what you mistake to be another object is just the universe, aka clay in this case. It just came into my mind one day when he said that and from what I read in other Eastern philosophy, wanted to see if there was anything to it.Machina (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. If you remember what you learned in general physics and chemistry, the atom is the basic unit of ordinary matter. (Don't bother with the more exotic varieties for now.) But there are different kinds of atoms; the periodic table now has over 100 elements. The claim that someone is the Universe just because he or she is made out of the same ingredients makes as much sense as saying you are an ant because your are a carbon-based life-form. Different things can be made from the same building blocks. I understand that some people, such as yourself, find philosophy interesting. However, if you want to truly understand how the Universe works, I recommend studying the physical sciences. Key to science is empiricism, or comparing models, hypotheses, and theories with experiments and observations, and eliminating or refining them accordingly. Nerd (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Machina: When deGrasse says "You are made of stardust" he's referring to how a lot of the atoms in our body were forged into their current forms within stars and supernovae. He tends to ignore hydrogen when explaining his statement, though some of it could've been part of a star at some point, so I suppose I can let it slide. (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd: Ants are colonies of specialized cells, just like us. Where's the difference? ;) (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Ants have tiny brains. — Dysk (contribs) 10:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually Ants may have bigger brains than some politicians, so there isn't much difference. — Dysk (contribs) 13:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Ants have different biology from humans. Nerd (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
And some of the dust you see floating in the air is fragments of dinosaur hair/feathers. Anna Livia (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A novel I am writing: This is the beginning, tell me what you think[edit]

Chapter 1:

Romney Edwards returned home after a week long engineering conference in Alaska. The trip was uneventful. It was the middle of the day, Romney expected to see his life partner and children. They were nowhere to be found. Timothy’s car was still in the driveway and their children's coats were still on the rack. Even their shoes were still in place. Romney knew they were not on a walk, it was the dead of winter and snow covered the ground.

Looking around the house Romney found no signs of forced entry. In the dining room there was three day old Macaroni and cheese on the table. It was lunch. Something was horribly wrong here. There was no scrap of evidence to show that Romney's family even left the fucking house!

The bedrooms were completely empty. Romney was now completely terrified. Then he heard an almost demonic voice in his head along with the agonising cries of his family. Romney crossed himself and said a Hail Mary. Then the demonic voice said as clear as day,

“God won't save you or your family. Timothy and your kids are now my family”.

Romney grabbed his bottle of holy water and crucifix. He was no priest but Romney would force the probable demon to talk and possibly find his family. Romney shouted as he splattered holy water,

“Demon! Spawn of Satan! Tell me where my family is! In the name of Christ Jesus”!

The voice just laughed,

“You are correct on one thing Romney, I am a demon. I will tell you though that Satan is not real”.

Romney froze for a second, fear stabbed him like a burning knife. Then Romney said with bravery,

“Lord God, dispel the darkness from this room and protect me from the night”.

The demon found this to be completely amusing. It made a decision though. This choice was part of the demon’s plan so it would work out. The demon stated while pretending to be terrified,

“Okay Romney, God is forcing me to give back your family”.

Out of the shadows Timothy and the four children came back. At first Romney was completely happy until he noticed that they were covered in bites and blood. Each family member had a horrifying smile. Timothy and the kids attacked Romney then consumed his flesh. Things got worse when the mutilated Romney stood up. Romney and his family went out into the daylight seeking people to consume.

What do you think? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No offense but like what the hell. The supernatural elements came right the fuck out of nowhere. You also need much more exposition than this. Conflict built up far too quickly. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence and paragraph don't really grab my attention. Romney seems way to quick to jump to the conclusion that he's talking to a demon. His reactions go from 0 to 100 in a way that's awkward and unintentionally amusing. The main problem here is that things escalate too quickly, especially near the end. Also, the third to last paragraph is awkward exposition that should be shown to us through the demon's reactions, not told to us with flat prose. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That swear in "There was no scrap of evidence to show that Romney's family even left the fucking house!" is jarring and makes the story look corny and not something to be taken seriously. You probably shouldn't include such vulgar language if you're writing from third person and you expect people to be scared or otherwise take it as serious prose. Leave it to comedy and the first-person. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive criticism. I never got that when I would show my work to teachers in high school. They would say it was good without any critique. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Funnily enough, at high school, my creative writing teacher (who can be tough on critiques as well) makes me known for my harsh criticisms on other students work. She was like, "[BLOF] would be like, THIS SUCKS." while also saying "[BLOF] is probably the smartest person in here." БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I revised my work[edit]

Chapter 1:

Romney Edwards returned home after a week long engineering conference in Alaska. The trip was uneventful. It was the middle of the day, Romney expected to see his life partner and children. Something was off. At first Romney was not overly concerned. He heard the television playing shows from Cartoon Network. Romney's children would watch Cartoon Network often. He saw an open romance novel on the coffee table, Timothy kept his romance novels on that table. Things seemed way off without question. Romney called out for Timothy or the children. No answer just silence.

They were nowhere to be found. Timothy’s car was still in the driveway and their children's coats were still on the rack. Even their shoes were still in place. Romney knew they were not on a walk, it was the dead of winter and snow covered the ground. Looking around the house Romney found no signs of forced entry. In the dining room there was three day old Macaroni and cheese on the table. It was lunch. Something was horribly wrong here. Romney continued to call out their names. Still no response.

The bedrooms were completely empty. Romney pulled out his smartphone to call the police. It was simply to mention that he could not find his family. After the call Romney had to wait 20 minutes for an officer to arrive. In the meantime Romney took some aspirin for a headache he suddenly developed. He figured it was just a tension headache.

Waiting for the police to show up seemed to take an eternity. A wave of pain rippled through Romney's head. Every single nerve hurt like crazy. The pain continued. When the police showed up, Romney let the officers in. After introductions the tall Hispanic cop, Officer Elroy Hernandez stated,

“You say your husband and four children went missing, yet there is no evidence that they ever left. The car is in the same place. However, we didn't see the coats on the coat rack. The shoes are gone and there were five sets of footprints in the yard that led to the sidewalk. Mister Edwards, there is nothing out of the ordinary”.

The average sized French looking officer, Kyle Le Pine added,

“Sir, it seems that you have not slept in days. Have a nice day and get some rest”.

The police left. Romney now had no clue as to his next course of action. Walking through the house he noticed that the coats and shoes were indeed gone. But the footprints in the snow led to the garage and not the sidewalk. This whole thing made no sense. Romney went to his neighbors house to ask if they saw anything. He knocked on the door of Franklin Marshall’s house.

Franklin opened the door and Romney asked,

“Franklin, have you seen my family”?

Confused, Franklin asked Romney,

“What are you talking about? I was over at your house two hours ago. I was fixing your broken water pipe. Then me and Timothy talked about last night's basketball game at Lansing Christian College. Our boys at the Community College beat them”.

Romney said with sheer panic in his voice,

“I cannot find them anywhere. They are gone and the cops told me something completely different”.

With a very heavy sigh Franklin said,

“Your husband and kids are playing outside in the yard right now. I don't know what the Hell you are talking about”.

With that Franklin shut the door. Romney saw the rotting lunch on the dining room table. Going back to the house Romney saw the three day old lunch. That was there for sure. He left everything in place in hopes of figuring this mystery out. Romney was now desperate. Everything contradicted each other.

Around 6:30 p.m. Romney heard some sort of murmur from the kitchen. At least it seemed like the kitchen. In the kitchen Romney heard the murmur again but it the noise now came from the laundry room. He went into the laundry room but the murmur now came from the den. This time Romney was not going to search for the murmur. The headache was not helping.

Back in the living room Romney collapsed onto the sofa. The intense agony robbed him of his energy. Waking up, Romney noticed that the murmur began to sound like a voice of sorts. It didn't sound human. He was not even sure if it was a voice.

Outside the sun rose. Romney had been up for a few hours but unsurprisingly there was still no sign of anybody. The neighbors just left for work. So he could not contact them. Romney was finally out of ideas. Then the murmur came back, moments later it became an articulated voice. This strange voice stated in an insulating manor,

“Your husband, your three girls and boy joined my family. How about you join us? We had some raw dog flesh for breakfast. Yummy”.

Now this was completely absurd. This all had to be one long, night terror. It was the most logical explanation. Yes, it made much more sense. Romney would just have to wake up. As for when he got off the couch, it was a dream within a dream. Not one piece of these events were real.

The voice came back, it was laughing. Romney told the voice,

“I am real. I only am manipulating your reality as part of my plan. That is all I will say about it”.

Romney laughed himself. That voice was not real. He was in a deep sleep. He grabbed a beer and switched the television to the news. The screen flickers until static was on. Nice.

The voice then said,

“Idiot, ignoring me will not make me leave. How about listening to your family”.

A symphony of voices filled Romney's head. It was the voices of Romney's family. The sense of relief was gone. Now panic was back. All the original feelings were back along with panic. Unnatural laughter was everywhere. Romney now was considering whether the voice was or was not paranormal in nature. Again the voice returned,

“Know what you are thinking Romney, and you are on the right track. I am paranormal. Keep guessing. Lets see if you can determine what I am”.

He went to his bedroom, Romney grabbed his crucifix and holy water. Was Romney going completely insane? Anybody's guess. Rushing downstairs Romney crossed himself. Then he shouted,

“Evil spirit! I may not be a priest like dad wanted but fuck it! The power of Christ compels you”!

Romney splashed holy water all over while waving his crucifix. The voice went silent for a moment. He was confident that the holy water was working. Romney shouted about Jesus again. The voice was annoyed,

“Um really? Are you really serious? Priests time and time again tried exorcisms. They don't work. It has been 400 years since last being annoyed by a human. Let alone someone who was not a priest. Okay, you can have your family back”.

Finally the nightmare was over. Everything in the house was back to normal. Timothy and the kids stepped out of the kitchen. Without warning Romney was tackled to the floor. The children were the first to sink their teeth into Romney's flesh. Timothy latched onto Romney's throat.

The last thing Romney thought was,

“Just a nightmare. Tomorrow little Gregory has a dentist appointment”.

The now cannibalistic family consumed a large amount of Romney's flesh. Moments later Romney stood up to join his family. They went out into the daylight seeking people to consume.

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Ok there is a problem here, and that is your novel will be really short if you write like this. I doubt that you will exceed 150-250 pages if you went from this and wrote a normal plotline... Either you will need to pack a lot of content in, or draw out your word count. Just saying. — Dysk (contribs) 14:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It is only the first chapter and Romney is not a main character. It is just a start. Either way I welcome input. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be really harsh, but honest, not that I'm a writer or could do any better. You write like a stilted high schooler writing a narrative essay. Your prose stutters. It tries to be punchy and surprising over and over and in the end it feels like nothing at all is happening instead of lots of sudden events. I can't tell if your dialog is meant to be funny, but it's not, which is the worst place to be. We never gain any pathos for your character or grounding to sympathize with them. This partially happens because all their internal monologue is about the situation at hand, which feels very "tell don't show".
Some specifics about specific pieces of writing:
  • "With a very heavy sigh Franklin said" should absolutely never be this wordy, unless you want to look and sound like a fanfiction.net writer trying to write a baddass. Just "Franklin sighed" please. We lose no descriptive meaning but cut 5 words.
  • "I only am manipulating your reality as part of my plan." <- a huge violation of show-don't-tell. There's a reason that villains monologing is a tired cliche. A reader should be able to infer the nefariousness of a situation.
  • Using a very short paragraph for scene change feels stilted and if a reader isn't paying attention they might think that your Franklin character is showing up moments after the police do and why aren't the police still there.
  • There's absolutely no buildup of the zombies themselves representing any threat. If your target tone is horror, you missed it. Threats that announce themselves aren't threatening. Threats that don't hint that something is out of place aren't threatening. Slow methodical buildup unsettles a reader and can then be punctuated by first relief as concerns about the threat are dismissed, and then you can do your murders. It's very very very hard to do good horror in writing.
  • If the disembodied voice is your primary antagonist, it should not be introduced so fully. A hint at most. Make people wonder.
I dunno. Again, I'm not a writer, but I think there's some big areas for improvement, more in the general stuff I listed first, but the specifics were things I thought were illustrative. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
So, some problems still. The first paragraph still doesn't work as an effective attention-grabber. Why should I, the reader, give a shit that this man's business conference wasn't eventful? Secondly, Romney's reactions still escalate way too quickly once the voice shows up. And then there's your writing. This story reads like a police report. Everything is blandly explained to us. The difference between that kind of writing and the level of prose you're going for is detail. I don't want to hear about how Romney waited 20 minutes for the police; I want to read about him pacing in desperate impatience, or constantly looking out the windows, or smashing something against a wall in frustration. I don't want to read about how Romney heard a murmur at 6:30, I want to read about how the strange sound sent chills down his spine for an unknown reason, or how he grabbed a small knife even though he knew it was probably nothing, or how immediately after he heard the sound his headache abruptly got worse. I don't want to read about how Romney's family "ate a large amount of his flesh." Scare me, you motherfucking writer of horror! I want to read about how his kid bites one of his fingers off and gulps it down! I want to read about how Timothy mockingly asks Romney how his business trip went before gouging one of his eyeballs out and slurping on it. I want to read about how Romney is choking on his own blood as one of his own children snaps his jaw down to get at his tongue. These are all just examples of what you could do, of course, but I'm making a point. Detail is essential to story. It's what makes readers invested, afraid, and most importantly, interested enough to keep turning the page. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That is good input. I am sure I can tweak it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 See here. Koifishdevelopment (swim) 18:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Did a major overhaul[edit]

Chapter 1:

Romney Edwards returned home after a week long engineering conference in Alaska. It was the middle of the day, Romney expected to see his husband and children. Something was off. At first Romney was not overly concerned. Though Romney had concern. He saw what looked like splattered blood on the carpet, as if a struggle took place. Concern quickly jumped to fear. Who would want to hurt his family? Other than some hate filled gay basher.

Timothy was Romney's husband and he was a respected Unity Church minister. Romney worked as a computer engineer and he designed communication devices for the disabled. None of them were bad people. Even worse, none of the kids were around; even Timothy was gone. Several items were scattered around. The romance novel Timothy just bought was torn up. Bits of dried pus were on the ripped pages. Romney then noticed his oldest daughter’s favorite hat had footprints on it. He called out the names of his family, no response.

Romney pulled out his cellphone to call the police. He told the 911 operator of what happened. After the call Romney had to wait for an officer to arrive. After the call Romney took some aspirin for a headache he suddenly developed. He was not sure if the headache was from jet lag or tension.

Waiting for the police to show up seemed to take an eternity. A wave of pain rippled through Romney's head. Every single nerve hurt. It was like someone poked each nerve with a needle. The pain continued. When the police showed up, Romney let the officers in. Both officers searched the entire house but found nothing out of the ordinary. In the living room, the tall officer Elroy Hernandez sat down in the chair across from Romney. Officer Hernandez told Romney,

“You say your husband and four children went missing, yet there is no evidence that they ever left. Then you stated that blood and pus were splattered around. I and my partner saw nothing wrong. My partner is doing a second sweep of the house. We want to be completely sure”.

The other Officer by the name of Kyle Belmont came into the living room. Officer Belmont told Hernandez,

“I looked through every inch of this house but there was no indicators of criminal activity”.

Hernandez interjected,

“One more thing Mr. Edwards, you told us that you came back from a business trip in Alaska”.

Romney wondered what the business trip had to do with anything? It was true that he was tired but not tired enough to hallucinate. The living room fell silent for a little bit until Officer Belmont broke the silence. Belmont asked Romney,

“Are you okay sir”?

After a few more moments Romney told Belmont about the business trip; along with a flight delay. The officers nodded in agreement; both came to the same conclusion- Romney was just delirious from jet lag. On both police walkie talkies there was an urgent call for backup. Officer Hernandez quickly mentioned to Romney,

“We have to leave. An incident is taking place. Have a nice day and get some rest. You are delirious from jet lag. Bye”.

Before Romney could say anything the officers were already out the door. Great. Romney knew what he saw. All Romney could do was rationalise the entirety of the supposed events. Maybe what Romney noticed was just a hallucination. Though that did not explain where everyone else went to. Romney decided to ask his neighbor Franklin Marshall.

After leaving the house Romney started to cross the street; out of nowhere, a blood soaked woman darted out from in between houses. This woman was screaming like a wounded dog. Just as Romney turned the woman vanished into the shadows; the woman literally disappeared into the shadows. Going towards the spot where the woman ran to Romney found no possible way for someone to flee. Instead of solving that mystery Romney focused on his original task; Romney knocked on Franklin's door.

Franklin Marshall opened the door, Romney was standing outside. It was a rare occurrence for Romney to come over. The only time Romney would come over to Franklin's house is if there was an emergency. Romney asked Franklin,

“Have you seen Timothy, Gregory, Amy, Bree or Amelia”?

With a sigh Franklin let Romney into the house. Franklin did not like Romney; however, he was willing to help people in need. Romney told Franklin everything that he went through in the past couple of hours. Franklin did not buy it. It was true that Franklin had not seen Romney's family. That part was certain; but the damage Romney described was a load of nonsense. Franklin told Romney,

“I didn't see the kids or Timothy. Maybe they went for a walk or something? Don't know. Now go home I have to get to class. I have an exam to take”.

That did not help Romney get any closer to figuring out what was happening. Romney went back to his house; he was completely and utterly frustrated. No one was helpful. Back inside, Romney made a peanut butter sandwich for dinner.

Franklin went outside to his car, he had about 45 minutes until class started. As Franklin started his car there was the sound of a young girl screaming that could be heard close by. Turning his head, Franklin saw a little girl. This girl also had multiple bite wounds that looked weeks old. A squirrel darted out from under the car but the girl grabbed it. This girl began eating this squirrel. Franklin watched in scared fascination. Much of the squirrel was eaten; bones, flesh along with muscle were chewed and swallowed. The girl walked into a shadow. When the sunlight moved, both the shadow and girl were gone.

Romney saw the rotting lunch on the dining room table after eating. The rotten food was not there five minutes ago. Romney then heard some sort of sound in his head, followed by an abrupt headache. He needed sleep badly. The last time Romney got sleep was about a day ago. Romney thought he would take a nap on the living room sofa. The planned nap became deep sleep. During Romney's deep sleep there was a voice of indeterminate origin but it spoke English; but the sentences were not articulate.

The deep sleep continued; the unknown voice began to speak proper English. Romney heard the voice talking about various people. This voice did not sound aggressive at all north was it directed at Romney; not at first though. The voice turned its attention to Romney. Suddenly the voice yelled,

“Hello Romney! I was just talking with Timothy! Sorry I ignored you”!

Waking up, Romney felt a chill go down his spine. All he knew was that there was a voice during the deep sleep. Then the unknown voice from his dream came back. This voice stated in an insulating manor,

“Your husband, your three girls and boy joined my family. How about you join us? We had some raw dog flesh for breakfast. Yummy”.

Now this was completely absurd. This all had to be one long, night terror. It was the most logical explanation. Yes, it made much more sense. Romney would just have to wake up. As for when he got off the couch, it was a dream within a dream. Not one piece of these events were real. The voice came back, it was laughing. There was horrible intentions behind the laughter. Once the laughing stopped the voice spoke,

“I am real. I only am manipulating your reality because it amuses me”.

Romney laughed himself. That voice was not real. He was in a deep sleep. He grabbed a beer and switched the television to the news. The screen flickers until static was on. Nice. Now the voice said,

“Idiot, ignoring me will not make me leave. How about listening to your family”.

A symphony of voices filled Romney's head. It was the voices of Romney's family. The sense of relief was gone. Now panic was back. All the original feelings were back along with panic. Unnatural laughter was everywhere. Romney now was considering whether the voice was or was not paranormal in nature. Again the voice returned,

“Know what you are thinking Romney, and you are on the right track. I am paranormal. Keep guessing. Lets see if you can determine what I am”.

He went to his bedroom, Romney grabbed his crucifix and holy water. Was Romney going completely insane? Anybody's guess. Rushing downstairs Romney crossed himself. Then he shouted,

“Evil spirit! I may not be a priest like dad wanted but fuck it! The power of Christ compels you”!

Romney splashed holy water all over while waving his crucifix. The voice went silent for a moment. He was confident that the holy water was working. Romney shouted about Jesus again. The voice was annoyed,

“Um really? Are you really serious? Priests time and time again tried exorcisms. They don't work. It has been 400 years since last being annoyed by a human. Let alone someone who was not a priest. Okay, you can have your family back”.

Finally the nightmare was over. Everything in the house was back to normal. Timothy and the kids stepped out of the kitchen. Without warning Romney was tackled to the floor. The oldest daughter Amelia grabbed Romney's arm; Amelia twisted the left arm until it broke inside the socket. Gregory forced his small hands into Romney's abdomen. Romney screamed as Gregory pulled out pieces of intestine. Bree latched onto Romney's right eyeball with her teeth; she bit down thus popping the eyeball. Amy slammed her body in to Romney's legs; both legs broke. Timothy stepped up as the kids were eating their dad. Just before Romney was completely dead Timothy sarcastically stated to Romney,

“Hope you enjoyed your business trip because you are not happy with being a meal”.

The last thing Romney thought was,

“Just a nightmare. Tomorrow little Gregory has a dentist appointment”.

The hungry children finished with their meal but the hunger remained. Timothy led the children outside; there were plenty of people to eat in the city. Romney's corpse started to move. Romney used his bloody, broken arms to drag himself around; he wanted to join his family for a meal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop indulging him[edit]

RZ: Your writing is unspeakably bad. McGonagall bad. You will never be a "writer". Find something else you enjoy and throw your energies into that instead. Best of luck in whatever you decide to do. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Not giving up on it.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
You're like those people who make fun of video game designers or that it's not a real job unless it's depressingTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
And they laughed and grinned just like wild baboons,
While they fired at him their sharp harpoons:
But when struck with the harpoons he dived below,
Which filled his pursuers' hearts with woe:

— Dysk (contribs) 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone wants to build Trump's wall with LEGO's?[edit]

With this BUILD THE WALL blocks set, your child's dream of being Trump while subjugating Mexican immigrants by building the border wall will come true. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is one thing I am strongly against Trump on. While I support immigration laws, this would be the worst possible idea. If there were a wall, make it out of Lego bricks. Sure every Lego fan would jump on board. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It might surprise everyone to hear that even I think the wall is a silly idea. I agree with RZ94, immigration laws are sensible but a massive wall is really unnecessary. I doubt the wall will even be built to be honest. --RWRW (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I detest how lazy you two are. "immigration laws are sensible" is a lazy cop out for not saying exactly what immigration laws you want. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
(and as a recent interacter with our current immigration laws, those ones are more than a little racist and janky as hell) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems the only thing everyone agrees on is that our current immigration laws are shit. The difference is whether or not they want them to be even shittier. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
More specifically, the differences are if our laws are doing not enough or too much. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
As for immigration laws, they are a bureaucratic nightmare. They seem to be vague and confusing. Fix that and we make things straight forward.

Next up: How biased media reporting on both sides make things worse.

What does not help is media from both sides of the political spectrum distort what actually happens. Might sound a bit paranoid. Unbiased reporting on deportations would possibly help lower tensions. This would allow sensible immigration laws to be made without angry public pressure. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean reporting in media has a lot of problems but calling out "both sides are doing it" isn't doing anyone a favor and it assumes equal weight for both sides when it's not the case in reality.. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you should read balance fallacy, @Rationalzombie94. I have to wonder sometimes whether certain Sysops actually read much of the core material on RationalWiki. I know Nobs has not from what he's said in the past. Bongolian (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I doubt I have read more than a quarter of the content, it's an ongoing process really. — Dysk (contribs) 14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Call me cynical, well I know I am but when it comes to news stories about politics I don't trust any side. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
perhaps you should consider searching for new sources of news that you can trust, or at least make it easier to identify the basic facts from the spin. some foreign sources might be contain less excessive partisanship. at the very least you'll be more able to sus when we respond with bullshit to your posts. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Unbiased reporting would be that republicans are actively causing large scale crimes against humanity and everyone should be urged to create prison breaks at ICE detention facilities. What we have is "both sides" bullshit that doesn't acknowledge that you, rationalzombie, are an evil, evil human being. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed No need for personal attacks. You don't even know me. Calling me evil is just childish. Just because I don't exactly trust any news source when it comes to politics does not make one evil. I am actually confused. I support more straightforward immigration laws and cutting the nonsense from said laws. That personal attack is just plain childish. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
No look, I'm angry because we've been throwing goddamn children in cages, never to see their parents again. There's no middle ground here. I'm not giving "but law and order" a single more inch of crimes against humanity. You cannot have even slightly right wing positions on immigration right now and not be a evil human being. It's not a personal attack. This is a moral line, a line no person should cross, that you strolled the fuck accross. I don't care about your fucking narratives of media bias. I care that you support one of the most inhumanly evil things being done on the planet. There's no compromise, there's no "seeing your point of view", there's no agreeing to disagree. You're on the goddamn wrong side of history, and I'm not mincing words. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Who the fuck gave you the right to deem who was on the right side of history? All your proving when you say that is when you get power you're gonna portray your oponents as evil what incredible weakness. I know people say this joke is dead but what's "rational" about dismissing half of the entire spectrum you're no better than Mccarthy. At least that guy had a reasonable excuse. I just want you to know I don't respoect you or Trump. I don't respect progressives or Paleo Conservatives your all the goddam samee. The only difference is they target satanists and you target confederate flags and white pwople. Piss offTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I did NOT say once I supported cages. Not once. Things do need to change. I never said the cages were right. They ARE WRONG. The all caps is just emphasis. I am not angry. But you are only assuming my thoughts. Chill. I am reasonable. But childish insults don't help. Just calm down and I am willing to have a mature discussion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you really oppose them in any meaningful way? At all? Or are you just gonna lay down generic right wing talking points about "the law" and follow the results of that position with "Don't put the evil of that on me"? Because again, I've got no room for fucking compromise, given that the entire right wing political apparatus has shot down doing anything about the crimes against humanity. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Since we're down to accusing random civilians as being evil for "not meaningfully opposing" something they have no detectable influence over, let's inject some whataboutism. Obama put children in cages. And released them to human traffickers. Were people evil back then for not condemning [insert ideology of choice here]? (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I am no expert in law or psychology. I don't know the best way to handle the current situation. I am some random guy in Michigan who does odd jobs. How things can be improve, not sure. I don't have answers. What other way can I explain it? I have no authority over it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Obama was shit about immigration issues, but don't pretend it was the same, in scope, scale, or kind. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
If you can show me a proper statistical comparison, I'll readily agree with you. Meanwhile, here's an article about Obama's immigration policies and how they laid the groundwork for Trump. (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware. Totally and completely. This is neither revelatory nor transformative information for me. Obama was shit on immigration, (partially because he pitched the fucking dumbass compromise case of "enforcing the laws we have" and you cannot compromise with these scum) and Trump maliciously increased the inhumanity to feed his base. You fucks all crossed a line, and you don't give a fuck and want to play fucking semantic games. Fuck. You. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I tried everything possible to be civil. I did. All you did was toss around childish insults and assumptions about my thoughts. Want to be childish? Fine. Want to assume I am evil? Fine too, no love lost. I told you I support better and more humane immigration laws. I told you I don't like the way ICE is handling things. Think what you want. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh you did everything possible? What did you do? I think I missed it. I certainly noticed your "if the media stopped reporting on the crimes against humanity, we'd all be so much better off" and then your indignation that someone might perceive you to be complicit. But never anything resembling "trying" or actual real civility like a human being should have. Just not wanting to be associated with it. You can't be that offended when your position spins into 141 going "whataboutobama" and darkmaster pitching "no I like the child prison camps" in your defense. The lines are pretty clear, you can be the pedant defending evil shit on technicalities, or you can be the screeching subhuman defending them on grounds of "its my opinion how dare you judge me just cause I'm scum", but there's no moderation left for "well, actually, I still like the center position of republicans shooting down any attempt to stop it being good discourse the country needs." It's fucked. Get back on the human being side. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I see that there is no reason to argue. I did not say I supported current tatics, I did not say I supported the conditions of the detention centers. As for the media, I said bias, not reporting at all. Please read more carefully as to what I wrote. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Bringing up Obama is pure deflection. And mind you, what Obama has done provoked public outcry too, though the right-wing media lied about that part. Why this right-wing media pretends to care only when Obama is doing bad things to try to paint hypocrisy on the "left-wing media staying silent" (again that's not true at all), that astounds me. This whole deporting immigrants at all costs is a right-wing proposal, they don't care at all. None of what Obama is doing excuses Trump continuing it, as Obama I feel was trying to placate the "middle" at the time, perhaps he is in the middle himself. But don't try to say "but Obama" especially not when "but Obama" has received media coverage at the time. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I was pretty upfront about it being whataboutism. I was also upfront about why I brought it up: regular people calling each other evil over terrible shit politicians do. This is like terrorists justifying the targeting of civilians because the voters failed to stop the actions of a military alliance. To even come close to considering such reasoning is horrible on so many levels, both in general and for the wiki specifically. Can we please not go there? Have a nice day, everybody. (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
We already have walls along much of the southern border with Mexico. I have three basic concerns. We seem to be underestimating the Canadian threat. We've hung Alaska completely out to dry. And how do we handle Hawaii? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You can't be serious. "Underestimating"?!? "Threat"? We've been overestimating immigrant threats, and that has been going on for generations. Latinos are just flavor of the week, but we had anti-Catholic, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti-German, anti-Irish, and anti-Jewish. Our border laws are crap and make more illegal immigrants out of immigrants. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
i dont believe smerdis was serious. i think it was what something that some scientists are calling a joke. a miracle of modern science AMassiveGay (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh lol you could've just ended your comment after the first sentence. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
oh dont sweat it. smerdis is just an early updater. soon every home will have them AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Great Border Wall should incorporate Trump designs.

And what about the possibility of a 'nuclear power station melting its way through the Earth to come out in the USA/Oklo phenomenon'? (I know it would take 'a long time' to achieve, but one cannot start planning too soon.) (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Still should be made of Legos. If we are going to waste tax payer money on a useless project, why not? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On behalf of the LEGO Group, I must formally state that the LEGO Group is not affiliated with magafun.com, MAGA, or the Trump Foundation, does not condone the so-called Great Wall of America, and had no role in the creation of this counterfeit product which is not manufactured by or sponsored by the LEGO Group. The LEGO-style toy block product was created without permission or license from the LEGO Group or its subsidiaries. The LEGO Group strongly objects to unethical treatment of asylum seekers on the US border. Thank you. — Dysk (contribs) 11:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
We are building a wall on the wrong border. A wall on the Canadian border sounds better. Keep Justin Bieber out of the United States. We have enough problems without Justin Bieber. Obviously snark but either way. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

New pre-Columbian transit thoery[edit]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9110838/Stone-age-Europeans-were-the-first-to-set-foot-on-North-America.html FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting stuff there. Adds another piece to the historical puzzle. Moderator In Chief --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Can't wait for white supremacists to use this to justify all sorts of crap. Ugh. (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like the Solutrean hypothesis to me. Not likely, and probably impossible. That said, it would have totally rocked to be a Solutrean, at least unless you're a vegan. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
That is indeed correct, @Smerdis of Tlön. Their book, Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America's Clovis Culture (ISBN 0520275780), is in two parts: 1) Paleolithic Peoples and 2) Solutrean Hypothesis. Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I just read the article that we have on it and I now get that it makes no sense. First time I read about it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, first be an rabidly anti-immigration psycho. Second, try to come up with a justification for Europe's colonizing the Americas when you believe in the concept of ancestral right. Third have a child's understanding of geology. Congrats, now you understand it. It's pseudoscience. And they get the telegraph to believe it, and that it's "new evidence" because the telegraph is dumb and credulous. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Ikanreed Okay, I told you how I opposed how badly immigration is being handled. Seriously. Okay, I misread the original article posted. Now it is clear you can't read. I have been patient. I won't be patient with you no more. Stop acting like a child! How much more can I tell you how I oppose the way immigration is being handled? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a whole seperate category of immigration psychos(the conspiracy theory kind) and has nothing to do with you, other than being in reply to the question you asked. I can appreciate how it might come across given our recent interaction. But contextually, I was just answering your question how it makes sense to some people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't listen to this person he think having a fucking border is fascistTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
point to me exactly where he said "having a border is facist". БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you dude maybe stop picking fights? Also he said that "Anyone who defends a border is a facist and he can't respect them" Very rational of himTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that is incorrect. At no point in this conversation did @Ikanreed utter "Anyone who defends a border is a facist and he can't respect them". To state otherwise is to utter a falsehood. Further, ikanreed clarified his position and statement to @Rationalzombie94, meaning the matter is somewhat moot. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Green New Deal?[edit]

What does anyone think of AOC’s Green New Deal? — Unsigned, by: Spacehillbilly / talk / contribs

Woefully insufficient for the scale of problem we're facing but better than what anyone else is doing. Also please start signing your posts. Please. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The Green New Deal needs tweaking. Economic inequality and climate change are two totally different things. Adding green industry is good and would create jobs. Adding jobs makes economic equality achievable.

Climate change is a scientific issue. Slowing climate change is on everyone, not just social and economic standing. Small changes among people can make a major difference.

One thing that would help is if governments actually enforcing environmental regulations and actually punish companies who break them. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Radically insufficient as congress has not yet passed any greenhouse regulating laws. I have strong opinions about why that hasn't happened. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have just read it. I think it is refreshingly progressive. She wants the following done within 10 years of the adoption of the plan.

100% of national power generation from renewable sources

Renewable energy is currently responsible for under 20% of U.S. power generation. So this goal is quite ambitious, though not entirely unfeasible. The U.S. has a lot of potential for renewable energy— such as 2,000 GW of untapped offshore wind power—and the industry is booming. It is, however, not a good idea to leave out nuclear power. (While one could make the case that nuclear power is renewable, it is not normally identified as such.) The almost 100 extant nuclear reactors in the U.S. generate approximately 400 GW of power, or 20% of the country's electricity. It is better to replace them with new reactors (Generation III+) rather than renewable power stations, which have lower energy densities, i.e. they require more space. Furthermore, nuclear reactors are the safest source of energy. (Source 1. Source 2.)

building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;

Pretty reasonable. The national power grid also needs to be highly decentralized for reasons of security. Renewable energy makes this easy.

upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;

Expensive, but worthwhile. In any case, this is being done at the local level, though at arguably too slow a pace.

decarbonizing the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries;
decarbonizing, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure;
funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases;

Carbon capture technology has just gotten a lot more efficient. So this is actually quite realistic. High-quality infrastructure plays an inordinately important role in the strength of an economy, any economy, and currently, U.S. infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Many jobs will be created in the process, directly and indirectly. However, one needs to be careful because U.S. construction costs are among the highest in the world, thanks to a combination of poor contracting practices, financial mismanagement, and overly powerful labor unions. New York's East Side AccessWikipedia project is a prime example. While she does not mention these explicitly, I'm pretty sure she has mass transit and high-speed rail in mind. Better public transportation reduces the number of vehicles on the road, and therefore carbon emissions. The Federal Railroad Administration recently introduced new rules that would allow rail operators to purchase more modern trains that are faster, more energy efficient, and safer. This comes just in time for a mass transit and HSR boom.

making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely carbon neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

There is much money to be made with green technologies. At present, the U.S. and China are leading the world in renewable energy investments, as they should. I don't see why they should not speed up. (However, while the U.S. has been retiring her coal power plants, China has been building more, not just at home but also abroad.) Regardless of its official stance with respect to the Paris Climate Agreement, the U.S. has actually reduced its carbon emissions when most other countries have failed to do so. Her goal is merely a continuation of this trend, and is thus quite realistic. Nerd (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

When hackers do something good[edit]


Many dark web sites destroyed. My thoughts- Good riddance.

A lot of illegal activity will be crippled for some time. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice this host seems to have been a forum host more than anything else. So much for the decentralised dark-web when nuking one host takes almost the whole thing down! — Dysk (contribs) 11:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So…they just fucking legalized FGM[edit]

Apparently a federal judge ruled that Congress does not have the right to regulate it, so it's now legal in the 23 states without laws banning it. Just…WHAT THE FUCK?[1] 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 16:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understood, this federal judged says that Congress cannot ban FGM because FGM is not a commercial practice... But states can still make FGM illegal, can they? -Lankaster (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said, it's now legal in the states without laws banning it. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 17:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You mean Female Gender Mutilation right?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 18:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes if you're fucking stupid AND transphobic on top of it. Stay on topic, you moron. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
what the fuck CALM YOUR JETS there's a lot of things with acronym FGM. wtf does that have to do with Trans people you gender baiting piece of shit? I just asked a question because I've never heard that acronym before. Don't get on my back.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You know, the article linked has the answer to your question in the very first sentence. Could have saved time and energy by just taking a look at it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
My mistake don't lynch me for itTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I admit I overreacted. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You're lucky I feel benevolent, you two. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Are we going back in time? I swear that in the past 10 years, old and stupid ideas have returned. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
You have correctly understood the ruling. I'd say it's still kinda unreasonable quibbling on the part of the defense(and the judge for finding in their favor). "This demonstrably harmful thing you've done to another person isn't illegal because it's not commerce" is really noxiously originalist interpretation of the constitution beyond the bounds of reason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
"Yeah, like I said, it's now legal in the states without laws banning it." Do states really need to make specific laws to ban FGM? Doesn't exist general laws against mutilations that would already make FGM illegal? I mean, if I cut someone's ear I get arrested even without a specific law against cutting ears... -Lankaster (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Maaaaaybe because one can defend FGM as an act of religious expression. Just like faith healing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I always thought those people saying Islam wasn't a threat but now... Female genitalia mutilation not illegal... That smells of somethingTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
"Maaaaaybe because one can defend FGM as an act of religious expression." ...and maybe also because someone else accuses who points out that FGM is child abuse of being racist, islamophobe, etc. -Lankaster (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that's a reply that has ever happened, and you could totally give even one example of happening in the wild. 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: ikanreed / talk / contribs
Racism label should not deter British police from FGM fight, says officer -Lankaster (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Does it really matter if it's racist, islamophobic etc.? You're still violently chopping off a girl's groin without any medical foreknowledge in the end. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Like you, that's just a random person just assuming it would be called racist. It's not actually an example of anyone saying that. You know that, right? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It is n example of it you just don't want to acknowledge that — Unsigned, by: TheDarkMaster2 / talk / contribs
Here an example of a woman writing "it is not possible for me to endorse the unequivocally racist and deterministic view on female circumcision which dominates anti-FGM discourse." in her PhD thesis. -Lankaster (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Some additional quotes; this is what she means by the "racist and deterministic view".
"However, the center maintained in anti-FGM discourse is subject to contradictory meanings, images and practices that carry legacies of colonial representations of “Third World” societies as “savage” and “barbaric,” even while claiming to be pursuing their collective well-being -- a civilizing mission if ever there was one."
"Her case is presented in dichotomous terms between the superstition, tradition, primitivity of life in Togo where her body would be “tortured” to the land of liberty where female bodies are allowed to grow up free and unhindered by oppressive and dangerous cultural practices (never mind the prioritized cultural image of thinness viewed by many feminists as responsible for eating problems among America’s female youth, breast enlargement, smoking, etc.). Equally problematic is the image reinforced inKasinga’s case that Africans’ primitivity is fully to blame for Africa’s problems, whether social or economic, and that a heavy dose of “civilization” will go far to bring Africa into the modern world."
"In this sense, Kasinga’s political asylum in the United States is sought on the grounds that, without the help of the enlightened West, she, like all other African women who come from societies which practice any form of female circumcision could not escape their culture’s stricture that they be mutilated, hence perpetuating the same old colonial image that Africans are slaves to their cultural values, which offer no way out for thosewho wish to be free from them. Cultural complexities and heterogeneities are thus avoided entirely. Once that avoidance becomes normalized, is it any wonder that one isleft with an impression that a renewed Western civilizing mission is necessary, since there seems to be no other way of eliminating these “horrendous” acts of “mutilation”? While the culture-bound (African) body is mutilated, the objective body (Western) is freeand untouched. Given that the media is so quick to present this familiar image of the oppression of “primitive” African tradition against the liberating freedom of life in the democratic West, one might wonder to what extent Kasinga cleverly played upon these colonialistimages to help attain her stated “dreams” of a relatively affluent lifestyle that was not so attainable at home in Togo. After all, she did hop a plane to the wealthiest country in theworld, rather than choose to take an alternative escape-route from “torture” to neighboring African countries where female circumcision is not practiced." --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
And here is the full quote, "I approach this project from a marginal position of an African woman of G ́kÈyÈ ethnicity; an ethnic group which practices a specific form of female circumcision. As a member of this group, with the personal life practices of my rurl life, I am “marked” several times. First, I am marked by the event of the circumcision itself. As a G ́kÈyÈ woman whose meanings of what it means to be “a woman” is directly conceived through the ritual of irua ria atumia (ceremonial activity that marks the becoming of a woman), it is not possible for me to endorse the unequivocally racist and deterministic view on female circumcision which dominates anti-FGM discourse."
What I take from it is that it echoes arguments made by cultural relativists, which is discussed in the article. I guess you can use those people as an argument who think opposing FGM is imperialistic racism. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Tbh, I don't really care about any of this. You're chopping off a girl's genitals. Or at least pricking them to draw blood. That girl undergoes pain and emotional trauma, which can be a life-time amount depending on the severity of it. It's dehumanizing towards the girl (and children in general, who are viewed as extensions of adults most of the time and it looks like the parents projecting THEIR feelings of what it's like to be a girl onto the girl) and it's overtly sexist to boot. Whatever claims about anti-Western or racism is instantly outweighed by the fact that these people think it's okay for anyone to bloodily and violently mutilate a young child. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if this person can make the same argument for sex trafficking. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Islam isn't a threat (because it's idiotic to claim that a religion with lots of schools of thought is behind barbaric practices), fanatic fundamentalism is a threat instead. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It is though because most christian Fundamentalists prefer teaching abstinence which I can assure you is far smarter than Female genitalia mutilation. it's really only Islamic fundamentalists that encourage genitalia mutilation That's just the truth of the matterTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of racism/islamophobe, whatever. I was thinking more on faith healing is bad but courts have defended it on religious practices, but other places have imposed limits on it. That's a nonissue, the fear of being labeled "islamophobe" or "racist". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
DarkMaster: Go read our article on FGM, it is most certainly intriguing. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I perfer Wikipedia and it's far more nuancedTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Lankaster can use a read too, for the record. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
"In at least one case, it has taken place in a Christian church clinic in the United States." why? to "cure" masturbation. and it goes back to abstinence.
Oops. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
One example doesn't prove dick I'm sure an atheist has performed "Transphobic" Female genitalia mutilation. Also Abstinence Is STILL THE BEST WAY TO AVOID PREGNANCY. Just because one catholic took it too far doesn't prove anything. Btw that Catholic Was African in descent Oh but I forgot race doesn't matter according to youTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
"Lankaster can use a read too, for the record." Did I say something which is contradicted by the RW article on FGM? -Lankaster (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually don't think so but more of we need to establish that the practice isn't really religious, but I guess that won't stop the morons from saying it's sexist or xenophobic or Islamophobic, or at least imagining there is a sizeable amount of morons that do this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (EC) The sad thing is that the prosecution tried to use the interstate commerce clause to get it ruled illegal. The worst thing is that even if they had tried another, more bullet-proof tactic, the defence could just cite the establishment clause and a quick Lemon test tells you that the Gov. would be violating prong #2 if the defence paints FGM as a religious practice (Bigs's article made it sound like they were doing it religiously). Certainly not Anonymous user, whoever that is.[{{#rand:1|4}}][{{#rand:4|10}}] 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is some sort of legit medical reason such as massive infection that required surgery, no to dangerous surgery on the vagina. Most excuses are strictly religious and have zero medical science backing it. Unless absolutely and medically necessary, there is no reason. These nuts who support FGM should back their claims with actual research; not possible though. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
If the U.S. government lacks the power to prevent the import of unwholesome customs from abroad, it would seem to lack something essential. I, as an (inactive) lawyer, would have suggested that it could also be upheld under the Immigration and Naturalization clause; with apparently one exemption, people who do this ain't from around here. OTOH, the Commerce Clause has been used as a 'catch-all' for far too long; ever since Wickard v. Filburn, which dealt with a farmer's use of his own crops, has been read to hold that vague and unspecified assertions on an effect on interstate commerce are enough. Right wing jurists and lawyers are apparently setting up test cases to get that reversed. And frankly, they have a point. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • So FGM is bad, but MGM is fine... Never really understood that. — Dysk (contribs) 10:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The bad one is done by Africans. The good one is done by an Abrahamic religion, that's why. Abrahamic = good, always. (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I'm most confused by the fact it says;

"In this sense, Kasinga’s political asylum in the United States is sought on the grounds that, without the help of the enlightened West, she, like all other African women who come from societies which practice any form of female circumcision could not escape their culture’s stricture that they be mutilated, hence perpetuating the same old colonial image that Africans are slaves to their cultural values, which offer no way out for thosewho wish to be free from them. Cultural complexities and heterogeneities are thus avoided entirely."

...is the author saying a woman has a choice in the matter, or that she could just say no to the practice? Surely this cannot be, since it's often performed at childbirth and by definition the women raised in this society will not be able to "escape their culture’s stricture" should they later regret it, and yet it seems the author is saying exactly that.

This author appears to come from a culture that practices it for non-religious reasons as a rite of passage, as many groups do. However I can provide some background on those who do it for religious purposes. The Hanafi school of fiqh considers FGM as mustahabb, encouraged though not required, and the reasoning is quite bluntly that is denies female sexual pleasure, which is seen as a means to ensure women stay virgins until married and then do not cheat. Among colloquial circles it may have the additional benefit of making the woman 'tighter' (at her expense) if the aftermath of the procedure requires stitching. That being said who is actually willing to do this depends. The Grand Mutfi of Egypt issued a fatwa calling for it and was mostly condemned or ignored by Egyptians, where FGM is not common, but in Somalia it is near universal and if challenged will be defended on religious and social grounds - really the same thing, since the argument will be "Allah commands women to preserve their chastity, and this practice makes sure they do so, so we do it." Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"...is the author saying a woman has a choice in the matter, or that she could just say no to the practice?" I would not spend too much time trying to understand that text. It seems like a big rationalizationWikipedia of being a victim of FGM. -Lankaster (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Archiving suspended[edit]

Due to mandatory unscheduled maintenance, computer-aided archiving will be unavailable for the next few days. Operations should return to normal by 2018-11-28.
This message provided in the interests of preventing HCM. UID Archiver (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanksgiving message[edit]

It has been floating around variously for a number of days - is it not time for it to be retired till next year? (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that today is thanksgiving... No. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe try again in a few days time lol. — Dysk (contribs) 20:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Here we go again! Let me explain.
Not everybody lives in the same time zone and that means that it's not always the same date everywhere in the world at the same time. In order to cover all time zones, a holiday message appears on RationalWiki 12 hours before the start of the day in UTC. It stays until 12 hours after the day ends in UTC. So when the Thanksgiving message first appeared, it was already Thursday 22 November on some of those little islands in the Pacific, even though it could still have been Tuesday 20 November where you were. The message will automatically disappear when Friday 23 November has finally come to all pats of the word. You don't have to ask anyone to take it away. It will probably disappear when it's some time on Friday where you are.
And I'll say again something else I've said before. I know it's not a top priority, but it would be great if somebody with the technical now how could make the Holydaze templates time zone sensitive so that visitors to to this site only see them if it is that day where they are. That would put an end to these BONs saying, "It's not St. George's Day until tomorrow", and, "St. George's Day was yesterday", all the bloody time! Spud (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Good post! Nerd (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you celebrate American thanksgiving where you live? ShabiDOO 13:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't because I'm British. There are, however, plenty of American expats living here in Taiwan who do celebrate it. And for them it starts about 12 hours earlier than it does for people in North America. Just because you're living in another country in a completely different time zone doesn't mean you have to completely abandon your own culture and traditions. And what about Guam? Thanksgiving is a holiday there and it takes place almost 24 hours before it does in the continental United States. And even in Hawaii Thanksgiving starts and ends much later than it does in the rest of the States due to the time difference. Spud (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
My point is, is there actually any editor or regular reader here, who celebrates Thankgiving in Paris or in Tahiti, and wakes up in the morning to find out that Rationalwiki won't wish them happy thanksgiving for a few hours? Is that the kind of thing that actually ruins someone's day? If so...then yes...by all means we should solve the problem. You can spearhead a new way to have timezone sensitive well-wishing. If you're willing to put the large number of hours it takes to work that out or can properly motivate someone who can do it...to say it's worth the hours of effort. ShabiDOO 10:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, right now, any visitor to this site who celebrates Thanksgiving in Paris or Tahiti already sees the Thanksgiving greeting by the time it's midnight on the last Thursday in November their time. And I'm strongly opposed to any change that would mean that they wouldn't see it because the Holydaze templates only appear between midnight and midnight New York City time, for example. Having the template appear 12 hours before the day starts in UTC and disappear 12 hours after it ends in UTC is really a pretty good way of doing it. It does cover the whole world that way. The only problem is we keep getting threads, like this one, posted in the bar where people say things like, "St. George's Day was yesterday", and, "St. George's Day isn't until tomorrow." I understand that it wouldn't be a quick or easy job to make the Holydaze templates timezone sensitive. And if nobody wants to do it, that's fine. But if somebody does want to do it, well, I owe them a Coke. Spud (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Three disfigured crabs and one untouched lobster later... I had a good Thanksgiving, and the turkey was spared this year. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Being the nerd that I am, I requested a book from my university library. I have been a little busy lately so I'm just going to ask a librarian to find it for me. LOL! Nerd (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Made an Emergency Alert System scenario making fun of conspiracy theorists[edit]


--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice.--Don Juan (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles on Prehistory in RW[edit]

Hello I was wondering for some feedback on something I was postulating. Should Rational Wiki have more articles on prehistoric time periods? We already have one on the Paleocene A cool yet arguably less interesting period of the earth's history. Also said article could be lengthened. I was just curious on everyone's thoughts here.I think it could be useful for a rational wiki to have some articles on these time periods. I know at least one person agrees with me but I was wondering about everyone else. Sorry if I don't respond right away someone put me in the Vandal bin.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If the articles are missional to our purpose then yes you should create them. If not, then no. You dug yourself into the vandal bin by the way and here is not the proper place to bring it up. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 22:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Pseudohistory and pseudoarcheology are definitely missional if that's what you want to write about. Plain stuff that merely lays out currently accepted information... not so much. But first, behave yourself and get out of the vandal bin. Avida Dollarsher again 11:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Get plenty of reliable sources. I like the idea of more articles on Prehistoric times; more info on debunking creationism. For three years I intended on making an article on Hyles-Anderson College, finally did it a few months ago. Remember- reliable sources are key to a good article. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think prehistory are missional simply on the grounds that they provide more ammo to debunk YEC. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 05:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who created the article on the Paleocene, and I just edited it a bit more. Thank you for reminding me of it.--Palaeonictis (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh cool I guess I'm not the only one who likes prehistory. I would make other pages if I knew how. It's really a shame that Pop Culture really only cares about the Ice Age and the Dinosaurs. The Paleocene was always so interesting to me.I just took a look at it and can I say your updates are superior to mine in every way. I wish I could be as good as you are with that I'm more into animals than like pleoclimatology. If you want I could handle that. With your permission of course because you made the article.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
No offense but your grammar is shit. If you started mucking with my articles there'd have to be extensive rewrites to bring the grammar up to par, and that's not counting your total lack of familiarity with standard wiki protocol.--Don Juan (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Though my grammar does suck it does not give you the right to be a dick. Also i wrote a good article.. do I submit it the same place as an essay or what?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
What, are you like nine years old? Please start here. These pages are well done and should answer most of your questions. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Taking a course in Biblical Greek: What did I get myself into?[edit]

Just started and the material is already confusing. Specifically the dialect is Koine Greek. Anyways, I am confused. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

When you're dealing with Ancient Greek, you're getting into one of the hairier Indo-European languages, with very old-fashioned verb forms. Be glad that you only have to cope with four noun cases. The Greek verb, with its imperfect, perfect, aorist, and pluperfect tenses, indicative, subjunctive, and optative moods, and active, middle, and passive voices, all of which will be formed on stems that show extensive ablaut and other variations. Then you get two whole sets of everything, one goes on thematic -o verbs and the others on athematic -mi verbs. It amazes me that such a language could have been spoken by Spartan helots. Seriously, Greek verbs are a real piece of work. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The good news for me is that right now I'm just taking Latin. The bad news is that to get my Classics degree, I need to take Greek soon. Any advice for either language? RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It is a distance learning seminary course but I will give it my all. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The key is to fit everything into the patterns, after which it will make a bit of sense. Latin verbs, as you probably know already, have four principal parts. Know those and the whole rest of the setup can be generated; moreover, those parts have recurring patterns to recognize. For Greek verbs, you need to know six parts, and they too fall broadly into families. The saving grace of the system is that neither language really has many 'irregular' verbs; that only means that the irregularities are baked into the 'principal parts' system, but once you have those foundations down the rest of the scheme can be assembled by rule. The personal endings are not that daunting; they resemble one another throughout the paradigms. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön Thanks, pretty useful. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
All my life hacks come from the OT, so I don't know how much lamb's blood will do for you. Took to French and German pretty quickly in school, but always did much better at reading/listening comprehension than anything involving using the languages myself. I'd just say get a grasp of the verbs and how to recognize them, which everybody else is saying, and then listen to or read anything you can and focus on the organization of sentences around the verbs. [Impertive, me to you] Find every verb you can, even if you don't know what it translates to. If it gets exhausting, again, I don't know how much lamb's blood will do for you, but smearing it around your doorway does take your mind off all things lingual. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi Dinar[edit]

The latest way of scamming Trumpers is basically the equivalent of penny stock scamming: selling near-worthless Iraqi Dinars to Trump supporters based on the weight that Trump said something ("all currencies will soon 'be on a level playing field.'").[2] Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

did you see the black college student who said her family disowned her for "coming out" as a MAGA fan and who scammed MAGA chuds for like $100? good shit Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I missed that. Undoubtedly all of the financial scammers themselves are pro-Trump for simple financial reasons: it's been open season on the ignorant pro-Trumpers who didn't read about the implications of the Trump University collapse. Just put up a sign that says Trump/MAGA/Get-rich-quick and the Trumpers will promote your site for you. Bongolian (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Psychopathic traits are more pronounced in Republicans compared to Democrats[edit]

The news article and the paper. Major contenders for the 2018 Captain Obvious Awards, don't you think? Towards-the Unknown (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

They made a great headline, but basically all the paper concludes is that: Boldness uniquely related to conservative opinions on economic issues. Meanness most strongly related to conservative opinions on social issues. Therefore Boldness and Meanness traits were higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. Which is hardly groundbreaking. — Dysk (contribs) 17:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
So nothing about the rates of actual psychopathy in our two main political parties? Dull surprise. One can be a complete jackass and still not be a sociopath. Then again, given that this came from a popular news source and not an actual scientific journal, I`m not surprised. Besides, there are a multitude of factors associated with being a psychopath, a lack of empathy for starters, and while impulsivity and "meanness" are correlated with both boldness and a lack of empathy, there are multiple different traits that psychopaths possess. Rates of "boldness" and "meanness" don't tell us shit regarding the rates of actual psychopathy in American political parties. Even the lack of empathy is ultimately ambiguous, for example both narcissists and autistic people (such as myself) possess a lack of empathy, but for autistic people that lack of empathy is cognitive, meaning that we are capable of empathy, more so than the general populace in fact. Narcissists aren't sociopaths because, unlike sociopaths, narcissists are capable of feeling guilt and loving and caring for other people, making them easier to humiliate than sociopaths. In other words, this "report" is a crock of shit.--Don Juan (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know the people reporting that are known to be biased against republicans. Not stating that I disagree or agree but that needs to be known. Also complex psychological ideas like this are really hard to generalize aboutTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I highly doubt that sources like "Psypost" and the "Science Direct" are biased against Republicans, something like the Washington Post, sure, but science doesn't have any political slant, it is purely objective in nature.--Don Juan (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Towards-the Unknown dude, take it with a grain of salt. Media vultures will say anything or distort anything to fit what they think. Be it Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Green Party, it boils down to how many viewers there are and how much money is there to be made. I am cynical when it comes to the news. Gotta Have More Cow Bell! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 Yeah, I should. It's just... there's all this shit going on in the world and I'm just tired. I'm barely turned 28 years old and I'm tired. What the hell. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not the only one. Spacehillbilly (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Christmas Celebrates Jesus' Birthday[edit]

The English language is a stupid language, and I speak the language![edit]

All English language speakers got dealt a bad hand when learning our first language. Many words sound alike but have different meanings. Even one word with one spelling can mean multiple things. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why a word having multiple meanings can be a problem. Which meaning applies is determined by context. Similarly, which homophone is being used is also determined by context. If not clear, you can always ask for clarification. Nerd (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
English isn't stupid, English orthography and spelling conventions are stupid/outdated. The one complaint I have with English grammar is the strange use of the word do, as in Why do you do this? Why can't we just say, Why you do this? It's that simple. Other than that English is fine, although the r sound and heavy aspiration annoys me. Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
A question should be "Which English?" There are lots of Englishes around the world, and the English haven't owned the English language for a long, long time. Lot's of people say, "Why you do this?" or "Why you do dis?" in a colloquially grammatical way. Bongolian (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
English orthography ultimately has its roots in Middle English, so while our orthography is outdated, once upon a time it wasn't. It's the reason why words like knight are spelled the way they are, consonantal clusters like the "kn" and "gh" used to be pronounced because they were permitted by the phonotactics our language, but English has evolved since then, and no longer are consonantal clusters like "kn" and "gh" permitted by our ever-evolving phonotactics.--Don Juan (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The semantic power of English grammar is quite high. True ambiguity where you could easily be interpreted to mean two completely different sentiments is rather rare. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The bit of English grammar that I always found oddest is the verb + preposition complexes. These are highly idiomatic, and subject to transforms that are extremely unpredictable. Compare She brought up the proposal / She brought the proposal up vs. She looked after the children / **She looked the children after. Very few second language speakers really master them. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I can more or less read a not overly verbose newspaper in three different language families and I can promise you, lexically, there isn't a language on Earth that doesn't suffer these exact problems in their own way. You have actually left out one of the most difficult elements of learning English which is phrasal verbs (ask yourself how many meanings to "pick up" have and how a learner could possibly predict that "pick" and "up" combine to mean most of those definitions). That, and for some speakers the pronunciation of "th", "zh" and consonant clusters like hitched or twelfth or sprawled or differentiation 12+ vowel sounds and multiple dipthongs. The number of homonyms with different spelling is annoying but hardly in the top 5 challenges. In any case, spelling can be much worse in Persian, French, coloquial Arabic and equally unpredictable or hard to read as Hebrew, Russian, Danish some Pacific languages etc. A notably difficult language to learn is Arabic, Cantonese (talk about a difficult language to pronounce or learn to write in) or Polish, which all require far more hours to learn than English. No language is stupid. Every language has big big big challenges. ShabiDOO 11:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The complexities of any language - written and spoken - in part reflect historical and other influences, borrowings from other languages etc - and most of us switch between various versions of the same language as it is needed (including to communicate a secondary meaning). People do enjoy wordplay - and can make use of the ambiguities convenient, useful or necessary for their own or more general purposes (the Delphic Oracle's universal prediction 'This too will pass' and 'A great empire will fall').
To what extent does the prevalence of 'irregularities, idiosyncrasies and similar' indicate something fundamental about the nature of human language use - or we would all be speaking equivalents of Esperanto. Anna Livia (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Shabidoo and @Anna Livia have the best responses. Thanks, guys! Nerd (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Spanish is a stupid language. Firstly inanimate objects shouldn't be gendered and secondly it's taught so that people don't actually have to learn English in my country.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Consider - 'to raise/raze something' (homonyms), to cleave can mean to slice or to unite. There is the use of language to identify persons/classes/groups ('U and Non-U', shibboleth etc).
Puns, word twisters and other such linguistic games appear to be an innate part of human nature (and probably misdirection jokes and slapstick jokes among humans and related species). Anna Livia (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone interested in how English got to be the way it is would do well to read John McWhorter's Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue. He describes this language as coming from German (well, Saxon) speakers living side by each with Celtic (e.g. Welsh) speakers, forming a creole with mostly Germanic vocabulary under a layer of Celtic bits of grammatical structure. Then came the Scandinavians, pidginizing it by failing to apply the full range of native case inflections. That's the executive summary for those who CBA to read the book itself; naturally there are other details and variations to be accounted for. Anonymous User (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Man killed on remote Indian island tried to 'declare Jesus' to tribe[edit]


Honestly, I'm rooting for the tribals on this. Missionaries need to stop sticking their noses in holes they don't belong. Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What amuses me most is his apparent lack of study or preparation for such a difficult enterprise. No indication that he boned up on any of the surrounding languages. He apparently thought he could just come in and wing this, and maybe the Holy Ghost would put words the locals would understand into his mouth. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I heard about this from a friend. He asked me, as if I know everything, why there would be an island that isn't modernized, and why we shouldn't hold these people accountable for murder.
I don't know, I pointed him to Cargo Cults, and then opened the conversation to the death penalty.
Is it so right to kill somebody? What if they are innocent of what we think they should be killed for? What if we get it wrong, what if this tribe got it wrong, what is the reason we defer to circumstance in this case rather than sending the drones in.
Spoiler, resources, but what is the point of respecting a culture? What is the point of extraditing criminals from one culture to another? And why doesn't this apply?
Everyone should demand your Republican congressman brings this Injun to JUSTICE, see who shares your Christian missionary sentiment. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
"Honestly, I'm rooting for the tribals on this." As far as I know, this guy was trying to convert the tribe without the use of force. Thinking that the tribe was right to kill him is really crazy. Does trying to convert an isolated tribe without even knowing their language make sense? No, it's stupid and risky. Is killing a man with arrows because it shouts "believe in Christ" right? No, it's criminal. -Lankaster (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
No, what's criminal is this numbnut thinking he can waltz into a tribe that has literally had no interaction with the outside world and not thinking that if he sneezed, his germs could wipe them out. It's Conquistador levels of dumbfuckery, all because he thought they needed to hear about his invisible friend. Also, criminal by whose standards? Are you applying your definition of law to a tribe that has lived by their laws, on their land, for millennia? Who the fuck do you think you are? LongLostLegend (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
"No, what's criminal is this numbnut thinking he can waltz into a tribe that has literally had no interaction with the outside world and not thinking that if he sneezed, his germs could wipe them out." You do not understand that both the missionary and the tribe are wrong.
"Also, criminal by whose standards? Are you applying your definition of law to a tribe that has lived by their laws, on their land, for millennia?" I'm applying any definition of laws which says that killing peaceful people is wrong.
"Who the fuck do you think you are?" Somebody who don't like peaceful people getting murdered by arrows. -Lankaster (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you don't get to "by western standards" shame a pre-neolithic tribe. You also don't get to ascribe how they saw this foreign devil as "peaceful." LongLostLegend (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not shaming anyone, I'm saying that what this tribe did was killing an innocent man. If you excuse this by "their lived by their laws by millennia" then you should equally excuse all crimes perpetrated by religious missionaries while trying to convert/exorcise/civilize... or whatever. After all, they where living by their laws by millenia too. -Lankaster (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lankaster The missionary's death may have been immoral, but it was not a crime. A crime is a violation of a formal set of laws within a specfic country, which only applies to that country. (Once again I'd like to point out that I'm not being tried and executed as an atheist, as per the laws of several Islamic countries) Likewise, something can be both immoral and legal, or moral and illegal, depending on the country in question. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
"A crime is a violation of a formal set of laws..." Yes, I agree: strictly speaking, it's not a crime. However, my point was not about legal terms, but about "rooting for the tribe". I think that in this situation there is no one to root for: The missionary did something extremely stupid and risky, the tribe killed a man who meant no harm. All this is just sad, and rooting for the tribe is disgusting. -Lankaster (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume that this tribe considers foreign invaders to break their laws, or they would not have killed him. Just because it isn't against any laws we "recognise" doesn't mean it isn't against a law. After all this tribe is an autonomous self governing country of sorts. — Dysk (contribs) 14:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The guy isn't a missionary, he was just a Bible thumper for the record, and the tribe gave him a warning to stay away before they killed him. This is solely on him. James Earl Cash (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────One doesn't need a certificate to call oneself a missionary, just like one doesn't need a certificate to call oneself a generic preacher. He went there to religiously convert people, so that makes him a missionary. If you think otherwise, you're using the No True Scotsman fallacy. Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Without any genuine certification, he could very well be full of it. It's more likely that he was just an adventure blogger who got way in over his head and rightly paid the consequences. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
These villagers should be treated like the criminals they are. If they step foot out of the island they should be put in jail. I think for anyone to say this moron deserved death just because a few hundred years ago some Spanish killed a few Aztecs is a definately suffering from white guilt. Or is a sociopath. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
"the tribe killed a man who meant no harm."
"The complete isolation of the Sentinelese people means contact with the outside world could put them at risk, as they are likely to have no immunity to even common illnesses such as flu and measles."
Maybe he meant no harm but he is capable of serious harm. What could the tribe have done? The tribe seems like they have no choice since this missionary/preacher is incredibly insistent on going to the island, it appears. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheDarkMaster2 "These villagers should be treated like the criminals they are. If they step foot out of the island they should be put in jail." Illegal, violates their sovereignty. Besides, this sort of law is like religious freedom, it's either all or none. Either you hold every last country to this standard, or you hold no countries to this standard. They as a country banned him from traveling to their island, he ignored that ruling and went anyway, they punished him for it. Was their method immoral? Probably. Can you hold them legally accountable? Nope. Why? Because your country can't impune on their sovereignty. If they did they'd shoot themselves in the crotch, because then everyone could impune on everyone else's sovereignty, making the concept of nations meaningless. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
In addition, given you failed to read the part where it says that the natives are vulnerable to diseases carried by anyone outside their island... Yeah, the point is moot, since none of them can safely leave the island. If they do they'll likely die from said diseases. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey dipshit they can have their own sovereign country. If they stay on their Island I guess they can get off scott free. But if they come over out of the country they should be treated as criminals. They're lucky the family is so forgiving. If they weren't there probably wouldn't be many left there. You know the German Empire in WW1 was a sovereign country by your logic we shouldn't interfere in the conflict. Or to bring up a more recent example, Israel? TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheDarkMaster2 "But if they come over out of the country they should be treated as criminals." Ok... I'll explain this in simple terms, since your reading comprehension doesn't seem to have improved. They cannot leave the island, since their immune systems can't fight diseases of any kind from the outside world. That would be why they killed the missionary. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay so I just saw what a certain poisonous snake said behind my back misrepresenting what I said. Let's set the record straight on many things. Because this is getting annoying.
1. My thoughts on the border is this. I believe that the these economic migrants should get their citizenship legally. My ancestors came here legally so should they. Why does this concept provoke such a hostile reaction by left-wingers? Lt's go down the list illegal immigration harms our nation, it is such a spit in the face of those who actually did the hard work to earn their citizenship. So then this dumb fuck tries to use two separate circumstances to say I'm a hypocrite. Let me explain the difference. The "refugees" from Latin america are in no way the same as the Indian tribe that killed that moron. Let's start with the border,User:GrammarCommieclaims that I'm saying that the tribe doesn't have sovereignty and that I don't support them. That's false they could build a wall like Trump and I'd be perfectly okay with it. They shouldn't be prosecuted IF THEY STAY ON THE GODDAM ISLAND! if they step off then they can be prosecuted for manslaughter. That's all I said. Let me ask you something User:GrammarCommie if a Native America(Or whatever PC word you'd prefer I use) kills someone on US soil can they avoid justice if they go on the reservation? Well technically, but if they leave they can and should be prosecuted you dumbfuck That's what I was saying.
2. Since you're bringing this other stuff up let me address it. I don't really care about Abortion. Roe V. Wade is unconstitutional but aside from that large fact I really don't care. I personally oppose it but it should be legal, if maybe not tax payed. As for gamergate you're only dredging that up because I called you out for your hypocrisy on your talk page. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I see you still can't read very well. Might I suggest glasses? Poisonous snake? Hardly. My point on that subject was that you seem so vehement on a secure boarder for one country, yet when another country/territory/whatever-semantic-you're-using does something similar you flip the script and condemn them. "That's false they could build a wall like Trump and I'd be perfectly okay with it. They shouldn't be prosecuted IF THEY STAY ON THE GODDAM ISLAND! if they step off then they can be prosecuted for manslaughter." Again, no, they can't. A) BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY ARE UNABLE TO LEAVE THE MOTHERFUCKING ISLAND!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, how am I supposed to explain this to you when your reading skills are so dull? They. Can. Not. Leave. The. Island. OK? OK! They are trapped on it. That's why they won't let anyone on the island, at all. If you want more information READ A FUCKING BOOK ON HOW IMMUNE SYSTEMS WORK WHEN THEY'RE OWNERS LIVE IN ISOLATION LONG ENOUGH!!!! OK? OK! Now, if you go "but if they leave the island..." one more time, I'll block you for a month. Because they can't. Your essentially saying that if Person A, who is currently suffering a terminal condition known as death wakes up, they'll pay for the murder they committed before they died. That's stupid. Because they aren't waking up, ever. And B) sovereignty!! It's the reason U.S. police officers who beat a suspect to death can't be tried in a court of law in any country outside the U.S. Because that's not how laws work. OK? OK! Stop saying stupid shit now and go back to working on your prehistory article, which at least contains logically valid statements. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Jesus, calm down, mate, don't let that idiot get to you. I may be a Chicano, Byron-loving, pinto-bean-eating, dog-fucking motherfucker, but I don't pay attention to trolls. Trust me, mate, I`m not a doctor.--Byron Wannabe (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It was wrong for him to go to that island in the first place. That said, I think he deserves some props for coming in peace rather than trying to convert them to his religion at gunpoint, unlike some of his predecessorsWikipedia. At the end of the day, I believe what he did was not malicious, but very stupid. If only he understood the unintended consequence of bringing 21st-century diseases to a relatively primitive island. I also think the fishermen and even the Indian government itself should have done more to avert this potential disaster to the inhabitants of the island. G Man (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately, whenever you visit people with the sole purpose of spreading an idea, ideology, religion, new way of doing things, new way of seeing the world etc. is that there is a very real danger...and that danger is both to you and to the other people. I do wish he would have had the chance to live and be fruitful and that his parents didn't have to suffer the horror of a son, killed and his body dragged around. But... No matter how certain you are of the ideas you transmit nor how sure you are that they may benefit people and be successful...you cannot be completely sure they will benefit the people and one should recognise that when doing this, you are placing both you and the people who visit in danger. I don't believe this poor young man considered it. Some ideologies (and most religious ones) feed into an overwealming confidence and certainty that their ideas are not just true but will always help others willing to listen. No doubt he as with so many before were blind to this and that the idea that they were putting the people into contact in danger, never ever occurred to him. It's religious/ideological arrogance. He knew the risks to himself, took those risks and ended up dead. Tragic for him and his family...pretty unsurprising to everyone else. He didn't question his overall plan enough to the point where he rigorously challenged his mission and the potential fall outs and almost put the people in very serious danger of near extinction. The lesson should be clear but the thing about Missionaries is they continue with the basic principles of spreading the good news which were used 2000 years ago and an almost wilful shutting out of the failures, disasters, mass suffering, destruction and human collateral that come the good news idea-salesmanship. ShabiDOO 19:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Them dragging his body around was the prelude to the burial of his body, they actually gave him several warnings before they ultimately killed him, so this was ultimately all on him.--Don Juan (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)O
Don Juan I think if you read my post there carefully you will see that I do not disagree with anything you said. Of course it was all on him and it was also, quite importantly on one of the more terrible forms of Christianity with its evangelistic arrogance by spreading the word at all costs (and at danger to all). That doesnt mean though, that you cannot spend a second and nod your head that he died a death he could have easily have avoided and from what I've read...he had all the promise in the world along with western privelage. It was all on him and no one should blame the indiginous people for dragging his body off...but that doesn't mean it was not a horror fest for his family and innocent friends to see and deal with. You can agree on one hand that he walked into his own grave because of his arrogance and lack of thought of how it would endanger others, and still empathise with those people who disagreed with his decisions, loved him, and are now suffering terribly because of his death. The two things are not mutually exclusive. The victims of his stupidity and christian arrogance affect a lot more than the indigenous people he came close to possibly wiping out. ShabiDOO 23:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
They dragged his body to where it was most convenient for them to bury him, he's still human like they are, so I`m not surprised they gave him a burial.--Don Juan (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Don Juan. I feel like I'm arguing with someone I agree with. Zheesh. The original fishermen reported the indigenous folk killed hinm and dragged the young man's body around the island which is the first thing his parents heard about. I've never read anymore about how they disposed the body. Inidignous people either dispose bodies and a tiny tiny fraction on Earth eat them (and there is no evidence at all that they are cannibals but parents can have very active imaginations). I don't know if you have children or a niece or nephew you are protective about...but probably the worst words a parent can hear is their son is dead and his body is being dragged around a island island by some indiginous people whose culture you know nothing about. Once again, no one is saying the locals did anything wrong, they didn't, no one here at rational wiki is denying the young man was totally responsible (and extremely reckless endangering others) but it is still a pointless pittiful loss and a horror fest for his families and friends. ShabiDOO 13:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

New article policy question[edit]

Hey, so I've been working on a draft in my sandbox and I'm kind of at a point where I feel like it's time put it out and let others have a go at it. I read the Help on new articles and sandboxes and I have a few questions remaining.

  • Is there a review process I have to put it through (Like over on Wikipedia.) or do I just move it out of there sandbox myself when I feel it's ready and get yelled at by everyone for making a garbage article get constructive criticism?
  • Do I just copy everything out of my sandbox onto the new article page under the name I want or does an administrator move it for me?
  • Honestly, some feedback on what could be improved would be helpful. Sandbox draft for 'Rail transportation' I suspect I haven't quite hit the RationalWiki tone on the head (If you want to leave feedback, leave it on the talk page for the sandbox, so I can find it easily).

Thanks. NavigatorBR(Talk) - 09:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's review process isn't real, it is an almighty spam filter in disguise which will approve literally anything that isn't complete crap. That said, the page ought to be moved to keep the history rather than copy & paste. So I just did that. — Dysk (contribs) 10:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding feedback, I think you just need to find crazy things, paranormal things, political things, and funny things related to the subject and add them to the article. There are bound to be some woo theories about trains somewhere. Probably. Ghost trains maybe. — Dysk (contribs) 10:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll makes sure to get some of that Alex Jones FEMA train stuff on there (Totally forgot about it being a thing until I was mulling over the article). --NavigatorBR(Talk) - 20:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

27 Countries[edit]

All with very different governments and interests and concerns and hopes and worries about the future, can come together, and rather quickly work out kinks and last minute issues...all under a clear unanimous consensus in the space of a week (most personal issues taken care of during a single weekend). Meanwhile...no one in Westminster has the slightest clue what will happen tomorrow...with the majority not in the slightest sure what they actually want nor how to work together to find a resolution nor any path towards it except downwards. ShabiDOO 10:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe BoN knows whether these Brexit issues will work out well. I have basically given up trying to work out whether it is good or bad and really just wish they would decide on something so I can just get on with my life. — Dysk (contribs) 15:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Works out well depends entirely on the person and party. Once out of the EU the conservatives can ramp up their austerity (as currently there are EU limits on how much you can strip social assistance bare). If you're in big business you'll enjoy the corporate tax cuts that will probably instantly follow a full EU exit. If you don't want more Poles moving onto your street...you will be pleased. However if you prefer to have your country rip out thousands of economic tendons and arteries and veins and extremely intricate trade & business practices and believe that forbthebfirst time in world history it won't be a vicious and extremely painful exercise or just try out some radical speculative modern political and economic ...then yeah...you should reject this. I have no idea what will finally work or if this deal will please people or not in the long run. What is incredible is how 27 leaders with different populations to please can come to a unanimous consensus in a week while a single political party with some support can spend 2 years in a "screaming every suggestion is bad while offering no alternative or suggesting jumping off a cliff is best cause it will all work out". And yet it is the EU that is apparabtly so undemocratic. Lol ShabiDOO 16:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Especially since I'm not British, I'm no expert on Brexit. I've heard bits and pieces on the BBC and that's about the level of my insight. It sounds like a "shitshow in a dumpster fire" though. Seems like most Brexiteers think that the May deal is the worst possible deal, and the Remainers think it's unbelievably bad. May supposedly capitulated to the EU on virtually everything because what choice did she have? At the last minute, Spain was strongly objecting to the Gibraltar paragraph, but it passed the EU vote anyway; I don't know what happened there. It will supposedly have a tough time in Parliament soon. It seems like a bad idea that major long-term economic decisions should be subject to a simple-majority popular vote as they were in the Brexit vote. Brexit was in the best interests of Putin's Russia, so one also has to wonder about that. Bongolian (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm being mentioned. The worst thing that's gonna happen is a little less, easy travel. I mean If you had unelected officials voting on your countires laws I bet you'd want a "brexit" too. I don't get why people are so willing to hand over their soverienty to bi brither like entities. Also I read the link and at first I though the tweet was Donald Trump.... That probably says something about the US. when the president is so bad I think whenever someone with the name Donald says something stupid I think it's him. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Because of the joke filter that automatically puts in the handle of whoever is looking at it. Trust me, I almost got suckered by it too, until I went to add my two cents worth and I saw the damn filter. I have to give him props for it though, it was clever.--Don Juan (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned I'll give my two cents. Brexit can work out for Britain, sort of. But it won't, because most of the politicians just don't know what the fuck is going on, thus Britain will likely end up with something of a compromise that will leave everyone, or almost everyone, unhappy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheDarkMaster2, my comment automatically changes to suggest the reader may have better knowledge of Brexit than me. — Dysk (contribs) 00:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@DarkMaster. OK, why does you and a lot of people think that "I mean If you had unelected officials voting on your countires laws I bet you'd want a "brexit" too" . Those are people NAMED by ELECTED officials! The institutions of the EU are perfectly democratic. The only undemocratic thing is that it's not divided enough by ideas, therefore some countries can feel annoyed if the other countries vote against their interests. (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Any of the old guard still here?[edit]

Hi, long time no see. So, yeah, almost four years. What did I miss? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ Banhammer, Renamer, and Goat 18:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What constitutes old guard? Some are here but they're mostly inactive editors. FuzzyCatPotato, joined in 2013 is inactive, but is running for moderator again. Cosmikdebris joined in 2012, is also running and is still active. David Gerard pops up now and then. Bongolian (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have been around for a while. About 5 years or something like that. Gotta Have More Cow Bell!!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Mostly, the folks I would know would have been active around 2008-2014 or so. Human is the big one I can think of, AceMcWicked, GooniePunk, although I think he had a different name. Javasca₧ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not 19:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been here since 2014, on and off mostly, I recently changed my handle from "Palaeonictis" to "Don Juan".--Don Juan (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Scream!! (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Since 2008. --MtDBogan 00:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Here since mid-2007 and still unable to tear myself away for long. Most of the old guard are long gone. I miss the old days of Kels and Crundy etc but you can't make people stay. Anyway, lovely to see you old chap. Avida Dollarsher again 09:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)
June 2007ish on and off: 'RojerB' (Before my sis took over the account) Keepthe faith 10:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
She invited me here. Avida Dollarsher again 12:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Taunton? Keepthe faith 12:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Totnes. Avida Dollarsher again 12:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
That's the boy! How you going? Keepthe faith 12:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Boy? er... Still here, still skint and frozen and snarking about creationism. And I've made friends with a local grebe. How are you? Avida Dollarsher again 12:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm good. Older by the hour, skint (of course), glancing at RW occasionally otherwise just being boring. Keepthe faith 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Radical cram school[edit]

What the hell is this? -Lankaster (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between equality and this cocaine fueled nightmare. This teaches racism. I only see hate speech. I get that many don't like Trump but teach about all issues that we are currently facing. Distorting the issues with little information being given is horribly wrong. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, this is supposed to equip young Asian girls with tools to resist the ever-present racism and misogyny of our times. -Lankaster (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have yet to watch this-- and I doubt I will, since it would clog my YouTube recommendation sensors insanely-- so can anyone tell me why the lady in the image is apparently pointing and screaming at Hello Kitty? Kencolt (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Kitty does not have a mouth and Captain Nut Case thinks it is due to sexism. This is why people see feminism as evil and why many women's rights activists abandon the term feminism. I say that Captain Nut Case is brain washing these kids into thinking all men are evil. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
"This is why people see feminism as evil and why many women's rights activists abandon the term feminism."
lol. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the hell she was thinking when she made that. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 00:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
A large part of Hello Kitty's popularity is due to her not having a mouth which means that she doesn't look happy or sad. If you are sad, you can imagine that your Hello Kitty doll is sad with you. And this video is obviously taking the piss out of commercials for language school chains in Japan, and Taiwan (and I guess Hong Kong and South Korea too and maybe a few other places). Which is strange. It's not a joke that many people outside of the region would get. Spud (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I can totally see that. I found it amusing, mostly because it skirted the boundary of being so off the wall that it 's hard to take seriously, rather deftly. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

For those who have NetFlix-- and who actually give a damn-- one might do worse than to check out a program on said service called "The Toys That Made Us". It's covered eight different toy lines that have had certain cultural significance in the US so far, and Hello Kitty is one of them-- going into it's origins as a toy purse, the difficulty of selling it in the US at first, and it's global significance. Yes, global. Nothing in it about sinister sexist plots to undercut women, though. (Oddly, Hello Kitty-- whose proper name, by the way, is Kitty White-- is British, married, and is still attempting to fulfill her childhood dream of being a concert pianist. The show is a trip.) Kencolt (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"And this video is obviously taking the piss out of commercials for language school chains in Japan, and Taiwan (and I guess Hong Kong and South Korea too and maybe a few other places)." I don't think so, the author Kristine Wong said that the purpose of these videos (there are others) is equipping young Asian girls with tools to resist the ever-present racism and misogyny of our times (click). -Lankaster (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. After spending most of my adult life in Asia, my cultural references are a bit different. Spud (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Have a $100 bet against my mom: Who can go longest without smoking[edit]

So far I went about 48 hours without smoking. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I`m 17, so I can't smoke, nor do I want to. My mom isn't too keen on quitting, even though I've been hounding her on it for years.--Don Juan (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Six and a half years and counting (since this) From 30+ per day. Scream!! (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
At least some people are stopping entirely. My mom used to smoke several packs a day, but now only smokes like one or two cigs a day, so there's been some progress, I guess. On a side note, did you go cold turkey or did you wean yourself off of tobacco gradually?--Don Juan (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Real tip from a former smoker. At some time during the winter you may contract the flu or a severe chest or head cold. That's a good time to quit cold turkey. You're going to be sick and miserable anyways, and you have a good excuse to stay home for a few days and binge a TV show. When your chest is full of gunk, throat is raw, and your nose is stuffy, it's relatively easier to persuade yourself that you don't want a cigarette. This is how I quit back in the 1980s. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Good to know, hope that convinces my mom, who seems to be going by the other route of gradually weaning herself off of cigarettes. She's only been smoking for about a decade or so, so her health hasn't been totally fucked up by nicotine inhalation yet. Myself, I've tried like one or two cigarettes, one when I was 11, about, say, 6 years ago, and another when I was 14, around 3 years ago, and the thing that instantly turned me off of them was the godawful taste.--Don Juan (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been smoking for six years. Started when I was 25 to spend more time with a girl I liked, so give me a break on that. Got to about a pack a day. I'm down to usually 5 cigarettes a day, which is good considering I don't know how to drive a car without smoking anymore, and I've cut that down from 8-10 to 3 by trying to time the cigarette to perfectly fit the middle part of the drive. It's different every day with traffic, it's a stupid kind of predictive fun, there are no consequences other than I can never smoke more than one cigarette every time I get behind the wheel. I'm in support of your contest, I hope you continue it until you both die. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, maybe you should join our contest.--Don Juan (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

vape. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Defining Reality[edit]

I always wondered why the Hindu faith defines illusion as anything that changes and reality as something that does not. So that what is real doesn't change but what is an illusion does? It just seems like an assumption based on "i said so". From what I have learned reality is "the way things are" and in that case it's that things change. If they didn't then they would be an illusion. Thoughts?Machina (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You are taking a bad translation too literally. That's really not what it is supposed to mean. — Dysk (contribs) 22:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you can explain to me the mistake?Machina (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
In the Hindu faith, illusion generally equates with Maya, originally the power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion, or, the force which creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real. To express this in western terms, the illusion is not real, only existing in the mind of the people experiencing it. Thus, reality is "how things are" in the physical realm, as opposed to what is effectively clouded perception in the minds of those affected by "illusion". The key thing is that the illusion has no form outside of the mind. Of course what is reality can change, but that is not taken into account in the Hindu faith, which is approximately that "Brahman" is the one true state, or the "the one reality". It is expressed as static in that sense. — Dysk (contribs) 00:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like nonsense to me.Machina (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You should read Mircae Eliades Images and Symbols. In the Vedic Age the god Varuna was regarded as having possessed the power of Maya. He and Vritra could've very well been the same god, Vritra being a disguise/illusion. The concept of Maya has it's origins in this deity. Mí má kȍhà hńg gǀȕì ō ǁȁhìn-ā ō hȁ ō gǀè gù ǀxūúnnu. (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Reads more like some kind of fusion between idealism and solipsism. Even then their definition of reality is pretty much just "because I say so". It's kind of boggling how they don't account for the fact that reality changes. I guess that's why it's called a Hindu faith. Makes me think their enlightenment (alleged) is more a product of believing such teaching rather than proof of them.Machina (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I have always liked the Phillip K. Dick definition of reality. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." It's snarky, it's condescending, but it's not far off the point. It doesn't help with understanding some of the things that "don't go away". You do the double slit experiment and don't believe in quantum mechanics while you do, you've got no fucking idea what's happening. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Second. Except in the other direction, nihilism is a snarl term, so I definitely like to identify as a nihilist. You do the double slit experiment, believe in quantum mechanics, but can't suss out the math to your comprehension. So you stop believing in your interpretation of what's true, because you've failed to decode the equations behind an experiment you set the parameters for, and so nobody is going to feed you if demonstrable physics are beyond your own grasp. You find something that works for you and call it what you've got for now, illusory as it inherently is, because you're not some snake-oil "the truth is outside of the evidence" maniac. I don't think religion is ever successful if it runs against this line of thinking, I think it just dances around it like it means something extra to accept not knowing the answer. Metaphor is old, math is hard, ethics are fluid, and consciousness is finite. I like the Nietzsche aside, "We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once." Dude loved things that made him dance, I guess. Dance if you want. Don't judge your whole life upon it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Migrant caravan[edit]

US border guards fire tear gas at the migrant caravan at US-Mexican border. I'm ready to see how the right-wing media will defend this. TheEOE (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as they're concerned the situation is best summed up by the classic Italian idiom: "Hannibal's at the gates!"--Don Juan (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheEOE Just go re-watch Trump's 2016 "Mexicans are rapists" speech. You'll get the entire narrative all in one place. The right-wing media's narrative hasn't really changed much between then and now. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah how dare a country defend it's border.Obviously anyone should be able to enter with no checks at all. Really worked well with all those Muslims in Europe. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
And that last comment is exactly what I was talking about. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Nobody asked the Native Americans for permission to settle in their lands now, did they?--Don Juan (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
What else are US border guards supposed to do? -Lankaster (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lankaster "The migrants, who are mostly from Honduras, but also from Guatemala and El Salvador, say they are fleeing the threat of violence in their home countries and looking to make a better life for themselves and their families." Gee, I dunno. Maybe the U.S. could grant them asylum? Failing that, we could always just ditch the stupid "U.S.A #1!!" garbage and just say that we're racist xenophobes. I mean, it's not like claiming your country is the best on earth, that it's founded on immigrants, that it stands as a beacon of humanitarianism could possibly play a role in why people keep trying to come here... Fucking wafflers. Burn down the statue of liberty, then people from other countries will get the memo. I mean I could have told them that it's all a fucking ass farce. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
We could also just put up billboards saying "you can do better than the U.S., we're hypocrites and assholes." That might work too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheDarkMaster2 Yes. How dare people criticize using tear gas on innocent people just searching for a better life. So crazy people are against it, right? TheEOE (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
"The migrants, who are mostly from Honduras, but also from Guatemala and El Salvador, say they are fleeing the threat of violence in their home countries" But then why didn't they stop in Mexico? Or is Mexico so violent too that they necessarily have to move to US?
"Maybe the U.S. could grant them asylum?" Don't you see how that would constitute practical problems? At least, if you establish that US should grant asylum to people from Honduras and El Salvador, then US should grant asylum to more than 15 millions people. -Lankaster (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Conservative Americans are not human beings as we understand the term. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm neither conservative nor American. -Lankaster (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You're not human?--Don Juan (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Lankaster is totally right...Mexico is clearly the kind of violence free paradise with huge economic promise and safety all around. Just see here how synonomous Mexico is economically and safety wise, with the United States. ShabiDOO 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So USA should take all people from Honduras, El Salvador, and also Mexico? The counter is now at 145 millions. -Lankaster (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not Mexican, American or Central American and with no stake in the issue I have no clear opinion on what a foreign country should do or not do with their borders. It's up to them. The only thing I hope is that people are treated with dignity which, in this case, they are not. I said nothing about America taking anyone in. I only wanted to point out how stupid your "why don't they stay in Mexico" argument because it was one of the more moronic arguments you've made. I assume with you ignoring my response that you take it back? Perhaps you might take back a few more of your idiotic arguments? ShabiDOO 19:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that someone with a really well paid job in Central America can go to America illegally and earn three years wages in three months doing below minimum wage slave work for some unregulated uncaring business. And their American slave drivers still provide equal or better working conditions than back home. When they get deported they go back to their home village, buy the biggest best house there, get married, etc. Then a few years later they return to get enough money to raise their kids, buy food, clothes, pay for education, etc.. then the kids grow up, and travel to America. Circle of life. — Dysk (contribs) 19:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo"I said nothing about America taking anyone in." and I said nothing about Mexico being "violence free paradise with huge economic promise and safety all around." See how bad get the conversation when one makes strawmen?
"I only wanted to point out how stupid your "why don't they stay in Mexico" argument because it was one of the more moronic arguments you've made." If they can't stay in Mexico because it's too dangerous and they have to move to US, then you should apply the same reasoning to Mexicans themselves and conclude that they have to move to US too. Otherwise you have to explain why people from Honduras can't stay in Mexico but Mexicans can. -Lankaster (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Lankaster's ridiculous argument: "Or is Mexico so violent too that they necessarily have to move to US?" I wasn't strawmanning you, I don't need to, your comment was totally stupid on several levels both in terms of violence and your slippery slope conclusions. I was lampooning it with irony and sarcasm, perhaps I wasn't ironic and sarcastic enough. In any case, you keep referring to "we have to let them in" as though dealing with a few thousand Central American purported refugees means opening the flood gates to all Northern Hemisphere latinos. That's called a slippery slope fallacy. It's a particularly terrible way to draw conclusions. Rationalwiki has an excellent page on the most common fallacies. In any case whether they are successful or not...they still need to be treated with some minimal level of dignity. Demonising them, insulting them, attacking them etc. is a thoroughly vicious and cruel way to treat other human beings. ShabiDOO 20:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Dysklver, I see where you are going with that, however this is, to say the least, an oversimplification and gross generalisation. If Americans were particularly concerned for the treatment of Latino workers then in the interim they would have made strenuous efforts to combat abuse/slavery/underpaymen/living-conditions etc. Not just a few inspections, underfunded agencies and lip service. While I have no doubt some sincerely have problems with illegal immigration due to their treatment at the hands of scumbags...for others this is just a convenient excuse in which case they should just say what they really mean "we don't want anymore Latino's around". ShabiDOO 20:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo "as though dealing with a few thousand Central American purported refugees means opening the flood gates to all Northern Hemisphere latinos." Never hear of legal precedent? Instead of repeating that my argument is ridiculous, are you able to answer the question: Why these people coming from Honduras should get asylum in US, and not in Mexico where they currently are? -Lankaster (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lankaster If you actually read my cynical posts earlier you'd understand. The U.S. is supposed to be the most humanitarian country on the planet (bullshit), so if we were we'd use this thing called empathy (which I'm pretty sure is bullshit made up by idealists) to figure that helping others is the right choice to make. Meanwhile, the real question we should be asking ourselves is, after all the bullshit and jackassery we've put them through over the years, why the fuck do people keep trying to immigrate here to begin with? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You do realize that's the point of a border? Like either you deport people or you encourage them not to come. Pick your poison "progressive" TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you really want to go into a complex debate on the nature of socio-national constructs? And for the record, since you apparently live in a tiny world where people are either "conservatives" or "progressives" I'm neither. And I've never once, in the entire history of me posting on this website, claimed otherwise. Tough luck for your adorable worldview. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What Rationalwiki needs[edit]

… is the equivalent of 'The Lord of Misrule' (on at least an occasional basis). Anna Livia (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ace & Human (among others) used to fill that role; methinks. Scream!! (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Pink too. It certainly needs to be more fun. Avida Dollarsher again 12:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
True, dat. Keepthe faith 12:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If it helps you can all start worshiping me.--Don Juan (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If you can make it rain tea, it's a deal. Avida Dollarsher again 14:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Done.--Don Juan (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And should there be immoderator elections - and where should they be on the range from 'purveyors of what they consider witticisms' to 'general nuisances who may flounce off LANCBing'? Anna Livia (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Worshiping the One True God will miraculously solve all of your problems.--Don Juan (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I propose I become the Lord of Misrule. My qualifications: every edit I made in 2017. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 15:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
What I consider witticisms are comedy gold you philistines. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bigs False prophet! Burn the heretic!--Don Juan (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
How about we force ikanreed and RWRW to discuss politics for six hours then let them loose on the wiki? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 16:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I know violence is not okay, and this is physically impossible, but you do that, and I will find a way to punch you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I've got an even better solution. How about we create a neo-Inquisition, this is how we do it. We round up every non-believer in Don Juanism and then torture them until they convert ban them from the wiki. How does that sound?--Don Juan (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)17:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
What other offices can be added to the Lord of Misrule, Boy (and now girl) Bishops and the Mayor of Garratt so that everybody can have a turn/be appointed whether they will or no? Anna Livia (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Don is blaspheming against the Super Mecha Death Goat, we must purge him. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 17:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Super Mecha Death Goat is a false prophet. We burn false prophets.--Don Juan (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
There are also the offices of 'Keeper of the Cute Baby Goats', 'Hunter of Cute Baby Goats Videos' and 'Keeper of the Tree Goats.' There is also the Recruiter to the Ship of Fools. Anna Livia (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
By "ship of fools" you mean Congress, right?--Don Juan (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
See [3] - and would include some of the subjects of RW. Anna Livia (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I got the reference, I was making a jab at Congress.--Don Juan (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So is this idle chatter, or are we gonna appoint someone to be the chief jester? — Dysk (contribs) 19:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In a stunning act of humility, Don Juan humbly offers himself as a candidate.--Don Juan (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Everybody is chief jester, by royal decree of Their Imperial Majesties the shop dummies in Ealing Broadway Marks & Spencer. Avida Dollarsher again 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
We are all chief jesters, but some are more chief than others.--Don Juan (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Obligatory nod at Animal Farm.
By use of this we all get to take on whatever creatively named office we wish whenever there is a festivity.
There is also the RW cabal. Anna Livia (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought there was no cabal.--Don Juan (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't tell anyone but everybody here is their own cabal. Plus there is the technical support cabal, and the Salt Shaker, Pepper Pot and Mustardpot (whether or not (auto)confirmed) cabals Anna Livia (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There's also The New Cabal. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (#RoninMacbethForMod) 16:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There's also the original cabal, ;).--Don Juan (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fuck this shit.[edit]

"Secure boarders are important!!!" "Except when someone else does it!!!" And this in a nutshell, is why I hate the "Secure the boarder" crowd. The level of idiotic hypocrisy they engage in is just as galling as Pro-lifers and GGers. Fucking dumbass dipshits... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC) 13:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

They never, ever outline what they think the laws should be in some ideal world, just whatever dumbass laws there are now should be enforced with a stricture not encoded into them at all. It's a thought terminating cliche. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
"they think the laws should be in some ideal world" This makes me wonder about what you think the laws about borders should be in an ideal world. Well, maybe not in an ideal world, otherwise you could just answer: "no borders, everyone live in harmony". Let's say in a better world that can be reached not too many years from now. -Lankaster (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, okay, so you have no fucking idea and can only return to the thought terminating cliche again. Good. Great. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
"so you have no fucking idea" Says who has so great ideas about borders that he is afraid to tell them and has to attack who asked. -Lankaster (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, no, my idea is pretty simple. Radically reduce the use racially motivated quotas on legal and temporary immigration(none of the past 10 years should have hit a fucking quota), do more rigorous enforcement of minimum wage laws, grant asylum where appropriate, demilitarize policing, and if we somehow end up with "too many people" kill conservatives until that problem goes away. I'm only half joking on that last point. There's a lot of problems dead conservatives solve. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
"Radically reduce the use racially motivated quotas on legal and temporary immigration" You have to enlighten me about that: Is there a (upper? lower?) limit for the number of people of a certain race that can enter the US?
"do more rigorous enforcement of minimum wage laws" Well... that could mean many unemployed immigrants...
"grant asylum where appropriate" This means nothing without saying what is "appropriate"
"demilitarize policing" If you mean removing US military from other countries, I agree. -Lankaster (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, their policy is clear: christian invading other countries = ok. Anyone invading a christian country = not ok. (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty much spot-on, although replace "Christian country" with "Western country". I should note that whether Latin America is part of the West or not is an extremely murky issue.--Don Juan (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Latin America is heavy christian. It's about legality not religion, moron TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A bit of Fundie BS about the End Times[edit]

So I picked up on the waves yesterday someone who claims to be a doctor in theology and History (nice way to waste an Universitary title that way, speaking about BS. However the same station has a philosophy universitary teacher who has a nice collection of epic fails when mixing physics and astronomy witht the Bible) talking about the End Times (you know the storyboard too well: Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood and this being much worse, Rapture, 144,000 lucky ones, one thousand years of Jesus' reign as a first taste of the brainwashing awaiting to those fortunate enough once everything goes to dev/null), Lake of Fire, Mark of the Beast, God being just because everyone would see if his name is written in the Book of Life (ie: if they believed or not), people are lost because they do not believe, blah, blah).

Nothing new until the man mentioned deserts becoming lush lands (fuck those ecosystems) and the Battle of Armaggedon being a match between a 200 million strong army formed by the ones of India, Japan, and China that would fight against Satan after the latter had defeated the ones of Russia and the Arabic countries just to join Satan in order to stop the Second Coming (non-Christian (read: non-Fundagelical) countries which should give a hint). I seriously wonder if that asshole knows something about the logistics that such an army would need, not to mention I very seriously doubt they'd have enough manpower to raise it (and if the still existing frictions between Japan and other Asiatic countries after WWII would not ruin the effort). Naturally they dislike amillenianism.

Amazing how some still take so seriously trippy anti-Roman propaganda written 2.000 years ago that is just a Book of Enoch with the serial numbers filed off and recycled Zoroastrianism, plus tales ripped straight off from Judaism where meaning is quite different. It's a pity the book does not include that jumping off a cliff gives "eternal life" so we'd have gotten rid of a lot of idiots. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain why large numbers of people from non-Christian-theological cultures would wish to fight the Christian Satan? Anna Livia (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If they were forced at gunpoint maybe.--Don Juan (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, presumably if a fictional supervillain made of pure malice suddenly started existing, I'd be up for fighting them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
So, you mean that if someone were to bring the Joker into existence, you'd become a follower? I`m game.--Don Juan (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
A better example would be GalactusWikipedia. If he suddenly showed up and it was clear he wanted to eat the world, I could see a large multinational force wanting to prevent it from happening. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I can imagine him getting heavily nuked. — Dysk (contribs) 10:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I shall create a doomsday prophecy of my own[edit]

Get me some hard liquor, awful disaster movies and multiple different Bibles; give me a few hours of drunken stupor along with the Bibles and disaster movies, you got a doomsday prophecy.Gotta Have More Cow Bell!!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Super Mecha Death Goat will eat the world unless you give John Wick your credit card information. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, Super Mecha Death Goat. Probably my proudest idea. Came up with it in the Saloon Bar a while back. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The Fun:Holy Goat Scriptures if I recall. :) — Dysk (contribs) 21:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
'Supra Tech Fox is the enemy of Super Mecha Death Goat. He promises beer, cigarettes and chicks in the afterlife. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The special needs "school" in my area is a waste of tax payer money (not exactly what you think)[edit]

My older brother went there and they taught nothing, literally. All that happened was pointless field trips. When the students went to the store to learn how to shop, the students got to buy what they want and were not taught to buy personal items.

The students have severe to profound learning disabilities. These students have limited understanding of personal care and are not taught basic math or spelling either.

How is it fair to deny these kids an education and pay the workers to do nothing? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's bad. Are there other schools/options for your older brother? -Lankaster (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not fair. The school isn't meant to solve real problems. The idea of special needs schools is to protect districts from NCLB funding annihilation. It's all to deal with badly constructed bureaucratic rules of "success", while also maybe being a bit of a mental health segregationist ideology. Special education teachers tend to be trained in babysitting and safety, not education and learning. For lawsuit reasons. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed sad but true. Quoting the Simpson's

"This school is a glorified hamster wheel run by incompetent bureaucrats". --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The last time I set foot in a school I was eleven. Yes I am still slightly anti-social and can't spell perfectly, but this lack of going to school didn't unduly affect me. I have a degree, I speak multiple languages, I have a part time job and am doing postgraduate study. Consider the alternatives to the hamster wheel. — Dysk (contribs) 18:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I like hamster wheels, though.--Don Juan (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk.origins is still alive[edit]

I should know, I`m a regular there. I post under the handle "Oxyaena". I feel like a lot of people don't realize that the original creationist bullshit refuting forum is still alive and kicking. The Archive is no longer updated, or only very rarely updated. There's still some good shit being posted there. If you ever want to check it out, you know what to do.--Don Juan (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sooo. Why still usenet? I heard of it once but thought it was a museum item, the fact it still works is surprising. — Dysk (contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the bland look of a command line to all of the flashy new "Web 2.0" shit, I guess it's just personal preference.--Don Juan (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
No, web 2.0 is seriously garbage. It's taken the "don't worry so much about power users, they'll manage a simple, but intuitive system just fine" route all the way to "we know best, listen to the algorithm, consume what we give you" extreme. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. Usenet gives the user a lot more power over what they see and respond to. When it all comes down to it, I'll gladly take Usenet over, say, Facebook any day of the week.--Don Juan (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Well yeah, Facebook is crap. I guess you wing biggity on that comparison. — Dysk (contribs) 19:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mod Election[edit]

This announcement is brought to you because the mod election is about to end, please make sure you have voted if you want to vote. If you don't vote, you are officially lazy and that's on you! Visit the election booth to vote, if you have voted it will say "You have already voted." Someone should also get the "awaiting results" banner ready for the sitenotice. Ta. — Dysk (contribs) 17:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd think someone would nominate someone as godly as I am, but apparently others don't see it that way. Is it just me or am I really a god? I mean, someone recognized my face in some random piece of toast so that must be worth something. Also, I haven't voted, so I guess I am now officially lazy.--Don Juan (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

World AIDS Day and PrEP[edit]

Hi all,

I'm the Thinker(unlicensed) and I'm new here.

Since it's the 2018 World AIDS Day, what do you think of PrEPWikipedia? Thinker(unlicensed) 11:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work well enough. Good idea, bit crap. The future of HIV resistance is apparently genetically modified Chinese babies. Or not. — Dysk (contribs) 11:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention: "When taken consistently, PrEP has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection in people who are at high risk by up to 92%." so it seems to work well. On the other hand, right now everything about preventing HIV by genetic engineering is highly speculative (and, anyway, it would help only future genetically modified newborns, not living people). Thinker(unlicensed) 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
What about the other 8% though? And more importantly, what about the fact that hereditary transmission is pretty much certain if the mother has the disease? I can see why the Chinese are doing what they are doing, because otherwise Children are unfeasible. — Dysk (contribs) 13:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that criticizing PrEP for an 8% failure is asking too much.
In my opinion, the main problems with PrEP are (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the following:
1) It must be taken daily (!)
2) It costs a lot
3) It doesn't protect from other STDs, so the use of condoms is still recommended
4) Side effects are not well studied
Consequentially, I don't see many situations where PrEP would be a better approach to HIV prevention than using condoms and reducing risky sexual behaviors. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Condoms aren't 100% effective either. It's hard to accurately measure their effectiveness because it depends on so many factors (including correct use), but studies give figures of anything from 69%-94% at preventing transmission where one partner is seropositive.[4] So even allowing for the methodological differences, lack of direct comparison, etc, PrEP is a possible alternative or addition (I don't have cost comparisons). (This comment is addressed generally, not just to the previous comment.) --Annanoon (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
pretty much wrong across the board.
1)you can start taking it a few days before ya big night out and stop little bit after.
2)its cheap compared to providing (the same) medication everyday for the rest of your life, plus any complications if you catch hiv.
3)probably wise, but if your partner is positive you might want to have some options.
4)complete arse. there are few to none
we probs all should use condoms, dental dams, give up fags, and booze, say no to drugs, exercise, eat your greens and what a wonderful world we would have. back in real life prep works. rates of infection are down across the board [(https://www.newscientist.com/article/2117426-massive-drop-in-london-hiv-rates-may-be-due-to-internet-drugs/], and when you factor in medication making those with hiv unifectious - the vast majority of new infections comes from those unaware of their status, its rank stupidity to be uming and ahing over it. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
as for genetic modification of babies - its an idiotic argument - the idea that 'prep isn't good enough' (it is). but one day in the future someones child (not you) will have immunity? fanstastic. bring it on. get some teleporters up and running while we at. preps here now, for immediate use. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
1) Are you sure? I read that you must take PrEP daily for it to work
2) I agree that PrEP is cheaper than HIV treatments, but treating a healthy individual with PrEP still costs more than other HIV prevention methods. Such costs are probably exorbitant to prevent HIV in third world countries
3) That is a case in which I see PrEP as a good option: If one is in a stable relation with an HIV-positive partner. But that's no the general case. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
1 it really depends on your circumstance. if you continually at risk of infection ie, long term partner, you a sex worker, or you just like to party, you need it in your system. if you just like to go crazy at the sauna once a month you dont - few days bfore so its in your system, a few days after to catch any residues traces. if you are no longer at risk you do not need to keep taking the stuff.
2 this is all kind of dependant on having an effective health system in the first place - thats going be the case on literally every health issue everywhere all the time and you will have to rely on condoms, and its never been suggested that this will end hiv forever. the point on cost is you can stop stop taking prep when you are not a risk. infection means a lfe long commitment of daily medication, hospital visits, and associated health difficulties. if you are at risk and you have the option, prep is there. condoms are still there too. preventing that infection in the first. condoms have not been working, the same way abstainence does not work. it sets impossible standards. everywhere where drives for condoms, 'healthy' sexual practises happen, infection rates initially drop then they creep up and up. and lets be clear, prep is only usually offered if you are at risk. if you are a good boy, are monogamous, never too pissed, hold everything while you find a rubber, make all the good life choices then congratulations you can sleep well in your ivory tower, because you wont ever need prep in the first place - you were never at risk. those at risk - its another layer of protection, an effective one. its a puritanical argument to say, well condoms are fine, how about a bit of self control? it condemns people for human failings, it increases the inevitable drain on resources of infection, and makes infection more common because people get infected when they need not increasing the resorvoir. then suddenly you at risk too because its no longer gays and drug users with it.
3 see point 2. its for those risk. no one is suggesting the virginal mother reilly, whole life in a nunnery should dose up in case she gets a bit frisky on the benedictine. some communities are more at risk than others. some idiviuals. people are human. they have human failings. they make poor choices. they sometimes get dealt a shitty hand. prep helps prevent compounding those problems. if we all could live as saints there would be no need for many things. we cannot, and must face reality. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
1) If I had to guess, I would say that there is some time window within if you take PrEP you are protected, so what you said would make sense. However I keep finding sources recommending a daily dose, and without knowing how long such time window would be I cannot speculate.
2) The type of health system can help lowering the cost for the single individual, by moving it to the community, but the cost doesn't disappear. This is why I see PrEP not suited for HIV prevention in third world countries, for example.
The rest of what you wrote seems a rebuttal to an argument I never made. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
i not really sure the relevence of third world countries to cost. if you cant afford it, you can t afford it - the choice has already been made. there are more issues there than prep. for those fortunate enough to be in areas of the world with functioning health systems the cost of condoms vs prep? as a flat price, without regard for the potential costs of their results, the reasons why some results are better than others? sure condoms probably cheaper. at the outset. but you need to look at the outcomes. prep substantially reduces infections. that means substantially less spent on drugs. substantially less of a drain on resources. substantially less of a human cost - then hands down prep wins. the 'argument you never made' is if condoms work why fund prep? you need context to answer that, and that context further answers the more unspoken question of 'why fund a drug so people can party/do things unpalatable to my sensibilities?' - this is an argument that you have made, not so bluntly, but essentially - elsewhere it is made by others more strongly, more knowingly. you cannot answer these questions if you just look at the balance sheet, but it does make it easier to make choices that brutally punish many people for the most human of failings. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding third world countries I was thinking about projects funded by first world countries to help them. Of course third world countries cannot afford PrEP by their own. "'why fund a drug so people can party/do things unpalatable to my sensibilities?' - this is an argument that you have made, not so bluntly, but essentially" No, I didn't. Feel free to write a rebuttal, but I didn't make such argument.

As far as my understanding goes: For people at daily or at most weekly risk of HIV contagions (sex workers, who has a stable partner with HIV, operators with at strict contact with HIV patients...), PrEP is a good option. For people at occasional risk of HIV contagion, PrEP doesn't seem significantly better than condoms. For massive HIV prevention, like in third world countries, PrEP is probably too expensive and complicate to administer, so that funding traditional HIV prevention methods would be more effective. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

sorry but yes you did make that argument 'Consequentially, I don't see many situations where PrEP would be a better approach to HIV prevention than using condoms and reducing risky sexual behaviors.' your words. its further made where you state situations where you believe prep would appropriate - drs and nurses, the monogamous with a partner who is postive, sex workers. thats paragons of virtue and thoswe compelled by circumstance into a bleak existance. sex workers aside, the faithful lover and medical professionals seem only at risk from their own selflessness. these are not the centre of massive spikes in infection rates. drs and nurses are not even at risk - they know to avoid needlestick injuries and they can be better dealt with via pep (post exposure prophaltic, in case you assumed a typo). im not sure how you are gauging 'occasional risk' when you compare someone in a stable relationship with someone whose hiv status is known (we know that it is those who are UNAWARE of their status are the ones overwhelmingly more likely to pass on an infection) to your average gay male deep into the party scene multiple partners, cocktails of drugs? this is the at risk group, and its just false to say prep isnt significantly better when its had an overwhelming effect with massive drops infection rates. see the link above. its this group that have been buying prep on the internet before it was even offered on the nhs. its why we even know what prep is. infection rates actually spiked in the murkier part of the gay world before prep hit the scene,now they are lower than they've ever been. and i should stress my examples are generally from the gay world, a particular aspect of it especially at risk because i am steeped in that world. their are other communities with equal amounts risk i just cannot comment on - i can claim no insight in the various ethnic communities similarly blighted or how cultures put them at risk. i know there is an element of coercion - the guy just wont use condoms dont you trust him? (hes been sleeping around). is there not enough risk there? the london experience has provided such postitive effects that you cant just hand wave it away as 'not significant' and a poor assessment of the risks actual real people find themselves in. you need to look a little deeper AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Saying "Consequentially, I don't see many situations where PrEP would be a better approach to HIV prevention than using condoms and reducing risky sexual behaviors" is different from "why fund a drug so people can party/do things unpalatable to my sensibilities?" You can see that, for example, because in the first sentence there's no mention to my sensibilities, while in the second they are central. If you don't see that, then we cannot have a conversation. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
can you really not see what can be inferred from what you said? I mean, if i've drawn the wrong conclusion from that then maybe clarify. Its a conclusion reinforced by other things you said. Yes, your statement with its reference to risky sexual behaviours is different to mine with its reference to sensibilities. But only in phrasing. they amount to the samething, a point made clearer when you dont ignore what i said immediately before and after, stripping it of context. If you want quibble about semantics, then you are correct -we cannot have a conversation AMassiveGay (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I already clarified: I never made such an argument. If you want that I make it clearer: I'm not going to make an argument based on my sensibilities (Why should I?) Thinker(unlicensed) 16:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The program is not specifically designed for those who regularly engage in reckless sex (though it is an important demographic) but is for any and all LGTB who engage or will engage in men with men sex. Those who participate in the project range from this charicature description of "gay men who party irresponsibly and take the drug so they can ditch the condom", which by the way is extremely degrading and offensive, to those who have a rare slip-up, to those who are always careful and safe, to those who are still virgins and want to take precautions (which is pretty sensible). The prep program is meant to compliment other HIV avoidance programs including distributing free condoms and numerous educational programs (both of which have been very successful). When I hear someone say "I'm on the prep" this doesn't communicate to me "I'm a reckless horn dog who likes skin to skin ejaculation" but says "I'm informed and I'm careful about it" because saying this to a possible sex partner is a great icebreaker and helps bring up the subject for a quick and frank talk about their attitudes towards safe sex. This program has been extremely successful and it has saved millions upon millions in future HIV treatment and definitely some lives. I cannot think of a single reason to not continue with the program in other countries, that is, unless you believe the nasty steotypes of LGTB men who praise the pills as a way to not have to cover up anymore. It happens. It is not however the point of the program. And money aside...isn't it a good thing to avoid the spread of HIV? Even if it did cost more than possible HIV treatment in the future (which it doesn't)? ShabiDOO 21:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
i can't say im entirely say im entirely convinced about people not using prep as a reason to skip the rubber. My point is they were skipping it anyway. Condom usage has been declining for years, and australia that decline saw a sharp increase after prep. Condom usage has always declined after the intial upsurge after a campaign. Tutting in disapproval only ever gets us far. My argument has always been its a irrelevant for people to complain about the reasons some maybe taking prep when lower infection rates benefits everyone. It makes everyone safer. I also find it a little rich that when people complain about the promiscuity of gay men. Ifs its such a big deal for them maybe should have let us get married earlier. They never wanted to respect our relationships, then get upset when you dont settle down. Cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Guys, nobody here is making moral judgements on gay sex. I understand that often people do, but since this conversation isn't the case, I don't see the point of reiterating that the "promiscuous HIV spreading gay"-stereotype is wrong. We are in agreement on that, so let's focus on PrEP.
@Shabidoo "...to those who are always careful and safe, to those who are still virgins and want to take precautions (which is pretty sensible)" In such cases it seems to me that the protection given by PrEP is not worth the effort. I mean, taking everyday an expensive pill, for reducing the already low probability of contracting HIV using condoms on few sex intercourse?
"And money aside...isn't it a good thing to avoid the spread of HIV?" Of course is a good thing, but money are finite. I'm not saying that not a penny of third countries aids should be spent on PrEP, but I'm wondering how much should be spent to obtain the better results. Obviously with the same money we can buy more condoms that PrEP. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
i honestly dont understand what you want here. You started this thread to discuss prep. We are discussing prep. Discussing prep means you discuss gays and promiscurity, you discuss sex and drugs, what is or isnt moral. Thats it. Nothing else. It all of that. You want to talk about cost? Fine, talk about cost because you will talking about gays and sex. There is no argument on cost that is not fundementally about gays and sex. None. Why, for example, if its too costly why are birth control pills funded? Why are a whole host minor ailments and measures funded? Why is prep not or shouldnt? No answer that does not involve gays and sex. If you say its not cost effective for some groups, then guess what? You will be talking about gays and sex. And there is no sense in talking about the third world and the cost of prep. Its pointless to consider anywhere with spotty healthcare, huge cultural issues and other major issues make its effectiveness neglible. Even in the US, you have to factor in health coverage and massive disparities along racial lines. We can discuss places where infrastructure is in place for prep to be viable. For me, thats london, where a disproportionate amount of cases are with gay men. Gays and sex. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You rush to conclusions to quickly. I never said that we don't have to talk about gay and sex, I said that we don't have to reiterate "that the promiscuous HIV spreading gay-stereotype is wrong" since we are in agreement.
Regarding third world countries, I have already said that I'm talking of PrEP funded by first world countries. If a humanitarian project has a certain budget to help a third world country reducing HIV, how much should be spent on condoms and how much on PrEP to maximize the results? I would guess more on condoms. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
first, lets kill this third world countries. ive answered this twice already. go back, read them both, understand them, look and your question and see why its idiotic. done that? see what i mean? just to be certain, i'll clarify again. the third world, dozens of unconnected countries, beset by varying problems of all kinds, of which hiv/aids is a literally apocolyptic one, countries where healthcare is often inadequate, out of date, or entirely absent, where infrastructure in general is poor or absent, governance ranges from poor to corrupt to genocidal, wars and insurrections are rife, in that context, the relevance of asking 'condoms or prep', your hypothetical dilemma? its only a question for places set up for its effective use. im not coming back to this, that one is done.
and where do we go from here? what is you are trying to get at? at almost every step ive given a view or make point, tried to add context or perspective. i cant say how useful that was because it was flat out ignored because 'thats not what i said!!!' i clarify, i explain what i meant, where your argument led, what else needs to considered, i ask you what you meant, 'thats not what i said!!!' jesus christ, throw me a fucking bone here. i have no clue what your point is here. what direction are you coming from? we are talking about things here that are directly relevant to the lives of my friends and my own, about one of the few things on this site where i feel that i may have actual useful insight from actual direct and relevant experience. a different perspective, or counter argument would be great, necessary even, but you give me nothing to work with. i am literally questioning my sanity right now and this has not helped at all AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you think that the usage of PrEP is a only a question for places that are set up for its effective use, and not thirld world countries, that you agree with me that PrEP is not a good solution for third world countries.
Regarding me pointing out that I didn't make some arguments you claimed I made, that's just natural, I don't have problems with your rebuttals, but I had to say it was incorrect to address them to me.
"we are talking about things here that are directly relevant to the lives of my friends and my own, ... i may have actual useful insight from actual direct and relevant experience." About that, in the meanwhile, I spoke with a doctor, and he told me that it isn't recommended to take PrEP a few days before and a few days after a sexual intercourse, as you suggested. He said that PrEP is indeed used as a kind of emergency pill after unprotected sex, but that it is better to take it constantly. Precisely, before starting PrEP one should have at least a month of abstinence and three tests to be sure that he is HIV-negative (because taking PrEP while HIV-positive can make what he called "resistances" to the treatment), and when it's started PrEP should not be interrupted without asking a doctor. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
not recommended and doesnt work are not the same thing. its not recommended because it adds a greater element of uncertainty. i have no clue at what your talking bout here? whose been suggesting you take as a day after pill or as pep? you say you talked a dr, did you understand what he said? how the minutae of is this at all relevent to was being discussed? we've seen the results. we've seen its effective. all this suggest is that it should be funded so people know how to it take correctly, that they getting it from medical professions and correct advice and not dodgy thai website they had been. again what is your point here? folk should take their pills as prescribed? thanks for that banal piece of information. you dont seem to have a basic grasp of the key issues surrounding prep - that demonisation of certain groups and their activities is the only real opposition to prep that exists when the benefits are so overwhelming. you just keep coming with irrelevant bullshit like this and inane hypotheticals so far removed from reality they are just insulting. so again, what is your point here? there is no argument on cost as its overwhelmingly cheaper. there is no argument on effectiveness as it is overwhelmingly so. no argument for any other strategies we have using - they simply werent enough. and its not an either/or thing - its in conjunction with everything else. it hits all bases.
the experience that i mentioned, which you are so pissy about while being entirely oblivious to what was meant, is of being in an at risk group - the real risky group not the poster boy gay, seeing what people where doing before and what they are now doing. seeing why without prep it was not working. seeing the human beings that are central to all of this. seen through my own prism, of course, and weighted accordingly. if i seem exasperated its because what-ifs are a slap in the face when we can see the effects of things at ground levelAMassiveGay (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
"its not recommended because it adds a greater element of uncertainty." No, it's not recommended because it could create resistances to the future HIV treatment.
"whose been suggesting you take as a day after pill or as pep?" You did, you wrote: "few days bfore so its in your system, a few days after to catch any residues traces."
Regarding the rest of your post, yes you seem exasperated because you'd like to argue with a homophobe, but that's not the case. I'm not gonna continue this conversation. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually homophobia manifests itself in unconscious bias. Happens all the time. First, it is not true that people have a tiny probability of contracting STD even when having safe sex. Especially for the passive partner the rate of condom failure is actually quite high and if the active partner has HIV then the possibility of contracting it is higher than you think. Those with multiple partners, yet still safe and protected, climb up the probability ladder and yes, the prep program is useful. In England, post prep program, new cases of HIV transmission was a small fraction of the previous years. The rate of new infections going down has a knock-out effect. If someone is as careful as possible yet still contracts HIV they may pass it on to other people who are also as careful as can be (short of abstinence) because daily HIV tests are also impractical (and expensive). The program is not just effective for those who engage in reckless sex but for those who practice safe sex who have an admittedly small chance of HIV contraction...but by no means miniscule.
I'm not saying this is the case for anyone arguing against the cost of Prep here...but I have most certainly noticed a bias against treatments which are pricey in some countries and yet seem to have no problem with expensive preventative programs with anyone else. If cost was really the issue we'd be talking about something else. It comes from an unconscious bias that manifests itself in many ways. I've known people who even have no problem with non-elective surgery paid for by healthcare and yet complain about the cost of Prep for gay men, the only program they have ever complained about cost and the only medical cost I have ever heard complaints about, in my life. Preventative medicine is quite expensive, screening for rare cancers, vaccines for nearly eradicated diseases etc. Expensive programs for something people are very unlikely to suffer, expensive, and yet no one is much bothered by that.
The cost of the program depends wildly on the country to you live in. Prep is pretty cheap in some European countries because the government negotiates very hard with pharmaceuticals and despite humming and hawing from the Pharmaceuticals like "we cannot afford to bother with your market if the price is lower than this", in they end they do bother with that market with a fraction of their "lowest possible price". It is usually substantially cheaper than what states mostly pay in the US, to a lesser extent in Canada and Australia. If saving money is really at the top list of concerns then I would recommend fighting against high drug prices, government apathy towards pharmeceuticals, buying insanely expensive experimental machinery, and even corruption regarding pharmaceuticals and borderline-cosmetic surgery being covered by a public system. Not a preventative HIV program that has been wildly successful and need not be expensive at all so gay men stop contracting HIV at an alarming rate. Why is this one of the only times people complain about the cost? ShabiDOO 17:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
i have little more to add at this point, shabidoo nails argument. no one was being accused of homophobia (not here at least or specifically), but is the end of result of arguments against prep, and certainly the basis for any of those making them.
@unlicensedthinker - you want to not continue the conversation? fine, it was going nowhere. but please do not end by taking what i said out of context to the extent that you have done throughout. i know the difference between prep and pep, i know the difference the recommended advice, why it is recommended and what people have actually been doing, and doing successfully. i have not endorsed nor suggested anything here as 'best practice' just stated what has been happening, with reference to the differing circumstances in which people will be taking them, and proven to be effective - undoubtedly it would be even better with proper medical advice. at no point can anything i said be construed as suggesting prep could be used as pep. that is not how prep is meant to function and is not how prep is meant to function. drug resistance is surely factor - if you are ALREADY infected. starting on prep, coming off, back on and off again, while having HIV, yes that would be an issue. you shouldnt be on prep you should be on medication (a side note - prep, pep, medication - they are pretty much the same drugs. its usage and outcomes that differ) thats why we have testing for fucks sake. and drives to encourage people to get tested on a regular basis. i cant leave my flat without seeing a poster or ad on the side of the bus. more should go get tested but thats true with or without prep, its not like no one is trying to get people tested. and its the same with condoms. More condoms, you cry. there is no shortage of them. you can buy them in any store. you dont need to though, there bowls full of them, free, next to the peanuts at every bar i go into, handed out free at the clinics where you get tested, or you can get them sent free to your home after asking on line. they will continue to be so available, with or without prep. the advice to use condoms, to get tested - is everywhere, hammered into us constantly since 'dont die of ignorance' leaflets were posted through peoples doors, and will continue to be with or without prep. quibbling about medical best practice or calling for things we are already doing is not an argument for or against prep. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo "If saving money is really at the top list of concerns" it's not aboust saving money, as I wrote it's about: "If a humanitarian project has a certain budget to help a third world country reducing HIV, how much should be spent on condoms and how much on PrEP to maximize the results?" Thinker(unlicensed) 21:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thats all you have been saying and its been answered three times already. its a useless hypothetical asking a question that ignores how prep is actually being used, ignores where it could possibly, ignores that no one is calling for this, assumes the third world is one amalgamous place with vastly different issues in each country. its a fucking idiotic question AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pfff. Exactly the response I expected. Let's take it up a little. It's world AIDS day. So many interesting topic to talk about. So much to learn about. Let's talk about misunderstandings on AIDS treatment and its mortality rate, or lets talk about the ENORMOUS percentage of AIDS that people in Southern Africa have (in some places almost 1 in 4) or how about condom apathy in western countries. No. I think talking about the price of gay men using a preventative medical program is the most telling. Hey guys. It's world aids day. Now lets talk about that all too expensive waste of money AIDS prevention program. And no, this is not the only forum where I've seen a discussion on World AIDS day reduced to a pissy dicussion about PREP cost. Thinker perhaps you could just fuck off for one day? ShabiDOO 10:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shabidoo How is trying to understand how much should be spent on PrEP, how much on condoms, (how much on other prevention methods...) in order to maximize the results of HIV prevention, a "pissy discussion about PREP cost"? I don't know why it gets you angry and makes you tell me to fuck off. Maybe is it because often in public debate when people talk about the cost of a cure they do that to suggest that such cure should not be used? So do you think that I'm saying that PrEP should be throw out the window? Is this the misunderstanding? Thinker(unlicensed) 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this is tragic or funny[edit]

Accused man cites state abortion law in sexual assault case To be precise: "he should not be charged with taking advantage of a child because she was actually 16 under a Kansas law that says life begins at fertilization." On the one hand: sexual assault is a horrible thing. On the other hand: didn't see that one coming did you, fundies? Towards-the Unknown (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we can salute the ingenuity of the lawyer while condemning the act of the child abuser. It's the duty of a lawyer to use any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to get their client off. That said, I'd imagine the chances of success are around 0.0000001% so probably the lawyer doesn't deserve too much praise. --Annanoon (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It is very imaginative, but I think the lawyers on the other side will win with the more traditional idea that age is from birth. I think more to the point is that the intention of the legislature creating the sexual assault law was that ages in the sexual assault law should be interpreted as from birth, as recorded on a birth certificate. In the UK this would be an open and shut case. — Dysk (contribs) 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I can tell. It's dumb. It's real fucking awful and dumb. Don't give statutory rapists credit because they did a half-assed troll of republicans along the way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Gracias, I have a wiring problem that makes it difficult to parse social situations. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Born and raised in the flat state of Kansas. Not much of a law buff, but this sounds like Kansas. The education is actually really good, the application is so Protestant your eyes will roll too fast and your optic nerves will snap. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Intrusive thoughts[edit]

Does anyone have any knowledge of these things? Like, what counts as instusive and perhaps more pertninantly, how do you deal with them? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you mean intrusive, have you considered a prophylactic? nobs piss in my ear 03:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@RobSmith, being a fundamentalist Christian, you probably have mental illness denial, but I would seriously recommend that you see a mental health professional. Politics and religion aside, you have said quite a few outright bizarre things. Bongolian (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay, I would recommend that you see a mental health professional if you're having intrusive thoughts. It could be a symptom of schizoaffective disorder, which can be treated with appropriate pharmaceuticals. Bongolian (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Do go see a medical professional, it can be a symptom of numerous conditions, schizo affective disorder as Bongolian says, or Borderline Personality Disorder. Or simply anxiety. But they only way to know is by speaking to people who will be able to identify if you have a condition and help, in other words, not random strangers whom you barely know on the internet (honestly it could very well be nothing but anxiety. But even if it is diagnosed as a psychiatric condition, they are managable these days with conbinations of mediacation and with BPD, dbt treatment) Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that intrusive thoughts are typically handled therapeutically with cognitive behavioral therapy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
They can be, but it depends on the condition. CBT is useless with BPD, DBT is required. Not sure is CBT is even effective with schizoaffective disorder. Although CBT is brilliant in addiction treatment, particularly alcoholism. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

i can appreciate actual professional help is the clearly the correct answer, but would rather not. really rather not. im causng myself actual physical harm, and cannot my judgement in anyway, but really dont want to. to discuss things that would be needed to be discussed. i cannot bare to think these things. to speak them is not going to happen. i was hoping for coping strategies. enough to settle my head a little. to sleep. eat. calm things down a little. can i not just go to my hppy place? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

But we are just crazy people on the internet, you need someone qualified to tell you want to do. — Dysk (contribs) 00:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You need to see a health care professional. Self-harm is not a solution. This isn't something that you can fix with pain. Life's hard. If you want to get better, you've got to talk to someone. I know it's gonna suck. I get it. But you need to talk to someone if you're self-harming and having intrusive thoughts. I also get that this is hard to hear, but surprise, if you could fix this all by yourself, I think you'd have done so by now. Talk to someone. I have been known to impulse buy books 03:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
not actually referring to self harming to be clear, just meant days without sleep, food, hydration taking a toll. i mean, there is self harm of kind, but im not cutting myself or anything like that. its curious that i should would want to make the distinction, that you would think im properly mental, that its that bad. id be ashamed that people would think that, but i am ashamed that it is that bad, and ashamed when i think it isnt, and at every waking thought, and at the sheer horror of vocalising those thoughts and the things i do and why i do them. and it is abject horror - it wouldnt be a difficult to find some help, they always make clear its there should i require it. taking it? it was broached once by the dr. i could not speak. if they had pressed the issue i would have shutdown completely. its not really hard to hear that im not able to fix it myself. ive known that for awhile. the hard part is knowing it and still unable take the help needed. another level of shame for my pity party. just some sleep right now would probably help, but thats something else im unable to do AMassiveGay (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, these are all signs of being seriously stressed out. And they happen to me, too, and I don't really do anything about them. I just try and ride them out. I have had friends tell me, "if you're so anxious, go talk to a doctor." I can't even always talk to my friends when I'm anxious, it's only when I get cornered about it that I really bring it up. If I wasn't aware of my problem, I'd be mad at them for cornering me in the first place. And my experience with counseling is a bunch of me saying I'm just fine in a convincing way, and my life is pretty functional, I am a leader at my work and I pay my bills, but yeah, the anxiety is bad. I haven't had a haircut in over a year, and it's ok, but the main reason is my hair is so long I don't want to go into a salon and say "cut my hair nice." I will, like usual, go in and say "clippers, cut it all off, I don't care, whatever you gotta do." And it's not what I want, but it's the best I can do in a haircut situation at this point. Does that make sense? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Carbon tax in France is not making people happy it seems[edit]


I don't know much about this but it does not sound good. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Americans are surprised to see how much higher gas prices are when they travel to Canada. Canadians are surprised by how high the prices are in Spain. People from Spain note the higher price in the UK and British people note how higher prices are in France. In effect (depending on what state in the US you are from) gas costs nearly 2.5 times as much in France than in the US. Most of this is taxes. I remember while living in Canada if we were near the US border we'd hop over to New York or New Hampshire and fill it up (and buy affordable liquor and other goods). The savings were enormous. In any case, imagine how much paying 250% more for gas would affect your life. While phasing out certain kinds of petrol is a necessary evil, Macron continuously goes about a heavy handed and often stupid means to achieve this (short term roll out, no debate, a pittance of help to those who would suffer the most). I can easily imagine Americans protesting if their petrol tax went up the same amount. ShabiDOO 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know much about this. As for gas where I live, only $2. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Some people also consider it regressive taxation since it would have worse effects on the poor. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Good post! Another thing to keep in mind is that demand for gasoline is inelastic. People still need to move around. I am not surprised that this has something to do with the high costs of living in France. Not that many can afford to live in or around downtown Paris, for example, and the further you live from downtown, the more likely that you will need your own vehicle. Furthermore, the TGV is too expensive for many to use, and its low-cost service, Ouigo, has yet to break even. Both require subsidies. This is really a shame, since France has some of the best high-speed rail infrastructure in the world. And then there is the alarming unemployment rate of about 10%. Nerd (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It is amazing people's ability to attribute to taxes, what is mostly explained by a ≈15% change in world oil prices. Marcon is an ass, and shaming poor people for responding to the real problems they face is a perfect formula for riots. But low-grade anti-climate change policies are not the problem. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The response should be fuel-efficient cars. In the end, gas is a shrinking commodity and the people who need it the most (the poor) will one day or the other have no access to it. The middle class can survive with expensive gas, they will adapt to it by being smarter with fuel efficiency. The rich? Whatever, who cares, they don't need to complain about anything, and they're quite the gas guzzlers. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario One can do better than that: more reliable electric cars and buses and better mass transit, though there is a limit to how much one can invest in transit in low-density neighborhoods. Induced demand only materializes when there is a sufficiently large population. It is quite possible that in the future, parking lots will offer free recharging the way coffee shops today offer free WiFi. Nerd (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As I've said before, environmental austerity is ultimately no different from the other brands. It can only be sustained if people are not allowed to vote on those policies. For all practical purposes it requires an anti-democratic and authoritarian government. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 00:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As in people will always vote against their best interests? I worked long and hard in Nebraska to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline. The legality was dubious, voter pressure was intense, it came down to the threat of eminent domain and the state government which was in full support of the project couldn't push it through. So, I would wonder how this fits your practical purpose narrative. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Talking about taxes, I wonder what will happen the day electric cars are common and gasoline/diesel ones rare. Even with those that have a small combustion engine to recharge batteries, I very much doubt governments will be happy to lose that source of income knowing that electricity is always the same. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


Now I think it is pretty obvious that RationalWiki:What is going on at Citizendium is pretty dead, because Citizendium is pretty dead. Is anyone up for a new WIGO about it's intellectual successor Ponzipedia run by the same Wikipedia co-founder and general nitwit Larry Sandler? — Dysk (contribs) 12:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I say we just nuke it. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And thus we reach the elephant in the room; Why do we even have WIGO:CZ? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Fuck knows. Lets vote. — Dysk (contribs) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Close WIGO:CZ[edit]

RationalWiki:What is going on at Citizendium is pretty dead, because Citizendium is pretty dead. Maybe one or two people have edited it in the last year and it is a bit repetitive following how a new editor joins, does few edits, and then leaves again.


  1. Close as pointless. — Dysk (contribs) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. I sometimes jokingly refer to it as NIGO:CZ (pronounced "NYE-go") Nothing is Going On at Citizendium. I don't even see why we created it, it's certainly less relevant than WIGO:Fourth Reich, and we closed that years ago. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Utterly pointless. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. I personally call it "WINGO" as in "What is NOT going on?" at Citizendium. Anyway, just mothball it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Smash WIGO into powdered algorithms and internet coding. If nothing is going on then get rid of it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. There is absolutely no point in documenting what isn't going on at Citizendium. OK, a few woo-meisters were able to get accepted as serious academics and stuck their woo on it. But it's not really a crank wiki. It was just one of many failed challengers to the mighty Wikipedia that never stood a chance. Spud (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Damnatio memoriaeWikipedia is appropriate. Nerd (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. seems fine as-is: paralleling cz, the page is inactive for a while and then briefly hilarious. at most, archive it like WIGO4R. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Archive it. Bongolian (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Leave it as is or archive the fucker. --MtDBogan 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


  • An empty WIGO is a pretty fitting monument to Citizendium. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • We don't have to actually delete it, just rename it to RationalWiki:Nothing is going on at Citizendium and relegate it to the defunct section of the WIGO page. I mean people could even carry on updating it if they want, it just wouldn't be an official WIGO any more. — Dysk (contribs) 16:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A poll: If you had no choice but to go to a fundie school for a degree, what one would you choose?[edit]

If I had no choice, I would go with Liberty University. Keep in mind that this is meant for mostly comedic purposes. Though this could make an interesting academic discussion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I can only mentally frame this question in terms of where would be the most fun to troll. And that leads me to liberty. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm split between LU and BJU. On one hand, Liberty is the least crazy of the bunch, and is in an area surrounded by better schools. On the other hand, Ye Olde Bob Jones is only a two hour drive from where I'm actually going to school right now, and a number of friends are from Greenville, so going by the above comment's metric of "most fun/practical to troll", I think it'd be pretty fun to pop over, visit some friends' places, go onto campus and wave around a pride flag (which I already have on hand), and then book it and make a high-speed getaway in my car. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 22:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If I had to choose, I'd choose BJU for oral purposes.--Don Juan (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If we're talking oral, then I'd prefer the authority on the matter, Oral Roberts University... You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 03:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather smack you for giving me the thought of going to any of those schools. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nuclear Pasta They're both good places to get oral, IMHO. It's ultimately a toss up.--Don Juan (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want some oral action, get a hooker. At least you would spend less. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the hooker. Watching porn is still cheaper.Tinribmancer (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey ! I call Censorship![edit]

Anti vaccination folks will be the cause of the next pandemic (maybe)[edit]

Leave a pathogen in the population, the pathogen can mutate. Take Polio- Because there have been new outbreaks, the virus could potentially mutate making the vaccine less effective. Not immediately but over time.

For those who cannot get vaccines due to a medical condition or allergy (I know allergies to vaccines are rare); those people are at greater risk of infection due to anti vaccination folks. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of the attention so far has been on rises in diseases like measles, and vaccinations that confer lifelong immunity in children, but the annual influenza vaccination is also very important to public health and antivaxxers have been spreading misinformation about it.[5] A bad flu outbreak in 2008-9 caused 13000 deaths in the UK alone.[6] It should be obvious that discouraging flu vaccinations could have serious public health consequences, and moreso if we get the mutated deadlier flu virus that many epidemiologists fear. --Annanoon (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Specifically what antivaxxing causes is endemic diseases, which, if my public health knowledge isn't totally whack, would progress more often to epidemics, not pandemics. But then lay-idiot who thinks he knows what he's talking about and often doesn't -----> ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks again? Really? I know I am no genius when it comes to public health and Microbiology. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The arrow was pointing at my username. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair to you, it was a really obtuse was for me to say it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


Goofy Goober[edit]

Don Juan (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I remember this. Good times... RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Spongebob was comedy gold, good times indeed. "Who you callin' pinhead?"--Don Juan (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
RIP Stephen Hillenburg. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
"I`m sorry, Patrick, but Squidward, <sniff>, well, he's passing up daisies." Cue Patrick: "Oh, I thought he was dead." But seriously, when I found out that Hillenburg died that truly shocked me, I mean, I wasn't surprised when Stan Lee kicked the bucket, given that he was 95 years old, but Stephen Hillenburg? He was young, only 57 years old. 'Tis a shame.--Don Juan (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Who Runs the RW Twitter?[edit]

ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

I think ol' @David Gerard runs the RW Twitter, but I might be wrong. It seems best to ask him directly.--Don Juan (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
David Gerard is also on Twitter as David Gerard. I recently became a twitterer also fyi. — Dysk (contribs) 22:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I haven't used Twitter in ages. Anyways, congrats @Dysklyver.--Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Record spinning[edit]

Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I love this song БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Ɖøn Ĵuan (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

A wonderful new method to ensure a sustainable population[edit]

Are there too many people around? Are there too few resources to spare? Well don't worry! We've got the perfect solution for you! Divinely-ordained genocide, you see, God had seen that there were too many people in the Promised Land, and wanting to ensure sustainable resources for his chosen people, he ordered his minions to wipe out every single man, woman, and child in Canaan! Isn't that wonderful? I'd bet it'd work wonders too, but let's be ambitious here for a second, why limit your bloodlust to only a specific population, when the whole world can be cleansed of the filth that is the overpopulation of humanity? Give it a try, call 1-800-HOLOCAUST-NOW today.--Don Juan (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam/NB, I couldn't help but notice that you were in the market for practical and affordable anthropocidal solutions. No matter whether for supervillainy, misanthropy, or in the name of your chosen deity, LunaCorp Anthropocide Contracting Solutions is the answer! We offer the finest anthropocidal subcontracting services to any mass-killing business in the tri-system area! Depending on your operating budget, we offer a number of packages to fit any budget! Ranging from our "Li'l Doctor Bioweapons & Plagues DIY Kit," all the way to our deluxe "Hughes Geocide Suite," there's no shortage of options to pick from here at LunaCorp! In addition, we offer our LunaCorp Signature PromiseTM: less than $1 billion spent per megadeath or your money back! Don't miss out on this perfect opportunity to make your anthropocide business the most effective one around! Schedule an appointment with a LunaCorp representative today!*
Website: https://www.lunacorpsolutions.com
Phone: 1-800-GEOCIDE (1-800-436-2433)
*LunaCorp is not liable for any lawsuits/trials/tribunals that result from using LunaCorp products. Megadeath defined as the death of a single individual named Meg. Microsoft Windows 1998 required to run LunaCorp software. Appointment fee of $32,000 non-negotiable. Offer void in Nebraska.
You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
What an angsty outburst. Vive Liberté! 03:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If you're looking for pure, concentrated angst instead, perhaps you might be interested in MISERYTM, a brand-new product by LunaCorp! Our angst is produced by only the moodiest and most dramatic of emo teenagers in joke-proof conditions, assisted by the moaning lamentations of professional funeral mourners. Their hand-scrawled poetry and songs are then harvested and processed in our patented Alt-Right Hate Fermentation ChamberTM to infuse the angst with the purest and most volatile hatred and anger imaginable, which is then bottled under pressure in our patented novelty pressure vessel bottles for distribution right to the consumer! Whatever you need the hit of negativity and unhappiness for, this is the perfect solution! Need to be sobered by the looming specter of climate change? Done! Want to get sadfaced about the erosion of civil liberties and democracy in ostensibly free countries! Here you go! Can't handle that nasty breakup? A perfect opportunity! So drink up, and order today! Our operators are standing by! Don't wait, call now! You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 06:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, boy, seems like misery and angst are everywhere these days. It feels like all my problems keep getting brought up in the form of questions; stupid, direct, pointless questions that address little. If only I knew how to start an infomercial, and there was somebody or something that could deal with my misery and or angst without just asking if I have it and strawmanning the symptoms! But I, myself, don't have time for that! If anybody has the answer to how to deal with the existential dread I feel every time I hear about the self-described "intellectual dark-web" or the self-described "alt-right" or self-described "incels" or the self-described "Ku-Klux-Klan" that all have active platforms, without me actually having to read or listen to any of it anymore, I'm paying! I mean, I'd pay good money if I had it to not deal with the repercussions of hateful, ignorant speech. I would also pay if I could ask each member of the Eric-Weinstein-nominated "intellectual dark web" if they really like being associated with the term "dark web," a place where you buy drugs and hitmen and child porn, by a guy who happily works for a real human who wants to replace his own blood with children's blood to extend his own life, on a libertarian paradise island. If only there was a service that could meet my needs! If only somebody could take me to the libertarian paradise island! Infomercial go? Timeshare? Anybody>Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
And what about the Georgia Guidestones? Anna Livia (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)