RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive301

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 23 February 2019. 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>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>
, (new)(back)

On simplistic political labels[edit]

A brilliant short video from PBS.

I really like the last bit. Political affiliation is not indicative of inner superiority, only a matter of personal experience. Nerd (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem with political labels is when they become the substitute for actual arguments, that is, almost always. For example, when a journalist writes: "leftist/right-wing/liberarian/whatelse Mr. X said Y" most of the time he is actually saying to the readers "Mr. X belongs to the political group we hate, so he said something wrong, you can avoid reading Y". Thinker(unlicensed) 20:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Or when they are used to preclude the audience from agreeing with someone. One would expect a rational person to vote according to policy, not political affiliation; unfortunately, people do not always act rationally. Nerd (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Or, they're useful classifiers for certain kinds of ideologies that self-organize, particularly in political systems that reward coalitions. And it's not like policies are inherently rational either. You can invent a dumbass rule you believe is important, and end up voting about it every fucking time, no matter how wrong you are. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, coalitions need not be homogeneous. While different groups can join a coalition for the sake of a certain common goal, it is not necessarily the case that every participant in that group agrees on everything, or even most things. "Classifiers" can be misleading despite being "useful" because they may oversimplify matters; you risk stereotyping the entire group. Of course policies are not inherently rational. Policies are made by people after all. I caution you on your last sentence. Just because you disagree with someone or something does not mean that that person or that idea is "dumb." Nerd (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
"I caution you on your last sentence. Just because you disagree with someone or something does not mean that that person or that idea is "dumb."
Good luck with explaining that to ikanreed (click, click, click) Thinker(unlicensed) 16:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You could say that, but also there's fucking creationist single-issue voters. It's fairly trivial to demonstrate by example that, no, disagreement is sometimes because people are totally and completely wrong. That the entire conservative movement in the US is made of that is an assertion I back by repeated experimentation, and every time I've given any benefit of the doubt in that regard I've been thoroughly rebuked by the reality of it. My last foray here into pretending that there was an intellectually credible version of american conservatism led to psychopaths cackling at AIDS killing gay people. It's the epitome of what you're complaining about here, but also the unifying elements ideology that if you voted by "principle" would also be wrong.
You're telling me to pick up a turd and look at the facets with a jeweler's glass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You could point out specific cases of silliness, yes. But making sweeping generalizations is unwise, as is the "liberal/conservative" binary. Keep in mind that the loudest need not be the majority. On any given issue, only a fraction of the population cares enough about it to have an opinion, and of those who have an opinion, only a fraction are willing to publicly state it. Nerd (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thing is, I do make this case, because "conservatives are bigoted(in several dimensions) fuckwits" is pretty much the only divide we're actually able to debate, because of the existence of a psychotic, organized, and overmoneyed conservative faction. Every single political debate that has any weight is between some stupid dumbass position that deserves no consideration whatsoever and another almost arbitrary position that runs the gamut from real bad to mostly okay. And the debate we should be having consists entirely of positions in that second half. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I do agree that there are certain positions that are so ludicrous they collapse due to their own feebleness. We should stop making stupid ideas well-known. Nerd (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We need to stop taking conservatism seriously until they get new ideas that doesn't fall quickly to some scrutiny. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

the vagueness of that video is such that it makes it very difficult to comment on. sure it would be wonderful to know what any given group or individual thinks on any given subject and to what degree, but we just cannot. the larger the group the more we have to rely on generalities to suss what they believe or why they do things. if i talk to someone face to face, i would hope i would get more detail, be able to verify points, to understand that person better. if on opposite sides of a demo, all i am going to get is slogans. its not about argument or understanding, its a show of strength were simplistic labels will be shouted down or just ignored. internet comment sections, again simplistic labels, no room for nuance. some might try but its no place for civil debate - its more about bloodying your foes. panto with vitriol. places like here you get time and space to hopefully have a discussion, were you would hear someone out. doesnt always work, but its ya best bet to amke your label more detailed or drop altogether. sites like this seem a rarity though (rationalwiki is literally the only outlet i have this kind of thing). most discourse seems to be through twitter, or facebook, through sound bites and memes. the labels are simplistic because its all you got to work with. its gives illusion of engagement but a zinger on twitter doesnt require anyone to get beyond whatever talking points or hot button issue is currently doing the rounds in your bubble. i do genuinely believe that their are decent folk on the other side, who ever that may be, but when the only people to pierce our bubbles are without exception raging fuck nuts, it makes me doubt AMassiveGay (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"i do genuinely believe that their are decent folk on the other side"
But what is "the other side" for you? Because that by itself seems to implicitly make use of some label. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, it's easy, the defining characteristics of the "other side" is broad-based xenophobia and just world hypothesis adherence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe let @AMassiveGay answer, since I asked to him what's for him "the other side" Thinker(unlicensed) 20:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
(EC)Yes, that's another problem with "Political affiliation is too simple" is that, as an argument, it's often very-much founded on the idea of open-mindedness, which I think any sensible person agrees with. Yes, even me. Hell, as a hammer in debate, even Schafly. But when brought to bear on actual debates that are actually happening, it's often completely uninformative, because, of course we've all heard the talking points going back and forth about major positions a thousand times. The shortage isn't in exposure to other ideas. It's not like I haven't heard "gender is defined by chromosomes" thrown around a billion times by now. Further fair-minded exposure to that idea and the rough ideological structure around it isn't useful. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hilariously bad pseudosciences: What is your favorite to make fun of?[edit]

While creationism is hilariously bad, not my favorite. My favorites go to-

  • Flat Earth
  • Race and Intelligence

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Mine would be pH woo, because it's so obviously dumb. Homeopathy is also a classic, for similar reasons. I also find the Paleo diet and the scares around gluten to be freaking ridiculous. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing can be homeopathy for me. It's just so deliciously absurd. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 04:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The only thing more amusing than homeopathy is homeopathic homeopathy, which is achieved by selling the bathwater of a homeopath. That's how it works in my head-- or did, until I realized that there would actually be bits of the homeopath in the bathwater, which defeats the concepts of homeopathy, so never mind. Sometimes I say nonsensical things.
Like homeopathy. Kencolt (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Faith healing is a true classic but not an all time favorite. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Astrology is the OG pseudoscience, and the fact that people still believe in it is insane to be. For a fun game, if someone asks for your sign, tell them the wrong one. They will go on and on about how they just knew you were a so-and-so. Then, tell them the real one. It's hilarious. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
In a world where vaccination -- the notion that a weak dose of smallpox made you immune to the worse kind -- had just been invented, homeopathy probably seemed to be worth a try. It was not a completely irrational attempt in the early 19th century. My favorite pseudosciences are the ones that make interestingly intricate artifacts, like alchemy, astrology, and phrenology. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In the pre-scientific age alchemy and astrology etc (which occurred in many different forms) were cutting edge science, and included varying quantities of what is now regarded as 'proper technology and evidence based science' (or has been co-opted): it was the interpretation that has diverged. Their modern-day equivalents are another matter.
And even the prayers and incarnations could have a practical use: in a world without accurate clocks reciting X standard prayers at the standard rate was as good as a timer (and good for your soul as well). Anna Livia (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My favorite is that Antarctica is actually a 150 mile high wall, and gravity is actually the flat earth accelerating upwards, holding us down. And racialism. They're both pretty fucking stupid. Asaac Isimov (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The earth is accelerating upward*. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Mine is that there is a link in between atheism and obesity. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 00:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Subtopic: Hilariously bad creationist arguments[edit]

This one is specifically from the ICR- We Are Totally Not Apes. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

From those Fundies whose BS I follow:
A mess that includes among much more that acknowledging evolution means to reject morality and a personal God in favor of "billions of casualties", "evolutionism" being considered as science rejected by many scientists, PRATTs as arguments from (im)probabbility and the eye argument, the Flood and how it sorted fossils, frauds as the Piltdown man, that scientists cannot agree on both rotational and translational (the first time I hear about that) speeds of Earth, a gene that causes to believe in God that will be deleted (cue End Times and NWO nonsense), and finally the same eternal life if you accept Jesus, etc. Only at the end that old man acknowledges not to have formation in science at all.
It's far more probable woman had been formed from a rib of Adam than we descend from monkeys (or something alike). Either that or the Sun turning off six seconds when Jesus died is far more likely that the Big Bang, or that this is the only planet of the Universe with life because the Bible says so -this asshole, also of rather old age, does not acknowledge to have no idea of science-. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright, here are the stupidest cretinist arguments I have ever heard:

--Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Romans 1:20 or any variant thereof. I hate the "You know I'm right but you just want to hide/ignore/fight the Truth" type arguments. At least try to address my side's criticism, instead of hiding behind confirmation bias and your book. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie won't ever happen. Creationists refuse to consider the arguments for evolution or age of the Earth. Creationists can believe in their BS but, they should stop attempting to push their BS into public schools. Creationists have their own private schools. The ancient aliens took my job --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Inevitability of Monstrosity: the Ethics of Eternity[edit]

In a world which is deterministic, one could theoretically predict the actions any individual will take in the future. If it could be predicted that an individual would commit a crime, would it be ethical to pre-emptively prevent said crime? Further, given an infinite life span, would all individuals eventually commit all crimes of all extremes? If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then would if one were to meet an immortal being, would it be ethical to punish that being, on the charges of all possible crimes they have yet to commit?

I heard this line of reasoning in an argument where it was proposed that because all humans given infinite time would eventually commit all atrocities, all humans deserve eternal punishment. The only rebuttal I have is that we don't live in that world so the argument is irrelevant, but that isn't very ethically compelling. Thoughts? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The implication being that all consequences can or should be meaningfully understood and follow a direct teleology, which is a gross and thorough misunderstanding of both causality and consequentialism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the argument above is fundamentally illogical? I'm specifically hung up by the word 'teleology'. I had to search the word, and it appears to be the premise that entities have a set 'purpose' (wikipedia's example was that an acorn's 'purpose' is to become an oak tree.) I'm not sure how that concept relates to the thought experiment. Are you saying that the thought experiment relies on the assumption that the 'purpose' of the immortal entity is to commit atrocity? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not arguing its illogical. I guess if you want it in internet debate terms, it's attacking a kind of strawman version of consequentialism that no one could or should adhere to. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
On another stream of thought, given a nigh infinite time frame, would it not also be possible to commit every single atrocity and also follow every single virtue? Or, heavens forfend, a person just follows their natural inclinations unto oblivion? Creatures of habit have a tendency to follow that habit without a direct reason to alter its course.
And on that note, infinite life means no murder or death of any kind... so humans will experience, at most, setbacks.TheTallMass (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"In a world which is deterministic, one could theoretically predict the actions any individual will take in the future."
Not necessarily, that's a common misconception about determinism.
"If it could be predicted that an individual would commit a crime, would it be ethical to pre-emptively prevent said crime?"
In some way we already do that. For example, if the police finds that you are planning to make a terrorist attack, then it will arrest you and you'll get some penalty. Not the same penalty of having committed the terrorism attack, but still something.
"Further, given an infinite life span, would all individuals eventually commit all crimes of all extremes?"
I don't see a reason why it should be so...
The movie Minority Report might be of your interest. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"In a world which is deterministic" Well, first problem, the world isn't deterministic. Quantum indetermination."would it be ethical to pre-emptively prevent said crime?" yes, but prevention doesn't mean punishment, especially since you could predict everything in your thought experiment. "would all individuals eventually commit all crimes of all extremes?" I don't see any reason why this would be the case. (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
An infinite object can easily be an endless repetition. There's no obvious rule that every combination of particles will be realised just because there is no end to space. It reminds me of the thought experiment where there must be so many planets in infinite space that there'd be various Earth-like planets with different versions of you, perhaps one world is a "mirror universe" where all your qualities (good and bad) are reversed. Makes for good tv at least. Or ... the earth is the only inhabited planet and all other planets are an endless repetition of uninhabitable ones. Perhaps at some point if you go in any direction the rest of space is a virtually endless vacuum for ever and ever amen. The universe may also be infinite while still limited (just read any article on the topic). In any case I hope there are lots of non-agressive sentient beings on other planets...with a form of evolution/development that is less brutal than mother-nature has been to us (and still is). The same thing goes with infinite time. All the above applies equally time as to that of space. ShabiDOO 17:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, but the idea that all humans, given an eternal lifespan would commit all atrocities, and are therefore culpable to all atrocities and subject to eternal punishment is... Impossible. An atrocity is a narrowly defined thing, sure. And it's different for each person's view of morality, so I'm not going to waste all of our time defining the idea of an atrocity or trying to hone in on what we all decide is an atrocity today. The argument is about eternity, and the question I think revolves around the idea that given an eternity, all actions will eventually be seen by somebody as an atrocity. But this idea that a 1:1:punishment relates to a infinity:atrocity:infinity model is correct is baffling if we want to justify punishment.
So, uhhh, what justification do you have for that somebody who defines atrocities to be you, today?
to quote a shorter summary above "The implication being that all consequences can or should be meaningfully understood and follow a direct teleology, which is a gross and thorough misunderstanding of both causality and consequentialism."Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Climate change denial[edit]


We know that climate change denial is a staple of right wing politics. It is pretty fucking obvious that the climate is shifting.

Now with proper science, research starts with asking a question. Here is my question-Is it possible that the climate zones are shifting? It still would be catastrophic in an of itself. I am no expert but just tossing an idea for discussion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sadly not as well-versed as I would like to be regarding climatology, but here is some supporting evidence for you on that front. (Wow... pun was not intended there!)
"I am no expert but just tossing an idea for discussion." I've watched your recent additions to the Saloon and I definitely applaud your participation. However, rather than saying "I want to start a discussion" I would recommend just asking the question (which you did) and leaving it at that. It's kinda self-evident that the saloon is a place for discussions :) "Just asking questions" can be both good and bad, as I've discovered from this site (and sealioning is just bad... So, so bad). I'm a devil's advocate by nature; just how my mind works. I've learned to taper it off over time just due to the experiences I've encountered along the ways. But it's perfectly fine to ask for information! Always. Make sure you do a bit of research on your own too though.TheTallMass (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Found an interesting article from Yale on the subject I brought up. https://e360.yale.edu/features/redrawing-the-map-how-the-worlds-climate-zones-are-shifting

From what I gathered from the article, Earth is in deep shit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we stop saying "Climate Change https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz" and start saying Global Warming again already? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not all right wingers are terrorists[edit]

But at least for 2018, every single american terrorist was a right winger; every last one. Okay, the source uses "extremist murderer" but, come on, that's just a polite way of saying "terrorist". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the Muslim ban worked then. Jolly good show. — Dysk (contribs) 22:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
There are terrorists in every side of the political spectrum, religious group and social cause. There will always be terrorists of some sort. A historical case would be the state terrorism of Communist Russia. I harvested your soul --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Even better historical case would be Irgun, especially how such behaviour is viewed in that area today. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
One can only wait until the day Nobs and RWRW start setting off car bombs.--Palaeonictis (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Palaeonictis At this point,I would not be surprised if that happened. 😧😧 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure which end of the political spectrum this lot fall under, the IRA flirted with hard left politics in the late 60s, but this ain't the 'RA nor the 60s. https://www.rte.ie/news/leinster/2019/0201/1026977-omeath/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Just talking about 2018, here. Left leaning political violence has a long and complex history, often with crushing levels of state sanctioned violence tossed in its direction both before and after. Most of it shouldn't be afforded respect just for not being right wing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
State terrorism has to be the most complicated forms of terrorism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
"Just talking about 2018, here. " This isn't some historical remnant or hangover, this is a very real possibility of the return of the troubles. See here https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/group-calling-itself-the-ira-claims-responsibility-for-derry-bomb-1.3774634, particularly when you realise there is a growing political wing of this "new Ira", Saoradh, which is gaining some support at a rather alarming rate. As for "State terrorism has to be the most complicated forms of terrorism." could you care you explain? I mentioned Irgun, which wouldn't and shouldn't be considered a state sponsored terrorist organisation. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
REreading the title of the above post reminds me I really should go offline when tired. Yes currently terrorism in the US is almost always by far-right wingers, gun nuts, white nationalists, loopy loony religious messianic loudmouths (Clavin Bundy and his clan seem to embody all three.) There is a famous essay by Bruce Schneier titled Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot, it may be 12 years old, but it's still well worth a read. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/06/portrait_of_the_1.html Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Telemarketers are so annoying!!!!![edit]

Note: This is me venting my frustrations about telemarketing. I am getting seriously annoyed.

About 8 different times today and in under 2 hours, each time it's "You are a valued costumer of...." and they keep calling. One was claiming that we were costumers of Dow Chemical. Another was Delta Airlines. Each uses different numbers to prevent blocking. Ugh! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Are they robocalls? If they are, then trying to sell you something with a robocall is illegal in the UK and US (I'm assuming you live in one of these two countries). I'd send a letter to the ICO or FCC, they might be able to catch the group responsible. If it is a flesh and blood person on the other side, you may be out of luck. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Most are live people. I live in the United States and telemarketing is legal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Even with robocalls, it feels like swimming against the tide. In California at least, it's actually possible to find an ISP/phone provider that both supports net neutrality and has effective spam call blocking. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Phone numbers are big $ business in the US. "Rewards cards", discount cards, preferred customer cards, and cashiers in retail stores will always ask for your phone number. These are eventually sold to telemarketing agencies, who get paid by the call (IOW, if your phone rings, even if you don't answer, they get paid). If you must give out your number in order to get some discount in a retail situation, use a dummy [1]. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
'Welcome to XX services. Calls are charged at (select a number) per (hour/10 minutes/30 seconds. Please provide address to which a bill will be sent.' Learn a few set phrases in one or more obscure languages (or have a copy of Finnegans Wake by the phone) and speak as necessary. There are probably more such ideas available elsewhere. Anna Livia (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I’ve had few genuine telemarketing calls (fortunately), but then I never give out my phone number. The few genuine ones were a couple of newspapers (that I had formerly subscribed to) and two NGOs (environmental and consumer rights) right around Christmas last year (apparently the time of year they try to get new members). About a year ago, what is known in my country as a “yellow labour union” telemarketer tried his luck, but ended as soon as I literately said “I don’t want anything to do with a yellow labour union.” Using that term made it very clear that he wasn’t going to get anything out of the conversation (the “yellow labour unions” prefer to style themselves as “independent” or “unaffiliated”). However, all of these telemarketers have been fairly polite and quickly ended their calls when I made it clear I wasn’t interested, though a couple asked for elaborations as to why.
What is far more annoying (and more frequent) are phishing phone calls from people who pretend to be from Microsoft, call from horrendously bad (probably IP) connections and speak in what sounds like heavily Indian accented English (and I don’t even live in an English speaking country). It’s happily been a while now, but at times you get several calls a week and they seem to come in clusters (several friends, family and colleagues have had the same experience). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
There are also after several such calls. the 'if you want to block spam phone calls...' supposed-BT calls and 'can you answer a few questions...'
Repeating 'I cannot afford your payments' can work on occasion.
The occasional genuine marketing call can be reasonable (you may wish to resubscribe/support a good cause etc). Anna Livia (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I put a call blocker on my dad's landline, it seems to help, but is far from perfect. The most persistent and annoying ones are political. If one gets through and I answer it by mistake, I usually just start repeating 'Get a job'; but if I am in a better mood I will lead with Mi tute ne comprenas vin, ĉu vi parolas Etruskon, which usually gets me connected to a Spanish desk with no better luck. Telemarketing is a felony that is unfortunately still legal. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the legalities of these troll-level jobs (including setting up the recorded messages) and whatever one's responses, the real culprits are the people who respond in enough quantities to justify the phone calls being made. Anna Livia (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, automation means that the actual cost of employees for being a bullshit artist is almost zero. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In the US, you can register your # on the DoNotCall list, but 90% of telemarketers ignore it because enforcement and prosecution is rare. I have heard that with calls from non-robo humans, it is better to answer and tell them "take me off your list" than to not answer and have your # logged in their "try again later" file. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I've worked on both sides of this at this point. I worked as a phone pollster for CNN during the 2016 election; we were paid by the hour but judged by complete calls. The number of people who told me to 'get a job' really bothered me as uh it was a fucking job dealing with their asses. I hadn't ever owned a landline though. I eventually started working for a relay company Sorenson Communications and now I can empathize with the assholes I was calling, though they're still assholes. I would honestly estimate at least 40% of our call volume just in number of individual phone calls are either sales, scams, or unsolicited robocalls. It's an issue. Transbeeism (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
A distinction should be made between 'genuine marketing and pollster-ing calls etc' and 'spam-phonecalls' - and it is the latter which are the problem along with 'the deliberate ignoramuses' who respond to them (and the correct responses to 'This is Microsoft...' are 'actually I am a Linux/some obscure operating system' or 'At last| I am still using Windows 1.0 - can you help me?').
There is some expense to the robocalls - getting the message set up, transmitting it and dealing with such responses as there are: they are only viable above a minimum response rate (when was the last time people here received a 'Spanish Prisoner send money to supposedly get more money' email?).
And - the phone system operators do benefit from even the spam calls - which add to 'the total number of calls on the system, justifying our existence and expansion programs.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RIP Jeremy Hardy[edit]


The US based lot of yiz will possibly be clueless as to who, but us lot on the historic side of the Atlantic should be aware of this comedian. Have a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj1EGj1_frk https://www.facebook.com/BBCRadio4/videos/290781708272247/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

MAGA hat[edit]

Do you think this hat is a symbol of hate?

Make America Great Again hat (27150179783).jpg


  1. it clearly has become one. it represents the trump administration who have been stoking hate from the outset. you cant separate it from less egregious policies - its a package deal AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Yes it is. Trump's recent tantrum has sealed the deal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. The implicit message is that America stopped being great due to the number of nonwhite immigrants who have come to this country and the evil leftists who sabotaged America. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    Making factual statements about why your country is turning to shit isn't necessarily based on hate. It could be based on simply not wanting to live in a shitty Mexico/Pakistan tier country. Why is that "hateful"? Would you want to live there? (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    And my point is now proven. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Complete list of non-racist people and things associated with the hat:
    ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    America was never great, the hat is a lie Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Yes, continued support of the administration is either gross ignorance or outright hate. It means you are complicit with the crimes being allowed and committed at the border, gun violence at home, as well as the blatant anti-environmentalism going on as well as blatant anti-democratic practices such as slandering journalists and voter suppression. You're on the same camp as those that gleefully harass minorities including women, LGBT+, blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, religious minorities, atheists, and more. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Yes. It all but reaffirms the far-right's constant bemoaning of the "degeneracy" caused by gay marriage, transgenderism, feminism, abortion, materialism, atheism, the existence of a single nonwhite American, etc. "Great Again"- HA! More like "Hate Again". --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


  1. No, it's a gadget of the 2016 presidential campaign of the current US president. Saying that it is a symbol of hate is an attempt to demonize all Donald Trump's electors and supporters. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    if trump supporters arnt dreadful racists they shouldnt be trump supporters. you could maybe have given them the benefit doubt early on, but now? they are either racists or support a racist - the end results the same - support for racist policies. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    My liking of Trump actually started to die the middle of 2018 but I was in denial. Realized 2 months ago that I could not stand the guy. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    @AMassiveGay Trump was voted by 62.9 million Americans (click), including 600 thousand Blacks and 1.9 million Latinos (click). Are you really claiming that those people are "dreadful racists"? Thinker(unlicensed) 17:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    if they still support trump and happy to don maga caps - yes. there are no excuses now - we know what hes about (it was clear from the outset, but maybe they thought it was all rhetoric to get the vote) if they arnt dreadful racists they should have the balls to disavow trump. as i clearly said, and you ignored, still supporting trump amounts to same thing as supporting racist policies. its a package deal you cant separate them out AMassiveGay (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    and lets put those figures in context - that amounts to 8% of black americans and 29% of hispanic americans not quite so impressive when put like that 88% and 65% voted hilary (but this has nowt to do with her)AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    You can be a minority and support policies and people that hurt minorities, and you will still be rightfully called an -ist. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    It is not an attempt to demonize Trump supporters, to call signs of their support of Trump symbols of hate. They are attempts to shame his supporters. I am sympathetic to the notion that shaming doesn't work well on crowds. A human is intelligent, a crowd can be, and usually is, quite stupid. There is no question the Trump campaign and administration are among the most corrupt in US history. He is verbally and financially dishonest ( see Trump University, the Trump Foundation, et al). Literally nothing Trump says can be taken at face value. He is at least a pro-crypto racist. I presume most who frequent this page would say I am letting him off easy.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Ariel31459 I kinda agree with you there. Trump is the type of guy who hides behind vague wording though someone can tell it is still racist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    "It is not an attempt to demonize Trump supporters, to call signs of their support of Trump symbols of hate. They are attempts to shame his supporters."
    @Ariel31459 Well... the most famous symbol of hate is the Nazi swastika, and people adopting the Nazi swastika are considered the worst of the worst, not just people who should be ashamed of themselves. So trying to classify a symbol as a symbol of hate is a way of demonizing, not just shaming. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    This may be a little technical, but the swastika is a symbol. A hat with the MAGA on it is just a hat with letters on it and is at most, a sign of the times. In a hundred years the swastika will be remembered because it is a symbol. The hats will be sold in flea markets as political collectibles. They will be quite valuable as memorabilia of the first President to be removed from office (I hope). The hat is a sign, a sign of the ascendancy of Trump, and not a symbol. For example, it means nothing to me beyond "here's another idiot that got sucked in."Ariel31459 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Nope. --RWRW (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    goingwith the party line again, i see. bravo AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    Did a bit of formatting editing so it appears correctly. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Nope Commie Lib (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. MAGA is a bullshit buzzphrase which makes me cringe. However, perhaps in the future it will be clearly associated with hateful ideologies/policies but for now, it's just a moronic phrase based on ignorance and naiveté like when stupid shit is said, they're usually wearing that hat. But then all Lions are mammals doesn't mean all mammals are lions. At the moment now, no, I think comparing these stupid hats with burning crosses is overdoing it. ShabiDOO 22:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    i would argue that the association with trump makes already a symbol of hateful ideologies/policies. its muddied any possible 'innocent/naive' usage. i would agree though comparisons to burning crosses and the like is a bit much. in spite of ikanreed's list below, its so ubiquitous that its usage can be unthinkingly casual, while the latter requires more concerted forethought. its not quite a swastika. yet.AMassiveGay (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    "not quite a swastika. yet." Just the kind of hyperbole I've come to love and expect from this site. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 05:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. No more than a Black Lives Matter t-shirt is a pro-cop killer statement. nobs piss in my ear 00:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    Nobs is expressing his racism again. Yawn. Bongolian (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    Hey, why don't you go fuck yourself with a banana. nobs piss in my ear 05:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    Enough with the frugivorous sexism.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    A banana? You mean like... IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME, PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME, PEANUT BUTTER JELLY, PEANUT BUTTER JELLY, PEANUT BUTTER JELLY AND A BASEBALL BAT! Go eff yourself with a dancing banana! lol (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. No, "MAGA" is a mindless soundbyte, parroted ad nausem by the masses. It lacks the concerted effort needed to make it a hate symbol. It's like the "silent majority" or "Moral Majority" that way. Can they be used to threaten others and rally hate groups? Yes. Are they equivalent to Nazi and KKK iconography? No, not at this time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  7. Nope. MAGA is something Trump ripped from Reagan, and we didn't call Reagan racist. It's an easily memorable and identifiable phrase. Nothing racist about it. KoiDevelopment (thanks, Love!) 05:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Actual substantiating evidence that yes, it means hate[edit]

The following are intended to highlight the assertion that it is reasonable and sensible for persecuted minorities to treat MAGA hats as a direct threat to life and limb, and regardless of intent of the wearer represents an symbol of hate sufficiently recurrent as to be treated as such immediately.

There's dozens more incidents like these ones. You can't just hand wave this kind of trend away with "nope". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So the same association argument proves Islam is an ideology of hate. Oh wait that only works for whites. (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The definition of "hate" now is anything contradicting anti-whites. Actually all negative words now have this definition. Bigotry, intolerance, etc. The original meanings have been lost amidst the screeching. (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Lol, no, it's the same thing that makes burning a cross a racist symbol, nothing that ever happens in association with it is not racist, ever. And lacks the centuries upon centuries of complex and peaceful culture that, you know, makes you wrong about everything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
A burning cross is a different symbol which is explicitly racist moron, i.e. not the same. And we were discussing whether it's "hate". Now it's whether it's "racist". Try to stick with one meaningless undefined epithet. I can understand how you get confused about basic logic when deploying your mind-fucking anti-white logic warps. (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, really, it's "explicitly" a racist symbol? Would you say that explicitness comes from the intrinsic nature of wood shaped into a cross? The use of fire? No wait, those are dumb and unconnected. Sr maybe it's a history inextricably tied to its near-exclusive use by hate movements, with deeply racist messages, and connected violence? And that large numbers of organized hate-movements marched under it? Hmm. Yes, that's exactly the same as MAGA hats. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
you are clearly unaware that trees are well known anti semites. why do think there are no natural forests in Israel? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't known if it's worth replying to you, since I bet you'll probably answer by "Stop being the dumbest fucker possible" or something similar, as you did many times before, instead of trying to have a conversation...
Anyway, I'll say to you just this: If you think that dozen of acts of violence and hate done by people wearing a MAGA hat imply that the MAGA hat should be considered a symbol of hate, then you have to conclude that essentially all the religious symbols and all the country flags (for example) should be considered symbols of hate. If you try to rectify this reasoning by adding that religious symbols and country flags should be excluded because they were also used in non-hateful contexts, then you should take into account the 62.9 million of Trump voters that are not committing any act of violence/hate and then conclude that the MAGA hat is not a symbol of hate. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"Think of all those men marching in hoods who didn't actually participate in the lynching" is not the profound counterargument you think it is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
"Every Trump supporter is equivalent to a Klansman, because history is always exactly the same" is not the profound counterargument you think it is. (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Except that it's not every supporter. They're referring to those that wear the hats, whether they realize the symbolism behind it or not. The symbolism, from what I can gather, is that it is full support for Trump's actions, policies, and ideals, including the reasons behind them (most notably of which are his campaign promises and statements). Cherry-picking the parts that one likes about his policies doesn't show through the hat, but the hat shows that one supports (intentionally or not, correctly or otherwise) Trump's campaign in its entirety. That is the message that the hat now portrays.TheTallMass (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Surprise surprise[edit]

It can be both innocuous and a symbol of hate. Things can mean different things to different people and in different situations. Sort of reminds me of certain gendered Islamic headgear and varyingly offensive to largely harmless uses of the word "fag" (e.g. for a cigarette). (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

not quite. an asscociation with some generally unpleasant things can override any possible innocent usage of something. your other examples depend much more on context and the prevailing culture. for example, as britisher, if you offered me a fag, i'd say ta very much, but if you called me a fag, id push a glass in your face, where as i doubt anyone would wear a swastika if they disproved of genocide but sure do love an autobahn. the dreadful associations are still the primary focus regardless of any good you can contrive. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hinduism and (especially Japanese) Buddhism often use swastikas, you know. Maybe more problematic is how Hitler paraphernalia are sorta popular in India. Though most of it is pretty non-serious. (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
yeh yeh i know. but tell me of the hindu usage of MAGA caps? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Well... (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, this one's even better. (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
one swallow does not make a summer, neither does pendantry make a convincing argument. show me the usage of MAGA, the trumpian one, and not some unrelated but similar wording or phrase, in Mumbai? show me usage of MAGA in the US that is over ridden by or you can effectively remove any racist connations. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, this article shows a Latina supporter of Trump wearing one. It also has some relevant text about Trump's polling among Hispanics. If you use Google Image Search you'll also find plenty images of various people of colour wearing them. Not saying that automatically exonerates him from claims of racism btw, but clearly there's a sizable portion among minorities that doesn't see Trump (and his MAGA caps) the same way you do. (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
see my argument (and others) above. i repeat - the racist associations outweigh any 'innocent' usage. wearing a MAGA cap is implicit support for racist policies even you dont agree those policies. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
"but Asians use swastikas" the response to that would be just to be aware that Asians do that, rather than get worked up over this, in this case. It's your problem if you decide to throw a hissy fit at BBQ sauce at a 99 Ranch Market. But if literally anyone else does it, it's a problem. Context matters. Anyhow, this case feels similar to GamerGatr supporters. Maga is as noxious as being. GamerGater so... --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay You asked "show me usage of MAGA in the US that is over ridden by or you can effectively remove any racist connations" (click) and then you replied "wearing a MAGA cap is implicit support for racist policies even you dont agree those policies" (click). Hence, essentially, you asked "show me an X that is not Y" and then you replied by saying that "all X's are Y". That's running in circles: no matter what your interlocutor would have answered to you question, you had already decided he would have been wrong. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
are you really unfamiliar with the concept of a rhetorical question? its a simple concept. when i said 'show me', its pretty clear from the context (context seems to be my word of the month) and everything i have said in this in this thread and other related ones that i dont think it is possible to remove it from the racist or otherwise negative connotations, that op of this section could not 'show me'. i also said in the same post 'pedantry is not a convincing argument'. perhaps consider that AMassiveGay (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
If in your view nothing can outweigh the referred to racist associations, so be it I suppose. Though dismissing opinions expressed by millions of minority voices as irrelevant seems... potentially problematic, to put it mildly. (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also, to harken back to my original post, I'm not saying that individuals are by any means wrong if they see MAGA caps as a symbol of hate. But it's not unimportant that it's also seen as completely harmless by a vast amount of people. Personally, I find it a bit baffling how much people focus on 'symbols' in these sort of debates. E.g. if Islam is so oppressive towards women, why spend so much time riling against hijabs as a 'symbol of oppression' instead of focusing on domestic violence and marital rape? It dilutes any potentially valid and pressing issue into being an ideological battle around symbols. (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay "are you really unfamiliar with the concept of a rhetorical question? its a simple concept."
I thought you were trying to make an actual argument: setting a condition for being a symbol of hate and asking you interlocutor a counterexample not satisfying such condition. If it was a rhetorical question, then it's even more running in circles. Thinker(unlicensed) 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@bon - saying that MAGA is or has unsavoury connotations is not 'dismissing opinions' of anyone. its saying MAGA has unsavoury connotations. those opinions ARE irrelevant here. it doesnt matter if you are an avowed anti racist, anti homo/transphobia, and generally decent person, because if you wear or display a MAGA sign, so intrinsically linked with trump and his policies, you are showing a visible sign of support for trump and his policies. that means you are are showing a visible sign of support for a racist, homo/transphobic and generally hateful president and his policies. it does not matter that your actual opinions are against all that because your actions, displaying MAGA on a hat, a badge, bumper sticker, or what have you, your actions tells us something different.
and thats without mentioning the crimes of some very unpleasant people prominently displaying MAGA in one form or another, like in ikanreed's list, riding high in the media further tarnishing the brand.
and it doesnt matter if alot people dont see it as 'completely harmless', they still see it as support for the president, and you'd have question why they support such a bigoted arsehole in the first place. besides being completely false in alot of people seeing it as completely harmless - its always been divisive, hate symbol or not, and those wearing it know it and have always known it. its a mark of affiliation, to show whos with and whos against you. it was a campaign slogan - thats the point.
the hijab thing - not sure what you going for there. it conflates things and makes assumptions that on the face of it are incorrect or way too vague that would require whole other debate dissect. its just not relevant here. the broader point about focusing on symbols - its not such the symbol itself, but what it represents. its how you get message across, how much support it has, and its about what that message is. if that message is hateful, and you can see its symbols everywhere, you know there is work to be done. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@unlicensedthinker - how is it any way 'running in circles' where i have made my position very clear from the outset? AMassiveGay (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
That's just pure crap. Your fantasies, fake news, and DNC talking points are not Trump policies, nobs piss in my ear 02:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
good to see you have a well reasoned rebuttal. of course, i take it as read that trump is a racist prick, you are free to disagree. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Redundant. Fake news. BBC? Guardian? WaPo? oh please.... nobs piss in my ear 16:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
you realise that the bbc link is just clips of Trumps speeches. His own words? you really have nothing don't you AMassiveGay (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Like this? or the Covington High affair? nobs piss in my ear 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
nope. you've still got nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I hit the nail on the head with my analogy then. Instead of focusing on the actual issues, you want to vilify people based on what clothes they wear because the latter implies some sort of affiliation which is to be vilified. Instead of persuading people to come to your side based on the actual issues, you're willing to throw literally millions of people under the bus. Because moral tribalism/purity signaling trumps everything, including any actual issues that end up being just a prop to justify said tribalism while they are left unaddressed. (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
no.no you really havent, and i really havent thrown any one under the bus and you are makimg assumptions that cant be be made from what ive said. re read what i said. i cant be any clearer. 'actual issues and to deal with them' werent discussed because we were discussing symbols and what they mean, specifically MAGA. you didnt ask how we deal them. just because this one thread is about MAGA hats doesnt mean we arnt talking about anything else. we are. i am. elsewhere. did you bother to look? AMassiveGay (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, I made absolute pronouncements based on a perception of signals. See how that can be annoying and counterproductive now? (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
i'm not sure how you were confused - i couldn't have been clearer and there no was action or symbol, like a MAGA hat for example, to contradict my view or give a mixed message - you know, the whole crux of my argument? the one mistake i made which i must admit to is i assumed good faith and that you weren't a disingenuous prick. we live and learn. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Asking for counter-evidence and then saying you were asking a rhetorical question because you were already decided on the matter sure is one way of assuming good faith. *shrugs* (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay "if you wear or display a MAGA sign, so intrinsically linked with trump and his policies, you are showing a visible sign of support for trump and his policies. that means you are are showing a visible sign of support for a racist, homo/transphobic and generally hateful president and his policies."
Just by coincidence, on youtube it popped up a documentary about Black Trump supporters. Maybe it could be interesting for you to hear why those Blacks support such a racist president. It's produced by VICE, so it'll be probably much left-leaning (I saw only the first 5 minutes). Thinker(unlicensed) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
yeh, im not watching a youtube video. you tell me. why do they say they support a racist? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
*whispers* Maybe they don't think he's a racist. (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
*whispers back* hes still a racist though, fucknut. they are still supporting a racist. i'll do us both a favour - until you grasp my what i've said, i'll ignore you until you actually make a salient point, one that challenges what i've said. you might need to read through this thread again and maybe try to actually understand it - its really not complicated but nothing so far suggests you do else you would have gone for a different tact (there is one, but still ultimately fruitless imho, but you could surprise me). you should try to find some crayons instead though. a nice bit of colouring might be your speed. a helpful pointer - try to stay in the lines AMassiveGay (talk)

Hate symbol definition thought experiment[edit]

Let's say you had the ability to know the entire population who identifies with a particular symbol, and all actions used with it. What would constitute a sufficient amount of hate crimes committed to make a symbol become a hate symbol? To get the trivial edge cases out of the way, a symbol used entirely to represent hatred of a group is obviously a hate symbol, and a symbol which is never used in such a context is obviously not a hate symbol. The problem arises when one tries to take a hardline stance such as "any use in hate activity makes it a hate symbol" because then virtually all flags become hate symbols, or the opposite such as "it wasn't originally intended to be a hate symbol" because then virtually nothing is a hate symbol; both extremes make the term meaningless. Is it possible to draw an actual line in the proverbial sand? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is actually a fairly benign argument. Imagine we had case where an entire country's population of millions of people was functionally associated with a certain symbol, let's say it was placed on a national flag of major European country for like a decade, the crimes perpetuated under its name were so consistent in their violence and victim selection, its meaning as a hate symbol was undeniable. An elected leader who was extremely popular with a not-insubstantial subsection of the electorate only enhanced the clarity of its hatefulness, because their policies were so focused on that same hate. Wouldn't such a case adequately fill our thought experiment? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree it would, but the symbol in this case is defined from the outset in your second sentence as a hate symbol. While I agree with your last sentence that it counts as a hate symbol, I'm more interested in the actual requirements of being a hate symbol in the first place. Could the requirements to be a hate symbol be defined with a rigid mathematical boundary? Specifically, could a computer, given a rigid definition of 'hate speech' or 'hate crime', actually identify the cut off point when a symbol becomes a hate symbol? Edit: Upon giving it some more thought, I think the system would need to grade symbols based on severity. I.e. Taking Pepe the frog and the swastika as both being hate symbols, I think it can be agreed that the swastika is a more severe hate symbol than Pepe the frog. So a classification of either a % severity or 'Minor, Moderate, Major, Extreme' would make things more manageable. Where Pepe the frog would be Minor to Moderate, the swastika would be Major to Extreme. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The anti-"draw Muhammad" paradigm nullifies your thesis. In this example, we see the hate already exists in the hearts of believers, and the effort to create a symbol can evoke a violent reaction. nobs piss in my ear 21:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobs, what's your Opinion on Piss Christ? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think its disgusting. Id never pay money to see it or own it; but I wouldn't deprive some demented fool from doing so. I guess displaying it in a public taxpayer supported museum (or one that receives public grants) would be an issue, for which I'd be opposed on the grounds it denigrates people of a religious faith.
The issue is somewhat different from the 10 Commandments or a Nativity display on government property; those aren't necessarily directly offensive to a particular group. nobs piss in my ear 21:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I find the ten commandments to be extremely offensive. Commandment 1 is a demand of others to accept being subjugated to a fictional entity on pain of death (original context). It is exclusionary and supremacist at its core. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Why limit it to God? Does the toothe fairy trigger you, too? nobs piss in my ear 17:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by fictional characters. I'm bothered by the people who try to force others to conform to a groundless and mindless belief structure. If a cult tried to force everyone to worship the tooth fairy or be excluded from public life, the toothfarians would indeed bother me greatly. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"Force?" How does a monument in front of courthouse or Nativity scene force you to believe anything? nobs piss in my ear 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
it doesn't 'force' you, but it does make you feel that the state and its justice doesnt give a shit about you, that you arnt a proper citizen. doubly so, if your elected representatives are saying you are not as well. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobs, then you would be OK with the Chahada (hope I got the spelling correct), or minarets, displayed on public buildings? (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@RobSmith Yeah I don't remember people claiming the tooth fairy when trying to justify burning people alive. Commie Lib (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That's about as relevant as the Clinton body count - those people were victims of a regime that abused power as well. nobs piss in my ear 22:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice deflection Nobs. Your not fooling anyone, you just completely ignored my point. Christianity's body count. Commie Lib (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No. All you did is post a link to a list of victims of a corrupt civil authority. I could cite the 100 million victims of Communism, no wait, they weren't really communists who murdered those people anymore than heretics were murdered by alleged Christians. nobs piss in my ear 02:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
No, those were communist just like the inquisitors were christians. Why would I defend communism? Commie Lib (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
If the Ministry of Hate and Propaganda tried to ban it, I'd be grateful for the 2nd Amendment. nobs piss in my ear 17:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
(EC)Oh no, I'd never turn over subjective judgement of morality to a computer. No matter how refined and capable of nuance. That's a constraint not worth complying with. At a certain point the pursuit of objectivity in all things obscures truth, rather than revealing it. The ship of Theseus is the one he happens to be sailing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@ikanreed I'm not saying you ever would turn over morality to a computer, I meant that to describe the level of concrete description and quantization necessary to solve the problem of "what is a hate symbol?". Notice I didn't allow the computer to define 'hate speech' or 'hate crime'. Those two things, at least for the moment, are nebulous enough that I don't think a rigid definition can be given without taking situational context into account. The question is, even if we can totally agree if something is a hate crime, and on the percentage of the people who use a symbol at any given moment who are committing/supporting/passive towards hate crime, does the symbol associated with the hate also suffer from being nebulously defined itself? The original question of "Is the MAGA hat a hate symbol?" brings up that there doesn't appear to be an widely accepted and concrete definition of a hate symbol. Looking at the ADL website, they have tons of very specific symbols marked as hate symbols that are used commonly, such as the number 12. So it begs the question, could a rigid definition be given for the concept of a 'hate symbol', or is it doomed to just be a spur-of-the-moment decision? I guess the question could also be generalized further to include words and slurs. Edit: On further thought, maybe there is nothing special in this instance about hate symbols at all. I think in order to solve this question, one would need to be able to define how all symbols gain association in the first place at a general level. This is probably a question of neuroscience and psychology then. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


  1. Just like a swastika or a burning cross, it depends on the context in which it is being used. It's different to see one worn on election day to the poll than to see one worn on Cinco De Mayo to a festival full of Mexicans, for example. One could even say the same thing about the US flag. Conspirate (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. ↑ Right on the money. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Make America Goat Again. -- (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Make Attorneys Get Attorneys 01:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's your Two Minute's Hate for the day[edit]

Measles cases and deaths rising worldwide due to lower vaccination rates. It's not entirely anti-vaxxers' fault, but feel fucking free to blame them as much as you want. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

An issue that helps lower vaccination rates is conspiracy theorists. Think about it, they commonly say that vaccines are a form of mind control by the government/NWO/Aliens/The Anti Christ/Satan wearing a cowboy hat. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Could measles be inoculation-ring-fenced by out of the general environment - as smallpox and rinderpest were, and, in medieval Europe and in a slightly different manner, leprosy? What other diseases could be so resolved - and which are not (asymptotic carriers, several species involved etc)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The anti-vaxx movement's most recent excuse seems to be "well measles isn't that bad actually." 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 05:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Add to that certain Islamic fundies who pull a mirror image of the Christian fundie variety of anti-vaxxer conspiracist nonsense, including, but not limited to, vaccines making kids gay and/or Christian (in addition to those variants already mentioned by Rationalzombie94). And of course there’s also the “natural infection is better than vaccines” idiots who think it’s better to deliberately infect kids than to vaccinate them. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Can someone answer my question? Anna Livia (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
To my understanding, any strain which mutates slowly can be eradicated by extremely devoted effort. It may be impossible with something like the flu just because new strains pop up so fast. A big factor is whether it is a disease that animals also have, because it is much harder to keep animal populations vaccinated (specifically birds and rats) than human populations. Whether mosquitos can spread it is another big factor, although recent advancements in using phages has opened some doors to eliminating that as well. If you throw human rights out the window, you could theoretically eliminate any disease not transferred by mosquitos through systematic quarantine. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Would include those diseases which take a long time to provide sufficient symptoms to cause the person to seek medical advice in the asymptomatic group - and the animal etc vectors and the likelihood of encountering them (most people will not encounter armadillos to catch leprosy off of, and will not wish to go anywhere near 'Anthrax Island' whether or not it has supposedly been decontaminated).
There are those diseases which are 'very obscure/context specific'; those where 'vaccination to herd protection levels + some other measures (sometimes fairly simple - temporary quarantine etc)' is the most appropriate measure (on amount of work involved and cost basis as well as mutatability etc) and those where a concerted approach can be used to eventually confine them to 'vacuum flasks in specialist laboratories/seed bank equivalents.' Measles, flu and 'the common cold and sore throat infections' fall into the middle category - are there any diseases which could be included in the third if there was a sufficient and sustained program? Anna Livia (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Tuberculosis could be reasonably eliminated. It is reliant on other humans to spread it and lies dormant for a while. Through thorough testing and treatment, it is thought you could eliminate it (at least according to a quick Google search.) HIV is another one, but that one requires preventing people with it from either having sex or children. Feasible, but drastic. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
the hiv example - drastic but not in anyway feasible. it would rely on people knowing they are positive, and with medication it is people who do not know they are infected that account (in the western world at least) for the majority of new infections. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
and then there are the ones that 1) still believe that vaccines somehow cause autism after the omnibus trial and 2) that raising an autistic child is somehow worse than having that child die of easily preventable illnesses (when in reality autism is benign at worst and generally no worse, just different from, allistic kids). they'd rather believe FUD and abuse their children and let them suffer through deadly diseases that were largely eradicated than raise someone different than their neurotypical asses. Most of them claim to be 'pro-life' too. (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, we shouldn’t forget that polio is on the cusp of being eradicated. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I need genuine skeptical help(trump piss tape)[edit]

The trump moscow tower piss tape that got leaked last night has some compelling set and costume design if fake, and I'm looking to try and figure out what tools in the skeptical toolbox would help identify ways it actually is fake. don't click this link anywhere near work. Other than: A. unestablished chain of custody and B. potential debatableness of trump looking like trump. What evidence is there that suggests it's fake?

My worldview would be 100% confirmed by this, and there's all sorts of motivations for people to fake it(viral marketing, political points, humor) so I'm seriously wanting to undercut taking it too seriously. What else helps break down its credibility? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This video by Stephen Colbert (timestamp: 6:18) has some shots of the room that don't match up with the leaked video. There's a window IRL but in the video, no window. Additionally, the square panels on the walls are darkly coloured in the video, but IRL they are only slighter darker than the wall around it, and with a slight textured pattern. The carpet in the video also looks darker than in the photos. The Ritz-Carlton website also has photos of the suite. On the other hand, these are such glaring errors that, if someone was gonna make a fake tape, would they not take the time to fail less horribly? On the other other hand, people are bad at things, and maybe they knew that almost no one would notice. And some of this can be handwaved by saying the hotel could've remodeled, but the window had to have always been there. A real rebuttal is that all of this relies on the axiom that we know it was the presidential suite (room 1101), which is a very weak axiom imo, unless there is proof that I haven't seen. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I doubt this is a genuine skeptical question since, taking into account the low quality of the video, a genuine skeptical question would have been "What evidence is there that suggests it's not fake?"
So let's just say that the video it's real. Three consenting adults doing dirty things in a hotel bedroom... Nothing wrong with it, good for them. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
aside from 'I doubt this is a genuine skeptical question' being utter shit, it would matter if it turns out the whole collusion thing is true. blackmail material and the like. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
What you suggest is typical of confirmation bias. There is something you don't want to believe, and your mind set is "prove to me that the evidence is real." No! The evidence must be proved to be false, otherwise it remains as evidence. Perhaps not convincing evidence, but evidence nevertheless.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"What you suggest is typical of confirmation bias. There is something you don't want to believe..."
@Ariel31459 I just said that I see nothing wrong with those kind of things happening in a hotel bedroom. That Trump watched two girls pissing on a bed in a hotel room is something I would perfectly believe to be true and have no problem about it. Where's my confirmation bias?
"The evidence must be proved to be false, otherwise it remains as evidence."
I agree, but a leaked video of such low quality I don't think that would be considered an evidence in a courtroom. If it came from a trusted authority then I think it would be. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Ariel: It doesn't much matter whether ikanreed's question is "prove it's real" or "prove it's fake". The skeptical approach would be the same either way. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That's terrible critical thinking skills. The evidence of a video being not fake is implicit in the things recorded, especially as they match things known to be true(such as the physical design of the room). Being that there's legitimate circumstantial reasons to suspect falsification(such as the lack of a chain of custody), the next step is pursue substantiating evidence that it is faked. Material evidence such as incongruous details are good examples of such substantiating evidence. In traditional skepticism regarding faked videos, evidence of video modification such as lighting discrepancies or improper scene reflection are common, but those apply to insertions not entirely fictitious videos.
It occurs to me now as I apply that traditional approach that there's a few standbys present, low resolution footage, dark lighting, but again those create further circumstantial suspicion. But it's hard to come up with completely disqualifying factors. Asking for help is not unreasonable. Now can please everyone stop speculating on my motives, that I expressed as clearly as I could upfront because of how obviously they bias me, and someone, please, please, give some advice on recognizing faked videos? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The left-right panning, zooming, and unsteady hand appears to be a video made of a monitor. nobs piss in my ear 21:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinker @Ikanreed wants to verify the quality of evidence, even though he has reason to support it. Why? Because the quality and background are suspect. This is the height of critical thinking, examining the evidence even if one is inclined to believe the claims. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"This is the height of critical thinking, examining the evidence even if one is inclined to believe the claims."
@GrammarCommie As I already said: "taking into account the low quality of the video, a genuine skeptical question would have been “What evidence is there that suggests it's not fake?”" Also, the fact that ikanreed ignored Dorianha Bogelund's comment above (where considerations about the video not matching the hotel room are given) makes me think even more that there's no genuine skepticism in ikanreed's intents. Anyway, I can't read ikanreed's mind, so maybe he just formulated badly his question. Just don't portrait it as an example of "height of critical thinking"... Thinker(unlicensed) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If it were the genuine article, wouldn't you expect the national media to air it 24/7, though? (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed, what significance would it hold if the video were real? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you want it to be real, which may be a slight bias. Also, I'm afraid that I don't think you'll reach a conclusive answer. There's not much material to work with. It's a video of a video, low quality, and the other reasons I gave earlier. I'd be inclined to discredit it. But do tell me why it matters to you. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, nothing matters about it. It's not like the video itself is evidence a crime(at least not a crime worth caring about). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
No one gives two shits about sex between adults, but if it were a real video (it's not) it would be evidence that a foreign power had compromising material on a US president, which would be a very big deal. This video uses the same editing effect as in the "from Russia with love" Trump arrest montage from months ago. Trump's face, easily recognizable as lifted from footage of a cabinet meeting, is briefly visible superimposed on the shadowy sitter. I rate this hoax a 7 for effort but a 3 for execution. Millennium Scallion (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
So, I'm at work right now and can't check, but you're saying the lighting on his face/head wouldn't lighting conditions from the rest of the scene if examined carefully? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that pro software like AfterEfects combined with Photoshop give a wide range of lighting and positioning adjustments and the capability for complex motion tracking head swaps. Also note the totally gratuitous detail of one single drop of piss momentarily catching the light as it falls from her crotch. I suppose someone could enhance and dissect the video and find a contrast error, but why bother? It's like debunking one of the million YouTube UFO videos. Not worth the time. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
in rogue one, there characters played by people who had died before filming started. if the video were flawless i still might collaborating evidence. at point will such things become impossible to tell apart? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
or even corroborative evidence. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow up evidence[edit]

The setting/set of this video matches the physical design of the room as seen on the Colbert walkthrough pretty well. However, it has been brought to my attention that the actual events alledged in the dossier were to have happened 2013, and the room had a renovation in 2015. It's possible, given the one social media picture of the suite dated to that time, that the walls were not the same. This would be more-than-sufficient evidence that the video was faked with the explicit intention of seeming real, if it were not for the fact that that one social media picture was also used for advertising a suite at another location.

Either way, that's compelling enough circumstantial evidence to put it to bed, unless a compelling chain of custody for the video becomes available. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No disrespect — it's interesting that we have opposite opinions of the same piece of evidence. You say the physical design matches pretty well. To me, it hardly matched at all. It vaguely resembled it, enough for most people to not notice, but had overt discrepancies. It's really curious how we could have such differing opinions of something that has an objective, physical appearance. —Dorianha Bogelund (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Which overt discrepancies? I have to assert strongly that it's not really objective, if you're doing a visual comparison of spacial layout. The famous Did you see the gorilla experiment is proof enough of that. You have to pay attention to the specific thing that's different to notice it. I checked the number of panels on the wall, the relative height of the wall with respect to a person, the width-to-height ratios of the panels, and the relative positions of the lights on the walls. I deemed the coloration impossible to tell due to lighting, and the chair too easy to move. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just when I thought people were smart (evidence for Psi)[edit]


It just seems like something that never dies. Psi has no proof but people still try for it.Machina (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Just how reputable of a source is Psychtoday, actually? My impression of that site is that it's a mixed bag like TVTropes or Huffpost. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 14:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe someone should create an article on it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems mostly OK according to NewsGuard, but this psi article looks like just an opinion piece. How big is the author on the website? If he's a guest writer, then ok it's just a strange opinion piece. If he's a major contributor or even an editor, that's a bit more problematic. Avida Dollarsher again 04:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
A psychologist who believes in parapsychology. That isn't unusual in itself. Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

When Flat Earth supporters cite the Bible as evidence of their claims[edit]

Can someone tell me where exactly in the Book of Genesis it says the Earth is flat? I read the Book of Genesis before and nothing in it says, "On the sixth day, God made a flat disk".

Did I miss something? 😂😂😂

Seriously, how can flat Earth supporters cite the Bible which was not meant to be taken literally in the first place?

The Earth is not flat!!! It is an isosceles triangle!!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several verses in the bible that suggest the earth has a foundation, four corners, and ends. The rest is just worked on from that. — Dysk (contribs) 21:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The most interesting claims about the structure of the Earth in Genesis are about the 'firmament', a word we'd ordinarily translate as 'lid' or 'cover'. The Biblical firmament is clearly solid and watertight. It separates water above the firmament from water below. It contains door or sluices that can be opened to produce the Biblical flood. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Christianflatearthministry.org is one of the most outrageous. Cool graphics tho. Millennium Scallion (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought that one dates to when flat earth sites were literally a joke and not figuratively. We have an article on the artist who made the "cool graphics". David Dees is a rarified, perfect form of crank magnetism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I am considering to work at a bachelor's degree in English Literature and or English Education[edit]

I found several online programs that might be good. I like the Bachelor's degree in English Education from Grand Canyon University. It sounds like a good program. I also like the English Literature degree from Southern New Hampshire University. Online programs are my only choice for schooling. I am open to suggestions. I'm your God now --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly understand that not everyone's circumstances allow for traditional education, the overall reputation of online universities is very bad. GCU in particular only has a modestly negative reputation, and in particular it tightly integrates religious components into their curricula, and seems to be "money grubbing" with a up-front contractual agreement to pay for all years of a program regardless of completion. At a high level, what do you dream of doing each day when you wake up? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of teaching and writing. I will scratch GCU off the list. Thanks for the information on Grand Canyon University, I don't like the idea of being screwed over financially. Maybe the dog can perform the surgery --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In most North-American universities your first year of a BA you don't completely specialise in one topic but take several other elective starter courses in other subjects (political science, history, philosophy...) and some form of Western-Civ (though Western-Civ these days include more and more of non-western-civ). The idea is, you're exposed to a variety of subjects and more importantly, if you really dig your major. If spending one year analyzing literature, book after book after book and want more, then English literature may be your thing. If not...you can fall back on another topic (English education for example)...there are tons of classes to choose from. ShabiDOO 08:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"The Hum"[edit]

For the past few nights, there's been a constant low frequency droning (not to be confused with an actual drone) noise outside, starting around midnight and lasting for a few hours (currently 5am and it's still going). At first, I thought nothing of it, but tonight it was extra noticeable, and when I opened the window, it got quite louder. No idea what direction it's coming from. So I googled it and was fascinated to find that it's a thing all over the world, and potentially very woo-ey. Most of the accounts of "the hum", especially as described on WikipediaWikipedia don't seem to be what I'm hearing. Typically, that hum is supposed to be louder inside the house than outside. And there's probably many cases of something psychosomatic. And it isn't a low enough frequency to have a physical effect on the body, those type of sounds have to be so low that they're not audible. I've lived here for 17 years and have never heard anything like it. It may have started a few weeks ago, when someone said they heard a sound like that but I didn't hear anything, which is even stranger because it's so obvious now. ®©TM Cocoa's Basilisk«talk at me» 13:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Could be lot of things. I have a neighbor who has an automatic Sump pumpWikipedia in their cellar. It sometimes goes on at 2 or 3 am. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Could something like this be involved? Sounds can carry over long distances. Anna Livia (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Too dumb for WIGO[edit]

Star Trek Klingon blade seized from Widnes teen's bedroom Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

whats so dumb about it? the headline leaves out the boy was arrested for assault, that other weapons were also seized, and that bladed weapons are frowned up on in the uk (if not outright illegal) AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Do your part.[edit]

Sign this. It's your civic duty as an Internet citizen. Hegel1.jpg Irresistible, aren't I? 16:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not gonna do it. They lied about it this year and chances are that's not gonna change. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Term for an erroneous argument[edit]

Is there a term for when someone uses a bullshit graph to lend weight to their argument by making it seem like they have real data? I'm specifically looking at this page, pretty close to the top. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 17:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say they use fabricated or distorted data. Nerd (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was going to say, but I was wondering if there was a specific term about lending yourself credibility with graphs. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 17:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, there is the fabrication or distortion of data, and there is the misrepresentation of data. Nerd (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm joking, but how about argumentum ad PragerU, where their graphs infamously make little sense. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 05:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Fun: Introducing the "RZ94 Insanity Meter"![edit]

The RZ94 Insanity Meter is a product derived from the Irony Meter. This product is designed to pick up nonsensical arguments from 2000 feet/609 meters away.



  • Signing up for a RationalWiki account.

Your Crazy Salesmen --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Benefits over 'Using my common sense'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Far more beneficial. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to construct the 'Heath Robinson/Professor Branestawm device? Anna Livia (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mainpage feedback[edit]

I am interesting in knowing whether anyone here uses monobook, and also if they are particularly attached to the monobook mainpage. — Dysk (contribs) 12:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You may wish to see the Monobook discussions on Wikia. Anna Livia (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not planning to turn the entire site into a spaceship lol. I just want to know if I should be trying to retain the monobook mainpage styles or if nobody minds just have a single look so the mainpage looks much the same regardless of skin. — Dysk (contribs) 18:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a Monobook/Standard RW display to compare and contrast?
Probably 'so long as it looks like the standard wiki layout (as Wikia does not) nobody will really notice' (especially the day after the relevant Saloon Bar conversation is archived). Anna Livia (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, so the current monobook mainpage style is different to the current vector mainpage style. The idea is to replace both with one that looks similar to the vector version. — Dysk (contribs) 19:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably falls into the 'did something change?' asked three weeks later category. Anna Livia (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gaia ads on Youtube[edit]

I've been getting ads for a Gaia subscription recently on Youtube, which I find concerning since to my knowledge they're pretty anti-science and anti-vax in particular. Has anyone else been getting these? Should something be done?— Unsigned, by: Cicada / talk / contribs

Yes, they are anti-science and ant-vaccines. Avoid it. By the way, use a signature. Aliens took my socks --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Rhetorical question: What type of movies/television would you expect someone with severe to profound mental disabilities would like?[edit]

I ask this because a few years ago when my brother attended a Glorified Daycare Center special needs school, supposedly the students choose to see the movie Love The Cooper's. It is a movie meant for a mature audience (not a porno). I have interacted with some of the students in the past and they have the minds ranging from young children to toddlers.

True that they are physically adults but you might as well say they are children. My brother who is physically 27 years old but has the mental age of a 4 to 7 year old child, did not want to see it. I seriously doubt the kids would vote for said movie willingly. Chances are that the kids were manipulated into voting for said movie.

Why would severely and profoundly handicapped people choose a movie like that without manipulation?

Edit: The teacher I mentioned is extremely manipulative and each movie voted for was a movie the teacher wanted to see.

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mental age calls into question a person's capacity for reasoning. While numbered somewhat arbitrarily, there's a reason we set age limits on certain activities such as sex, smoking, drinking, and voting. And just as those are numbered somewhat arbitrarily, they may have chosen in the same method or seen something they thought they'd like.TheTallMass (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
No sorry, I don't know what movies BoN likes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
What is with your obsession for mental handicaps? It's getting creepy. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I kinda get obsessive compulsive on small numbers of subjects. Comes prepackaged with my Autism diagnosis. As for my taste in movies, it is horror films. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much about mental handicaps, but I've known young children to become weirdly obsessed with all kinds of movies, including 5-7 year olds obsessively watching Pretty Woman and the Rocky Horror Picture Show. --Annanoon (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Age limits are arbitrary to a certain extent. My cousin was obsessed with God of War and other violent video games at the age of 7.--Palaeonictis (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That bollockhead BoN likes manga. — Dysk (contribs) 15:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Fucking primate filth! Good riddance to all of you! Palaeonictis Fossil beds 16:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, I am an idiot (eyes roll). By the way, I read horror novels not manga. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That span class="myName" is super fun to abuse. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A note to Dysklyver-- Manga is sequential art, as in graphic novels, and not motion pictures. You're probably thinking of anime.

If you're going to troll, troll on the right subject at least, ya hack. Kencolt (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rhetorical-question Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Agreed. BoN, despite claiming to be loyal to RW, is secretly a sock of @Logicnsuch, and is secretly working for Contardapedia, helping Assfly with his latest reality-reinvention scheme. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 05:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mandela effect[edit]

The other day I was listening to the radio and I heard the familiar Schweppes ads that they've been running for years, with Schteve and Schtanley. But, this time, the jingle said, "Refresching [sic] people just like Schteve, since 1783." And I was startled—it had always been 1983. I even thought perhaps it was a joke or experiment to see how many people would notice the change. Alas, all evidence (read: the google) shows that they have existed since 1783. This is the first time I've experienced the Mandela effect, all that Berenstain hype didn't get me. So does this mean I'm in a different universe now, or should I say, a different simulation? [dun dun dun!] I wonder what else is different here. Coincidentally I also just watched The Matrix and so I am a totally enlightened being now, wake up sheeps. Please reply with Schweppes' year of establishment in your universe. ®©TM Cocoa's Basilisk«talk at me» 13:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't pay attention to Schweppes year of establishment, but I guess 1783 is plausible? That one beer, Hoegaarden, that one is from 1445. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It was founded by Johann Jacob Schweppe in 1783, he died in 1821, and the company was given a Royal Warrant of Appointment in 1831. It became very popular, and is still around today as a brand, although the company itself is long gone since merging with Cadbury's in 1969. — Dysk (contribs) 20:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
In this universe there are plenty of Schweppes print and tv adverts dating to before 1983. Millennium Scallion (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I have a vague recollection of <1800, so my memory is in agreement. I can personally vouch for Schweppes existing well before 1983. Bongolian (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
61 years of age, been drinking their ginger ale all my life, and their tonic water too. So, from the early 60's at a minimum. Apparently the early 1860's, to boot. Kencolt (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thinking the Schweppes radio ad said 1983 instead of 1783 is probably a common enough variation of misheard lyrics. Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts about this video?[edit]

So, a guy in Twitter sent me this link, what do you guys thinks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-2z3en-oIo — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Archiver isn't recognizing this, so... Zero (talk - contributions) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The schoolkids are clearly feeling harassed at 1:10:00. Hey, I always take my shirt off when trying to defuse a situation. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Abortion at dilation[edit]

1:40 Chairman: "where is obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she have physical signs that she is about to give birth, would that still be a point that she could request an abortion if she is certified? She is dilating."
Kathy Tran:"Mr. Chairman that would be a decision that the doctor the physician and the woman..."
Chairman: "I understand and I'm asking if your bill would allow that."
Kathy Tran: "My bill would allow that, yes."

This seems a parody of what the radical pro-life movement thinks that the pro-choice think about abortion, but apparently it's an actual bill proposal. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

She's gotten a lot of flack over this, too, justifiably IMHO. But in general those I see spreading this nugget around on the Internet, with various bits of outrage tacked on, are no better. The abortion issue is one hell of an ethical minefield, one where a good sense of modern medicine is needed to debate competently. Most of the outrage crowd, those that shout the loudest, fail this test miserably.Soundwave106 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Soundwave106 Yep. I used to be quite anti-abortion back in my late religious days (about a year before my deconversion), so I know their propaganda tactics all too well. The conservatards must be loving this!

--Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 06:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 "The abortion issue is one hell of an ethical minefield, one where a good sense of modern medicine is needed to debate competently."
OK, but in such a case one doesn't need much expertise in medicine to raise an eyebrow to "abortion at dilation." Surely it's dishonest how Tran and the other woman hid behind "I'm not a physician." If they really thought a physician was needed to answer those questions, then they should had better called one before. Thinker(unlicensed)
Wow! A law doesn't explicitly address an incredibly unlikely situation. I bet the law has nothing to say on what happens if a woman requests an abortion during a caesarian, or if the baby crawls back up inside its mother's womb, or she's in orbit on the international space station, or if there's a Biblical prophecy that the child is the antichrist. Maybe allow the physician and mother to exercise some discretion? --Annanoon (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
"I bet the law has nothing to say on what happens if a woman requests an abortion during a caesarian"
According to Kathy Tran the (proposed) bill does say that abortion is possible in such situation if the woman is certified. The whole point of asking about abortion at dilation, an incredibly unlikely situation I agree, was to understand if the window of time for abortion was indeed 9 months, and Tran confirmed that. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
One thing that often helps defusing the media hype cycle is to Google and actually read the bill. So here it is. Under 18.2-74, you will find that the proposed change for third trimester abortions is that one physician (instead of three) has to certify that in his or her opinion, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman. ("Substantially and irremediably" is struck out from prior text.) So, yes, under rare circumstances, abortion is allowed right up to birth. As was the case before, just with slightly more leeway. (Most of the outrage crowd that shouts the loudest also fails at basic Internet search skills and reading comprehension, too.) Soundwave106 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Further evidence favoring requiring licenses for thinking. Basic fucking context is often ignored by those who skirt the certification process. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
"Under 18.2-74, you will find that the proposed change for third trimester abortions... So, yes, under rare circumstances, abortion is allowed right up to birth. As was the case before, just with slightly more leeway."
I see and those rare circumstances do not include dilation. Also Kathy Tran now agrees with that, since she regretted her response and said that she should have said: "Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth." (click) Thinker(unlicensed) 19:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Fuck off. Don't misrepresent people because you are wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem being wrong, quote the exact sentence of this thread where I said something false and I will correct myself. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
lol, maybe you need to prove yourself first that you can read because you're constantly failing at it and it's getting super annoying. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
There's literally nothing wrong with that bill, and a legislator trying to invent an absurd reductio argument that will never happen for the very reason he's asking it doesn't invalidate it. What might actually happen is discovering a serious and critical risk to the mother's health near the time of birth that a late-term-abortion could mediate. People do still die in child birth. And disproportionately from non-viable births. Her assessment that "it's between the patient and their doctor" is totally in keeping with medical best practices. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel like the fantasy the legislator proposes tells me more about the legislator than it does about Tran. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I just discovered a follow up, over the past decade mothers dying in child birth has increased dramatically in the US, and experts point primarily at reduced abortion access and increased healthcare costs as primary drivers. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Third trimester abortions are disgusting. Firstly birth defects can usually be seen earlier than that. Ironic that the guy who supported this called Trump racist but they wore a klanhood. (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think what's more disgusting is a lack of access to abortions that lead to the back alley shit. Also, I don't see how Ralph Northam's yearbook stuff or apparent racist hypocrisy is relevant to the abortion debate, but okay. Yes, racism is ugly, people have to reexamine their past, and so on. But talking about this stuff in otherwise irrelevant legislation is a red herring. Should he resign? Probably. But anti-abortion activists are trying to use this as a smear on pro-abortion, and that's not okay either. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Third trimester abortions ARE disgusting, but not to the people who DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS. A third trimester abortion almost always comes down to a biological failure, there is blood, there is trauma, there is a child that was wanted but didn't make it out of the natal process. The quotes in question point out the idea that a woman could call the birth off at the point of dilation. There are situations where women give perfectly textbook births to stillbirth children, usually because it would have been a stillbirth no matter what. This bill protects stillbirth+complication, where the stillbirth is actually potentially fatal to the woman. It also somehow apparently protects birth-bed recanting of pregnancy, which is, I'm sure, less common than protestant death-bed recants of atheism. If it was a right-wing bill, the proponents would have just lied to push it through. This is about medicine, and the US needs to make it clear to both health providers and sick citizens that their health is in their own hands, since we refuse have it socialized.
It's part of a popular but intensely dissonant push. We have to pay for certain peoples' health care, we can't pay for others, and some life-saving procedures are criminal, while other life-saving procedures are for rich people. Living with the dissonance of "I could never need this life-saving operation, but I don't think anybody who does should be able to have it for free or sometimes at all" belies psychopathy. Get over yourself, somebody might need this third trimester abortion, only an evil person would wait that long, evil people exist, don't be an evil person and make good women die in childbirth to prevent, I don't know, a possibility? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC) 03:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


In Quantum field theory, all "particles" are excitations/vibrations of an underlying field. These excitations vary in their frequency, in such a way that excitations with higher frequency have higher energy, with their total energy being a multiple of their frequency and Planck's constant.

Could someone please explain to me what this mean? Does it mean that everything is "one" or you are the universe? (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to ask here. You live in the Universe and you are made out of some of the most common chemical elements in the Universe: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Helium is second only to hydrogen in abundance, but is chemically inactive and so plays no role in biology. Phosphorus is not as common as the elements listed, but makes up for its relative rarity with the ability to form up to five chemical bonds, making itself extremely useful in forming complex structures. Phosphorus is present in your DNA and RNA, for example. Nerd (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a quantum physics expert by any means, but I've never heard of quantum particles / quantum field theory being described as "vibrations" before. The third Google hit for "quantum vibration" was the "quantum mind" wiki article. My personal opinion of the "skim read" of this and other related rabbit holes linked to this Google hit (Orch-OR theory, microtubules, etc.): for all practical purposes, this is a quantum physics woo concept for now, albeit one that originated from weightier experimental basis (it's "outsider science", not "complete whack-a-doodle woo"). At this time, most scientists in the field do not seem to support these theories. (My personal opinion: for answers on consciousness, I'd look at the neurosciences personally. If not now, then eventually. I'd guess consciousness has far more biochemical basis than anything quantum, personally, in line with the mainstream opinion.) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Actual M.Sc. in physics here (who forgot his user name). In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), what the layman would call particles really are excitations of underlying fields. That's the excited states in the second paragraph of Wikipedia's QFT article.
You (IP) just read your quote slightly wrong. There are several different quantum fields, but every single particle is an excitation of a single field. The electron is an excitation of the electron field, the photon an excitation of the photon field etc. There's no single field responsible for all existence, at least not as far as we know. This means that everything in the universe is made out of the same stuff, as Soundwave already mentioned, although I'd go two levels deeper than them: Everything is made out of the same fundamental fields (or particles, if you prefer), i.e. quarks, electrons, etc., not just the same atoms.
What this means for a Spinoza-type pantheistic worldview as you might have alluded to is up to you. While I'd describe myself as an atheist, I'm open to the idea of describing physics (as in the actual natural rules that govern the universe, not our incomplete understanding of them) as some sort of non-personal, non-conscious, immanent Spinoza god, although I don't really like that term (Does that make me a theologian?) (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Determinism and Agency[edit]

So if the past is immutable, and the present is based on the past, then the future is as immutable as the past. Copy.

I can act. I act sometimes. I act always in a way that affects the future. I never act in a way that is separate from the past or the future.

But I do act, it is my agency that allows me to decide how I act. As a nihilist, I'm very uninterested in in proving these concepts, they just kind of sit there in front of us. If you can deny having agency, you probably have it; If you can't, maybe you don't have agency, but the past-future thread is unbroken. Sorry, I'm in a bad mood Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)08:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be making fallacious assumption that the present and future are deterministically based on the past. They are only based on the past probabilistically. Bongolian (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
He's asking if you take determinism as a predicate(which isn't unreasonable, quantum effects on macroscopic scale are mostly negligable.), is agency a valid valid construct? I say yes, because "you" are a deterministic part of the universe that makes decisions. You're accountable for the determinative processes you follow, because they incorporate everything that is you into them. You have the agency of who and what you are. Determinism isn't fate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. To put it in other words, if we say fate is the way the future turns out combined with the notion that it must turn out that way, it is different from a deterministic outcome, which only supposes that there will be a future event caused by antecedent events. The former idea called fate is usually termed predeterminism. Human determinism cannot be said to be independent of our efforts because intelligent activity operates differently than the determinism governing the behavior of inanimate objects comprising the world. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm less upset, and I'm really glad you guys took the post seriously. I also agree with agency being as much a thing as anything, we have it as much as we have hopes, dreams, hang-ups, and hurts, agency is very likely a conscious trait. Even Neitzsche said "We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh." I don't think that means he danced every day, and I don't think he always got a laugh.
But I am interested in this Bongolian question of the probabilistic view of the past, because I don't know how to roll with it. I'm going to argue that Occam's Razor probably explains the problem of the past in that it is not equally likely that the past has/hasn't happened, but probabilistically, (can't believe I spelled that right first try) we could misinterpret it.
Edit: I think I am missing a point here. I'm retracting previous questions. If I'm just not familiar with the vocab, enlighten me. I'm very interested in the Bongolian method, though. Does it have a definition or refutation of agency? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't have that, but I do have this. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, I will probably die as human fighting like a dog. Humans are an agency unto themselves regardless of our measured points of existence, woof. I'm so cheered up. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Rational Products?[edit]

So the other day I was at a farmers market, and this lady was there selling honey. She had this one honey that was really dark-colored. It looked okay, and I'm kind of a foodie so I asked about it. She's describing the taste, texture, etc. Suddenly, she lets out the words of death. "Medicinal Uses." This would be annoying enough, but every single artisan good I find has some blurb about how it opens your butt chakra or positrizes your ions. I know it's a big problem with kombucha and tea, and even my local olive oil shop has started advertising "food as medicine." We should compile a list of which brands don't spew BS so we can avoid supporting those who do. An ordinary human man (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Found a full list of brands that don't pitch bullshit:
ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Good luck on that endeavor. Probably won't find shit. Sorry man. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Supermarket Own Brands perhaps?
Apart from 'honey and lemon for sore throats', and 'honey flavoured lotions and potions', are there any reasonably proven medicinal uses for honey (or is it better used as a sweetener and in certain 'spice biscuits and cakes'?). Anna Livia (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I was gonna say "I guess you could smear a wound with it by virtue of its sterile nature" as a half-assed assertion based on half-remembered facts about honey(you know, how most woo is created), but that's actually the most effective use according to this meta-analysis of potential medical uses of honey. Just use clean water and a bandage, though. Less sticky. Add a commercial grade topical disinfectant to kick honey's ass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The main 'medicinal' honey seems to be 'Manuka' BUT anything that Holland and Barrett sell is almost certain to be absolute woo. Scream!! (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I know some honey has some decent medicinal uses and all, I use it myself when I have a sore throat (Honey, hot water, and lemon,) but if you have something remotely serious, don't use honey. They way the lady at the market said it, I knew she meant more than "good for a sore throat." Also, the market had other people selling things like a book on chakras and homeopathic teas. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
According to some experienced owners, honey can help perk up a sick praying mantis because of the sugar -- once that's happened, it'll be willing to eat and move around, and that can save its life. That's the closest thing to a medicinal use that I can think of. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 14:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by the existence of a "Butt Chakra" Wiseassmathematician (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Archery butts?
Can honey serve the same purposes as Kendall Mint Cake (as a source of energy etc)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the butt chakra is the muladhara chakra, though an actual translation would be "base section" or "starting section" chakra. Someone's got a video titled, "The Butt Chakra - Go Back To Basics".[2] Bongolian (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben Garrison went off the deep end[edit]

He posted a rant on abortion that descends into rambling about the Illuminati Satanists controlling the world with vaccines, GMOs and 5G. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is what happens when someone does mountains of crack a day. Talk about insane. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Him going off the deep end? How is this news? His cartoons already show the insane world he lives in very nicely. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 08:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I always find it deeply ironic when conspiracy theorists use whiz-bang technology to post conspiratorial anti-technology conspiracy rants.Soundwave106 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't. There's plenty of reason to interact with society as it exists when pushing for a different mode of society. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder what it's like in the alternate universe Garrison lives in. Maybe I'll do a shitload of crack and visit him there someday. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You do realize that there is a picture of the guy either in black face or a klan hood? (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Ralph Northam, his target, did dress in a klanhood decades ago, and this now means Ben Garrison is sane, the Illuminati is very real, and the anti-abortion movement is now the paradigm of thought and economic equality. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't eat my own that quickly either, but there isn't time anymore. Can't complain about Kavanaugh crying about weight lifting in high school, which I as an alcoholic might tear up over honest memories of. Classic alcy tears, not real, I move past them every day. But it's insane to put him in our highest court. Revolutions used to take 30-40 years tops. The Boomers are the worst bosses, only like 5 of them figured out how to make money at the expense of the rest of everybody. They are the US version of the Chinese Little Emperors, petulant and unaware of their own level of coddling. Gen Z is going to put me on a spit just because it's funny to them, Gen X and Y, they eat their own for notoriety. Like hamster dads. Far enough off the deep end for you to never make me your mayor? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Abortion Extremists: Anyone have experience with these type of people?[edit]

When I lived in Owosso,Michigan there was this guy everyone nicknamed "Abortion Guy" or "The Abortion Nut". He was very infamous for carrying extremely graphic and gory signs about abortion. At first his signs had no horrifying images but over the years his signs got disgusting. Even other Pro-Life folks distanced themselves from Abortion Guy. Then in late 2009 he was shot dead next to the high school. Even in death Abortion Guy is still infamous like Dracula or the Bogeyman. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I associate that sort of thing specifically with misplaced sentimentality. Gross-out images and manufactured footage of alleged atrocities are used by partisans with a specific rhetorical problem. The wider world, whatever their opinion about abortion, doesn't really buy into the claim that a fetus is a person. Someone earlier posted about dropping a baby and a fertilized embryo in a Petri dish. They're both 'people' according to the rhetoric, but you can catch only one: which do you choose? Images of bloody fetuses are their attempts to blackmail you out of your indifference. The bobo version of this is veganism and animal-rightsery, where you find a lot of similar carrying on and identical rhetorical tropes. This actually got its start with people claiming that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because people are just as cruel to cows. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
They try to shock people into joining them, by showing what it's really like, but instead they drive people away by looking like nutjobs. Avida Dollarsher again 09:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
When I was involved with a southern Baptist church, there was a general consensus there that the people who do things like bomb abortion clinics are just 'getting even'. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I would assume that deciding on abortion is emotionally stressful. Showing horrific inaccurate images would not be helpful during something that emotionally stressful. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, was Abortion Guy also a religious fundamentalist? I'm familiar with a couple of "Independent Baptist" groups that used graphic images of abortions as part of their public protests. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris Abortion Guy was hyper religious. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In any case, in the era of Photoshop, misleading editing, and doctored footage, you can't trust the images trotted out by such people to be accurate representations of anything other than their makers' fantasies. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

UK Christians close down school play about Darwin[edit]

I expect this crap from the States, to see these numbskulls succeeding over here is... disheartening. Avida Dollarsher again 09:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Did the creations also burn all their old ₤10 notes that featured Darwin? Bongolian (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
They replaced them with Jane Austin ones, I haven't seen an old one for months. — Dysk (contribs) 13:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Time for your daily dose of paranoid bullshit[edit]


An asteroid shall hit tomorrow!

We are so totally screwed. 😂😂😂😂😂 You are watching Local 58 Community Television --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

According to express.co.uk, there's hardly ever a week earth is not about to be hit by an asteroid, coronal mass ejection or pandemic :) (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't get my hopes up ffs. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 03:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Paradox of Tolerance[edit]

Came across this on Wikipedia-


Talk about weird. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a very famous piece; I read it quite young. I never really thought about people not knowing it, which, in retrospect, is kinda dumb of me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
TBH that makes sense, we can see it in today's society with our intolerance of Nazis, Klansmen, generic racists, homophobes, ableists, etc etc etc. That never really occurred to me but I don't see it as weird, I see it as logical. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 14:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The problematic part of Popper argument is the "may" in the following paragraphs (I omitted some details for brevity):
"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies [...] But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but [...] answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
How to decide when some philosophies may easily lead their followers to the use of force, and consequently decide to suppress such philosophies by force? And an answer to such question wouldn't in turn be a philosophy that easily leads their followers to the use of force? Thinker(unlicensed) 15:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The Paradox of Tolerance serves to point out how people tend not to be willing to resort to rational discourse, often times having grown sick of the opposing side. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 15:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, I feel like Popper makes his own conclusion quite effectively.

s. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

That's a pretty contentious point among certain crowds, but it's absolutely the correct conclusion. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
No one (or almost) believes in tolerance without limits. We don't tolerate murder or rape, or simply theft, and in the same way we don't tolerate intolerance. (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump's idea to declare national emergency: What would an Emergency Action Notification message be like?[edit]

When a President declares national emergency, most likely an Emergency Action Notification message would be transmitted by the Emergency Alert System. This is for comedic purposes. Have a feeling that won't happen. Here's what I think the Emergency Action Notification message would be like:

This is an Emergency Action Notification. The following message is transmitted at the order of the United States Government. President Crybaby has declared a national emergency over a damn wall. Really. The President has declared that all Americans living on the northern end of the Mexican border must surrender their homes immediately. I might be a computer but I even know this stupid. This national emergency is in effect until further notice. The Emergency Alert System has been activated.

Emergency Action Termination --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if Trump does do that, there's no way that he won't end up flooded with lawsuits. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
And the list of potential impeachment fuel grows by one, as well. Kencolt (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Does apply? Anna Livia (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

National emergencies are actually very common in the US, and certainly don't require a booming voice declaring it to the population. Trump already declared a national emergency in December 2017 to impose sanctions on various international human rights abusers, and 2 more similar in 2018.[3][4] At the start of 2017, there were 28 national emergencies still in force from previous presidents, mostly various forms of sanctions.[5] Nixon declared one over striking postal workers.[6] --Annanoon (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

An emergency is usually limited in geographic scope and temporal duration, typically addressing a clear and present danger such as an earthquake, volcanic eruption, forest fire, cold wave, heat wave, tsunami, flood, cyclonic storm. Such usually involves the concurrence of a state or local official and the President. Thus "A tornado struck Springfield and Mayor Quimby asked the Governor and President for a state of emergency." Acts of war such as the 9/11 attack might qualify. That the President isn't getting his way with Congress? The President is not Congress' boss, and such would indicate that the President is either losing competence or is seeking dictatorial power. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So is it 'someone needs to do something here rather urgently'? And what would a #real# emergency involve? Anna Livia (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a bureaucratic threshold that must be crossed in order to release funds, like when a Governor officially declares "a state of emergency" after a hurricane, federal and state money and assistance are then available. National emergencies are the same thing, just higher levels of money. Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Or call out the National Guard and put it under federal jurisdiction. The national Guard is more effective than any agency other than the police in keeping people out of a disaster area in which as tourists (let alone looters!) they can do far more harm than good. The police are simply overtaxed in such a time. If you go in to claim property you had better have a legitimate cause to be where you are so that you can extract family photos, pets, and other valuables. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the constitution says that federal funds can only be withdrawn from the treasury when approved by law. Not that american discourse brushes on actual constitutionality beyond simplistic arguments about the 1st and 2nd amendments. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
So how would something that is more than a 'release-funding-immediately (and sort out the paperwork later' incident/evolving event, being a major existential threat be advertised (the four-minute warning perhaps). Anna Livia (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Emergency Alerts to the public would precede an attack by aliens, a tidal wave, or a planetary collision. Emergency Action MessageWikipedias are comms used only within the military, but lately the format has been hijacked by YouTubers for entertainment purposes. A State of emergencyWikipedia is the bureaucratic declaration required for sudden changes in funding, diplomatic actions, or civil regulations. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Generally for fictional emergency action notification videos have disclaimers telling everyone it is fictional. I am an EAS YouTuber myself and am familiar with the EAS Community. It is not at all real. Undead EAS Productions --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep thanks, I was mistaken about what the YouTubers are creating mock versions of. It's actually those emergency announcements used by broadcast TV and cable/satellite (example) with the weird bleep bleep alert sounds. Interesting subculture. Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just how hard are the Pizzagaters projecting?[edit]

Gamer- and Pizzagate cheerleader Mercedes Carrera & boyfriend arrested for sexually abusing a child. Like that Miami preacher after the Pulse shooting, claiming pedophiles were dead, then being jailed himself for kiddie porn. Fairly sure we need a variant on Haggart's Law for these people. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Correlation is not causation" of course (causation is probably reserved for neuroscience). But there is a certain irony that some of the strongest locations for proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory happened on places like 8chan -- places that also happen to be notorious for their child pornography-ish content (in 8chan's case, notorious enough to get briefly blacklisted by Google for suspected child abuse content.) When hyping a conspiracy theory, go with what you know, I guess. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Manosphere articles[edit]

For quite a while now multiple accounts (who appear to belong to the same individual) have been editing and creating Manosphere articles to be subtly sympathetic to the Manospereian worldview. I want this nonsense to end, now. This collection of groups is not some misunderstood subculture, they are toxic egocentric echo-chambers inhabited by individuals who either can not or will not change their anti-social behavior, and as a result have banded together to bemoan their own failings and blame them on others. These websites contain material that boarders on the criminal, including threats of rape, assault, and in some instances murder. This behavior is not only not understood all too well, but is unacceptable most countries.

If @Hipppppppy (the current account) would like to speak in defense of their actions, now would be the time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you treated any other minority the way you treated this minority you'd be called s bigot. The Manosphere is a fringe group that true does some messed up stuff. But yu could say the same thing towards Feminism, especially TERFS. The people here at "rational" wiki claim this group have no arguments but It's been demonstrated again, and again that fathers are more likely to loose their children in custody battles. Also In your page you try and minimize how Male genital mutilation is somehow "better" than the female equivalent. Oh but I forgot I'm "harassing" women by criticizing them173.235.40.25 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
If any other social group regularly advocated criminal and harmful behavior, yes, I would call them out on it. So fuck this persecution complex bullcrap. Invoking TERFs to try to set up for false equivalence, yawn, that trick was old the first time. "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Manosphere soundbytes... More yawns... Yeah, I addressed your entire response, it was lackluster and I could have gotten the same via a shell script of Manosphere posts Meanwhile, you ignored every point I made in favor of Whataboutism, you're done, and your changes will be reverted as needed. Unless you actually have something beyond Whataboutism, Ad hominems and persecution complex bullcrap. Oh, and for the record, when a group is wrong on every level, yeah, I call them out on it. Every. Single. Group. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lot of male-only problems, that should be discussed and changed. I'd even add the notion that "men should provide for family" (a notion that feminists also hate) is bad for men. But unfortunately the Manosphere is NOT about fighting against that. It is actually the exact opposite. Ironically the best way for a man who is actually worried about issues only men go through is to support mainstream (i.e. NOT TERFS!) feminism, as most of their goals also benefit men. And about TERFS, last time I read the article about them, RW treats them exactly the same as the Manosphere. (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommieThe men's rights movement is just as violent and sexist as the feminist movement. Commie Lib (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tabula Rasa Are you attempting to imply that both groups are violent? Or perchance that both are nonviolent? To be clear it doesn't matter either way, since one seeks to balance the scales (Feminism) and the other seeks to regain a half-imagined Gilded Age (the Manosphere). to be even clearer I was not merely referring to MRAs, but to the wider subculture they are a part of. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie That is false. Women are already equal to men. Name a few areas where women don't have the same rights as men? Also if feminism is so great and virtuous then why is it so hated by the internet. Doesn't the fact that it has a horrible reputation make you question if your backing the right horse? Commie Lib (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Women are legally equal to men in a lot of cases, but there's systemic discrimination and internalized discrimination, and there's the anti-abortion movement, and there's the negative effects of gender roles and expectations, and there's the weights of lifestyle choices (family rearing for instance). That next question, I can't answer because it's just not a good question. Feminism has a ton of schools of thoughts. Some of them contradict. The definitions are extremely vague and incorrect. Feminism is not "hated" by "the internet". It's such an easily refuted vague assumption. It has critics from practically everyone including those within the huge sphere of feminism, where feminists argue with each other. And it really depends on what demographics of what part of the Internet you mean. From my experience that are most vocal against feminism tend to come from male-dominated circles like "skeptic" and "video games" and "movies" and don't like when people say "hey, aren't women not treated that fairly" or "we need more women", and those people who deride feminism have no idea or appreciation for feminism either, evident from their characterization of feminism as a homogeneous blob where subscribers say the same things or something. So, that question you ask has a lot of problems and you should really define your terms before you ask because you're going to get answers like this. Also, no one is arguing feminism is great and virtuous, but in my opinion, I see it as a general good for society and for my personal life. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"I'd even add the notion that "men should provide for family" (a notion that feminists also hate) is bad for men."

While I disagree with you, that parentheses is exactly the problem with how people characterize feminists. No, they don't "hate" that notion. Some feminists support that notion (reasoning that men should spend more time with children and be important for emotional nurturing). Some feminists oppose that notion (women shouldn't have to require men to raise a family I guess, again, I disagree). Notice that the goals are the same but the means of reaching are different. Both thoughts still classify as feminism, though. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Feminism is an element of social progress, social progress is the reason people aren't pissing and shitting in ditches, living in caves, and working as serfs (if not outright slaves) for the local warlord. Progress, kiddos, is why people are able to bitch about and bemoan progress via the internet, a product of progress. Progress is something people either ride or something that runs them down. I just so happened to notice how shit works, the Manosphere hasn't and will, inevitably, be run down. People want better, better means progress, progress means kissing goodbye to The Good Old Days(tm) (and good riddance, most of them weren't that good anyway.) and progress requires equality. And, I notice, the opposing camp still hasn't addressed my point, merely regurgitated their PRATTs, again. You want to talk, talk. You want to barf up talking points, shut it, those are stupid. and there still isn't two sides to this issue, one ideology wants to dismantle a harmful social structure, the other wants to hold onto said structure with a deathgrip while threatening the other camp with borderline, if not outright, criminal acts. Fuck. That. Shit. one side is wrong, utterly and completely, and it's the one that's issuing rape, assault and (sometimes) death threats. Fuck defending the indefensible. Wrong is wrong, grow up and deal with it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Not that any MRA bothered to make this argument, but anti-male bias can have its effect. Working with disabled adults we have a policy that female staff can toilet male clients but not the other way around, which throws all kinds of wrenches into basic things like taking people on outings. Plus, it's totally cool for clients to hug the female staff but HOW DARE YOU LET CLIENTS TOUCH YOU, PERVERTED MAN!!!! (mind you, this was not wanted contact, said client snuck up behind me). A shame there's not much focus on the more day-to-day things like that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, you are comparing something like the systemic hiring of men over women with a patient who won't let you hug them because they aren't comfortable? Seriously? One of the better studies done to show the bias againt women...CVs were sent to HR department looking for employees (or in a few cases HR people knowingly participating in the study). All the names were changed into gender neutral ones like Chris, Pat, Jamie, Avery, Rylan, Skyler etc. The CVs from women showed greater work experience and higher level of education in one way or another. And during that test, the highly qualified women were usually selected over men for an interview (remember, the HR person can only guess the gender as their names were changed). The process was repeated only using real names. Despite clearly having a better profile, HR disproportionately picked the less experienced and less educated men for interviews. This study has been repeated numerous times and the results are mostly the same. Variations of this study also point to a similar conclusion. And that's just the work place. Do a little homework and read one of the many many many studies that show clear unfair bias. You live in some special world if you think women are equal to men and I guess you are lucky that way. Being taken less seriously in meetings, being passed over for promotions, being the but of endless sexual jokes and even groping, being relentlessly harassed in night clubs, being called a whore or bitch if you don't flirt with whatever guy interrupts you with a line, a huge disadvantage when running for certain elected offices, not being invited to take part in office schenanigans or betting pools, given the cold shoulder at the lunch tables where the good ole boys sit, the police not listening to you but instead your husband, salesman making all the deals with the husband, the utter shock when a woman says she makes more than her husband, SYSTEMIC PAY DISPARITY (this is absolutely concretely demonstrated, women are on average not just under-hired, but they are also underpaid...sometime far less than men for the same work and fuck the whole "she might get pregnant bit so she makes less excuse", thats a stupid excuse and wouldn't even apply to most women over 45 years ...and yet... undeniable disparity. Even in the "progressive" world of cinema, female actors make a lot less and are the object of agressive sexual harassment. I could go on but...yeah...wow...a lovely planet you must live on. Quick question...have you ever actually asked some of your female friends what kind of experiences they've had? Maybe being ignored, groped, harassed, insulted pressured, looked over, not taken seriously, offered less and suffered outright sexism in the workplace? Do it. Ask them to tell you even the small things if they can't think of any serious experience...and listen to them. Not a single one of my female friends and acquaintances is without some pretty shocking sexist experiences, some went on for years. ShabiDOO 19:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
If you really want to hug the patients, pretend you're a big fluffy hugging gay teddy-bear. It's remarkable how much women can disarm themselves when they realize there is no sexual threat. ShabiDOO 19:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Me thinks you are supporting a falsehood. Also if being a women has its disadvantages yes but so does being male. Here and that story about a guy being raped and it not being classified as such because of stupid laws. TLDR grass greener on the other side.Commie Lib (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Evidence of feminist being sexist or stupid
You're misunderstanding the scenario; I got run up one side and down another because my client came up behind me and wrapped her arms around my shoulders (which I really don't like). On a micro level these things don't always work that way; they tend to, but don't always. Yes, I'd consider losing my job over something like that to be ridiculously unfair (I did not, to be clear, just had to be demonized for something I didn't do or want); no, I wouldn't compare it to anyone else's experience or try to say it's "more important". I'm only speaking for me, that certainly doesn't invalidate any of the many very real struggles women face. This isn't a zero-sum game here. No comment on feminism or feminists, as neither has any relation to my specific situation. (And, for the record, I really just don't like human touch and I'm good with that) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a few videos of feminists being "sexist or stupid" is the same thing as systemic oppression that has been demonstrated in studies again and again. Why do people always go "but the males" when we talk about the problems women face as if we pretend it's 100% one-sided? It pisses me off. It changes the topic, diverts it to being about men, and it's as bad as "but white people face bad things in diversity quotas" when we talk about racism. It's the same "all lives matter" card racists pull out. This isn't "grass on the greener side; same thing both sides", one group is clearly more disadvantaged.
I haven't been in the workplace yet but that sounds super terrible to be in. I'm already planning on having a career on game development and it's a cesspool of men. Male-dominated careers seem to have the common trait of sexual harassment all the fucking time. This male-dominated shit everywhere I want to work in, including being in RationalWiki, the Internet in general, Uber (where I want to try to work in) and the video game world, I'm so tired of it.
Forbes: "That statistic doesn’t take into account a lot of choices that women and men make—education, years of experience and hours worked—that influence earnings." "AKTUALLY, not when it comes to same job same position same work". Nope I heard this a million times. No thanks. The article begs, "it's more complicated", but they're the ones being reductionist by laser focusing on "lifestyle choices" when far contributes to the gap. "On average", that the important word choice. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This particular conversation started about "the manosphere", so it ostensibly would be about the problems men at least purport to face. Though yeah, that happens a lot in other conversations and it is annoying. No comment on anything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights So, you have no Idea what the Manosphere is, is that it? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hence the word "ostensibly". I rarely delve into it, though I'm vaguely aware of Paul Elam and his following (plus a few others). They may charitably be described as flaming nutjobs, and certainly I share none of their values. Don't know the details well, as the surface is quite scary enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario What studies? Show your proof? Recent articles please now 1980 study on gender discrimination. Also you seem to rely on anecdotal evidence quite a lot and I can't accept that without some proof. Commie Lib (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't have "proof" (lol, "proof"). But we have an entire long article on Gender pay gap, which has evidence well past the 80s. And I real don't have to elaborate on the "proof" on sexual harassment. Skeptic circles, Elevatorgate. Video games.... (oh boy) GamerGate, Riot Games, GameFAQs. Uber drivers and passengers... male dominated and sexual harassment is a big problem. The entire #MeToo hashtag. My own personal experience has shown that every video game-related event I've been to had like 90% men (KO Gaming lounge, Smash Ultimate mall event, etc.). Women in video games are constantly treated like oogle boogles and I'm sick of it. Those are anecdotes but I don't see any stories contradicting it, and I thought it's very well-established. Women's jobs in tech have been devalued even when, as programmers, they made vast contributions to the field and then the field came to be male-dominated, and that's when it's considered a job to be proud of. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario I have expressed my thoughts on that page before on the talkpage. Also have you seen He man comics? or a ton of male objectified characters? Do you ever hear anyone complaining about that? A significant majority of my (small) friend circle are supporters of gamergate. Second how are the supposed objectification of women in video games hurting anyone? Has anyone ever played Super Mario to inform themselfs on how to act around women? Third this study has shown that many studies having to do with social justice are bullsh*t as well. Your last statement is unsourced and requires evidence. Commie Lib (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
See, we're doing this again. It's back to false equivalences. No one is disputing that males are objectified, but when men are, they still have agency and they're promoted as powerful and whatnot. This isn't the case as females. They're sculptures designed by 15 year olds, not characters that anyone relates to. Yes it hurts people. It hurts me. It makes me feel uncomfortable that men see women as something to have sex with rather than human beings. Shit like Resident Evil showing ass shots of female companions negatively impact my enjoyment of the game. I feel like I'm playing some product where a whole team of men have no idea how women work and view women as objects. Shit like women Mortal Kombat and Soul Caliber and Dynasty Warriors and League of Legends and so many things on are fucking numerous. I'm tired of sexy attractive (but powerful) women everywhere. I'm not stopping anyone but like a trite cliche, I'm entitled to call it completely boring. You can replace a lot of women with mannequins, and if you're fine with that, that's okay, but don't complain if you get tired of seeing mannequins unless you see my point.
Mario has the same problem, with Peach, Rosalina, Pauline, and Daisy looking all the same, but Mario did a much better job with its females and having better female portrayal. Pauline is now a mayor of a city, Peach has her own game where she's in complete control of her emotions where everyone else is force controlled by emotions. She rejects Mario at the end of Super Mario Odyssey because Mario is insane to shove a flower in Peach's face to try to get married with her after Mario just captured Bowser and carried Peach out of a collapsing meltdown lava part in the moon. Toadette actually adventures on her own and rescues Toad, after Toad rescues her. I can't say the same thing when we have grown-men making "grown-up" games and then we get fucking Quiet, who's the melon on top of the cake. If Quite from Metal Gear doesn't make you the slightest bit uncomfortable and help you sympathize with female players, I don't know what to say.
I remember this one. It's the freaking penis construct hoaxers. The conclusion that the hoaxers push is bullshit. It's a Sokal wannabe that misses the point on Sokal. It's a statement on predatory publishing, not on gender studies. We had hoax studies published in "hard" science many times, and the hoaxers of the the penis thing have an ideological axe to grind by not really replicating their findings. I don't feel like debating about it again, but I've spent more time than healthy trying to investigate it that one time, and I dismissed it eventually. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
What I seem to have misunderstood is your claim that women and men are equal. Egalitarianism abound. And yet there is overwealming evidence that says the opposite. Women are at an unfair disadvantage in endless ways and situations and most would beg to differ that equality has arrived. One of the reasons some men refuse to believe them is because they personally don't see overt sexism themselves (cause when a boss harasses or gropes an employee or demeans her...its usually in his office out of sight. And when you're hanging out with a bunch of friends, pigs are less likely to grope your female friends or hit on them agresssively and piggishly. You're not beside them as they read disgusting sexist and harassing text-messages, late night phone calls, threats, stalking. And even when it does happen in front of you, it's easily to not even realize it either through ignorance, distractions, veiled language, humour etc. You're not there when someone who you deem a really great nice guy...makes a working environment hell for some women, or when an HR administrator refuses to promote a woman using language that barely conceals that this is gender motivated. I get so utterly enraged when people have the gall to try to tell me homophobia doesn't exist. Your choice is, engage in a tiresome loathsome conversation where often the person dismisses your experiences or evidence as a rare thing, not as bad as it seems, happens to everyone ... or one can smile and change the subject. Of course if they're nasty...ridicule the person and tell them to fuck off. The same applies to women. So many people refuse to believe their experiences cause they never see it or realize it, and don't really listen. So I will repeat my question to you, perhaps you'll give a clear answer this time:
Remember, you claimed the sexes are now equal. Have you ever actually asked some of your female friends (like at least five), on the subject of equality... what they think of that and what kind of experiences they've had and then actually listened to it without interrupting or dismissing what they say? (yes or no) ShabiDOO 00:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shabidoo If you are talking to me my won't tell you my age. But my generation is very antifeminist https://www.marketplace.org/2018/08/27/economy/most-millennials-believe-gender-equity-avoid-feminist-label. We avoid the label because of all the scum that comes with it.(I have asked my female friends and they have the same opinions. Not five though because if I am a sysop on a wiki do you really think I have that many friends?) Commie Lib (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
correction: we are against the label "feminist" because of its associations with certain groups (largely TERFs and other second-wave groups). that is neither the same as being anti-feminist (against the rhetoric and goals of feminism), nor does it make MRAs somehow correct. also if you don't have 5 friends, let alone friends who are women, uh, you're not really good enough at social groups to try to claim anything on a societal basis. Transbeeism (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@ShabidooCorrection to correction I do have more than 5 friends they just aren't women. Second I do because one of our teachers are a feminist and gets mocked by the class and one of our classmates gave a speech supporting feminism and got a lot of ridicule. I posses functioning ear if not societal sense. Also https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/midterm-election-women-dont-identify-as-feminists. So your correction is incorrect.Commie Lib (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario re: toxic work environments in IT and programming, this is very true. I've done consulting work for nine different development firms. Most are overwhelmingly men while three are about 70/30 (men/women). I had ample time to ask both male and female employees about what its like having women in the office and basically, the lower the ratio of women in the office, the higher amount of hell female employees said they were working in and equally the more likely the male programmers will respond to my friendly question with jokes about cumming in their faces or a claim that they are all terrible programmers and were only hired cause they are chicks. As the ratio became more balanced, there was less of this (though certainly not zero) and female employees seemed a lot happier. Offices were far less toxic (not just per gender but per everything). Saying that, I think Mario if you look enough, you'll find some offices with a less toxic environment where people are focused on actual work, mostly have fun developing and then fun going out together after work. However, in the case of the offices with a good environment, they tended to make less than the average salary and benefits. You usually cannot have it all. ShabiDOO 01:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario @Shabidoo You both continue to reference studies showing that women are disadvantaged in ways men aren't please present this evidence or stop saying you have science on your side. I would also like to point out that the public or at least the generations I hail from are majority against feminism Link more. Commie Lib (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tabula Rasa The Washington Examiner article is out because it's an opinion piece. (The author also appears to have a very strong pro-GOP, anti-left bias.) On to the Hill article, which essentially states that those who identify as Democrats are more likely to identify as Feminists than those who identify as Republicans, no surprise there. And I see we're still playing chase the Red Herring of Whataboutism... Seriously, read those articles, most of you who have spoken up in defense of the Manosphere are committing those fallacious arguments. (You're also vomiting talking points, which I despise) The real meat of the matter is: Is an ideology that promotes rape and assault acceptable behavior in and of itself acceptable, yes or no? This isn't that complicated. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tabula Rasa: You are a fool. A complete and utter fool. I despise you (not as a person, but rather as an anonymous entity whom I disagree with). You must be living a very sheltered first-world-country life to be able to deny gender discrimination so vehemently. It is very real. You don't need science, rather a solid dash of common sense. Dr. Thoughtcrime, M.D. prescribes a little less time on bulls**t internet forums and a little more time in the real world for you're horrid case of willful, or just plain, ignorance. -- BlackWhite Speak 00:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thoughtcrime No evidence, no studies, no facts, just vitriol and "common sense", to be expected I suppose. Commie Lib (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The ultimate birth planning[edit]

Since recently there have been some threads about abortion... Do you think that in the future it will be invented some kind of "ultimate birth planning" technology? I mean, a technology that would make human conception possible only after both the partners have signed some kind of legal contract, taking responsibility for the future children. If implemented on a large enough scale, it would make unwanted pregnancy, abortions, and children abandonment, drops to almost zero. It sounds a lot like an episode of Black Mirror... Thinker(unlicensed) 18:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess it might eventually be possible to deactivate the sperm flow temporarily by adding tiny shutters of some sort to the vas deferens (not a medical expert!) which could be opened or shut with a handy smartphone app. Essentially an on-off-switch, if you will. This should already reduce unwanted pregnancies significantly 'cause it's really easy to use (however, it requires an operation, which might be a discouraging factor). As for the legal contract thing... this already requires a working on-off switch for the technical implementation which would then probably be controlled by the notary who oversees the signing of the contract, or whatever notary replacement software we will have then. This sounds kinda authoritarian to me since the ultimate control over the on-off switch would be with the notary (software), not those who actually want to have a child. Non-authoritarian societies would probably disapprove of the contract based approach and prefer the alternative based on goodwill. But, yes, in general, I think such a technology is at least plausible. (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Incredibly impractical technocratic(and technical) solution to manufactured social problem with existing robust solutions? Sign me the fuck up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
birth control implants of some description already exist. you just have to improve that and couple it with a legal obligation and suitable hurdles to have it turned off, and hey presto, forced sterilisation. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
You just have to couple it with {insert massive violation of human rights here} and it's a great idea! Come on, man. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
ah yes, because abortion is icky murder!!! and the world has too many brown people is overpopulated!!! and the Only Solution is literally forced sterilization, eugenics through selective breeding, and the ability of the one with control of the software (likely an Internet Of Things company if not the State)to revoke the ability to breed at any time from anyone. and in a capitalist society that would probably also be monetized. Also, even if they installed it under the guise of being able to turn off child rapists or w/e, it wouldn't work; while hormone levels affect sexuality, it would work slowly, would not affect the mostly power-based motivation of rape, and would not actually affect the ability to penetrate (which I know from willingly having permanent bilateral orchiectomy) great plan tbh 100% no flaws whatsoever 10/10 Transbeeism (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The technology might one day be possible, but not implementing on a large enough scale. It would probably be outlawed after pressure from evangelical groups on the grounds that it makes sex easier for women "defies God's plan" (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thinker Well something will have to be done to bring the resource consumption of our species to more sustainable levels. Slowing birthrates in the richer countries speaks to a natural population plateau, but from what I've read the current resource consumption levels necessary to sustain the lifestyles of the west would be totally unsustainable if done world wide (and likely are already unsustainable). Only four solutions to that: lowering the standard of living, lowering the resources necessary to sustain that standard of living, lower the number of people who need that standard of living, or increasing the resource intake. For the first, you have to convince people they can't eat beef anymore. For number two you have to vastly scale back all single-use items like plastic straws, and increase power production efficiency. For the third, you have to basically tie tubes at birth and have a system to verify 'responsibleness' before allowing them to be untied (good luck making that system not discriminate!). For the last, you basically need to either discover how to make there be more earth, or mine a veritable fuck ton of asteroids. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I really like this response, the question is like asking if we'll all eventually have jetpacks. We will have to do something, but getting to work on a jetpack didn't ever really pan out, because it was based on wild ideas about the future of fuel and rocketry. And as much as I dislike Elon Musk's personality, when he's not having fun, his ideas are very tomorrow versus Tomorrowland. I mean, will we as humans neuter and spay our children? Probably not, we still have to encourage people to do that to dogs and cats they give up on and toss out on the street. I think that a future where we use surgery unilaterally is dystopic in a way we will be too busy bungling in a different way from today, and I think @MirrorIrorriM has the point here. I do agree with everyone up until that point, eugenics were once a thing, but it was faulty. It was about racial and biological concepts that are so debunked that the morality is no longer in question. I think the moral argument, globally, is on the verge of having its death rattle. If eugenics ever comes back in vogue in the first world, it will be back-alley eugenics. By which I mean genetically motivated murder. However, I do trust real medicine to only move forward on racial, biological, and moral concepts. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there permanent pleasure?[edit]

Buddhism seems to suggest that one must sacrifice "lesser pleasures" in pursuit of a permanent and lasting happiness. This means art, music, TV, food (not starvation but just for sustaining), video games, sex, etc. They claim that some of the practitioners have achieved this lasting bliss and happiness that "comes from within". I'm not sure so if that is really true, even then I don't want to give up my life as it is. Even if this stuff doesn't last I still like it and don't want to give it up. But then they throw in references about how we are just like children with toys and when we grow up we don't miss the toys anymore (though that seems personal and subjective not really a point). The toys being temporary pleasures and how adults have more interesting and refined pursuits (again subjective and personal).Machina (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no more refined pleasure than playing space man. *pew pew*
Seriously though, the most lasting pleasures I get in life are from accomplishing feats that are difficult and personal. For me this is writing board games and programming video games. I think the 'children' analogy breaks down because growth naturally results in playing with toys less. You don't stop playing with toys first and then grow up, it is the other way around. Contentment is just a feeling that happens for some people, and it happens for people in all walks of life. They all try to retroactively justify their contentment as being a result of their way of life. If you gave up nice things and find contentment, you would try to convince yourself that you are happier without them. It is the sunk cost fallacy. "I put so much effort into this, it must have been for a good reason!" MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
True happiness is actually arguing with idiots on the internet. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Pleasure is arguing with idiots on the internet. True happiness is losing. --Annanoon (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing: nirvana isn't permanent and lasting happiness. It's the cessation of all feelings and suffering. A commonly used metaphor is the flame in a lamp going out when the lamp runs out of fuel: so too do your feelings run out and stop burning when you reach nirvana. If you want permanent and lasting happiness (which I argue isn't fulfilling, but that's a tangent), become a Muslim and go on a lesser jihad. 锦鲤 () 15:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Funny thing about suffering is that not everyone agrees that it's necessarily a bad thing. It sounds to me that, according to your definition, suicide would be a faster route.Machina (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Suicide isn't an option because Buddhism believes in a sort of reincarnation. So if you commit suicide, you'll come back anyway and suffer more. The only escape from suffering (according to Buddhism) is following the Eightfold Path. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 15:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well the response is that it is pointless to pursue only temporary pleasures or joys and try to focus on reaching enlightenment. That such temporary things only bring fleeting joy, they liken it to children with toys and that one has to discard them and grow up. But that would me that we would live in a world without art, music, food (beyond sustaining oneself), sex, etc. It doesn’t really sound like living to me. But their argument seems sound, why bother with temporary when enlightenment is permanent happiness.Machina (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that endlessly pursuing minor pleasures is as good as having some kind of 'permanent happiness'. If the end result is the same amount of happiness, so what? I would say that they should grow up and realize that real adults work for their happiness instead of being content with nothing. Lazy fucks. A person who lives forever, but has to eat every day to survive, is just as alive as someone who sits all day eternally alive like some kind of fleshy rock. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
They would argue that it would be better to not have the constant hunger and desire for experiences and the like. They liken it to a parasite that feds on you and how clinging to pleasure causes suffering and that we suffer in trying to get it and it only lasts briefly. Like I said, their argument seems sound. Apparently once you reach it you won’t suffer from desire anymore and you won’t need those things. Seems like suicide would be easier.Machina (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

How about actual science being involved too[edit]

No. See the wikipedia article on hedonic adaptation to read about the physical processes that keep your reward centers from being constantly stimulated. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

sounds like it supports the claims of Buddhism.Machina (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In some ways. You could also say it supports the claims of the Aristotlians or Stoics or some monastic orders without too much spin as well. What it tells me is that constant satiation is not a thing to pursue. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
But it does support the Buddhist view that pursing pleasure is pointless, so do I just throw away everything I love to do and enjoy?Machina (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Be wary of over-interpretation of phenomena. Throwing away everything you love promises no benefit to you. Not as a person and not for happiness. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
According to them it does. Because such lesser joys and pleasures don't compare to the end of all craving and desire and permanent bliss.Machina (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I used to be a Buddhist (or at least a dabbler in Buddhism, I don't think I was ever totally committed.) Turned away from it for a bunch of reasons. For me, the biggest one is this idea of "non-attachment". I'm a Dad, I'm attached to my two kids more than anything else in the world. I'm also very attached to my wife, to my parents, to my brothers and sister, to my friends. Buddhism seems to be saying this is a bad thing, I think it is a good thing. Sure, sometimes attachment can go in unhealthy directions (e.g. being too needy, co-dependency, helicopter parenting, failing to give one's loved ones necessary space, etc) – but so can everything else in life; and attachment always carries with it the risk of loss – someone I love could die unexpectedly, and I'd grieve that greatly; my parents are getting older, and I realise one day they won't be around any more; etc. But, none of this changes that attachment is fundamentally a good and wholesome and noble and wonderful thing, and Buddhism is just plain wrong to suggest otherwise. DepressedAustralian (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally the idea of being "invulnerable" never appealed to me. Despite what I say I want to feel suffering, heartache, sadness, loss. There was a time when such things didn't move me at all, so I never understood people when they said they hurt. But I wanted to, I wanted to feel it as well. I just don't like the idea of some heirachy that they arbitrarily decide.Machina (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, one cannot achieve permanent happiness without sex and at least The Stanley Parable. Сприггина (говорить) (взносы) @ 14:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

have i missed something?[edit]

a link to an article or such like? it just seems like a lot is as assumed with conclusions made from some very broad points.

with my (very) limited understanding of buddhism, all things in life are temporary, including suffering and pleasure, and any attachments to these temporary things lock us into the wheel of birth, death, rebirth. the cycle is only broken by attaining nirvana, non-attachment being only one of things necessary to achieve is. this is apparently very difficult to do, taking dozens of life times to manage. so is permanant pleasure possible, in the sense described above, and via the method described? no, it would take a level of dedication impossible to even the most fantastic ascetic. not in a buddhist view nor when taken in isolation in the rigid either/or manner it is taken here.

if you are not a buddhist, not concerned with nirvana and do not believe in reincarnation, you would have to question why you would isolate a particular interpretation of a step to a goal that you do not believe in. you have to define your terms, your goal, and how strict you would need to adhere to it all.

i can see some merit in giving up 'lesser pleasures' to some degree but not entirely, to streamline or simplify life, or cut out things that have become damaging or limiting in someway. i can even see how it 'might' provide some kind of almost constant pleasure if stepping back from more passionate involvement in things limits yourself from high intensity emotions responsible for soaring highs and massive lows, giving a baseline 'contentedness' where fluctuations are brief and the lows are not really that low. its all things in moderation and not losing sleep over things not worth your time.

these are things personal to you. personal goals, personal criteria, and with whats achievable personal to you. these things are rarely either/or. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes passion is needed for strides to be made in humanity. But the idea is that Buddhists try to apply this to everyone, saying that the Buddha gave a surefire way to stop suffering entirely. Of course the evidence is mostly Buddha's claim and personal testimony, some claim they have "awakened" but since it cannot be described (according to them) it's hard to know if they actually are. They seem to believe it. I had no interest in any of it, but they tend to do a good job of putting down base level life (albeit unintentionally). Claiming that it is pointless to pursue anything that is temporary and that one should be working towards liberation. They make it sound like there is only ONE CORRECT ANSWER with what to do in life. With Buddhism there is no middle ground on this. Either you commit or you don't.

What you make it out to be in your last paragraph isn't close to what they get at.Machina (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

who is 'they' here? there appears to be much variance within the buddhist world on the meaning of things and how to achieve things while you are making very definite claims from incredibly broad and vague terms. its true that achieving nirvana is the basis for the whole thing, but its does not appear to be true that it is 'you commit or you dont' or that there is an implication of one correct answer. it is understood nirvana is difficult to achieve - many many life times. as with any religion, people make small steps in one direction, pay lip service in another. its why not everyone in asia is a monk. peoples circumstances vary. but it is a religion. some people will ave very definite opinions of what and how things should be done. people makes claims. buddha made claims. so did jesus. so did mohammed. and as in all religions, worldy possessions in this life are for nowt next to a vague prize in the next. if you are not a buddhist, why be too concerned about the value they put on things when you dont buy the central tenet in the first place?
some buddhist practices seem to be beneficial, meditation for example. but you cant just pick a thing, strip it of its original intent and expect it to be some universal truth or get upset when it isnt. you need to understand where it slots in and why in the original setting, what can gleaned that could be transposed to your own circumstances, and adapt or discard as necessary. be aware that the terms used might have different meanings and implications lost to anyone not well versed in the subject. i'm certainly no buddhist and i havent quite got my head around 'non attachement' for example. it would imply a people that are remote and cold - certainly not true of people who i know to be buddhist. i am missing nuance and its place in the broader picture.
thats why my last paragraph 'isnt close' - it wasnt meant to be close. it was defining terms and making sense of how something would fit and have relevance to me. these are personal things, not universal truths. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
and theres this guy AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is[edit]

The term 'pleasure' is used to describe various different things: we can have pleasure in the context in which we 'find or have created for' ourselves/be content with the situation/know that we have increased the sum of human (or wider context) happiness etc - while there is also an element of goal seeking within pleasure. And who wants to be a permanent lotus-eater? Anna Livia (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What about putting someone in bondage and giving them a forced orgasm for all eternity? Palaeonictis Fossil beds 11:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
That idea is for the outer reaches of AO3 and similar places.
How soon would people get bored of 'permanent pleasure'? Anna Livia (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd like it. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
For a while, for a while - and then you would look for something different. Anna Livia (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am glad to have health insurance.[edit]

My medications are expensive. Each year my medication costs around $10,000. Seroquel and Limictal are extremely expensive.

On a side note- If I sent Trump my Seroquel and Limictal, would it even him out? I suspect that Trump needs my medicine more than I do. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

i'm glad i have the NHS AMassiveGay (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
How does the Seroquel/quetiapine feel? I used to be on Zyprexa/olanzapine, I didn't like it, it made me feel really weird, I can't describe it. I only took quetiapine once (it wasn't prescribed to me), I took a tablet with a bottle of wine, it was a strange experience, it didn't last long before I passed out. (I don't recommend doing that, I was really stressed out and when really stressed out one sometimes does stupid things like this, luckily no long term harm eventuated.) DepressedAustralian (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how I would describe the feeling. I have been taking Seroquel since I 15. I turn 25 next month so it would be 10 years. Now the very first time my oldest brother took the medicine he was higher than a kite. He got a mental illness diagnosis before me. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The meaning of the message[edit]

This arises from 'various trains of thought/discussion':

If a text or image etc has a secondary meaning that has negative connotations towards 'a person/group etc' and someone not from the target audience fails to pick up on the secondary meaning (eg reads as 'X is a bad/weak etc person' rather than 'X group is bad/weak etc') does the text or image cease to be racist etc? Anna Livia (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that without a precise example the question is too vague to be answered. Thinker(unlicensed) 12:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If you were the last ever member of the Illuminati would your secret handshake still be meaningful? 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Is a racist message in German still racist even if you don't speak German? What if it's in Klingon or your own personal conlang that nobody else can speak? --Annanoon (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It sure is, if I call some a omgyjyer then that would be rude whatever, even if they have no idea what it means. — Dysk (contribs) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said, various inputs - but, just as we now see some material from past periods as 'not being culturally tasteful/having unpleasant overtones' when it was considered perfectly acceptable at the time, can the reverse process occur? Anna Livia (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If a tree falls over in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?TheTallMass (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
During my medical treatments, I watch a whole lot of TCM. (It's the only station they have that isn't infested with lawyers talking about disability and nursing home neglect, and ads for patent drugs for psoriasis and breast cancer. At the clinic, that crap is too depressing to bear.) AAR, you get both sides there. You occasionally see blackface performances and mammy stereotypes in the movies, especially from before the 1950s. OTOH, you have entire films whose plots turn on the Shocking Scandal of Divorce, or women defending their 'reputations' from suggestions that they might have spent a night alone with some dude. Those plots have not really aged well either, but something like the opposite dynamic is in play. They don't work because we go 'so what?' Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Dressing up as Nazis by clueless teens. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
this all very much depends on the message - how negative are the negative connotations, how wow spread is that view, is the message the problem, or just the phrasing, does context make the intended interpretation clear, how you react when you discover the negative reaction.
with old movies and shocking racism, sexisms, etc, a lot can be hand waved away with 'it was of its time' and can be seen with a view to this. a lot of the really stuff that could have been depicted is often omitted due to the hays code and what was permissable at the time wouldnt have allowed it to be even suggested. when such stuff does occur its often ham fistedly done or so shockingly blatant, its almost comical seen through a modern lens. i imagine cuts are made if something is really glaring. ive not seen a john wayne flick for a while. do they leave in the parts where he slaps the leading lady before leaning in a for a kiss/rape? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────we have a term for this, and yes, it's still racism ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Favorite scene from a John Wayne movie:

- Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It is in no way possible to eliminate secondary or tertiary meanings from coming up in the context of communication. Intent should be the most important clue to interpretation. What should we think of the fact that the Dutch have a blackface Christmas tradition? I'm sure some would call it racist. I call it ridiculous. Close enough? Ariel31459 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that meanings beyond the initial will always arise when certain words or phrases are spoken. Does that absolve the word itself of the remainder of its meanings when we listen for the intent? Calling a close friend the "n word" or calling a buddy a cigarette stick when they've been (and are still) used in highly derogatory fashion doesn't feel fair to those that do take offense, many for good reason.
As for the Dutch... Think of Thanksgiving.TheTallMass (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

To take examples from various contexts - Hamlet tells Ophelia 'Get thee to a nunnery': someone from the present might read it as said, rather than what is actually meant. And with the biblical story of the Good Samaritan - we do not share the views of Jesus' audience to that group. Allegories and similar (The Abbess of Crewe, Gulliver's Travels etc) which are clear to readers at the time of writing are a slightly different version. If the original message is no longer understood as intended and is interpreted in a different way (through 'natural cultural evolution') does it cease to exist?

With the Dutch character there are many 'folk activities and entertainments' which incorporate 'non-standard characters' (Morris Dancers; cross-dressing in pantos etc): and probably most people make some allowance for 'the past is another country and they did things differently then' (SF in the mid-20th century describing a future with scientists/technical persons who are primarily white males - and with no 'personal computers and handhelds' or wikiverse etc). Anna Livia (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The basic problem is going to depend on your view about whether original meanings can be lost forever, or are discoverable by a reader who, say, takes the time to study the language/history/culture and therefore attempts to get into the head of the writer. This is a major scholarly debate in fields where interpretation is important, such as the history of philosophy and literature. To simplify, either the author's original intent can be discerned if you ultimately put in enough effort and thought to find it, or that intent can't be discerned and there is no point in trying to figure it out. The more you lean toward the former, then those original meanings don't go away, but rather just become more and more obscure as fewer and fewer people know the context in order to find them. The only way they could go away is if all of the contextual information was lost as well.
If a work had a hidden meaning that no one knows or even could know about, then the hidden meaning effectively doesn't exist. If that hidden meaning was bigoted, no one could possibly know. So any answer is going to lead to the same conclusion, even if it arrives there by a different road. In which case, I'd just go with: yes, the author and work is still bigoted, but since I and everyone else has no idea about it, we'll all just absorb the work as if it was not bigoted. --Mabian (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
If you mean that the offensive word/image is reclaimed by people of the group that it is intended to smear, then if enough people from the group appropriate it for themselves, then no, it would no longer be a pejorative. For example, if you'll take a look at my userpage, you'll find that I've reclaimed the classic Militant Atheist™ smear. And also, back in the early days of the site, we reclaimed CP's "cabal" smear (even though there isn't one). --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 16:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
My question is why does someone else's interpretation matter more than another? One thinks something is racist, another doesn't it's subjective. (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Created CP account under same name as this one earlier today; Ken blocked me almost instantly.[edit]

@Newton Here is my block log:

  • 19:33, 11 February 2019 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked CircularReasoning (Talk | contribs)with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial)

As opposed to my account creation log:

  • 19:32, 11 February 2019 User account CircularReasoning (Talk | contribs) was created

As you can see, it doesn't seem very likely that this was because my username was "silly and/or foul"; if that were the case, then why didn't Ken never got banned for not being "KenD" or "KenDM"? Hmmm... maybe his recently regained obsession with our site (as evidenced by his ongoing war with Ace and Merican) may have led him to lurk around here and find out that "CircularReasoning" is me- a user here on RW, and thus he quickly recognized me and blocked me mere minutes after my CP account was created.

Just a random thought I'd like to share... --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 07:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ken thinks only he has a right to have a name format besides the standard. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 07:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed But then how come he, Karajou, etc. have allowed (and occasionally even promoted- which on CP, is being given adminship) people like Northwest and AugustO? Well, I guess time will tell if we soon start seeing a new Ken essay titled "Commentary in regards to young Indian evolutionist and self-admitted militant atheist Rohan aka CircularReasoning" or something along those lines... --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 07:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I was blocked by Ken once for being "an atheist from London who hates me." I don't know who that is, and as for my location - he got the right country. Then he deleted all my edits and remade some of them as his own. I've still no idea what he got out of it. Notthelondonguy (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I found the argument of high levels childhood diabetes among Asians in Birmingham compelling. What Ken hasn't realized yet is that "Brits" as a nationality are as extinct as the dinosaur, and no one uses the term "Britian" or "British" anymore. It's all UK and UK citizens. You guys need a SamHB or AugustO to engage. Too often someone makes a valid comment on Main/Talk, and it gets reverted or nuked before anyone sees it. nobs piss in my ear 21:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
that is complete and utter shite. british is used all the fucking time for all manner of ethnicities. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Rob, at any time in the past 2 years, have you heard the word "Brexit"? What do you think the "Br-" means? Or maybe you always hear it as "UKexit". And what about all those people who identify as Black BritishWikipedia or British AsiaWikipedia? Oh, surely they don't say that. They must call themselves "black UK citizens" and "Asian UK citizens". You plonker! Spud (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm referring to the Americo-centric bigotted sense; when Americans hear "Brit," they usually think of white people. nobs piss in my ear 17:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So when (some) Americans hear about the Brit awards they think "The White UK Awards. Weird.Hubert (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
#BritsSoWhite — Dysk (contribs) 22:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's that standard block reason for crappy names there. I mean yeah it's a perfectly ok username, but it sounds like you are there to debate stuff. Which last I checked was not the purpose of their site. — Dysk (contribs) 11:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Brown[edit]

Palaeonictis Fossil beds 10:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your point being, @Palaeonictis? Bongolian (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Does there have to be a point? Prudes. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 04:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That Youtubers choose wrong album covers, I guess? ("Bobby Brown" was on Sheik Yerbouti, not Joe's Garage.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a prude. I think the song received some misinterpretation when it came out. That's all. Bongolian (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Consciousness is REality?[edit]

"The Vedic view makes more sense to me. Whether you accept it or not, it's logical and consistent, and in principle verifiable by personal experience.

The basic concept is that the the ultimate reality is consciousness, and the whole universe is a virtual construct within consciousness. Matter only exists virtually within consciousness.

So is the universe real? Both yes and no. It's a virtual construct, so in that sense you can say it's not real, but since consciousness is real, everything based on it is real.

Analogies help to clarify the ideas, though they have their limitations.

Analogy 1. Are the objects and locations in a computer games real? Both yes and no. No - because they only exist in the virtual space of the computer game, so in that sense they are illusionary. Yes - because if you are playing the game, you can't take the attitude that objects don't exist. They exist for all practical purposes within the game, and follow certain 'laws of nature' within the game. You have to treat them as real. You're not going to win the game by doing nothing and saying that it isn't real.

Analogy 2. Consciousness is like the ocean, and individuals are like waves on the ocean. Each wave has its own limited structure, individuality, and scope in time and space, but ultimately all waves are just perturbations of the ocean. The innermost self of all beings is the self of the universe, and because it's all consciousness, individuals have free will.

Analogy 3. Another analogy is that individual consciousness is like white light passing through a glass of coloured water. The light passing through takes on qualities according to the reflecting/refracting medium. The individual consciousness is simply the universal consciousness reflected through the brain and body (which are themselves virtual constructs within consciousness). So any change to the brain results in a change of consciousness, like changing the colour of the water in the glass changes the colour of the reflection. But it is possible to refine the brain and body to reflect the pure white light of universal consciousness, and that is enlightenment."

"The sole reality is the infinite consciousness which is omnipresent, pure, tranquil, omnipotent. ... Because the substratum (the infinite consciousness) is real, all that is based on it acquires reality, though the reality is of the substratum alone.

One cannot say that [the universe] is real or unreal, but one can only say that the substratum alone is real. The world exists in Brahman only as a word, an idea. It is neither real nor unreal.

The infinite consciousness is unmanifest, though omnipresent, even as space, though existing everywhere, is unmanifest. Just as the reflection of an object in crystal can be said to be neither real nor entirely unreal, one cannot say that this universe which is reflected in the infinite consciousness is real nor unreal. Again, just as space is unaffected by the clouds that float in it, this infinite consciousness is unaffected and untouched by the universe that appears in it.

Just as light is not seen except through the reflecting agent, even so the infinite consciousness is revealed through these various bodies. It is essentially nameless and formless, but names and forms are ascribed to its reflections.

Consciousness reflecting in consciousness shines as consciousness and exists as consciousness; yet, to one who is ignorant (though considering oneself as wise and rational) there arises the notion that there has come into being and there exists something other than this consciousness. To the ignorant this consciousness appears as the world-appearance; to the wise the same consciousness appears as the one Self.

This consciousness is not created, nor does it perish; it is eternal and the world-appearance is superimposed on it, even as waves in relation to the ocean. In that consciousness, when it is reflected within itself, there arises the ‘I am’ notion which gives rise to diversity.

In that infinite consciousness there is an inherent non-recognition of its infinite nature. That appears to manifest as 'I' and 'the world'.

In the mirror of infinite consciousness countless reflections are seen, which constitute the appearance of this world. These are the individual consciousnesses. Individuality is like just a little agitation on the surface of the ocean of Brahman; or just a little movement in the flame of a candle in a windless room. When, in that slight agitation, the infinitude of the infinite consciousness is veiled, limitation of consciousness appears to arise. This too is inherent in that infinite consciousness. And that limitation of consciousness is known as the individual."

The above was something that someone said to me when we came to the discussion about an ultimate reality. I think it is based on Hinduism, because there is the idea of a "one consciousness" aspect to the whole thing. But it literally makes no sense to me and kind of smacks of either idealism or solipsism. He says it's logical and consistent, but from what I read it just sounds like nonsense. I honestly have no idea where they get this stuff from, if it's based on meditation then that has it's own set of problems (since we find that meditation's realizations are really just the byproduct of when happens to the brain during it,this has been lab tested). It also assumes there is an infinite consciousness, it actually assumes a lot of things that make no real sense. How do they know it is infinite? I don't know. Analogy 3 assumes too much to really be a logical explanation.Machina (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a bunch of different ideas in there. One is obviously something along the lines of idealism (all reality – physical matter/energy included – is ultimately/fundamentally mental). And then add to that, there is also an idea of monism (all is one; plurality is an illusion.) Maybe, if one wants to evaluate the position, rather than trying to evaluate it all at once, one could start with just one idea, and make up your mind about that, before moving on to the next? So, start with idealism – is that a coherent position? Do we have any good reasons to believe it is true? Do we have any good reasons to believe it is false? How does it stack up against its main competitors? i.e., materialism (in its various forms, e.g. reductionism vs eliminativism), various forms of dualism (substance, property, hylomorphic, etc), neutral monism, etc. And then idealism itself comes in several different varieties ("subjective", "objective", etc), so do the answers depend on which variety of idealism we are talking about? DepressedAustralian (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You ask a lot of these pseudo-profound philosophical questions[edit]

And, more than wanting to answer your questions, I increasingly want to interrogate you on your own epistemological framework. Everyone can speculate on all sorts of "deep" stuff, but if you do enough of that, you really need to go back to fucking basics and ask "What is knowledge, how do I understand what is true and what is false" and arrive at a serious answer, otherwise you can just end up bouncing from one half-assed answer to a poorly phrased question to another. There's no insight to be gained from that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Now We're Philosophising![edit]

I'm a little unsettled by the jump from the described reality to the substratum. I mean, if we're living in a substrate, and Brahman is the superstrate, that's... OK, I guess, but it's not describing anything that's described here. We're living in a substrate that can perceive a superstrate? I doubt it, but in that possibility, infinity squared is kind of a fun theoretical math thing, and it exists as much as it doesn't. Aleph Null is enough to make my head spin, I don't like to touch it.

The problem comes down to physics, which I'm no ace at. I'm trying, but if I look at too many numbers my eyes cross. There are plenty of well spoken ideas about human physiology and determinism and free will, and it's frustrating because since I dropped out of college they are now available everywhere. I would argue that because free will cannot reasonably exist in our substrate, our superstrate is only valuable if it informs our substrate.

So, if I am to agree with the argument, I would like to know how we evaluate the information coming from this superstrate to our substrate. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Fearmongering News[edit]

So my phone has a newsfeed that it shows me. It's got the usual blend of decent journalism and novels about how Kim Kardashian is #goals, but there's an annoying amount of total fearmongering. British rag "The Express" seems to be the kings of this, but rags of all (faded) colors love doing this. What's odd about this is that it's not the standard "Takn' yer Jurbs" fearmongering, it's more... Hollywood. It's all about the asteroid hitting earth TOMORROW or the STRANGE NEW PLAGUE that SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN! Somehow, life goes on despite these constant threats to civilization. To give you an idea of how crazy this gets, the good folks at the express were kind enough to make an "asteroid" category. Every time the word "asteroid" slips through NASA's lips, these people jump on it. Lo and behold, the asteroid category:


Some of my favorite headlines:

-NASA asteroid tracker: LOOK OUT as three giant asteroids skim the earth TODAY

-NASA warn 'APOCALYPSE asteroid' Bennu WILL appear in the sky this Valentine's Day

-Asteroid WARNING: NASA admits killer asteroids threaten humanity with 'global DEVISTATION'

-NASA asteroid threat: New spacecraft to SMASH INTO asteroids and SAVE EARTH

-Asteroid which wiped out dinosaurs contains alien metals which could CURE CANCER

-Asteroid Apophis: Will 12,000ft asteroid named after god of CHAOS slam into earth in 2020?

-NASA asteroid WARNING: Former astronaut demands defense against CITY-KILLER asteroids

-Bible's Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by 10 MEGATON asteroid explosion, archaeologists say.

And finally, my personal favorite,

-ASTEROID WARNING: Centaurs from Neptune and Jupiter could DESTROY EARTH

All of the caps, formatting etc was by them. None of these were satirical.

An ordinary human man (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Asteroids? More like AsTERRORoids, amirite? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe a giant asteroid magnet. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, here in the US, we no longer really have such a paper. About the closest we do have is such upstanding examples as the Enquirer, which are less about Astronomy That Will Kill Us and more about Celebrities That We Want To Kill (and to a lesser extent, right-wing political support, ignored by most readers in favor of whatever the fuck the Kardashians are doing this week).
We used to have the Weekly World News, but alas, the days of the BatBoy and the like are over... Kencolt (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The Express articles I see besides asteroids are Yellowstone supervolcano scare stories. Example-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1086097/yellowstone-volcano-fears-scientists-monitoring-rising-magma-spt/amp --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My favorite thing about all this has to be the caps. Like, do they think their readers are so stupid they won't get the idea of the articles? What's funny about this is that they don't only do this for world-ending news. Here's one from today: "REVEALED: The next TWO countries who will quit 'EU cult' as Brussels fears UK success" That's a dire, world-ending headline about... an economic union? An ordinary human man (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Any headline with the word DESTROY in all caps is invariably followed by useless drivel. Also any headline with numbers in it, e.g. "5 things you didn't know about A", "Top 10 reasons why you should get B", "20 best places for C", etc. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget asking a "question" with a heavily implied answer. When a tabloid asks "Was an alien superweapon responsible for faking the death of Elvis?," they aren't promoting critical thinking, folks! An ordinary human man (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And here's a combo plate: Do aliens exist? Is Elvis still alive? Top 30 commonly believed myths REVEALED. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Logic&Such is an instaban offense[edit]

Is the true self one that involves clearing everything away?[edit]


I mean they don't really say why it is false though, my guess is that it is something that is built up over time as we experience life and the like (or subjectivity). But it's not like we control whether we like or dislike certain things, it's not like I decided to like pop music one day or country the next, it just happens. What makes any of that false? Because I wasn't born with it? It just seems like an awful amount of the proof behind the claim is based on meditation, but that kind of leaves me saying "eehhhhhhh". Especially since experiences with meditation vary among people and the experience someone has doesn't really show any sort of truth about the world, rather it's just the result of the practice. Kind of like how that one case where a man turned aggressive after a rail spike went through his head. Thoughts people? I CAN accept that people change over time and we aren't the same people we were when younger. But I don't think that's what they mean.Machina (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason why we have opinions on things is that as we are exposed to more information and gain more experience in the world, we tend to develop certain attitudes and opinions on certain topics, or change our interests as we are exposed to things that we currently find more interesting than what we were previously interested in. And this change is again influenced by past experiences and notions of what you would be interested in. It doesn't "just happen". And as for the case you mentioned where the man's personality dramatically changed after having a rail spike go through his head (Phineas Gage?): When the brain is damaged in such a way that the parts of it that control your personality and memories are destroyed but the parts that you need to survive and function are left intact, then of course your personality will change. It's just neuroscience; nothing woo-woo about it. --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 23:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The underlying idea is the same as has been presented thousands of times over in all sorts of other contexts. It's effectively a form of No True Scotsman with the self to lead you to the desired conclusion: your "real self" is defined (perhaps vaguely) as X, and anything which does not accord with X must therefore be "false." Did you achieve Enlightenment/find God/realize that you should give me all of your money? If not, then something is holding you back and you should try again until you achieve Enlightenment/find God/realize that you should give me all of your money. The logic behind the mechanism - what makes bodily experiences "false" but meditative experiences "true" - is irrelevant, because all you need is the rhetorical flourish of telling people that they can reach Truth and Happiness if they close their eyes and breathe just the right way. If you don't feel the overwhelming sense of oneness with the Universe described, then there are classes which can be conveniently found to help you develop your technique so you can do it right. --Mabian (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It's the whole "who you really are" which they take to mean the universe and not a self or this body in the picture world. If you look that the other tab about meditation you'll see the list of the steps. I think that since this sense of self is developed of time and not something you are born with then it is "False" or not who you are, but that doesn't really say WHY it is false especially since our likes and dislikes seems to be true enough. But then again, humans don't finish developing until later on. At most I can logically boil it down to you are a body that has experiences. I'm guessing the universe experience comes from meditation which is really just the result of brain activity. In fact most mystical awakenings then to happen when the body is stressed and the mind too, which seems to me is what the result of "throwing away" does. But that doesn't seem like it gets at "who you are" so much as it just destroys you. It's like saying a house is false just because it was built.Machina (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. This is asking me to pay money to learn how to not care about possessions. This is easy to spot garbage, low-level palm reading/fortune telling level. They don't want to create a cult, it's not scientology. They just want your money. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump 2020[edit]

Will he win?

On this odds checker site Trump is at the top of the list. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah he will win. Then hell will freeze over, releasing satan, who will start a MAD nuke fight which will cause the extinction of mankind and most life on Earth, as global warming boils the oceans away and solar flares singe our atmosphere and reserve the poles, causing the moon to impact the Earth and break it into bits which then float into deep space as the sun goes nova, wiping out the solar system. — Dysk (contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Look at the recent State of the Union. When Trump boasts about the job creation and the massive increase in human trafficking arrests, the Democrats are motionless. When he talks about the new Democrat Congresswoman, the Democrats erupt in celebrations. People will see the Dems are more interested in their own careers and prestige than they are about ordinary people. —RWRW (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, yeah, of course they were motionless when he mentioned jobs. It's not like someone's going to shout in the middle of the State of the Union "Most of those jobs are part-time jobs and independent contractors meaning that less wealth is being passed down to the ordinary people. Also, because the business cycle is, like, a thing, a recession is going to come soon, and we have no monetary means of correcting it, meaning that we will have to resort to fiscal policy, but because the government deficit is so huge the loans market is lowered, meaning that any fiscal policy we make isn't going to be as effective as it could be." Doesn't quite roll off the tongue. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As for the question UT posed, it's too early to say. Considering the way Trump arrived on the scene, I think the whole election punditry and bet-placing thing before, like, September 2020 isn't really helpful. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
agreed. only an imbecile would call it 2 years in advance when a week in politics is a long time. we dont even know who hes up against. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Were you watching the same SOTU I did? The impression I got was that Trump just learned what D-Day was and wanted to brag about it to the entire country. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Granted, talking about D-Day was a waste of time since nobody under 35 knows what it is, but comparing the War on Cow Farts to defeating Nazis isn't exactly getting off on the right foot, either. nobs piss in my ear 21:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
"...nobody under 35 knows what [D-Day] is..." Gee, thanks nobs. Your faith in me and my generation is appreciated. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Never underestimate the ability of the democrats to field a centrist whose personality everyone detests in an easy to win election. 2000, 2004, and 2016 were not flukes, 2008 was the fluke. But also, if you get your information on what is true from betting sites, you're giving way too much credit to dumb people with money. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There are times when you wish there was a 'none of the above' option on the voting paper. 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Not for me. There are times where I definitely like one candidate better the other, but shoving everyone who voted in the primary for that candidate into a blender would be ideal. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Trump probably won't win, God I hope he loses. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 in the past you have claimed to side more with Republicans than Democrats. Would you rather an extremist Democrat (say, Bernie) become President if that means Trump is defeated? --RWRW (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@RWRW Things change. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I can understand having a personal dislike towards a politician. But what about policies? Would you be comfortable with a President who wants to abolish ICE and hike up everyone's taxes? --RWRW (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Back to basics. To beat Trump, you need a candidate. Tulsi Gabbard looked good until she won the coveted David Duke endorsement. nobs piss in my ear 21:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I am reasonably impressed by most of the declared Democratic candidates. The only really unacceptable ones are Booker -- no way I'm voting for a goddamn vegan cultist -- and Gillibrand, whose shameful treatment of Al Franken helped hand over the Senate to the Republicans. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinion Poll[edit]

Because opinion polls are always accurate, right? --RWRW (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring personal preference, who do you think will win the 2020 Presidential election?

Donald Trump



Kamala Harris



Joe Biden



Elizabeth Warren






Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez



I added Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the poll, but I think that doing so the previous votes have been compromised. Does someobe know how to fix it? Thinker(unlicensed) 07:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope, you're just going to have to learn to live with the outcome of your actions!! Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It'll be those pesky Russians for sure... --RWRW (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
its 2 years away and we dont even know the candidates. whats the point? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Also Cortez is too young to run for president. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I don’t know, I’ve always enjoyed speculating and punditry
@Bigs well, I guess America has dodged a bullet there. —RWRW (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
We don't even know who the Dems are gonna run. A better poll question would have been "Will Donald Trump be reelected?" Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I love how the Trump vote keeps going up to equal the Other vote. It’s very 4chan. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Ocasio-Cortez won't be eligible until the 2024 election, so her votes should go to "other".Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A national emergency (U.S.) is now in effect......[edit]

The "Emergency" is a fucking wall. What else will Trump can Trump do to make a mockery of the United States? Kill a Bald Eagle? Use the Bill of Rights as a napkin? How about using the American flag as toilet paper?

I am just frustrated about the whole thing. Sorry if I am going off the deep end. How would you feel if someone ran a country and disregards everything your country stands for? 😡😡😡 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

These days?
Sadly, I might well feel European. Or South American. Possibly East Asian in many cases. Or Near Eastern-- albeit without much of the religious aspect, since even Trump isn't going to try to put liturgical laws in place (no matter what much of his base would desire). Not sure about Australian or it's nearby neighbors, but then of late I'm not sure of anything from that quarter. The thing about Trump is (a) He's here in the States and directly affecting the residents thereof, and (b) We US citizens haven't got the experience that those in many other nations have with would-be strongmen imposing (Or trying to impose} their pet ideas on the nation, hang what reality says, and we have a better chance than many of resisting. But I think it does sting a bit more because we're not used to it, unlike much of the rest of the world. Kencolt (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm personally worried that the general apathy the American people have is the perfect hotbed for Trump to set up an autocracy. The Atlantic made an amazing article on this, and loads of people don't seem to understand how much info they put out there that outs them as political opponents. Would Trump mass murder every opponent he has? Unlikely, but expect hardships if the worst happens. Spoony (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
They impeached Johnson for less explicit violations of the constitution. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Lawsuits will stop it from actually happening. Congress not agreeing with you does not constitute a national emergency, by any definition. If it was a real emergency, action would have been taken on it during the 3 years that Republicans controlled all branches of government, and the solution wouldn't be a decades-long public works project. Even if for some crazy reason the courts don't strike down the entire "emergency", future governments will stop the project: there things take decades. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 isn't fully implemented yet because of the sheer difficulty of getting people who live on the border to give up their land. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that Trump is drawing $8 billion out of the defense construction and drug enforcement budgets to build his wall as part of this. I can't say I am surprised. — Dysk (contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Clear and compelling evidence that the DoD is massively overfunded. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If the 'processes, planning and purchases processes' have not yet been started half way into the Trump presidency, and there are no 'buy this bit of back of beyond and the government will pay you megabucks to acquire it' scams yet, then what are the chances of anything actually happen? And what is the likelihood of earthquakes/plate tectonics/climate change etc causing problems? Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The only climate change induced possibility (and it's a remote one) is that the Rio Grande continues drying up to the point where it's no longer a natural border crossing barrier. Oh, and if that happens, we'll have more serious things to worry about than illegal immigrants. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
What's everybody in a tizzy for? This bill is a compromise. The wall funding was put into a Pentagon reserve funding to provide deniability, in exchange for amnesty. If you don't like how sausage is made, don't watch. nobs piss in my ear 23:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Or become vegetarian :)
Could the 'multiple part-ownerships of pieces of land' set-up be used to thwart undesired development projects? (Depending upon the situation using 'major investment companies' or involving sovereign pseudo-law know-it-all citizens to clutter up the legal system.) Anna Livia (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith Trump refused the compromise. What do you think happened? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Bull. Trump signed the bill with the provisions not to separate children, etc. nobs piss in my ear 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)