RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive304

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 April 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>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <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)

Stupid Username Spamming[edit]

Can something be done about the latest outbreak of disruptive-username-itis (or a more general process)?

Why cant the generators be more amusing? Anna Livia (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a troll trying to rile everyone up/gain attention, ignore them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Depending on if there's a recurring theme, it might be possible to use the edit filter. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Why can't the trolls be more creative (if that statement is not an oxymoron)? Anna Livia (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've always found that trolls already think they are creative. A lot of times, they are probably little kids, so I try not to savage trolls. Usually they expect to pass the bullying they get from other sites or real life on in a more creative way, which is why being more creative than a troll almost always works. No troll wants to be the least creative person on the board, and if they don't want the attention anymore, they are usually internet savvy enough to know they can just stop. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Trent Toulouse[edit]

He seems like a great guy. Do all of his colleagues know he owns this site? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear about what goes on here. (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This site is owned by the rationalwiki foundation. A non-profit dedicated to the mission of spreading rationalism and critical thinking. Also, yeah, most neuroscience faculty are cool with skepticism, though it's not good to overgeneralize. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You can always tell the quality of a community by the enemies they make. For instance, we've pissed off this one idiot who keeps swinging by with IP socks and dummy accounts to scream about "Judeo-Bolshevik" and "anti-white" and shit like that. What a doofus. We like to poke him, to see him writhe and snarl. It's like having a wild animal in a cage. I'm sure you're not a laughable moron like him, though. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You sound like you'd be at home torturing people to death for the NKVD. (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
My harsh insults and stinging witticisms break down even the strongest of wills. No capitalist can stand against me! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The Bolsheviks were funded by capitalists moron. You think they gave a shit about economics? (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd pay real money to see what your blood pressure readings look like. You might want to take a break and go for a nice walk outside. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been looking at the site for about 6 years? I dunno, timeframes are suspect. I've never seen it take a turn toward any specific ideology. If what you are saying is true, Trent is a Goddamned moron, dumber than the Muslim Brotherhood who couldn't even keep Obama president for more than 8 years. Toulouse, a true idiot. I demand to be banned for this. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What are some good (public-domain) works of literature?[edit]

Asking for a friend. Oxyaena Poke me 18:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Gonna go real 101-level here. You've heard of all of these. Nothing by mark twain is particularly bad. His wit holds up. Connecticut Yankee might be my favorite. Reading Shakespeare is usually more fun that watching Shakespeare to me. Melville and Dickens suck Because Way Too Many Damn Words To Say Too Little. Frankenstein is good early sci-fi (the name Frankenstein refers to the inhuman monster, not the thing he created). I don't personally care for Jane Austen, but don't hate her writing like I do dickens. Lighter fare: I'd say doyle, but I think 1 or 2 Holmes stories is enough to get the gist. Not literature per se, but I've always liked Ambrose Bierce's Devil's dictionary. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas is one of my favorites, and I'm pretty sure that's PD by now. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want more, take a look at Project Gutenberg's catalogs for a shitload of free literature. Link here. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Many thanks. The reason I asked is because there's just so much to choose from, I thought some suggestions would be good. Oxyaena Poke me 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Dracula and Don Quixote are worth reading, and they're both on Gutenberg. Frederick Douglass' book is on there too, which I haven't read but probably should. The same applies to Ulysses Grant's memoirs, which I've read and heard good things about. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that 'those in the past' had to describe much more than we do now - people did not have access to 'visual images (which can be worth more than a thousand words) and sound recordings' - we know what the Pyramids look like, can here Gladstone speak etc Anna Livia (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Don Quixote is a rough read. It's got its moments, but, partially because of how it was published, it languishes in places. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I remember liking it, at least the first half. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
the overly wordy nature of 'those in the past' was often often the result of how they were published - serialised in some magazine of some sort, and paid by the word. Dickens is an example of this. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: A Christmas Carol was not published this way, and remains one of the few Dickens stories that is what normal human beings would call readable. But Oliver Twist or A Tale of Two Cities? Yeck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
A Christmas Carol is also much shorter than any of the aforementioned works, and was written solely because Dickens needed the money. Personally, I have always loved Oliver Twist (Although not so fond of Two Cities myself), but then again, I personally like Dickens. As for "normal" human beings, well, that's really a relative term-- especially considering the kind of people we so often find on this Wiki. Kencolt (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You are not in bad company as Ralph Waldo Emerson also hated Dickens' prose. Writing serials for magazines, he was paid by the word so, he used a lot of extra words. On the other hand "...he believed novels had a moral purpose–to arouse innate moral sentiments and to encourage virtuous behavior in readers." The London Times called Dickens, in his obituary, "the greatest instructor of the Nineteenth Century".Ariel31459 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
i would just like to say great expectations is good AMassiveGay (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(Hey guys! I'm pretty sure book titles ought to be italicized.) Some suggestions from me: the Illiad and the Odyssey by Homer (in either prose or poetic form), the various adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as someone else mentioned), the Legend of King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table, Journey to the West (also known as the Legend of the Monkey King) by Wu Cheng'en. Also consider Mythology by Edith Hamilton. Nerd (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

probably, but this is the saloon bar where formatting and good grammar can do one AMassiveGay (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
95% of the articles I've created on Literature Wikia are about public domain works of literature that I'd recommend. And, wherever possible, I provide a link to an online text at the end of the article. I will give special mention to the short stories of Edgar Allan Poe, Oscar Wilde and O. Henry and the ghost stories of M.R. James. And Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and The Invisible Man are both good and short reads. I'll also take this opportunity to say that I'm an admin on this little wiki hosted in New Zealand that hosts works in the public domain according to New Zealand copyright law (50 years after the author's death). `Spud (talk)
This is a pretty good work of pseudoscience, t's like a one-off of zodiac signs, just with body types instead ; How to Analyze People on Sight. It's an easy read, like something you'd see in a magazine today. Fun stuff, and if you do it with friends, you can go all "Oh, you're so Osseous" or "You're being pretty Thoracic right now." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this site a little too hostile to Christians?[edit]

I have no problem with this site's content on evolution or science, and I am not necessarily YEC, I have no problem with science... But this site seems to be a little too hostile to every kind of a Christian, not just people who might be against science. Is it just me? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a website set up to troll Conservapedia. Not a website set up to promote reason. It's become infested with hardcore anti-whites. Rational in name only. Bike Rider (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Anti-White.png Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It gives the level of respect to religions that people give to politicians. The articles are typically written in a snarky fashion intentionally. Any evangelical christian is spreading beliefs not based on evidence. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
And to some extent WC Fields' quote 'I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally' applies. Anna Livia (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
In America, the hostility is IMHO deserved towards much of religious leadership. At this point there is a large segment of "Christianity" is heretical according to the terms of their own flippin' book (see: prosperity theology), and even at best much of the Christian religion is more tied to Republican politics than their text should allow for. It is a small wonder "nones" (religiously unaffiliated) are now about 1/4 of America (up from about 5% in the 1990s); most "nones" are *not* agnostic or atheist; politics is a *huge* reason for the shift. I'll also mention the Catholic church because their tepid response to their child abuse scandal is also not encouraging. Not all Christians are skewered here. I checked what Rationalwiki had to say on Fred Rogers (noted ordained Presbyterian minister) and only note that he has a short text on the Richard Nixon (he helped save PBS) and Fred Phelps (because of course the Phelps clan would protest Mr Rogers' funeral) articles. In both cases, it is noted that he might have been the nicest man ever to live. So... Soundwave106 (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Lets see here, I am a Pagan and RationalWiki has pages that don't paint Paganism in a good light. Solution? Deal with it? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
When you've to deal with Fundies who attempt to force down their beliefs on everyone, despite complaining about either being prosecuted or mocked later on claim that every knee, down to the ones of Buddha, Muhammad, and Confucius (and claim none of them give salvation and are false "religions", when one or even two of them are not that) will bend their knees upon Jesus and confess him as His Lord, threaten not believers with Hell, and/or gloat about them watching how the former will do that before being judged, and/or insult them, and I STFU about their contempt of science plus other things I've heard, you get that.
If this was an alternate universe wth another religion instead Christianism in that regard, said religion would be the one that would receive flak here. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Contemporary paganism is an interesting case. It was founded on a great deal of pseudohistory, spanning from rank nonsense about ancient matriarchies to spurious and overdramatized accounts of early modern witch trials. But most of that body of lore is less than a hundred years old. As such it seems to have been able to shrug off its exposure and carry on, much easier than Christians and the Genesis creation have. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 14:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's just a demographic thing. Like, my response to Jehovah's Witnesses is pretty basic. I have heard the good news! But I am an atheist, I am 99% sure there is no god. I appreciate it, but I am 100% sure the bible is a work of fiction. I get it, it's a cool story, but no thank you, I'm not going to make my life about a work of fiction. Every time I meet a JW, I see them from a mile out, know they are non-violent. and they identify with me as much as I am a white man. It empowers me, as an anxious person, to just interrupt them and lay bare my belief against theirs in an effort to save all of our time. So, no, I don't think this site is too hard on Christians. I think the amount of work it takes to prove Christianity versus the amount of work it takes to dismiss it is a little unbalanced, but that's not inherently unfair or unjust. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Any obscure political philosophers I can read[edit]

I wanna feel more intellectual and stuff. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Read this by Pëtr Kropotkin. :) — Dysk (contribs) 13:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Bloody anarchists. But thanks I'll definitely read it. 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Any non-obscure ones you haven't read? Camus, Sartre? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Read Joseph le Maistre and Confucius. Useful glimpses into minds so different from the local standard, it's hard to imagine how we share a species with them. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Phew, boy. As long as you don't do something crazy like start believing Confucius. That claptrap about every relationship having a superior and an inferior, with fealty exchanged for protection. Oh boy, so toxic to even your day-to-day life. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed He wasn't wrong... if he's referring to Anglerfish. The males of that order latch onto a female and atrophies into a set of gonads that provide sperm when needed. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I know, right? A pity it's true. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Have yall read Julius Evola ? He says some interesting stuff. (I use interesting loosely). Duce join in the discussions.2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Evola is a bit too NRx to take seriously. — Dysk (contribs) 16:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I like John Locke, but he's not really obscure. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hell, I like Adam Smith, just not anyone else who claims to like him. They're all psychos who think he liked the modern psychopathic version of free markets. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The trouble with modern philosophy is we're all pretty apt to do philosophy, and look at me, I get to do it for fun whenever I'm drunk. It's not only a different time from Anselm, whos job it was to prove God through a mathematical proo (and his peers and counterparts are now nameless), it's a different time from Kant or Nietzsche. The biggest problem with Kierkegaard is he died like 200 years ago. Philosophers got popularized by sitting in smoky reading rooms with the big-money/big-power families and giving a modern interpretation of old philosophies like a parlor trick or TED talk. The problem with post-modernism is, well, now we're post post-modernist. With the specific and narrow platform the past afforded philosophy, modern philosophy is kind of... still racist/sexist/ignorant of classism, like Eric Gans or Jordan Peterson. Obscure political philosophers, well, shit, that's a tough set of parameters. I would suggest Philosophy Tube on youtube. He's pretty much upper-crusty enough for his ideas to matter in the long-term and his political philosophies at best dogwhistle his own political stances. He's into justification over endorsement, which, ok, is as good as tacit endorsement when he finds a justification, but he's very mindful of it. Political philosophy is a very difficult parameter. I mean, is Stephen Crowder a political philosopher? He's sure as hell not a comedian. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Spud's eighth Esperanto translation[edit]

I am happy to announce that I have just moved my translation Sankta Kristoforo out of draft space and into main space. And since I happen to know that the person who created the original article on which I based the translation is something of an Esperantist himself, perhaps he'd like to have a look at it. Spud (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Good work, thanks Spud! Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

RZ94's guide to reaching Alex Jones level insanity[edit]

Step 1- directly eat cannabis plants, don't make into a joint.

Step 2- drink a bottle of Kentucky Bourbon.

Step 3- snort some cocaine.

Step 4 (final step) Watch low budget religious movies.

If you have properly did these steps, you have reach Alex Jones level insanity. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

you should read jon ronson's 'them: adventures with extremists'. its most enlightening. it has alex jones before he was famous. i was watching a interview with ronson the other day. he thinks his lunacy is more about his fame. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
there was a tv series of it that book too. that was jolly AMassiveGay (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
actually, the tv show was called 'the secret rulers of world' AMassiveGay (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
and its on youtube AMassiveGay (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Step 3.5, drink your own Kool-Aid nightly. Don't forget that your fame comes from you being a fake truth-teller, but people believe it, which means you're actually a real truth-teller. Your entire world, economy, and simple interactions with other humans now depend solely on believing that your fake truth telling is real truth telling. Shout it to yourself in the mirror before you go to bed. Then hit step 4, because you've earned a little time to treat yourself. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
To me, this quote from Kurt Vonnegut applies to so much of today's shout-happy pundits: “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” (Alex Jones might have been legitimately insane from the beginning, though.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this won't make you insane. It's far more likely to kill you.

Then again, an argument can be made for Jones being technically brain-dead-- or at least spiritually dead-- so... Kencolt (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

if you remove step 4 it sounds like a half decent weekend AMassiveGay (talk)
@AMassiveGay, perhaps you could replace step 4 with "watch slasher movies." What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Do what I do. Turn your thermostat up to 98 degrees (Fahrenheit, that's important now, thanks LIBS), eat a big bowl of chili with jalapenos in it, swallow one full bottle of Brain Force, wrap yourself in two thick blankets and one comforter, then, making sure to empty your lungs while doing so, scream "BEGONE SATAN" take a short breath (shortness is key) and scream "BEGONE LIZARD PEOPLE" take a short breath (shortness is key) and scream "BEGONE Y2K" take a short breath (shortness is key) and scream "BEGONE" one last time. DO NOT TAKE A BREATH AFTER YOUR FINAL SCREAM (very important), just mutter racial epithets until your lungs are completely devoid of any chem-trail tainted air. If you feel the need to breathe, make sure to scream "BEGONE" and re-focus on NO MORE BREATHING. Enjoy your truth-vision. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Electoral college[edit]

The latest scam is this alleged reform to rob the states of their votes and attribute them to the candidate they voted against. Is allocating the states vote to the national popular vote nationalist and populist? nobsI'm all yea'res 05:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's mostly coastal elitist in this case. Funniest thing is watching Democrats like E. Warren convince her constituency that she's defending their votes by supporting such a measure. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
We should go whole hog: since 30 states have Republican governors, the losers in the other 20 should be awarded wins. And since the majority voted for Republican control of the Senate, the losers thee too should be seated. nobsI'm all yea'res 07:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
To be fair if I lived in one of the central or southern States I'd be pretty annoyed when the costal elites decided the outcome of every election. In my view the electoral college is far from perfect but makes sense in a country the size of the US. --RWRW (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I changed my mind again Rationalwiki should never have a moderator opposed to democracy. Demod RWRW today. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Can't tell if you're serious or not. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Only really the "demod now" part is a joke. People who hate democracy genuinely should not be given power over others. Ever. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
So you'd be fine with China and India running the UN then? Since they've got everyone else beat in population by more than a billion. And Ireland breaking away from the UK was illegitimate of course since England alone has a far bigger population than Ireland, right? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
No, because those aren't individuals with the right to vote, they're nations. But, scrubbing your stupidity from the idea, if UN votes had reasonable democratic apportionment from all over the world, it would be a better and more effective body. Without question. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You may say that (and the UN is admittedly way dysfunctional), but the EU uses pretty much the system you're proposing and they've done a complete 180 on allowing Turkey to enter. One wonders why. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking for my sequitur. Seems lost. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-serious position[edit]

The crusaders who lie through their teeth and pretend the electoral college is anything other than a tool to remove the power of the vote from regular citizens, if taken to the extreme, should be considered enemies of democracy. Evil people who oppose your freedom. It's not hard to see a future, where if you felt you had to fight for democracy, killing them would be no different than killing monarchists.

Make no mistake, Nobs here knows he's radically opposed to the ideas laid forth in the declaration of Independence. He doesn't think all men all created equal. He knows he backs the stupidest possible form of populism, and it's only enabled by the electoral college.

They know they're evil. Don't let them lie to you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

America was not set up to be a mobocracy, like you have in California. The other 49 States aren't going to let a bunch of California crazies, who shit in the streets and hand out gauranteed incomes with the cash they should have spent on cutting down dead trees that are fire hazard, run their lives. This latest Democrat/Communist proposal is a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act - they let you vote, but your vote doesn't count. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a monarchist . . . 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't take this as an immediate threat, if you can help doing so. If I was ever threatened with you having the power to determine the nature of my government, killing you(specifically to the end of stopping you) for the good of all society would be morally justified. Without a moment's question. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"Don't take it as a threat, but If I could I would kill you" I feel so warm and cozy inside. 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
In all seriousness what is your ideal government ? Mine is a parliamentary monarchy where the legislative body has very little power. They can send opinions and suggestions for laws to the king but they are basically useless. The only point of them is to make the peasants feel wanted and needed. Their major power is determining whether the crown prince is suitable for the throne. The king can't violate certain rights (the list of which I'm still pondering upon). What about you ? 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"Oh yes, that absolute tyrant would have their power checked by this list of human rights because I say they will" is a galaxy brain take. The naivety of your position, that individual rights could ever be maintained without any direct check on power is the most ludicrous nerd theorycrafting bullshit I've ever heard, a billion times stupider than any anarchist who thinks their society would self-sustain due to pure enlightened self interest. It's just so goddamn ignorant of every bit of philosophy of government, pragmatic study of history, and basic "common sense" awareness of human nature that I can't imagine you've given even a moment's thought beyond "triggering the libs". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't want you to feel warm and fuzzy about being a fucking monarchist. I want you to realize your position, if ever close to being realized, would make you the actual enemy of millions. I want you to realize you can't disconnect your bullshit edge-lord ideals from the material threat they pose to others. If you're a monarchist, you have to accept being the enemy of all free people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"the enemy of millions" people usually loved the king and royal family (assuming they weren't assholes) "you have to accept being the enemy of all free people". Freedom is an illusion. Democracy fails, Communism fails, Socialism fails, Republicanism fails, it all fails. Monarchy will eventually fail but historically they've lasted pretty damn long. 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean, if you want to live under your ideal government, I'm sure North Korea would be willing to take you. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"Historically they've lasted pretty damn long." Yeah, dumbass, because they were the only government for pretty damn long. Besides, even if they do last longest, that doesn't make them the best. Monarchies are inherently oppressive, unfair, and unsustainable unless you, ya know, starve 90 percent of the population. A non-constitutional monarchy without an exploited lower class is impossible. An ordinary human man (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh yah? Tell it to King Jesus when he comes back and sets up his monarchy. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
King Jesus lmao. — Dysk (contribs) 10:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
no salvation without representation AMassiveGay (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Bias towards conservative party[edit]

All the electoral college does is enfranchise a smaller state more than larger states. That Vermont has 3 of those votes with 600,000 people while Mass has 11 times the population but only 3.5 times as many of those E.C. votes, smells very very off. That's not to mention the fact that almost every state offers an all or nothing vote. If Alaska split its 3 electoral college votes proportionally based on popular vote per party (that is 1 vote for every 33.3% a party received, then there might be some semblance of fairness (dispite the over-enfranchising of some states) but when red states or blue states always vote 55% for one party, and that party always gets ALL of those electoral college votes, then there is something terribly undemocratic about it at two levels. The disproportionate representation, which is very unfair (regardless of how people complain about Eastern elite etc) and the all or nothing college votes, which basically ignores millions of voters intentions. All of this means the Republicans have won (stole) the presidency several times (Bush and Trump) despite losing the popular vote, in Trumps case by a LOT...whereas the Democrats have not won that way since the two parties more or less switched from conservative/liberal sides. With so many small states in the centre of the US which are over-wealmingly right wing leaning, all over-enfranchised, it puts the left-leaning party at a disadvantage. Basically in the quest to avoid the unfairness of the popular vote from a few populous states making the decision, you've given a few other states a grossly unfair advantage by overrepresentation, equally skewing the vote. In any case, since popular vote usually means winning the electoral college, whats the big deal making it the popular-vote that wins? It's not as though the method for voting for congress and the senate are not also decided by pretty undemocratic mechanisms (dividing states arbitrarily or manipulatively into regions with mostly first-past-the-post systems). Where popular vote per state is not proportionate to seats won, but also where Gerrymandering is not only possible, it's actually out of control. It all makes for a political democracy where the will of the people is ignored by convention and where different parties at different times face real disadvantages in both the executive and two legislative chambers (as well as most state legislatures). ShabiDOO 16:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A good metaphor I saw was that, if you were taking a vote of 21 people, the vote of 10 people in an empty warehouse shouldn't be more than that of 11 people in a shack. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It also disenfranchises all minority votes in every single state(except Maine). It enables a system where manipulating the vote is more "profitable" for success than winning people's votes. "big states" vs "small states" is a false dichotomy. You could narrowly win enough of the most populace states, and completely lose enough of the less populace states to still win a electoral college majority and lose the popular vote. Breaking it down this way serves no purpose but to disempower the meaning of large numbers of voters' votes. Period. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop demonizing people[edit]

I ask this sincerely, but is anything shared on right-leaning media a "white nationalist talking point" these days? Because I see a lot of softball right-leaning opinions labeled like this. Just trying to pin down what's meant here. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Aside the points from the above discussion, can you provide any examples? And from what specific channel? I need those answers so you can get a good answer rather than "it depends". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's take a look at Fox News: "There aren’t enough billionaires in the world to pay for AOC, Beto, and Bernie’s socialist proposals", "Tucker: Left, liberal media want Fox News gone", or Gutfeld making fun of millennials for feeling stressful. Plenty of right-wing talking points here, obviously. But should they be considered white nationalist talking points as well?
Or let's say when Trump cites crime statistics about the border, or when he says women migrants are raped along the journey 1 in 3 times. Is bringing up those statistics a white nationalist talking point?
Or take the Daily Stormer (which is apparently just a meme-y alt-right news blog) mocking JK Rowling for retroactively announcing Dumbledore and Grindelwald had an "intense, passionate relationship". Does this mean it's then correct to call out right-wingers mocking JK (on Twitter, for example) for "spreading white nationalist talking points"? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Basically: Am I a monster for following TwitchyTeam on Twitter? :( 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No because trump makes most of it up and he does so to demonize a people and blanket insult an entire race despite evidence to the contrary. We don't consider fabricated charges as "statistics". ShabiDOO 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've seen many articles labeling Trump's use of crime statistics "misleading" and "fearmongering", but to call most of them "fabricated" is a charge I haven't seen supported. What happened to "It isn't racism to point out statistics."? (And here's a Snopes fact check on 'blanket insulting an entire race'.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A sample of Trumps most digusting racist comments that blanket insult an entire race:
  • “That’s because black people are too stupid to vote for me.”
  • “Name one country run by a black person that’s not a shithole,” adding, “Name one city.”
  • “Only the blacks could live like this.”
  • “Islam hates us,”
  • [Mexican immigrants] "are bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." Despite no facts backing this up.
Blanket comments of prejudice that pointlessly offend:
  • "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?"
  • “You [Jews] are not going to support me because I don’t want your money. You want to control your politicians, that’s fine.”
  • “You live in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed,”
Trumps Fabricated lie:
  • “One in 3 women is sexually assaulted on the dangerous journey north.” Actually base on a very small sample of women (only 50 of which all of them were currently undergoing medical treatment for various reasons likely including STD tests and sexual related injuries) 1 in 10 said they had been raped. Not only is it a lie on the statistics (10% is very different to 33%) it is also not even a statistic, it is a terribly biased sample not remotely adequate enough to represent women traveling to the US. There is also absolutely no information about who perpetrated the rape, was it local people staying in Mexico or was it other migrants. Is this limited just to migrants or is sexual abuse at a higher rate in Mexico/Central-America than in the US? Then there is the motivation for saying it, is he trying to do it out of concern for these women (I highly doubt it) or to demonise all the people trying to go to the US. Of course, 10% is a sickeningly high rate, it's horrific, and pointing it out as an alarming statistic with some concern is one thing, grossly exaggerating some facts into a fabricated statistic and using it as a rhetorical weapon is not quoting a statistic, it's racist pointless smut.
If Trump uses a reliable statistic and/or he doesn't use it to offend or use it as a weapon, then yes, however uncomfortable that statistic might be, it isn't racist or prejudice to quote it. FGM happens mostly in Muslim countries. The overwealming number of child soldiers are in Africa. Latin America has a higher rate of domestic abuse than North America and amongst radicals and terrorists in the US you should fear white men. Uncomfortable but fact based and not used to offend/weaponise. ShabiDOO 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Trump says a lot of flippant, offensive crap, so it's a bit odd that you delegitimize yourself by adding in quotes from the very reliable Michael Cohen. "I think Islam hates us" is an overly broad statement for sure, but it's certainly true a great amount of devout Muslims consider Western society degenerate and some even preach that the US is "the Great Satan." In regards to illegal immigrants Trump again generalizes too much, but your claim "Despite no facts backing this up" is without merit. Human and drug trafficking are a lucrative business along the border. While those exploited by the cartels and smugglers are typically not criminals themselves, they inadvertently strengthen the hold of crime in the area (illegal immigration often comes with a high price tag). And that sexual abuse happens at a disturbing level is a sad but undeniable fact. While estimates vary, most are considerably higher than the 10% number you cite. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You are quite tallented at deflecting attention away from things. I like how you totally ignored Trumps racist over generalising blanket insulting a race of people through a false statistic, and pointed out the one misatributed quote. It's like pointing out a spelling mistake and conveneiently forgetting to deal with everything else. It shows good rhetorical skills but very bad intellectual integrity. And your second device is to dismiss Trump's quotes because, you know, that's just what Trump is like, as though that's some sort of explanation. It isn't. Just because a person tends to be a douchey asshole, doesn't suddenly mean they get a free "get out of having to use statistics reliably in a non-racist way". You're complaining that Trump also used hard to hear statistics (like that white men are the biggest terrorist/extremist threat right now in the US) without doing so as a rhetorical weapon, and yet Trump has done it. And you won't admit it. He said RAPE. He said 1 in 3 women were raped. That's categorically false. In a small sample of women (who are more likely than others to have experienced rape) only 10% of them said they did. So Trump lied. And he didn't do it out of concern or caring about truth, he did it to demonise people. When I point our FGM in muslim countries and white men as the biggest concern per US extremists, I don't do this to knock down, blast, discredit, smeer or disparage people to suit some political goal. I'm not white-men hating and I'm not spewing Islamophobia. Trump made up a statistic, and he did so to demonise an entire people per his political aims. That's undeniable racism. Inventing a statistic to spew hate, is not equal to reporting an actual statistic backed up by facts with no racist or prejudice intention. Zheesh. As for these immigrants bringing in rape, crime etc. experts have claimed crime has gone down in recent years and I am yet to see eidence that Latin-American illegal immigrants bring rape into the country. But don't let that get in the way of evidence. Do you have reliable evidence that illegal Latin-American immigrants have done so? Please cite reliable sources and please make a case where this level of crime is notable (higher than the American average, higher than other immigrant groups that nobody seems the slightest concerned about). Please.ShabiDOO 23:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
So you would not overreact to Ilhan Omar telling on her campaign as "I think white people hate us" is an overly broad statement for sure, by this logic. but it's certainly sure for a great amount of white people, including but not limited to devout (I'd say fanatical, whatever religion it is) christians, which consider Middle Eastern North African societies a "shithole" (cit.), isn't it just a "hatefact"? I'm sure casual voters would accept it at face value, as they are not some humourless fragile snowflakes, I believed. It can be argued that they hate muslims for hating whites, not for being muslims, but that adds a level of depth which is beyond the pot stirring generalized utterance which coming from a public person can't be dismissed or whitewashed, sorry, as getting more in depth there are also muslims which hate whites for hating muslims or only hate whites who hate muslims and so on. The rational position (which still needs refinement) would be both western people and muslims (which aren't even mutually exclusive, but anyway ^_^) hating both bigot people of either group, muslim only hating whites who hate them just for being muslim or assuming most of them hate them and viceversa for westerns. Also groups intersect and are not sealed off each other. Groups are just convenient commonalities found, although of course they have complex and non linear implications on behaviors, the various ways of belonging to a group. I think white people hate us, would have been seen from either Ilhan Omar or Sadiq Khan, as inflammatory, regardless from "hey it's isn't even wrong" pseudofactuality and field of truth. Suddenly the priests of political incorrectness would want political correctness for themselves. Of course they would argue that it's different because apparently progressivism, cultural marxism and whatnot has made the poor white people fair game when it comes to criticizing white cishet males and it's them who don't want criticism or can't stand Hatefacts and on and on with nidified tu quoques, but point stands that you either accept potentially pot stirring semplificatory not even wrong approximative statemends toward your gruops as well, without screaming it's white genocide or you stop doing the same for other group . Ok, I might give that part of milquetoast liberalism (but I might be and I sure am partially influenced by the backlash narrative and hence strawmanning), made it almost impossible from the majority group to have a talk about problems, which for historical reasons might be more present in a minority group, as long as it's made without the intention of saying whites are better and your group is inherently flawed, to talk about the historical reasons. This behaviour is imho part of what alienated a lot of consensus to progressivism from the majorities. Because imho as long as whites fess up about wrong doing internal to power structure and popular culture and recurring dynamics inside their group, it should be allowed to have a talk about the same aspects applied to other groups, in this case, you say, criminality along the border of Mexico, without criminalizing them as a group, that raping and drug dealing, while grave (one is graver) crimes of which any individual is personally accountable, don't exist in a vacuum, there is a strong American demand for drugs, there is Cia implied to some level, see "The team of choc of CIA". To this censorship first came the superficially reasonable protest against Sjw, then it became and excuse to overreact and legitimize whatever gut generalization contained some grain of truth, and overreact to any criticism to the west and majorities as anti white, in order to foster a big reactionary sentiment. Id-pol resisting to the great recession, united to the abandon of any class or contractual power defence discourse also contributed to this backlash, the surge of Isis attacks, also caused partially by Clinton hawkishness and shortsightedness on foreigh policies, which revived the idea of a great islamist state (basically a militarized Islamic ultra far right) has been the decisive spark since the beginning of 2015. (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Jesus this last ranting rant-fest was quite the trip. It's like there is this neighing donkey jumping all over the place speculating and jaming all sorts of non-sequiteurs together, and then suddenly it's head falls off and out its neck spews even more incomprehensible nonsense. My dear , try to get your narrative in some semblance of order, cut down on the speculation, stop turning an obvious problem into some sort of rampant scary fear factor, research our rationalwiki page on fallacies, study them well and try not to make so many. Your previous posts were at least respectable, this last comment of yours is unhinged and pretty dissapointing. You have some good rhetorical devices, you need to brush up on intellectual integrity and tone down the fallacies, trickery and verbal-soup. ShabiDOO 23:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Shabi, this was unexpected, if my post here irritated you for some reasons I can say I'm sorry, although there must be some misunderstanding. I assume you didn't mistake me for the other 82.etc or you wouldn't call my other messages respectable :). To be honest you have been a bit rude, calling me a donkey, which is an animal I appreciate, so I don't take offence for that, but I'm aware your intent wasn't exactly flattering hehe, but I'd have appreciated a more constructive crticism, even harsher on the merit, because I get that you found my post quite annoying and confirmed what I was already aware of, which is that it needed a lot of improvement as I admit it was a bit impromptu. If you pay attention I already opened myself to criticism and improvement almost asking to be corrected, especially on the point about liberals and identity politics, affirmative action. I didn't even name call the troll (or is it Nobs under a particular alphanumeric signature?), like some people did here. What's funny is that propably you have been ticked off by the form of my post or the tone, which I'm trying to pin point, as there's much more overlap than actual difference between the points you make in your reply to him and mine. Basically you said that Trump made up statistics and he whitewashes and minimizes that, while my point was more about challenging the politically incorrect canard about the touchy minorities pointing out how touchy the non Pc anti-Sjw people themselves can be made out to be, with just a bit of aimed propagand which makes them believe they are the least bit targeted for their behavior, which is turned (projection?) into a perceived bigoted generalization about their whole cathegory. Not sure I understand what you hint at with this, sorry "stop turning an obvious problem into some sort of rampant scary fear factor" thanks :). "Your previous posts were at least respectable" just respectable? I'd venture to say we pretty much agreed, I'd be glad to discuss what we really disagree about. If it's about the point of liberal communication and the possible perception (not even stating it's real) that it's impossible to discuss problems internal to disadvantaged groups, I don't think we disagree, because I saw a comment of yours about how it's not racist to point out crime stats about Poc's, which at first had me perplexed and slighly side eyeing you, but on finishing reading I understood the point was that it depended on the intent (although intention is not magic as those Sjw's say, and I agree with them :D) and the will to confront them constructively. Sorry about the incoherent part, you should understand that I'm taking at heart this political discourse and its multidimensional aspect, which make me go back in time and flip points of view, because I want to dismantle that narrative. Which is why I challenged him on flipping this perception of white people under attack, with the hypothetical and absurd idea of someone like Ilhan Omar or Sadiq Khan telling the same offensive crap as Trump but against white people. (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The term "fabricated" is absolutely accurate in some cases. At any rate, white nationalism generally contains little of traditional "right-leaning" economic theory (in fact, the opposite: traditional economic theory thought of as "right leaning" tends to favor globalist, free-trade type economic positions, a big no-no among the white nationalist crowd). And libertarian oriented policy thought is not really related to white nationalism. There is some overlap, but it is not significant enough to completely conflate the two. So unless your personal definition of "right-leaning media" differs from traditional categorization, the answer is no. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
White supremacists who complain about being "replaced" aren't allowed to have any talking points or to say anything. We should consider CNN a gold standard of rationality. Racist Nazis off our streets. Why isn't the fucking racist fuck "Thinker" fucking banned already, the fucking Nazi. (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think we're stupid? Scratch that, you do, but come the fuck on. Sentences 1 and 3 are 100% correct, and whatever imagined satire you placed in sentence 2 just reflects how poorly you understand your opponents' position. (EC), you also suck at parodying me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You advocate genocide. Are you a moron or a non-white? (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You know, you never play innocent when caught. You always just revert back to your normal canards. Call me a jewish person next, that's one of your favorites. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The only canard is "white supremacist" you victim blaming anti-white piece of shit. Now my only question is are you consciously doing this, do you advocate white genocide, or are you just parroting fake labels like a moron? (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Anti-White.png Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(Low fertility rates are not a genocide.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Mikey, when are you coming over to my house? I made my special cookies and I want to share them with you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds great, but again, who's Mikey? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Michael Coombs. He drops in every now and then to make an ass of himself. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
But can we get back to the question of what is and isn't a white nationalist talking point? I was hoping ikanreed in particular could lay out what criteria they use. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's supremacist. Objecting to your people being wiped out makes you a "supremacist". (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah. It's the supremacist part that makes you a white supremacist. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Lying anti-white filth. (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Dance for me more, little boy! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Mr. 82, you're aware trolling on the internet isn't an effective way of raising the white fertility rate, right? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh I'm not trolling. (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Mikey doesn't think he's trolling. He genuinely thinks he's fighting against the Judeo-Bolshevik anti-white hordes by doing this. It's sad yet kinda funny. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Or screaming labels at people, then. It doesn't help your case or your cause. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(EC x a billion)Broadly "white nationalist talking points" are disconnected assertions about white people being oppressed or threatened, particularly by innocuous statements or the existence of minorities(not just ethnic minorities) having opinions about cultures of oppresion. Such "talking points" are strongly characterized by their disconnect from context, their tendency to make equivalency to broader regimes of oppression without doing the leg work to indicate how exactly that happens, a recurrent trend of being extremely rapidly disseminated exclusively through right wing media organizations. Now, there are both extreme, explicit versions of this for the already indoctrinated, these focus on more aggressive attacks, and falsely offended versions of it to promote a narrative of oppression that doesn't exist. The latter model was invented to appeal to liberals. UT explicitly posts a lot of shit that fall in the latter category. If it's what you want, it's unfair to expect me to demonstrate the former, since everywhere white nationalists organize they conspire to create propoganda campaigns that look exactly like what UT posts. Whether he's a member of those groups or a dupe who falls for their shit is immaterial to whether the nature of what he posts is "white nationalist talking points". That's a case I can't demonstrate, but your incredulity about this shit being not, as I said "white nationalist talking points" is totally unwarranted.
Now, I think I've done a fair job explaining why I think it meets that criteria. It's an opinion I'd be willing to reconsider, but also it's not one I got to without a fair amount of consideration in the first place. — Unsigned, by: Ikanreed / talk / contribs
"a recurrent trend of being extremely rapidly disseminated exclusively through right wing media organizations" So you admit then that UT's sin is simply following regular right-leaning media. Even if you're right that some talking points dreamed up and/or disseminated by white nationalists are shared on such media, it's generally not helpful to smear random people following such media as "spreading white nationalist talking points" or to accuse them of trolling merely because they want to engage in discussion about something they saw on a right-leaning site/broadcast. Aside from being detrimental for discussion, overreacting to fairly innocuous "it's okay to be white"-style content can also work to the advantage of the real trolls that consciously disseminate such content to 'trigger' and trick you into affirming their "anti-white Zeitgeist" narrative. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I try to take these spurious arguments at face value. Right and left are conventions, so called right wing positions on economy in favor of full neoliberalism, on traditional gender roles, but with no hint of hate toward strangers or panic about ethnic replacement, are example of non white supremacist or nativist "right wing" points. About the white fertility, at this point, it's mainly due to economic uncertainty, not a conspiracy. I think it's a consequence of recession and of governments either defending the "1%ers" economic power or being clueless on how to dismantle this economic dynamic and wealth concentration. I call it the congestion, the share of wealth circulating among average people or "99%" is not representative of the produced wealth and insufficient to exchange it, unless we rescale by ourselves. This is also combined with credit crunch and, in some countries with curbed government spending due to public debt which is being reclaimed, interest rates raising, just a few among many other factor. This combined with the fact that refugees program haven't been dismantled, helped the yielding of suprematist conspiracy theories like Kalergi plan, making people think there was an active program to make western population dwindle. The focus has been too bad successfully in part, shifted from the concrete economic and material aspect, to ethnic lines, to the point of accepting the infamous trickle down economy. This is how we got to challenge this narrative. (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
LOL @ He described himself as a white supremacist on Stormfront as recent as December 2016. Since 2018 he's tried to reinvent himself as a white nationalist who isn't a white supremacist. And out of shame or embarrassment he now denies or distances himself from his more extreme 2 year ago Nazi/white supremacist internet past. "I'm a white nationalist,* not a white supremacist! (*despite being a white supremacist two years ago)". What a lolcow and moron.Concerned (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In response to one or another of Trump's quotes - would John Sentamu 'do'?

And one of the problems is - 'empty pots make the most noise' - and those people who 'treat others reasonably if they behave reasonably' rarely get recorded in the statistics. Anna Livia (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Executive order on campus free speech signed[edit]


"The order does not, on its face, make dramatic changes. [...] The order directs 12 agencies that make federal grants, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, to ensure colleges are complying with the law and their own policies to promote free inquiry and debate."

The full text of the executive order here. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Finally, drumpf is actually protecting his base. Doesn't matter as we've all deserted him for the #yanggang. 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You know what matters? Bullshit purveyors' I mean conservative feelings validated for their stupid and awful views. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the executive order is much more about transparency regarding the costs and the carers opportunities of degrees, than about free speech on campus. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

how'd you figure that? i can't find anything that remotely looks like that AMassiveGay (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
opops didnt see the second link AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hah, kind of sneaky there. Give speeches to "play to your base" and feed political meat regarding the "conservative views college controversy" for various bits of the public to lap up. And then issue an executive order that changes nothing in that department, but instead focuses some IMHO uncontroversial and welcome statistics on career prospects (probably aimed at the diploma mills). Soundwave106 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
or trump university AMassiveGay (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe scare people out of sociology degrees or something. I'm being bad faith here, I know. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty funny to see a video on Computing Forever and he acts like this is some conservative win, but it's obvious he has no idea what's in it. The comment section was similarly uninformed. (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lets start calling Anti-vaxxer people what they should be called: Pro-Plague People[edit]

Measles is spreading in Oakland, Michigan. How is that for sad? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oakland is of the wealthiest counties in the country, and it's not alone in being a wealthy center for the spread of preventable diseases (e.g., Portland, OR & Marin County, CA). It belies the American Enterprise Institute claim that "wealth makes health",[1] though there is some truth to the claim, just not with regard to antivaxx nonsense. Bongolian (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
[2]! And [3] is one of a number of such articles. Anna Livia (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
From this study, high support for anti-vax is coordinated with a combination of individualistic attitudes (including high reactance), a willingness to believe conspiracy theory, and high "squick" regarding needles and blood. Demographic variables seem to have very little correlation with this crowd, at least per this paper -- I don't think "wealth" was measured, but even education level is said not to be correlated. (And Anna, one of your links was an article in the Daily Mail? You know your health oogie-boogie is *real* bullshit when even the Daily "Causes Cancer" Mail thinks it is fucking nuts.) Soundwave106 (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 Agents of Nurgle. Or maybe the Horseriders of Pestilence ("Horseriders" because we are -after all- inclusive of all genders here). Towards-the Unknown (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Whats wrong with just calling them pricks? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

They are opposed to pricks. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
ha AMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Frank Luntz would roll in his grave. I'm choosing to say he is in his grave to give his name a little more credibility, I think he would like that, rest his soul. I'd like to be be considered as anti-plague. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Please. "Pro-Plague" isn't politically correct. They're corpse creation advocates. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Subreddit[edit]

The Reddit Reclamation Project has just fulfilled one of its first objectives, assembling a mod team and a few users. Currently the mods are me, Spud, and Dysklyver. Because the subreddit is still a little fragile, the mod team is keeping the sub locked to unapproved submissions. So if you want to post at the subreddit (and please do), then message any of the mods here on RW so that we can approve you. This is all very ad hoc at the moment, so please forgive any inconsistency. Once we have enough approved users, we will open the subreddit to public commenting. Thanks, and I hope to see you there. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You can take the subreddit out of the garbage, but you can't take the garbage out of the subreddit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
We'll see. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I do understand that there can be such a thing as a good subreddit. When it creates a de facto community of specialized expertise and advice disconnected from reddit's broader meme culture and karma obsession. I also think that RationalWIki itself already serves that role vis-a-vis RationalWiki, and thus the reddit community, almost by necessity, can only be navel gazing and awful memes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that meme culture is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as the shitheads are reined in. Arguably, making sure there's another place for RWians to meme would strengthen our own specialization. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
*Shitlords. (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

According to 8 values I'm a fascist[edit]

Equality/Markets is 69 for markets Nation/Globe is 98.9 for nation Liberty/Totalitarian is 90.3 for totalitarian Tradition/Progress is 73.2 for traditions

Well boys I guess I'm a fascist — Unsigned, by: Baldr The Brave / talk / contribs

Congrats, you're a moron. Why should we give a shit? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Have you ever tried not being a fascist? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 23:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator I don't know man it's pretty hard. Baldr The Brave (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well 8values says I am a Marxist. Don't sweat it. — Dysk (contribs) 01:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I'm closest matched to Libertarian Socialism. Never heard of that before. Those were extremely loaded questions, but in its defense, every question was so. extremely. loaded. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Economic Axis: Centrist
  • Diplomatic Axis: Balanced
  • Civil Axis: Moderate
  • Societal Axis: Neutral
  • Closest Match: Centrist

Well, that was fun. :) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, after taking the test and re-reading, I would reposit the question... "Have you ever tried not being a fascist?" @DuceMoosolini has the point. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The questions were certainly designed to obtain responses. Seems I'm a social Democrat. Well over on the Social, Peaceful, Liberal, Progressive side. It really describes the person I'd like to be. (The odd thing is that my star sign is Leo - so the test is probably wrong.)Hubert (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Decided to try it out. Got Social Libertarian. Huh. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I got “Moderate Conservatism”.
Economic axis: Market
Diplomatic axis: Patriotic
Civil axis: Moderate
Societal axis: Neutral —RWRW (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian socialist here. --MtDBogan 01:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a similar test called "Political Compass" and it said I was Libertarian Left. This is an Emergency Action Notification --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am apparently a 'Revolutionary Socialist.' Economic: social. Diplomatic: patriotic. Civil: moderate. Societal: neutral. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am apparently a 'Libertarian Socialist.' Was not expecting that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
So according to it I'm a libertarian socialist: Economic Axis: Socialist with 88.4%, Diplomatic Axis: Internationalist with 81.4%, Civil Axis: Libertarian with 85.4%, Societal Axis: Very Progressive with 86.2% Diacelium (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Similar to what I got. 'Libertarian Socialist' is apparently close to anarchism, which I am not a fan of. The only reason I see myself getting that is because I'm pro government transparency (to a degree) and pro legalization of drugs. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that the statements are relatively simple, but can act as a motte and bailey in serious political discourse. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
i think the bigger problem is why we should even care. except for the most broadest terms, it all becomes rather meaningless. what great difference does it make to 'know' exactly what manner of libertarian or socialist or facist one is beyond the massaging of egos? the differences are trivial if the core beliefs are intact, even less meaningful when expression of this amounts to little more than arguing the toss about what kind of ism your chosen badge is. look for common cause not accentuate the differences. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
These questionnaires are ridiculous at judging political tendencies. Everybody claims to be in favor of freedom, human rights, self-expression, autonomy, decentralisation if you ask them "do you think nice things are nice?", but when politicians tell them illegal immigrants are going to rape their children suddenly they become law-and-order freaks. --Annanoon (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I took political compass and I got left leaning authoritarian centrist. Not sure what that means but I might be a fascist. 16 values said something similar. — Unsigned, by: 2601:CA:8200:34A:35F1:A7E:6656:7EBD / talk
Interjection I worked with a hardcore Christian that used to say "property is theft." An approximation of the full case here https://www.demos.org/blog/10/8/14/why-property-theft-and-why-it-matters. Basically, the earth is for everyone, even the things you find dear are part of an existence that is either only validated by your sharing it or believing it was made for you to take. And I agreed with him, the hardcore Christian. He and I both have an anarchistic bone somewhere in our bodies, and we both believe sharing our time, energy, wisdom, and property without hesitation is the ideal. He shares Proudhon's religious thinking, I unfortunately do not, but I'm not in the Sumner school of explanation. But I am willing to admit I share their reasoning. Take a penny leave a penny has more than one justification. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Why did they build the Great Wall of China? Cause the Mongolian hoards would run over horseback small plots of land and destroying the peope's food source and work product and causing them to starve and be enslaved, cause "the earth is for everyone." Bah humbug with this communist bullshit. nobsI'm all yea'res 06:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of having a hard stance on either pro or against borders (and my stance is gradual change toward opening, creating the conditions for it, but not in direction of increased closure), I read very frequently this false equivalency between armed invasion and immigration, the italian Northern League even weaponized native Americans in past on a propaganda poster saying "they suffered the immigration". The mongols were armed and waging war, while at the opposite, many refugees suffered the war themselves in their countries. The europeans discovering America via colombo is a richer similitude in some aspects, because it was not directly armed from the get go, but europeans had a superiorty of military means, which is by no mean true for current immigrants. (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Property, with the exception of unimproved land, is an extension of labor. It is stored up, unconsummed, not fully depreciated labor. Money is a form of a property, a means of determining the relative equal value of different quanities of labor that require differing skills. This idea that "property is theft" is unrequited Satanic communist bullshit. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, not Satanic because, hey, Satan isn't real and it stems from a Christian interpretation of economics. And not entirely bullshit, but I get why you believe you have earned your money. I've earned mine too, there's no rule that says somebody has to give me money. I work hard for what I have. I work harder than a lot of people I know for what I have. I work so hard that I sometimes wonder why anybody who doesn't work as hard as me has more than me. Oh, because money is a concept that we've all agreed upon. Right, because as a concept, it has value and its value has a breadth. Right, because there are certain things I wouldn't do for money. But there is also certain value in a human that doesn't quite equate to money. I think the Bible, with all its pro-slavery rhetoric, isn't a good place to look for human value. I also don't think money is the ultimate metric.
Long story done short; Nobs, I will pay you $500 USD to put your lips on any living man's penis. Don't care who, you don't have to go any further than that, but I will pay out, I have this money in my budget, anything I would do with it could wait. Your naked lips, any man's naked penis. Your value to me, if you can produce proof of this act, will increase by exactly $500 USD. For legal reasons, I'd like to point out this is satire, but for other reasons, I'd like to point out I'd totally own up on my end of the dare. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
i'l take your money. where do i send the video? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hahahaha, sorry, I've got a few bucks for you if you really need it, but I don't want a video that wouldn't rock my views on the human value exchange rate. Oh crap, is this what it's like to be evil, like a Leprechaun? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Political Compass[edit]

0.0, 5.8 Radical Centrist Authoritarianism. 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hate it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
But why ? ikanreed ? Is it because I'm authoritarian. 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
And centrist. Both are bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Only an enlightened radical centrist can properly rule over you peasants. 2601:CA:8200:34A:584B:FBF:AA97:3B47 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
So, if I'm reading this right, for president, you should support Clinton, Bush, Biden, O'Rourke, McCain, Cruz, Harris, Rubio, Obama, Schultz, Avenatti… (pause for breath), Christie, Huckabee, Jindal, Gillibrand, Winfrey, Rogan, Carlson, and Maddow.
If I left anybody out, or included anybody you don't like, you shouldn't care, that's how centrism works and you're radical. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Relevant An ordinary human man (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Things I recently learned about sex[edit]

I read a really interesting book about evolutionary developmental biology recently (Quirks of Human Anatomy: An Evo-Devo Look at the Human Body by Lewis I. Held, Jr.). It's informative, well written and at times amusing. Two of the bizarre things that I learned from it were:

  1. Hyenas give birth through their enlarged clitorises.
  2. The fruit fly penis pointlessly rotates 360° around the anus.

Bongolian (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The page about Suboptimal design is really interesting. But are we sure that fused bones are suboptimal? I wouldn't exclude that for the grows it is actually necessary that some bones are not already-fused. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It can be argued that since there are birth defects associated with improper bone fusion, that bone fusion is suboptimal.[4] Bongolian (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Leave it to Bongolian to enlighten the unwashed masses. nobsI'm all yea'res 21:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am a virgin and therefore know very little about the subject. Public School Girl (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To those you who are subscribed to my YouTube channel (Undead EAS Productions)- I have a discord server[edit]


Not the best place to mention it but thought I would give a shout to my subscribers here. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but that's not a discord invite link, it's your own channel url from your app. — Dysk (contribs) 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know who to invite you. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The homophobic argument that "Gay people are confused"[edit]

I have always found that argument to be fucking stupid. Gay people are not confused. I personally apply the wording in a different context- someone who is gay might be confused if they get incorrect information on homosexuality. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What's the difference between "confused" and "questioning"? IIRC, that's what the Q stands for in LBGTQIA. A person that comes out as gay isn't confused, but most people (including heterosexuals) begin as confused. CoryUsar (talk)
the only confusion is with the alphabet soup of that acronym and what q actually means it AMassiveGay (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
CoryUsar, the Q is for Queer. The I and A are for Intersex and Asexual by the way. You could have least looked it up if you didn't know. — Dysk (contribs) 09:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
i didnt need to look it. thats not what i meant at all. i note that in a previous post it say q stands for questioning and here you saying its queer. do you see the confusion? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
and dont get me started on the word 'queer' AMassiveGay (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be complaining about a whole lot of nothing.(That's just my opinion) Normal Dude (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
since i havent given my reason here, what the fuck are you basing that on? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I was aiming that comment at CoryUsar, but it is widely accepted that the first Q stands for Queer. — Dysk (contribs) 21:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
it really does depend on who you ask. both are pretty redundant at best. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── F IS FOR FRIENDS THAT DO STUFF TOGETHER, U IS FOR UKULELE! N IS FOR ANYWHERE AND ANY TIME AT ALL DOWN HERE IN THE DEEP BLUE SEA!!! Oxyaena Harass 13:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Which of these players? And review 'switch caps lock off.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Q is either. [5][6] --Annanoon (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious if anyone can find any quote said by anyone where "You're just confused" that isn't followed by a condescending arrogant ignorant bullshit fest. Anyone? ShabiDOO 02:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

its whats parents say along with 'its just a phase'. there are probably worse things people can say. i had a 'friend' who told me i was dishonest when i came out. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

For those of you interested in large numbers in mathematics[edit]


Interesting stuff. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Their upper limit Less than 10↑↑10. 10↑↑3 is barely a number at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Numbers larger than twenty-four are witchcraft. Does anybody you know have that many fingers and toes? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
You're forgetting my more than adequate supplies of chicken fingers. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Fibonacci from Laterus[edit]

Oxyaena Harass 08:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is nick ?[edit]

Is it just me...[edit]

Or has the Bar just become a haven for trolls? Public School Girl (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's just you. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, when you think about it, it's about the only place that they fit. Bear with me a bit.
When you go to a real "bar", one you know well, know the other guys and gals there, well, you know the crowd. There's those guys who agree with you on Subject X. There's those guys who don't agree-- you think they're putzes, or you think they're wrong but they bring up good points (for you to refute, of course, since you know you're the one in the right), but they're in general decent enough-- even That Guy who is obnoxious, dammit, but at least he's semi tolerable and you can sort of talk to him, and once in a while be buys drinks.
Now, all this is well and good. But there's always that other guy-- who wanders in, gets roaring drunk, starts arguments with points that make no fucking sense, insists that beer is made from fairy dust, and generally seems to want to start a fight with any and all there. When you're having a sort of reasonable debate on Subject X with That Guy Who Is Such A Jerk But He's A Regular So At Least He Can Argue In A Coherent Fashion, in jumps the new drunk, shoving his face in yours, and informing you that you're both wrong, it's really all about the fairy dust, and anyhow you're really arguing about Subject Platypus.
He eventually gets thrown out-- but he's back next week with a new jacket and a fake mustache that he's somehow certain no-one will penetrate. And a new pair of socks. And he's not alone-- there's usually someone who wandered in, wanting to talk about fake beer and fairy dust.
We call this part of the Wiki the Bar for a reason... and sadly, this is part of it. Kencolt (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
at least here you wont be sick on your shoes AMassiveGay (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed this a couple of months ago last time I was active. There seemed to be people whose entire experience was starting an argument and then hand waving away the discussion they initiationed. Eponymous (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it time to 'raise the bar'Anna Livia (talk)

Nah. Drinks cost too much as it is. Kencolt (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I meant in this sense (or even this Anna Livia (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • swear to the light some people wouldn't know a joke if it hit them in the face with a halibut... Kencolt (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I was just making sure people knew which usage was involved - and what do you have against halibut? (Or should The Society for the Protection of Metaphorical Animals get involved?). Anna Livia (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Abstinence Only Sex Education, it is like telling someone not to press the big red button[edit]

While it is best to wait till a person is an adult, teens still have sex. The difference: higher risk of pregnancy and STI's. Saying that condoms go against God or some bullshit only puts people at risk. Inaccurate information and religious propaganda only increases risks. It irritates me that people are willing to give teens inaccurate information. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

it's like planting two big fruit trees and telling everyone around not to eat... oh wait. Avida Dollarsher again 11:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Not only is abstinence only education ineffective because so many people will fail to follow it, those who actually do follow it can be psychologically damaged by their self-imposed isolation and lack of intimacy. It is a terrible idea on multiple levels. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this red button involved?
Is AOE back in public debate again? Goddammit. None of the bullshit ever dies. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I think AOE never left the public debate. It just got pushed out of the spotlight a bit, but never left the stage. (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Made a parody video today[edit]


I make fun of Jehovah's Witnesses in the style of an emergency broadcast. Why not? Uncle Sam wants Trump impeached --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Banning ideas[edit]

BusinessInsider: "New Zealand officially banned the 74-page, racist manifesto written by the suspected gunman behind the deadly mosque attacks in Christchurch on March 15. Anyone found to possess the manifesto could face up to ten years in prison"

I can think of circumstances where possessing some documents should be considered a crime, for example: stolen documents and/or documents violating individual privacy or industrial secrets. But I don't believe that possessing a document containing despicable ideas should be punished as a crime. Censorship is never the right way to fight against wrong ideas. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Good post! Banning that manifesto in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shooting could be begging for yet another example of the Streisand effect. You fight bad ideas by reason and logic. How are people to realize it consists of bad ideas if they are not allowed to even read it? Nerd (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That would be fine, but it doesn't just consist of bad ideas. It's every white nationalist talking point around crammed into a 73 to 87 page essay on why you should shoot up a mosque. It is a literal call to violence. — Dysk (contribs) 19:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You bring up "Streisand" but the manifesto is very known at this point. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I just have an issue that apparently one can get ten fucking years just for having the damn thing. Who do these Kiwis think they are, America? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dysklyver Full disclosure: I haven't read it. But if it is what you say it is, that is actually an excellent reason why people should read it. One could use it as a case study for extremist thought. Nerd (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Yes, but unless you are inside New Zealand, a country of under five million people, you are free to read it.
@DuceMoosolini China may be a more appropriate "comparison," for a lack of a better word. In the U.S., such a ban would encounter a slight bump on the road known as the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Streisand effect would probably be in full swing. Nerd (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
As I have stated in the past, one should read documents containing bunk ideas, in order to combat them more effectively That being said, if the documents in question contain calls for violence, then caution should be exercised. (Though ten years for possessing the document is ridiculous.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@NerdMy line was referring to the length of the prison sentence, not the actual crime. The US justice system likes to throw people in prison for absurdly long times. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@nerd - the comparison to china is completely bogus. they restrict all manner of information and the access to it. a more suitable comparison would most of western europe where similar laws already exist and hasnt become an orwellian nightmare AMassiveGay (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dysklyver "It is a literal call to violence."
The manifesto itself is, but how is "possessing it" a call to violence? What if someone is just curious to read what is written in the manifesto? What if someone wants to study it to understand the roots of such evil? What about journalists and historians who wants to report correctly the attacker's beliefs? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Well I suppose this is an issue the same way that owning a copy of the The Anarchist Cookbook is kinda illegal. Obviously that's a pretty old example, but the FBI did once describe it as "one of the crudest, low-brow, paranoiac writing efforts ever attempted". — Dysk (contribs) 20:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinker Additionally, law enforcement will be exempt from this law, likely so that they may use the manifesto as evidence in the trial. Do they possess some power that private individuals such as myself do not? Or are they fallible human beings, same as the rest of us? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Exceptions to free speech have been made on a case by case basis with full support of the population. For example, some countries prosecute possession and distribution of child porn (even just artwork and stories), and up until recently, it was illegal to possess and distribute Nazi literature and symbols in Germany. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem here is the executive summary of this document is "join me in my crusade to kill Muslims because shitty reasons". Law enforcement tends to have a problem with this sort of thing. Inciting violence is illegal to various degrees in most countries. New Zealand also allows access to the manifesto apparently if you are a journalist or academic with the right credentials (via an application process etc.). I personally think New Zealand's being very excessive here (and probably counterproductive overall) and the punishment is ridiculous. But when I can quote in the manifesto that one of the reasons he attacked *was* "to incite violence, retaliation and further divide between the European people and the invaders currently occupying European soil", it's not a case where they are 100% wrongheaded (as is the case for some censorship attempts). Some caution is needed. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
To me it's quite understandable that the community of NZ would make an example of something they consider to be toxic. Millennium Scallion (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, lets get some perspective on this. you will NOT get 10 years for just possessing this thing. the phrase here is 'up to 10 years' - you are not likely to get nothing close to that without any mitigating circumstances. secondly, ISIS propaganda is also and already banned - this just puts it the same category. ive not seen any one complain about that. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It also kind of depends on the local situation. Mein Kampf is illegal in (EDIT: sorry "was") Germany for instance.Hubert (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie "Additionally, law enforcement will be exempt from this law ... Do they possess some power that private individuals such as myself do not?"
Exactly. Another problem is that this kind of censorship creates an "elite" which has access to certain information (and of course will manipulate them at their convenience), while the rest of the population should just "trust them"
@Millennium Scallion "some countries prosecute possession and distribution of child porn"
That's a different thing. Forcing or tricking kids into sexual acts is a criminal act for many reasons. And there's no way one can get child porn without producing it himself, or buying it, thus supporting this criminal behavior.
"(even just artwork and stories)"
I'm not sure of what you mean, but if this artwork and stories are pure fiction (no real children involved) than I don't think they should be criminal.
"it was illegal to possess and distribute Nazi literature and symbols in Germany."
I know that, and I disagree with this censorship too.
@AMassiveGay "the phrase here is 'up to 10 years' - you are not likely to get nothing close to that without any mitigating circumstances."
I'm in disagreement with the principle of this law, not about the sentence. Even if it was just a $1 bill I would still disagree.
"secondly, ISIS propaganda is also and already banned"
and I disagree with that too. I mean, possessing ISIS propaganda document shouldn't be a crime. Making propaganda for ISIS should (and is). Thinker(unlicensed) 20:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding artwork and stories, see USC 1466A, re "visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene". Millennium Scallion (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
nothing is lost through this - not here, not in new zealand, not anywhere. nothing is gained possessing this document. there are and always will be limits on free speech. i do not support criminalising the mere possession, for the simple fact it it is un-enforcable. it is a law that will not be used, and likely if it ever is, it will be in connection with other more serious offences. otherwise it is more a statement of opposition to similar minded pricks. free speech is not at risk here. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, it is only banned in NZ, and even here the IDEAS in it are not banned - just that specific expression of them, and also any incitement to kill people in general - I haven't read it so I don't know if it specifically says to do so. The rest of this discussion is just waffle as far as I can see - we are not the USA - praise be to his noodleness - so we do get to say "fuck off" to ideas that we find gross and obnoxious. you don't like that - fine - make sure you live elsewhere, as of course most of you do.Aloysius the Gaul 02:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It does directly incite to kill. One of the direct reasons why he states he did it is, to quote, "to directly reduce immigration rates to European lands by intimidating and physically removing the invaders themselves.". I'll also quote a section he devotes to Turks: "But if you attempt to live in European lands, anywhere west of the Bosphorus.We will kill you and drive you roaches from our lands.". I think his raison d'être is pretty clear. (Incidentally, I will now quote the section of the manifesto that supports the "eco" part of his "eco-fascist" claim: "") Soundwave106 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I have read the wretched thing, and can confirm that it is neither original, nor compelling, nor even particularly interesting. The most original aspect of the text was its attempt to enlist environmentalism in the cause of neo-fascism. This was remarkable mostly for its ineptness; had the writer engaged more deeply with the hard green and vegan subcultures, which are filled with thinly disguised eugenics and deeply troubling anti-humanism and calls for genocide, he might have written a more interesting document. He was too unfamiliar with that version of soi-disant leftist militance to really push their buttons, though. Which I suppose is fortunate. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the New Zealand Chief Censor (yup, he’s really called that) is not likely to be a useful one, but if I had to look for the logic behind it, it is likely to be an attempt to get an easy tool to use against those extremists who use the manifesto to promote further violence (the Chief Censor said exactly that as per the link). Also, in addition to the maximum 10 imprisonment for “knowingly” possessing such material, actively spreading it on the internet increases the potential jail time to 14 years. However, there is the option of appealing the censorship decision itself and also to apply for a (fixed time) exemption for “educational, professional, scientific, literary, artistic, or technical purposes”.
Basically, I see it as a panicked reaction, searching for a quick and easy (and very blunt) instrument to prevent further calls to violence by way of Tarrant’s manifesto, but I would be surprised if they were to actually prosecute anyone, especially solely for possession. The law seems to have been written mainly with child pornography and torture or other extreme violence and/or degradation in mind. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Basically censorship is fine as long as it's a right winger being censored108.208.14.123 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi DarkMaster. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

What's up with Amendment 13 (The Meme Killer)[edit]

Any thoughts, explanations? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean the one that abolished slavery? Or the Irish one about how "the prohibition of abortion would not limit freedom of travel in and out of the state"? Or Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market § Article 17 (previously 13)Wikipedia? --Annanoon (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The shortest version is, no, it would not be a "meme killer" but it would be stupidly draconian, create far more total social cost than it ever could possibly imagine producing profit, and is a giveaway to certain very rich interests. It sucks ass and anyone proposing stricter, rather than looser copyright laws in 2019 should be dragged out and shot. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Annanoon I think he's referring to the EU's Amendment 13, a copyright law that many feel will kill memes.
Honestly, I haven't really looked into it much but I suspect its just another unnecessary regulation by the ever-growing superstrate. But given how much the EU loves second votes, maybe they'll allow their MEPs to reverse it... --RWRW (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
did you crib that line from the young brexiter's handbook ? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Ha! No I thought of that one myself. That said I think I still have one of those 2016 Vote Leave campaign leaflets somewhere. --RWRW (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's depressing that the immediate terrible thing this amendment is known for, according to this title, is the loss of freaking memes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

thats a win in my book. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Even Jim Sterling seems to be taking this BS (second video now) seriously, while it literally isn't saying anything about killing memes. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
What it will do is to concentrate more power into the big platforms like Youtube and Google, who alone have the budgets and proprietary code to vet every image, video, and sound file as it is uploaded. Giving news sites the right to demand payment for being linked to will be easier to deal with; any site demanding those payments will just disappear from search results. Copyright needs to be kneecapped. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Google OWNS Youtube. If Youtube had the budget you think it has, then they wouldn't have agreed with Google buying them over or bought their own company back. Also:
Google has opposed the directive since its first inception in 2016, when they argued that the proposals would "turn the internet into a place where everything uploaded to the web must be cleared by lawyers". In 2018 the company encouraged news publishers in its Digital News Initiative to lobby MEPs on the proposals, members of the initiative are eligible for grants to support digital journalism from a €150m fund. YouTube's chief executive officer, Susan Wojcicki, urged content creators on the platform to take action to oppose the legislation, as it "poses a threat to both [their] livelihood and [their] ability to share [their] voice with the world", and stressing that their Content ID system was intended to help assure fair management and payments for copyright holders already without government intervention. Wojcicki later wrote that any company implementing the necessary protocols to meet the directive would have a significant financial burden, and for a company the scale of YouTube, "the potential liabilities could be so large that no company could take on such a financial risk". Facebook is also opposed, arguing that the proposal "could have serious, unintended consequences for an open and creative internet".Link
Silly Americans & Internet populists, Tinfoil needs to be put around your food, not on top of your head. Your so-called big evil companies are AGAINST it!
This is exactly why I started to hate the internet since 2011. It's filled with cranks! Tinribmancer (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say that Google was for it. I knew they were against it; it will be expensive for them, ruinous for anyone without their size and presence. I meant only to point out that it will have the result of concentrating power in the major players, and make it impossible for anybody who isn't already a Google or Facebook to host user generated content. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

One can dislike the political censorship of google and agree with opposition of article 13. The positions aren't exclusive to each other. It's called nuance. You should try it. Chad Chieftain (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

World's oldest joke[edit]

"This is something that hasn't happened since time immemorial, a young woman farting on her husband's lap." - almost three thousand year old low-brow Sumerian joke recorded in cuneiform, source. Oxyaena Harass 23:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

pretty sure flinging ya shit at someone is older AMassiveGay (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
"Yo momma so fat she tried to go for a swim in the Euphrates and blocked the whole river." Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 00:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
If true, and I have looked around, and I endorse it as a really old joke. I hate to be the one to explain the joke, but I kinda do that. It's a very good joke. It calls itself out as impossible, then notice it's referencing a taboo that is kind of set on different expectations of gender, but hits a reality that everyone must agree on, then it gets gnarly with the taboo happening right there in the only possible audience's lap. So it sets it up as an impossibility. Then, the thing that is taboo happens. But it doesn't only happen, it happens in a way that is unbelievable and relatable in an active sense. It's pretty good, very brief, very sarcastic, I don't know, it hits a lot of points and I see the biggest hit for the phrasing is Reddit. It's either the oldest joke ever told or it's made up. Either way, good joke. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The first real joke was Remulus's idea for naming this cool new city. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Just "Remus". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Subsequent oldest jokes - 'How to create a God/religion that will #really annoy' our descendants', 'Monuments to puzzle our descendants' and 'Various ways of writing "X was here" and "Y is a Z (and not a very good one at that" and similar in whatever fancy scripts which will keep the professors of Stone Age University (revived 53 times) and conspiracy theorists busy for generations to come.' (They are tested on visiting aliens with the intention of baffling them into going away and not impose taxes.) Anna Livia (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Proper forward thinking. I think the punchline is there is no "oldest joke," because all of our history is somewhat a joke and social animals mess around with each other. I mean, watching other herd or pack animals goof around with each other is one of my favorite youtube searches. The idea is that people in the past forced non-sequiturs, I do not think they believed afterlife or religion, at least not enough that they were worried about it. A pyramid means my soul will always be talked about, so what we have is legacy that we HAVE to have ideas about. Why did they build them, how did they build them, who built them? So if it lasts, like a pyramid, it is a joke to us today. Every slave that died building a pyramid was doing because if they didn't they would be killed by somebody who could prove they were more important than said slave. The tricky thing about ideas today is they can be made into currency faster than ideas of the past. Royalty is a natural herd animal concept. Good jokes are, as far as I understand, explicitly human. I'm going to take another look at that, though. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The probe[edit]

So. The findings are in and they are a touch complicated for some. First off a bit of info. The FBI probe was a counter intelliance investigation, not a criminal investigation. This means the primary goal was to locate and plug a potential information leak, not to charge anyone per se. Second, it was not a witch hunt. Anyone who claims it was is a moron who should be slapped upside the head poste haste, as a potential breach of our intelliance network is major problem, to put it mildly. Third, a lack of indictment for criminal conspiracy does not indicate a lack of evidence. With those statements out of the way it appears that while the Trump campaign is heavily implicated in collusion,(and definitely guilty of obstruction) the FBI lacked the smoking gun needed to seek an indictment. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You also can't technically indict a president. You have to impeach them. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Impeachment is a trial, and is only listed as a requirement to remove from office. Indictment, technically, only formally alleges the crime. You're right that a sensible reading of the constitution implies that, but a strict one doesn't. Either way, the only certainty is that the democrats will fuck this up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In other words, since the investigation didn't provide the desired results, now let's move the goalposts so that the investigation's results are not so much relevant anymore. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That paraphrase doesn't make any sense at all, no. That's pretty much just straight nonsense, that not only did no one say, but no said even a vague approximation of. It's like you're out in your field trying to setup a strawman to scare off crows, but you've never seen a picture of a human being, so you laid out a hay-bale on a stick and said "ecce homo". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it’s safe to say the whole Mueller investigation was a huge swing and miss for the Democrats. Millions of taxpayers dollars wasted and 2 years of investigations with nothing connecting Trunp to Russia. Don’t be surprised if this comes back to bite them in 2020. —RWRW (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
there is still the fact that it says russian interference in the election did happen though. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"I think it’s safe to say the whole Mueller investigation was a huge swing and miss for the Democrats. Millions of taxpayers dollars wasted and 2 years of investigations with nothing connecting Trunp to Russia." It's almost as if you barfed up talking points WITHOUT READ A GODSDAMNED WORD I WROTE YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC TWERP!!!!!! HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW DANGEROUS MOTHERFUCKING INTEL LEAK IS!!?!? GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC AND DIE YOU DUMBASS DIPSHIT. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is to be expected from RWRW. His mind-bending defense of Brexit despite it being against his own principles, that fundamental human rights should not be subject to a simple-majority vote, was simply stunning (User talk:RWRW/Archive1#Commons Vote). Bongolian (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
he doesnt have any principles. he just trots out the party line. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this was a waste, the purpose of an investigation is to determine if a crime was committed and just because it has not shown the president committed a crime that's what they found. The purpose was not to find him guilty if they don't find evidence of guilt, that would actually be a witch hunt. So we did not get Trump a loss and he got a new talking point win, that's the reality we live in and while I'd like for him to be gone that doesn't change just how important legitimate unbiased justice is now more than ever.

Trump has done so many horrible things that it's not like there's no more criticisms or things to investigate. This wasn't going to drop his approval ratings down enough that impeachment wouldn't backfire like Clinton's, people had already made up their mind sadly. Nancy Pelosi is probably pretty right in saying that stopping policy, taking seats, and the election are the way to remove or mitigate Trump. That said I'm pretty devistated that we did not get the pee tape, the potential future release has been something getting me through tough times. Eponymous (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I fucking write down a motherfucking bipartisan summation of this investigation, the results are the facts and nothing but. I expect you dumbass shits to have the brainpower to understand how the spy games work, though apparently that was too generious. No, you have to barf cup the excuses a bunch of over-hyped halfwits spew out to cover their own asses, all the while demonizing people who are doing the national scale equivlent of figure out who, if anyone, is selling your passwords on Craigslist. YOU FUCKING MORONS DON'T FUCKING DESERV TO FUCKING LIVE!!!!! FUCKIGN DIE!!! PLEASE PUT GUN TO YOUR FUCKING HEADS PULL THE FUCKING TRIGGER!!! FUCK THIS BULLSHIT!! LET'S FUCKING GO FULL TRANSPARENT AND SEE HOW THAT SHIT TURNS OUT!! OH WIAT< YOU DON"T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THAT AS LONG AS THE FUCKING DEMS LOSE AN OVERHYPED POULARITY CONTENST!!! ALL OF YOU TRUMP FANS ARE FUCKING OVERSIZED INFANTS!!! LEARN OR DIE!! tired of this shit... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Venting on the internet isn't good for your psyche. Please try not posting all caps, it just serves to detract from whatever point you want to make and causes people to not focus on the argument but on the tone of it, or leading to more frustration on your part. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Soldiers served their country, now it is time for their country to serve them[edit]

I consider myself to be patriotic and I support military. Now, because of my support for the military it is only right for soldiers to get any help they need. Veterans deserve to be housed and get counseling. It pisses me off that plenty of politicians and rich people sweep veterans under the rug. Not saying nobody else needs help, this is merely an example. Help the needy --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

there are similar issues in the uk. it is not so much a question of 'deserving', its a question of 'needing'. if you are in crisis, you are need - it makes no difference what your life story is. you get into a quagmire of the 'deserving poor' that route. what help available should be given on the basis of need, no one should get preferential treatment. clearly if there is a particular issue with ex-service men in crisis then the armed forces, with their resources, can and should do more to prepare their personnel for civilian life in the first place. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Things in the United States are different, I can't speak for the UK but veterans are consistently cheated out of benefits. If a veteran needs help they get screwed. Just stating what happens here in the US. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
'Murican patriotism seems to be all about saluting the troops and giving them 30 percent off at Applebees, but if they actually need some help, screw 'em. An ordinary human man (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@4gnomesinatrenchcoat Sad but true. People make sacrifices for their country but when these people need help, they get screwed. The VA Hospitals are plane ole nightmares for example. I come from a military family and it sickens me that these brave people get screwed by asshole politicians who never served. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@4gnomesinatrenchcoat @Rationalzombie94 Not really true. Giving people discounts, pensions, and scholarships helps them financially. As for healthcare, some reform has already been introduced. Furthermore, the military budget of 2018 gave service members higher salaries. Read more here. Nerd (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
There is some care, don't get me wrong, but there are some definite problems with the system. An ordinary human man (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@4gnomesinatrenchcoat Agreed. Perhaps the problem would be fixed with a single-payer universal healthcare system. Everyone pays for everyone's healthcare. Nerd (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd Yes. Single-Payer health care would benefit us all. An ordinary human man (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
i dunno how things go in the US but, as i said, there are similar issues in the UK and it is not solely about access to healthcare. long term suppport for veterans afflicted with combat ptsd and related mental health is sorely lacking. Apparently for reservists its even worse. [7] AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Veterans problems by and large seem to be symptoms of nation-wide societal problems that affect pretty much everyone who isn't rich. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


As for the homeless vets trope, there are so many homeless vets only because there are so many vets. Vets tend to be homeless at the same rate as the general public. The Viet Nam situation was different, having the complication of McNamara's Morons. Basically, McNamara created "Project 100,000", where he rounded up the people previously rejected by the military for being too incompetent for whatever reason, and shoved them in there anyway, because why have the richest "best and brightest" die when you could have less important people die in their place? But as any military guy knows, incompetent soldiers might as well be working for the enemy and the project was absolutely despised by everyone other than McNamara, but that's not relevant to the issue. Point is, the people that were forced to go to Nam were on average at higher risk of homelessness and other problems than the average person even before the draft. And now you know! CoryUsar (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
that might all be true for vietnam vets, but in the uk none of that is true. what is true is that the nature of the job can be pretty horrific and ex servicemen are put on civvie street with next to no counselling or long term help. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
even without seeing action, leaving a highly regimented life where a lot of are taken care of for you to civilian life can be a shock to the system. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, going from a structure that says if you're sick or injured, you're ordered to go somewhere that will take care of it to a structure that says if you're sick or injured, figure out for yourself if you're sick or injured, find a doctor yourself and then manage the paperwork yourself and then file the paperwork yourself and follow up on it yourself. The civilian health-care system in the US is daunting. It's hard enough for civilians to perform all those tasks when the bills pile up and there's no one to tell you what to do about it. If we want to solve the veteran health-care crisis, we have to make health-care for civilians accessible like the military does. Which means state-funded, to start. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett’s charges dropped, angering mayor and police[edit]

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/arts/television/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped.html

"The state’s attorney’s office said in a statement, “After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case,” including Mr. Smollett’s performance of community service and an agreement to forfeit his $10,000 bond payment, “we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution.” In an interview later, Joe Magats, the prosecutor who made the decision, said there had been no problems with the evidence or the police investigation into Mr. Smollett. He also noted that Mr. Smollett had no previous criminal record and said that dropping the charges “didn’t exonerate him.”"

Thinker(unlicensed) 11:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

you know what else it doesnt do? prove guilt. you are transparent. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh please, we all know he did it. 2601:CA:8200:34A:A07B:D858:AB8E:7E12 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
prove it then AMassiveGay (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure there was a legitimate reason for dropping the case, there usually is. Still, I'm certain that what he said isn't totally accurate. There were some definite inconsistencies. An ordinary human man (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
i'm sure you are certain. how justifiably certain though. on what basis are you certain? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What's weird is that part of the deal the prosecutors agreed to was that Jussie isn't compelled to admit guilt. So his legal team still insists on his innocence. Meanwhile, it doesn't seem like the prosecutors have explained themselves at all. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
It's possible they simply can't prove he did it. Either because he didn't do it, or there isn't enough evidence. — Dysk (contribs) 13:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
And assuming he did, a $10,000 fine is a perfectly reasonable punishment for what he was accused of. I've always had an issue with making it a crime to lie to the government, anyways. It ought instead to be part of the job description. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 14:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm certain because:

1. Jussie claimed that the racists recognized him from the show "empire." Why would a racist watch that show to the point where they could recognize an actor, in no makeup, at night. 2. He said that, after having bleach dumped on him and a noose tied around his neck, he kept it on so the police would "see what they did to him." This makes zero sense. If an unknown chemical was dumped on your shirt as part of an attack, in the FREEZING cold, you would take off your shirt as soon as you could. 3. The whole attack feels very "Hollywood." He was jumped, in the dead of night, by two racists, in MAGA hats, who tied a noose around him... sounds like a plot in "Law and Order," not a real crime. 4. He claimed that, in a night with record, even deadly cold, he was walking to a restaurant. Why? Why would he not order takeout or drive there? 5. The "racists" who attacked him were two brothers, who he knew, who were black, who had worked on Empire. 6. In several interviews, he claimed that he saw nothing of the attack. However, when he was shown grainy footage of two men walking, he said he had "No doubt it was them." How? That's all. Again, I don't disagree with the charges getting dropped, and I'm sure there's a reason. I'm just saying that the attack was almost certainly staged. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

so your certainty is based on a bunch of bullshit assumption. that is complete dog shit. what we 'know' is smollett took a beating, and these two brothers say they did it. everything else conjecture based upon our prejudices. they could have just beaten him cause they are huge homophobes and just using racist maga types as a cover. i dont 'know' this but its as likely an explanation as any other. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is (and this has been common for a *lot* of things lately) it's going to be difficult to figure out what "the truth" is at this point. At least with items like the Mueller report, there's been enough "side shenanigans" that you definitely get a picture of "something rotten" within the works (with criminal charges filed, or guilty please extracted, against Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, Alex Van Der Zwaan, a bunch of Russian hackers, and probably a couple I missed). Even if there wasn't enough evidence to indict others of anything (and all the whining going on about that), that's not an insignificant list. With the Jussie case, there's even more uncertainty, because the stories frankly have been all over the place. Frankly, at this point, I really don't give too many shits about this to really go a-digging. These are celebrity-news shenanigans and they are distracting from more pressing realities. (Want to talk racism? Let's talk about that real legitimate racist that killed 50 people at a mosque in New Zealand just recently.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
its as if trial by media is a fucking awful way to do things. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep. An ordinary human man (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This is murky and I'm guessing the truth is probably a little complicated, and that there is a lot we will never know. It could be that he did it and they decided that their original charges against him wouldn't hold after more investigation, that they went too severe in charging him and that it would be wrong and also bad for optics, or you never know he may have did it but some investigator used the n-word and they wanted to save the justice people the embarrassment of an OJ trail loss.

That said, I've seen a lot of people freaking out in celebration over how this completely clears his name or that this is just another example of the Chicago police trying to cage a black man. This seems really foolish to me to assume the Chicago police would decide to commit a conspiracy with so many points of failure when they could totally just plant a dime bag of cocaine on him. It also means the Chicago police would try to pin or use lying Nigerians as their revealed conspirators - that engineering this fake hate crime hoax isn't made hugely weird and more believable if they say the black celebrity hired black actors to play the white supremacists at his lynching.

At the end of the day the damage done by people now having a talking point when dismissing hate crimes as a biased or illegitimate has already been done, who the guilty party is won't change that even if justice should be served. So we all sort of lost long before the charges were even dropped, and that's kind of sad but hey there's good things going on as well.

Eponymous (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

New conspiracy theory everyone. Chicago police leaders are gay and had an orgy with Smollett. That's why he's getting off Scott-free. Though, in all seriousness, this is actually a clusterfuck of confusion. Tim pool did a story on the chicago police asking the federal government to get involved. I'm convinced he's guilty, but this is just pure nonsense. — Unsigned, by: Normal Dude / talk / contribs

"What's weird is that part of the deal the prosecutors agreed to was that Jussie isn't compelled to admit guilt."
@DuceMoosolini Especially since the prosecutor believes that Smollett is guilty:
CNN Interviewer: Do you think Mr. Smollett did what he was charged with doing?
Prosecutor: Yes, we stand behind the CPD investigation, the great work, the tremendous work they do in investigating this case.
CNN Interviewer: Do you consider him innocent?
Prosecutor: No.
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/03/27/chicago-prosecutor-smollett-not-innocent-sot-nr-vpx.cnn
Thinker(unlicensed) 14:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
still innocent AMassiveGay (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Everybody is innocent until proved guilty, that's hardly news. Since @DuceMoosolini said that he found weird that the deal the prosecutors agreed to doesn't compel Smollett to admit guilty, I replied by saying that it's even weirder since the prosecutor believes that Smollett is guilty. Are you able to add something of interest to that conversation or would you keep repeating "still innocent"? Thinker(unlicensed) 16:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
it bears repeating when people keep insisting on his guilt despite nothing being proved, despite not even going to trial, despite all charges being dropped. have you you anything add beyond being a prick? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"despite nothing being proved, despite not even going to trial, despite all charges being dropped."
Does that sound like a good thing to you? Because if Smollett was attacked then the attackers should be on trial and Smollett should be completely cleared; if Smollett staged the attack then he should be on trial. In neither cases this situation is something positive. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
no it is not a 'positive thing', but neither is the whole trial by media thing that you've been indulging with unseemly glee. if you only werent so fucking transparent about it all AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Quoting the prosecutor is a typical "trial by media" I guess. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Look, just give it up. We know you want black men attacked, then arrested for it. That's your whole goddamn goal in life. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
What the hell is up with ikanreed ? I swear to god he's a skinny twink part of antifa. Is he a super subtle troll or does he believe what he says ? At this point, I can't tell anymore. Normal Dude (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll put it this way: Most major news network sites I sampled (CNN,MSNBC,Fox,BBC,WSJ,Wapo,NYTimes) aren't even putting this as a mid-tier story on their website's front page, which given all the other more important shit going on is just as well. This is by an large a shit celebrity gossip story, not news. (BBC has a small item about today's Trump tweet. Fox News has the shenanigans headlining their "entertainment" section, which is appropriate enough. That's all I can see at the present moment). This is more the territory of TMZ (where this story *is* splashed out in headlines, of course). The major exception to this rule is more "populist" right wing news sources, like Drudge, Newsmax, or *especially* Breitbart. This story is the rage at Breitbart. Several news stories. One item attracted more than 18,000 comments, way higher than the norm. Browsing the Breitbart comments (ew icky), let's just say that there is good reason for ikanreed's suspicion. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"Look, just give it up. We know you want black men attacked, then arrested for it. That's your whole goddamn goal in life."
@Ikanreed Your accusations get more and more preposterous each time. I'm waiting to hear you saying that I attacked Smollett myself. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
You keep saying that like your motives in obsessive conspiracy theories about minorities isn't obvious in character and intent. If you're actually not a white nationalist, you need to stop reading their blogs or at least stop accepting everything you read there without thinking. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
"You keep saying that like your motives in obsessive conspiracy theories about minorities"
@Ikanreed What conspiracy theory about Smollett did I say?
"If you're actually not a white nationalist, you need to stop reading their blogs or at least stop accepting everything you read there without thinking."
I quoted The New York Times and CNN, I didn't know they were white nationalist blogs. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
this all reminds me of a story I took the time to read in the National Inquirer. I said to myself, "I'll never get that time back."Ariel31459 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I just love how any disagreement is a conspiracy theory to Ikanreed and his friends GrammerCommmie and lefty green mario. The left has such blindfolded nature when it comes to conspiracy theories. Look There's no evidence that Trump supporters assaulted Smollet in the middle of a Blizard in CHICAGO. Even other black people are calling him out. I just love how a MAGA kid can smile at a native american and it's treated like the fourth Riech but this questionable event is treated like the Gospel truth. How daft must you be. Also just an FYI The New York Times and CNN are not white nationalist blogs108.208.14.123 (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you value your thoughts but honestly, it's a waste of space, so nice try, random drive by. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually address what I said or your opinion is also a waste of space108.208.14.123 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, look at that contribution history. My bad for responding to you. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really care about this whole media circus, but this should give you a good laugh. https://canoe.com/entertainment/celebrity/jussie-smolletts-lawyer-suggests-attackers-wore-whiteface 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the physics behind evolution and I found this article (and creationists would probably quote mine)[edit]


For the longest time I have been wondering how physics drives evolution. It would have too as evolution and everything else in the universe is bound by the laws of physics. What do you think of the physics based model for evolution and the origin of life? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

So biology is a total mess. I mean, gene expression dictates countless replications of cells in a fairly ordered fashion, somehow. This is a refreshing article, the laws of physics can't be broken in the pursuit of understanding biology. When math takes a look at life, the numbers are required to add up. The premise that entropy and evolution are a package deal definitely excites me, but to think about it means you have to think about energy decay in a way that flies in the face of cells multiplying, and cell reproduction in a way that flies in the face of energy decay. There is always a catalyst that holds enough energy to make it possible. I am always happy to see cross-disciplinary research. Thank you for sharing this Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Evolution does not violate entropy because the only stipulation of entropy is that the *total* amount in a system does not decrease, and will increase if the system is not already homogeneous. Small localised decreases in entropy are fine and actually expected. Life on earth gets a huge amount of energy from the sun, so we have to include the sun and everything it gives energy to (i.e. the solar system) in our definition of the system. The sun is undergoing entropy and will eventually die as it fuses elements to be heavier and heavier (heavier elements give less fusion energy when fused). The total entropy in the solar system is therefore enormous, and the little bit of order caused by biology is insignificant compared to that. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I fucking hate the media[edit]

After the recent events in New Zealand, our media here in France found nothing better to do than inviting far-right "intellectuals", than to defend the theory of the great replacement as a fact (!). When islamist terrorists kill people, the media invites far-right fucks to tell people tha islam is evil, and when muslims are killed, the media invites far-right fucks to tell people that islam is evil. And then in the next elections they'll spend hours explaining why the left wing is actually the same as the far-right. Fuck them all. Diacelium (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a handful of stations or all of them? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Not all of them but enough to be pissed off. Then again, the media don't have a great reputation here. It just feels like they wanted to save these guys' public image for some reason. Diacelium (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah a lot of people believe this great replacement bullshit. It is a shame that the right uncritically believe the very thing that was the foundation for such a heinous mass killing, but they do. — Dysk (contribs) 14:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
"After the recent events in New Zealand, our media here in France found nothing better to do than inviting far-right "intellectuals", than to defend the theory of the great replacement as a fact (!)."
@Diacelium Sources? This doesn't seem like something the France media would do. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
"This doesn't seem like something the France media would do." "The French media", not "the France media" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the Great Replacement Theory is true. There are a lot of facts for this that are plain to see. For example it's very plain to see there are a lot of people could that really do with a replacement education (or even brain!) on the far right. Martin (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

lol you guys are cucked beyond belief Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not a robot[edit]

Why does RationalWiki make itself so hard to edit with this "I am not a robot" stuff? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18A:CC1B:69B1:C26A:B21C:8204 / talk

Spam. All wikis have some form of captcha. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Can we future-proof against the actual sentient robots when they arise at this blatant discrimination? 'I am not an unsentient' would probably suit. Anna Livia (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Not likely because captcha and similar mechanisms are used for bot training. That's why captchas keep getting more difficult. Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Just covering the theoretical possibility - and why not make 'sentience required' explicit for RW? Anna Livia (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Because that would be discriminatory against starfish. Avida Dollarsher again 11:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
And that's a problem because we have so many starfish posting on this-- then again, considering some of what I've read here in the bar... Kencolt (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Did skepticism "lose"?[edit]

It seems like half the people who notably took up the label of "skeptic" on the internet are now some flavor of conspiracy theorists, we went from creationism being the bottom of the barrel religious fundie pseudoscience to flat fucking earth, homeopathy and supplements are a bigger industry than ever, vaccine denial went from potential danger to multiple directly attributable outbreaks of preventable deadly diseases every year. Have we had any victories? It just seems like loss after loss after loss. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"It seems like half the people who notably took up the label of "skeptic" on the internet are now some flavor of conspiracy theorists" - evidence? names? examples?Aloysius the Gaul 23:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, having successfully eradicated smallpox, we are just this close to eradicating polio, right? Three cheers for science and vaccines in particular, let me know when Jenny McCarthy accomplish anything of even 1/1000000th of its importance. Keep in mind that really whack-a-doodle types are "entertaining" to report on, and in this clickbait age their impact can be over-exaggerated. In the US, the number of un-vaccinated babies in 2015, estimated by the CDC, is only 1.3%. The number of kindergartners in 2017-2018 with exemptions, 2.2% Worrisome trendline, and the people that peddle bullshit need to be countered of course, but it's not hopeless. Flat earth and the anti-vax crowd are still fringe. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

its because 'skeptic' as word has a colloquial usage that is devoid of any formal meaning or usage. it makes it easy to steal your clothes AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I tell myself that, but I don't know. TAA was a mover in skeptic circles for a while, e.g. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The popular understanding of 'skeptic' is not 'scientific rationalist' but 'doubter'; thus you hear about 'climate change skeptics' and so forth. King Usage has spoken here, and attempting to reclaim the word probably is a losing battle over an empty symbol. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I was excluding that kind of abuse. I'm referring people who called themselves "skeptics" in the broad sense of movement skeptics, then went on to spout pure nonsense. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Well, the answer to that question relies on answering another; against what did "skepticism" fight? As Soundwave points out, Flat Earth and ant-vaxxers are relatively fringe belief systems, and the edifice of traditional religious institutions are collapsing. While the skeptic movement is not as prominent as it once was, in the earliest days of the wiki, that's because other movements have risen. So, if the traditional foes of the skeptic movement are gone or are losing, then to whom did it lose? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, my perception of its enemies was misinformation that hurts people. And I feel like there's more of that than ever before. Sometimes overwhelmingly much to even consider, much less actively fight. And while I do acknowledge the crumbling edifices of religion, I think they have yielded "not religious but spiritual" new-agism not genuinely enlightened search for truth. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

the 'skeptic movement' has always been filled with egregious arsholes - TAA is a case in point. its a very a broad church. people can be skeptical, in the formal, scientific sense, about one thing in particular and even gain recognition as a skeptic of that thing, but are markedly less skeptical about other topics while maintaining they absolutely are in all things and it is you who are irrational for even questioning them. after all they have a degree in engineering - they 'know' about vaccines. its such a broad church i see little in attaching yourself to such movements. but im suspicious of all such movements and labels. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

To build on what you're saying, I'd say that this is why the skeptical movement self-destructed in the early part of the decade. First, many people naively thought that the crazies were defeated for good, and second, the biases and unfounded beliefs of a lot of the movement's own rank-and-file, including some of its leading figures, came in for criticism, and they lashed out. I think a big part of the problem was that much of the skeptical movement's growth in the 2000s came down not just to principled secularists and rationalists who wanted to push back against woo, but people who were involved solely to stick it to fundamentalist religion, without concern for challenging unfounded belief systems in other areas of society — including some that they themselves might have believed in. It turned out that the common enemy of the Christian Right was the only thing holding the movement together, and once that had fallen from power, the movement splintered along political and cultural lines. (The same thing, I believe, happened to New Atheism.) Without it, the woomeisters came crawling right back, this time by latching onto populism to claim that the skeptics were upholding the "official" version of the truth, the one sanctioned by the government, big business, academia, and the elite, and that they would help you break free of the Matrix, man! And ironically, many of these folks had themselves formerly been part of the skeptical movement, only to, like both you and I said, turn against it once it was their pseudoscience that was being challenged. (See: how they turned against Bill Nye for defending transgender rights and climate science.) KevinR1990 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Very good points, I know I thought the crazies had to be finished when the internet became a household thing. I lived on AOL chatrooms and Encarta CDs. I got my dumbass kid ideas handed to me constantly in chatrooms. I am mortified to see the thought leaders are informed by YouTube, where it matters less what you stand for and more of how you present it. The skeptics don't have the solutions, they just know what doesn't work. There's value in that, but my not-real-God, why would you listen to somebody who tells you on their YouTube channel how it won't work for 3 years? I could tell you how it won't work for free, no ad revenue, no subscription needed. Skepticism got co-opted, skepticism isn't an ideology, it's an important facet of basic fucking thinking. If your identity is that you're a skeptic, well fucking... fine. What else do you do? Resident nihilist here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how mainstream young people are embracing creationism these days from computers at their public schools? What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Both those IPs contribution histories have them vandalizing and even blanking pages. Can you not link such drivel? Darwinism -> Autismism lmao owned the libs. Fuck me. Féinléiriú (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else on Spring Break right now?[edit]

Anyone else wish it wasn't over? Public School Girl (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I want to go to University soon. But a lot of things in my way... Also, as soon as I get the chance, it is time to convert to Roman Catholicism. God bless you! Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I actually went here when I was a little girl. Public School Girl (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kingdamian1 that sounds great. I’ve also been wanting to join a denomination for a while. It won’t be Catholisim though, too many ideological differences. —RWRW (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah while Catholicism comes off as the most sane as of late (re: science and global warming), they are also the most rapey and I feel they abuse their position as a sort of state to provide sanctuary to those accused. Féinléiriú (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thats not entirely true. other denominations have been just as rapey. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The main reason I don't like organised religions. — Dysk (contribs) 21:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I just entered my Spring Break. Oxyaena Harass 21:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I would rather Break Spring. All the damn pollen flying around aggravates my sinuses and eyes. And these days, you do not want to see me in a swimsuit. Kencolt (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just entered my Spring Break, which is why I was able to propose the Reddit Reclamation Project. Also, I'll try and help with a few of my pet projects. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Mine's not for another two weeks. An ordinary human man (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Spring break was the second week of March for me. I'm still getting used to the odd vacation schedule of college. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 22:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones deposition on Sandy Hook[edit]

Part I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7siWJ86g40

Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XES-AydpIoc

It could contain material for the page on Alex Jones. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't view the videos, but the key quote (which I added to the page), as per a Slate review would seem to be: "I, myself, have almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I'm now learning a lot of times things aren't staged."[8] This is an official deposition to the court, so it seems rather lame-assed given that Jones' lawyer presumably had some harsh words with him before the videos were made. Is he making a medical claim that would allow expert medical witnesses in a trial? Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, but if that is his lawyer defense strategy, then at the end of the first video the accuser made Jones a big favor: he listed many of the conspiracies in which Jones believes, giving a perfect picture of a psychotic person. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
psychosis seems to be quite broad, even with a strict medical sense. are you psychotic if you believe the lies you are regurgitating? can we send everyone who believes some conspiracy theory or other for mental health assessments? has alex jones ever looked not psychotic? outside of his own case, what do we do with it? what do his supporters do with it, or supporters of the shite he sells? i'm sure we would say hes a loon and we've been saying it for years. the supporters will say its not crazy if its the truth.
psychosis is the american psyche, and it is self perpetuating AMassiveGay (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I watched the two videos, and Alex Jones mentioned psychosis only briefly, only two times. I don't think that psychosis is his defense. What he repeated more and more is that he was reporting anomalies, he seek for truth, and he made mistakes... that to me seems his primary defense. What I found strange is that the accusing lawyer spent almost all the time to show that Jones believes absurdities, that he was wrong, and that the methods of Infowars don't stand any reasonable standard of journalism... OK, but that's a lawsuit for defamation, that times could have been used to show the damage Jones caused to the families of the victims of Sandy Hook. Maybe he will focus on that in the next depositions. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Psychosis may be a defense in a criminal trial, but I don't think it necessarily works in civil cases? He's already tried the "Alex Jones is a fictional character" defense[9] so he's running out of excuses. --Annanoon (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A Massive Gay, Yah right. What about the Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists? 17:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs
What about them? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a convoluted version of the insanity defence. I could be wrong, though. You never know with the guy. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 01:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ascetic Woo[edit]

There are quite a few films which revolve around something I call Ascetic Woo, the idea that by being subjected to lifelong pain and misery one will obtain special powers, or traumatic events will trigger dormant power. I've seen in it M. Night Shyamalan's Split, Carrie, possibly Powder, Star Wars e.g. the Dark Side, Red Dragon and X-Men e.g. Magneto.

I think this idea has a long history, from the harsh asceticism of early Christianity and Hinduism, described extensively in the Mahabharata and justified in Christianity because of mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth.

Most religions endorse a wee bit of asceticism, with some seeing it as a permanent phase, going so far as to make their afterlife ascetic and seeing it as not only a means to an end (closer to God), but as the end itself (holy life). Then there are the others who see it as only a means to an end, whether that be superhuman abilities or as a way to attract spirits. The Kwatiutl and Spartans are the latter, though for the Spartans no woo was involved.

Is there anything to it? What is the reasoning behind the type you see in Split? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

not seen the film, but i think you should be wary about expecting any great truths to be revealed by hollywood movies. asceticism as presented in these kind of flicks is basically that characters are 'driven' and focused to such a degree that all that they do is to one singular end. everything else is weakness, effete, and the worlds of cinema going public is decadent, in opposition to characters nietzschean ideal.
outside of religion, it boils down to what you personally feel is 'important' and how well that is reflected in the values of society at large. everytime you go to the gym, try to eat healthy, try to be more 'productive', is some level asceticism for the purpose of some ideal or some physical need. constant binging on drugs and crappy foods, overindulgation, over spending on 'trivialities' - some check on our baser instinct is required or we would not last very long. some go further, new agey types might try being monk, give up the trappings of modern western life. its usually pretty harmless.
there is puritanical streak that is more harmful. it manifests itself complaining of the music of today, the vacuous reality tv shows, fashion. modern life has become fatally decadent, and everything they dislike is further evidence of our decline. there are so many gays because we dont eat a meat only diet. uppity minorities are ruining civilisation because weak snowflakes are soft and are unable to stand up for what is right. this decadence is why they themselves are failing - it is society's weakness, not theirs.
the ideals are unrealistic. they hark back to a past that never was. it is a fear of a future that will never be. a fear they are losing. it scapegoats and seeks to destroy others rather than build and improve themselves or the world. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it comes from narrative design and not any native woo. Torment provides a good character backing for a power fantasy story. "You attacked me, but now I have grown, now I have the ability to stop you" is a really effective narrative device. It sets up the reader to empathize with the main character, provides them a motive for their future use of the power, and then immediately gives way to rising action as our plucky, suddenly powerful protagonist starts easily overcoming narrative obstacles.
It's not really different from Bilbo finding the ring, and gaining confidence and a material advantage that lets him resolve the spider plot, having previously run away from every other physical threat in the story. The difference this trope provides is that it lets the early challenges to the character literally, rather than figuratively, become their new ability to overcome obstacles.
The conventional follow up, if you're trying to continue to ride the easy narrative device train, is to have arrogance about their newfound power cost them something important. Peter Parker letting Uncle Ben die, e.g. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Does this prove solipsism?[edit]


I can't help but feel like the guy says that there is no physical reality and that it's all just in your mind and that science proves it.Machina (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Since according to solipsism, from my perspective, you don't exist. And from your perspective, I don't exist. And from both our perspectives, HE doesn't exist. So... who cares what he says? Kencolt (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
But apparently it mentions something about how all experiences arise when a sense organ is stimulated and all we can verify is the experience and not the object. It's like one of the first three paragraphs.
Very good, we're in my territory now. Proving solipsism is, well, kind of a redundant endeavor, since you're the one who needs the proof, according to solipsism. I don't think you're asking for "proof" of solipsism, and I don't think you're asking for proof of "solipsism." But I'll try to break it down anyway. Solipsism is what, the idea that only a single perspective exits, and it is ME. So anything you do is only valid in the sense that I-me-I perceive it. It is up to ME to deliver MY judgement on the things I perceive, and this is an inherent trait of my existence. I can afford this to the rest of existence if I choose, but this is where solipsism eats the big dick. Physics dictates a lot of things, including MY brain and the chemicals that move through it. So where solipsism is distasteful, it makes a very good point about our perceptions and their validity. If we want to judge the world, to perceive the world, there is only one lens through which we can do so, our own. Agree with Solipsism there. However to stop at our own lens, regarding how much information gets funneled into that lens, it is pointless and useless to call information you will never perceive existential if it never reaches your lens. To borrow a line, as a nihilist, I just take it one lens further. EDIT: That kinda petered off. The point I'm making is that solipsism doesn't get it wrong. I think we can recognize biology and physics and mathematical truths, but I think we also have to sacrifice our concepts of valid perceptions for it. We already choose what is valid, like solipsists. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
That didn’t really answer my question or address the article.Machina (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

i'm sure we covered all this during the 'what is the body' thread, earlier. whether true or not, it useless information. we can do nothing with it and it has no effect on us. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Also, why not take a step further? "nullipsism"! One cannot be even certain about his own existence! Thinker(unlicensed) 11:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
And... that one doesn't work. If nothing else, Descartes was right about one thing... "I think, therefore I am". Solipsism argues that that is the only thing anyone can be certain of. To think of the notion that "I do not exist" is self-contradictory, inasmuch as something-- you-- had to exist to think of the idea that you don't. Kencolt (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
"If nothing else, Descartes was right about one thing... "I think, therefore I am"."
@Kencolt A "nullipsist" would argue that it depends a lot on the definition of "I" and "think". For example, a character in a novel "thinks" that he has to do certain actions to save the day, but he does not exists. How can one be sure of not being a character in a novel? At the end, those are all unverifiable hypotheses... Thinker(unlicensed) 21:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

None of this is answering my question. I am asking if it does or does not prove it.Machina (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Not at all. It doesn't say that there is nothing real outside of your own mind.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
are you sure? Because he makes it seem that what we take to be a solid body is really just a series of conscious events that we cobble into a coherent body. He even mentions the bit about cognitive science saying all experience arises when consciousness is stimulated by a sense organ in response to stimuli.Machina (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
ok lets look at that shall we. if we agree that our notions of the world around us is formed after processing our responses to stimuli. this does NOT prove there is no physical reality. all it does, and can ever do, is say we can not be and never be certain of what the physical world entails as we can only see an abstraction of it subjective formed in our brains.
i'm not going to pick apart everything this guy said in his blog as i already did the last time you asked this exact question, linking the exact same page a short while ago. everything over above that uncertainty of what we see is informed by his religious views and not cold logic or biological science.
there is nothing to be learned from this question. there is no answer that can be given that should effect any part of your life or anyone elses. it does not matter if what see is unambiguously real, an abstraction or a fantasy. it is all we have to work with and you will need some pretty compelling reasons to ignore your own senses. the question is a dead end. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

BUt what about the science that he cites for support?Machina (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Science cannot establish the non-existence of reality. To perform a scientific experiment one proceeds with tests while assuming reality exists under controlled conditions. AMassiveGay has got it exactly right. Solipsism is a non-falsifiable philosophy. It is independent of science. It is independent of everything outside of your own mind. You simply assume it is true, like assuming there is a God, it is done without evidence. You can describe why you are persuaded, but none of the reasons can be regarded as scientific. Science tests reality. Solipsists assume there is no reality, so none of the test results would mean anything, since, if you were a solipsist, you yourself would have invented them.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get a little more antithetical here, and maybe this will help. First, my bias. I don't think Machiina is giving us this article to prove solipsism, rather to ask us to disprove solipsism. Which I've already stated I cannot do. The situation that we're in, where we're supposed to answer to the scientific notions of an essay that is absent of science, I admit it makes for a dull read and a difficult answer. It's a Buddhist apologist, the premise is faulty, the conclusion is faulty, but the ability to fall back until we've reached some impregnable fortress of singular perception is, well, unfalsifiable, and I'm just as guilty of what I'm saying doesn't exactly exist as the author of the essay. Just, this is a really weird essay. "Contemporary cognitive science agrees." I mean, a blog is not pressed for time, why invoke contemporary science without noting it? I'm all for contemplating our consciousness and giving meaning to our thoughts and desires, and I especially appreciate a collaborative effort in that sense. What I don't like is appropriating, invoking, or claiming the scientific method when you don't use it. Not to say I'm not guilty of my impregnable fortress of perception being in respects unfalsifiable. But this essay kind of sucks, and the science invoked in it is implied. If this is a clever trap, I'm caught, because it is really difficult to string philosophers' ideas together, and solipsism is kind of cousin to sophistry in that respect. However, it is really easy to hijack science just to spout your own sophistry. It's even easier to just claim you've hijacked science to do so. I think that's the best this essay has done, even if it's written with good pacing. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
i dont think the article is at 'fault' here. its not making any scientific claims here. its an article about buddhist themes using some pop science to illustrate, in a buddhist magazine, with an intended audience, i expect, of buddhists. if your a budddhist and already onboard, or just interested in buddhism im sure its a fine resource. if you're neither of those things, its probably of limited use. there isnt any trickery or dishonesty here - its a religious piece. i can go along with it so far, can see the logic, but it is clear where it starts to make leaps. where you can 'see' where something might be true or have some validity, you still need be aware it is underpinned by and to further a buddhist point of view.
@machina - i'm not sure what your goals are here or with similar posts you've made, but for the subject matter, the sources you sometimes provide as links seem... less than helpful. there seems to some smart folk here, with some grounding in those subject, i'm sure they could point you to some better resources for you. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Battling a Creationist, Send Help[edit]

So on social media I asked a Creationist What is preventing a successive series of changes induced by micro-E from forming a new species?

His reply after a dodging the question and me re-asking was The recent discoveries of the vast catalogue of functions attributed to 'junk DNA' include turning off and on alleles, limiting gene expression in protein manufcturing, and acting as a component to a system of feedback which creates lateral limits of expression of nucleotides.

I don't specialise in this field, so what is your reply to this? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Tell him he's evading the issue and is a coward for doing so. Press him on that single question you asked, Bob, don't waver. Don't let the slippery bastard wiggle through. @BobRoss. Oxyaena Harass 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
But isn't his reply his answer? I was looking for any information he may have left out or a refutation. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not his answer, it's an evasion. He's shifting the goalposts, don't let him. Oxyaena Harass 22:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
They are describing epigenetics, a real phenomenon. The trick of that one is to ask him if thinks mutations are real and part of his defintion of "microevolution". If he says no, there's ample research demonstrating that mutations occur, and thus something he relegated to the "impossible" macroevolution is real. If he says yes, then it's a non-expression based method of inheritance of new genes that "we can focus our discussion on for how evolution occurs, while acknowledging epigenetics is a real field". That's the most honest and fair way to question his assertion. Honest and fair generally doesn't work with creationists, but my two cents. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
"Battling" a creationist is pointless, and possible even harmful. It will only entrench their positions about "religious atheists". They will have to discover the truth on their own (but unfortunately most don't). Martin (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
People making good arguments is what pulled me out of the southern baptist church. I would say 'religious atheists' do a lot of good. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
In all honesty, it is just not worth your time. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
He hasn't responded, typical. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing more about that MirrorIrorriM, but in general I'd say there's a difference between "battling a creationist" and making good arguments. "Battling" sounds very confrontational to me, and in my personal observations it doesn't seem very effective (I don't have any research on hand to prove this), which is different from making a good argument/case available and then letting people discover that on their own. Martin (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Martin "Battling" was a hyperbole. I was asking him a question in response to something he said about evolution, he dodged a few times, gave an answer, and then ran off. He still hasn't answered my latest response and now it's over. No insults or ad hominem were used by either of us. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't intend to imply that you were resolving to personal attacks @BobRoss, but it does sound – and correct me if I'm wrong – you're looking to prove the creationist wrong, or to "score a zinger" against them. This, I think, is not especially constructive. In my own discussions/conversations about such topics I generally try to just explain my viewpoint and where I'm coming from, so that there can at least be some understanding and respect. That on its own, is already a good win, and it's the start for people to actually *listen* to what you're saying. Martin (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

tone down"[edit]

Can Rartionalwiki tone down the snark? It can offend people — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18A:CC1B:69B1:C26A:B21C:8204 / talk

I presume this is meant to be a new section (but I am not certain who by).
RW runs on snark and offending certain categories of people deliberately and others occasionally and accidentally. Anna Livia (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Concern Troll --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

So much for the tolerant left. /s Féinléiriú (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
We're not particularly tolerant towards anyone. Left, Right, Up, Down, somewhere to the south of Santa or north of Penguin Country-- if it's dumb we're ready with barrels loaded with snark and aimed at the less than well thought out. Not that we all agree by any means on which qualifies for targethood, but in general if it's less than scientific or more than a little authoritarian, there's a good chance it's sporting a bull-eye. Kencolt (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Lol you have such a high opinion of yourself. Elie Weasel (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course I do. I have to. No-one else will. Kencolt (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You are confused - tolerance doesn't mean being uncritical. More than happy to tolerate lots of things - all the more to snark at.Aloysius the Gaul 02:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
RW is tolerant of anyone willing to broadly abide by the rules of engagement, and regular participants probably have a far wider range of beliefs than is displayed on RW. Anna Livia (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This is becoming an issue. It should be clarified. It seems increasingly only tolerated in mainspace, but not in discussion. While snark is what makes RW fun and interesting, perhaps some clarification is needed. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course, but there's a line between snarking and being an asshole. You of all people should know this, Nobs. Oxyaena Harass 12:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Carl Sagan running off with an alien[edit]

Just thought the page could use something more light-hearted after all the trolls: run Carl, run! Towards-the Unknown (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why has America changed?[edit]

When I was a kid, though I came from a leftish family, we were very pro-America. My mother had friends who were G.I.brides, my sister got a scholarship to California when she was 19, I had an exchange at 16 to Chicago and married a Texan girl, later killed in Houston in a storm at 21. I have tosay, though, that the Americans I come across in social media are a different breed from the good-hearted, open-handed fighters of fascism who were are family friends in the 1960s. So what changed? Was it Ronald Rayguns, the post 1980 decline of the US economy or has there always been an underclass of know-nothing shit-heads who are emerging from the Black Lagoon?? — Unsigned, by: Oscarweird / talk / contribs

It's just the pattern of the rise of right wing groups/parties after a recession and it's happening all over Europe too. Every recession needs a scapegoat. In America it's those pesky Latinos, in Europe it's them pesky Arabs and north Africans and our liberal elite European Union. Notice how for the most part the scapegoat is often poorer and more vulnerable than your average person. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
When the rich and powerful screw up badly, they blame someone or something else. When the Great Depression hit and Germany was in economic ruin, blame was given to everyone else. It is simple yet a successful way to shift blame. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@talk That's a gross oversimplification. If anything it's based on the sudden influx of arab and african migrants (Thanks Merkel) and their subsequent increase of rape, child rape, murder, stabbings, acid attacks, etc etc. I also don't know what Oscarweird means by "Post 1980 decline of the us economy." Is he referencing the growing inequality and the shrinking middle class ? If so, he should shift (some) of the blame on bush's failed wars. I can't comment any further by what he means by the decline of the us economy. (Reagan was a bit of cuck tbf). Chad Chieftain (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

just fully redacted, I think I engaged a troll, and I'm not happy about it Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty funny tbf that in reply to me saying immigrants are scapegoated he blames the immigrants. Féinléiriú (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Rationalzombie: Recessions are caused by rich people? Duh. Recessions and depressions are caused by technological advance. Some firms employing people are on the cutting edge of innovation, requiring less workers. They become more efficient and deliver goods and services at less costs, creating a rising living standard to all. They survive. Others cling to outmoded forms of production, become increasingly inefficient, and get washed out in recessions. A recession comes down to simple supply and demand; when demand for workers in outmoded industries falls, people get laid off. Ask anyone who worked in a VCR factory. Rationalzombie, you've been brainwashed by Marxist hate speech. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That is a cause of unemployment, not necessarily a recession. The last recession the literally caused by Banks betting?(insuring I guess?) on mortgages that they knew were failing and generally fiddling with the books and misleading buyers. Féinléiriú (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
In Ireland pre 2007 housing was all the rage and banks were giving finance to developers to build large housing estates. They both flooded the market and built houses where no one wanted houses. The developers couldn't pay their loans. The most careless banks collapsed, because banks lend people's savings the government had to bail out the banks to prevent hundreds of thousands of people's savings poofing into thin air, cause a strain on government finances. The banks that survived went to town on any surviving customer who could pay, causing a strain on them financially. Everyone has less money in the end. At the same time Poland entered the schengen area and for a time polish immigrants where seen as the cause of the lack of jobs, rather than a fucked financial market.(People have gotten used to them now, every town has at least one polski sklep). So now it's Arabs and north Africans that are blamed when it is actually the banks that modern life is very dependent on. I dunno I don't do business but that was the gist of it here. Féinléiriú (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There's no single factor. Economic disinvestment of individuals from the success of social institutions is a big one though. It's bred the distrust of institutions, public and private, that's grown since the 1980s from present to omnipresent. For complex reasons, it's hard for me to see a recovery without the complete and total annihilation of the conservative movement as it exists today. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"...Americans I come across in social media are a different breed...from...family friends in the 1960s...So what changed?" The internet, where you can be a belligerent ass with little or no consequences. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
As a belligerent ass, I resent your callous association of me with the internet. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a study or something recently that claimed that 2 in 7 men in their 20's have not had sex in the past 12 months, an all time high, and it's trending up. Keep in mind this includes married men and men with girlfriends. For a large number of these men, the reasons (in their mind, true or not) are that feminism and gay rights have turned many otherwise willing women into lesbians, that the same few men are porking all of the women, that it's mostly male refugees coming in to the western world and as they find wives/girlfriends that's fewer to go around, or all of the above. Thus, the rise in the alt-right, a group of homophobic (or at least lesbo-phobic) MRA racists. CoryUsar (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Repayment of investigation for false police report[edit]


"Dear Mr. Smollett,

The City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department take seriously those who make false statements to the police, thereby diverting resources from other investigations and undermining the criminal justice system. On January 29, 2019, you made a police report in which you falsely claimed that two men had attacked you while yelling racial and homophobic slurs. [...] Ultimately, the Chicago police investigation revealed that you knowingly filed a false police report and had in fact orchestrated you own attack.

In an attempt to resolve this matter without further legal action, the City requires immediate payment of the $130,106.15 expended on overtime hours in the investigation of this matter. Please submit a money order or certified cashier's check payable to "City of Chicago" to the following address within seven (7) days of the date of this letter [March 28, 2019]"

The clock is ticking, we'll see. Thinker(unlicensed) 11:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what kind of law they cited in support of this demand. I am still wondering. I suspect this demand is the result of sour grapes on the part of the police department. Ordinaruly, members of the public are not liable for using the police department's time. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It reads like a Nigerian email. 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön "I was wondering what kind of law they cited in support of this demand. I am still wondering."
Well... It's written in the letter: Municipal Code of Chicago 1-21-101. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops, all double jeopardy! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
it doesnt give a great message to victims of crime to suggest that reporting a crime will cost you. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"Oops, all double jeopardy!"
I'm not sure if it would be double jeopardy. According to Wikipedia the double jeopardy clause protects against retrial after an acquittal, retrial after a conviction, retrial after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment. Now Smollett never went to trial, so the first three cases don't apply. Would protection against multiple punishments apply? That would mean that the $10.000 Smollett payed and the community service he did were a punishment, but how can something be a punishment if Smollett was never convicted. Also, this legal site says: "Double jeopardy occurs if someone is charged with a crime and found innocent, and then charged with the same crime a second time." Again, Smollett was not found innocent (neither guilty). He never went to trial.
"it doesnt give a great message to victims of crime to suggest that reporting a crime will cost you."
It suggests that reporting a crime that a $130.000 investigation found it never happen will cost you. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
theres that too, that you can report a crime then get your name dragged through mud, be threatened with court and imprisonment, before its arbitrarily dropped with no good reasons for why you were even investigated in the first place. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
or there the one where all charges are dropped, you dont go trial, the presumption of innocence still intact, but the police while proceed to punish you as if you were convicted by a jury of your peers.
or the one where you are penalised for something using legislation probably intended to deal with people saying they had 3 kids instead of one on benefits forms because that the people responsible for protecting you from crime just dont like you, but they fine with protecting their fellow officers from their own actual and infinitely more serious crimesAMassiveGay (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It's okay, constitutional rights interfere with the much more important goal of hurting black people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"no good reasons for why you were even investigated in the first place."
@AMassiveGay Are you saying that there were no reason to investigate Smollett's claims?
"constitutional rights interfere with the much more important goal of hurting black people."
@Ikanreed I'm no lawyer, and legal experts said that the resolution of this case is atypical, and the two sides could not even agree on what to call it (New York Times), so I looked up and found two sources suggesting that double jeopardy could not apply. Maybe it does, I don't know. Then you came and you made the nth accusation of racism when, as usual, nobody ever even mentioned race. Thinker(unlicensed)
its very clear and unambiguous what i am saying. its even very clear and unambiguous what i am saying from the quote taken without the preceding context. its a bit less clear why you would ask if i was saying something else entirely. fuck off AMassiveGay (talk) 16
51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Repeating in bold that what you say is very clear, instead of making any effort to explain yourself. Well done. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"no good reasons for why you were even investigated in the first place." This clearly refers to Smollett being investigated, not the investigation of the crime he reported, don't be so dense. @User:UnlicensedThinker. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't be charged for reporting a crime just because it cannot be confirmed if a crime happened. That would set a dangerous precedent. If I report gunshots in the night and the police can't find which house it came from (they can't get a warrant to search every house in the neighborhood afterall), am I expected to pay a fine for 'wasting police time'? Obviously, if the police can prove that I made the whole thing up, I should be tried and fined. But in this instance, where they cannot prove either way, innocence is always assumed until guilt is proven in a court of law. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
"Obviously, if the police can prove that I made the whole thing up, I should be tried and fined."
@MirrorIrorriM But what if the police can prove (or at least believe to be able to prove) that you made things up but the prosecutor decides to drop the charges? It's natural that in such a situation the police would be upset for the prosecutor's decision. I don't know if legally their $130.000 fine makes sense, however it's important to point out that the police was unable to prove their accusations in a trial because the prosecutor dropped charges preventing a trial in first place. The prosecutor himself admitted that he stands by the police investigation, that the charges were dropped not because of some problem with evidences, and that he believes Smollett is guilty. That's really a strange situation.
"innocence is always assumed until guilt is proven in a court of law."
Of course, but so is the Chicago Municipal code illegal? I believe that fines can be ordered without necessarily go to trial first. Then, if the person who is fined doesn't want to pay, they go to a trial and both the police and the fined show their evidences to a judge. Is it so in US? Thinker(unlicensed) 19:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
this really is complete bullshit on so many levels. nothing the prosecutor has here can not be seen as anything more than public relations exercise from an ELECTED official. it carries no legal weight whatsoever. there is nothing unusual in what was said and dropping cases that are unlikely to get a convicted regardless of how they view the police investigation is common procedure. it happens all then time. it is uncontroversial. you cannot read guilt of anyone from this. you cannot say 'theres no smoke without fire' from this. you cannot do any of this vague statements from elected officials and others whos positions depend on public perception. that people do make these leaps from so very little is sad. that people so often throw out the presumption innocence based on so little and with such semantic reasoning as 'they were not exonerated' is maddening. that representatives of the judiciary encourage this behaviour with winks to the camera and dancing round the facts is fucking disgusting.
that smollett has been fined is similarly disgusting. it is true that fines are often levied without trial. parking tickets for example. it is also true that fines are often paid because all parties involved know its too much hassle to contest them, and expensive if you lose. in other walks of life this is known as a SHAKE DOWN. this is not a parking ticket. there are no clear parameters that can apply nor readily available - usually vital for any kind of fine. it is not clear that this fine is consistently applied, or indeed, ever having been applied. it is 'unusual' punishment in that regard. this fine is an extrajudicial punishment and that too is fucking disgusting. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Thinker I agree it is a strange situation, and I do not know if there is a historical precedence either way. I hope that Smollet challenges the fine just so a clear decision is made for future reference. While it is true that individuals can be fined for illegal activities in the US without a trial by jury, there is always a scheduled allowance for a court date to protest it. Not protesting the fine within 30 days is considered an admission of guilt (at least for traffic violations). If you do go to court, then the officer has to show up to advocate for your guilt. If he doesn't show, you automatically win as the defendant and all fines are waived. Further, if they do not properly try you within 45 days of the infraction (what is considered a 'speedy and public trial' in the 6th amendment of the US constitution (number of days vary by state)), the fine is automatically dropped. The general theme is the officers have to be able to prove you guilty of something to make a fine stick. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
i would also like to add that so much column inches and so much political ire generated for what would have resulted in a slap on the wrist if he were guilty and not much more for the perpetrators if he were the victim. this not about crime and punishment, this is about the claim that someone wore a maga cap. lets all give ourselves a big pat on the back for our part in the continuation of this bullshit. well done everyone. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It's funny to compare MirrorIrorriM's response, where actually arguments about what I said are made, with AMassiveGay's response.
"I hope that Smollet challenges the fine just so a clear decision is made for future reference."
@MirrorIrorriM I wonder if also the police hopes so. The general question is: If the police thinks that a person had made a crime, but the charges are then dropped by the prosecutor, can the police fine the person so that she would have to pay the fine or go to trial despite charges were previously dropped? Thinker(unlicensed) 21:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
whats funny is i answered more than just 'your' point more than adequately with relevant context for a complete answer that you cannot easily misinterpret so you have chosen to ignore everything i wrote and instead focus trivial and incredibly banal point of procedure. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay "more than adequately with relevant context for a complete answer"
Come on, you wrote "there is nothing unusual in what was said and dropping cases that are unlikely to get a convicted regardless of how they view the police investigation is common procedure. it happens all then time. it is uncontroversial" while the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association itself says: "The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received. Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal. [...] the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.” There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program. These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate. This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs."
Now are you gonna tell me that the ILPBA does not understand laws and it was all about MAGA hats? Thinker(unlicensed) 22:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The circumstances around the dismissal of this case are quite odd, I don't think going after Smollett through other means is the answer as much as removing the attorney from office or disciplining the attorney some way (however this is done in America). This is weirdly focused on Smollett instead of Foxx. Even if he was guilty of what he was accused of, his being found so, and subsequent punishment is not his responsibility. If anyone was to receive that fine it would be Foxx. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinkeryou see what you did there? you actually answered a point. well done. i can work with that. clearly there are unusual elements about all this, i cant deny that. the statement by the ilpba appears to be the 'deal' done before hand. i cant really question that. what i can say and was the gist of my argument is that dismissal of a case before trial, is common and uncontroversial and does not and should not imply any level of guilt, and that statements about the quality of the investigation or smolletts supposed culpability, should be treated with caution and not as fact or evidence in anyway.
thats much better isnt it? i make a point, you respond, i counter, and so on. do more of that. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to point out that if this case went to jury, there is next the question of a chance of a fair trial. What lengths would the court have to go to in order to find a jury that was unbiased enough with the evidence to come to a fair decision, take that to the next court, pay the next jury, and watch this turn into another OJ case if there isn't even a dead body? The video evidence of the attack was released improperly, the alleged attackers are not detained for the attack, the alleged victim is widely considered to have made it all up. Like, who cares from a legal standpoint? What a waste of time and money to drive this through a court just to beat down, forgive the pun, a single bad actor. It's because it blew up so hard, and we all somehow care about it so much, that it makes it unlikely for a fair trial to take place. And at some point, you have to cut your losses and get back to fucking real Chicago crime. I don't care if he made a false attack report or not. We can decide on our own that he called the cops and told us all he got hate-crimed. So he didn't, and we're pissed and hurt about being lied to. So what, why tie up Chicago courts in deliberating about a fake crime? It just doesn't make sense to want real justice for a stupid lie with no real perpetrators and no legitimate victim. I agree, morally, what he did was a very harmful thing. But only if you can't think for yourself, that maybe this won't legitimately influence how you think about court cases in the future. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"what i can say and was the gist of my argument is that dismissal of a case before trial, is common and uncontroversial and does not and should not imply any level of guilt,"
@AMassiveGay You keep repeating that although I never said that the drop of charges implies that Smollett is guilty. You're problem with Smollett case is that you keep thinking that anyone who talks about it is claiming that Smollett is guilty, so that you have to explain them that everybody is innocent before declared guilty by trial, which is a response to a claim that has never been made, a strawman essentially.
It's true that dismissal of a case before a trial is not uncommon, but as the ILPBA says this dismissal is controversial and: "Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility." while Smollett wasn't required to admit any responsibility, which according to standard practice doesn't make any sense. Thinker(unlicensed) 10:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
believe it or not i try very hard to be civil. i try very hard to make reasoned and coherent responses. but jesus fuck you make that difficult.
you are aware that when you post something here, after a few posts it still there? that they are still part of the conversation, still inform what we might post next, or interpret other posts? its important to mention this because you've taken a quote and appear not to have looked at where you took it from, what it related to specifically, or to the wider conversation, and ignores pretty much all i have written.
stop doing that. that is just some dishonest bullshit right there.
you should also be aware that words and how they are are used give explicit and implicit meaning, either intentionally or accidentally. if you've been paying attention, or actually read what i wrote, i explain why presumption of innocence needs to be stressed. that giving pr statements too much weight, or stressing this word or that is 'interesting'. it gives very much an impression of guilt, that there is no smoke without fire. the totality of this conversation gives it that impression, so yes, i do keep repeating it i will continue to do so if i see fit. it was not said as an accusation to you specifically, though i probably could have done. a lot is implied. it need not have been intention, but that is the nature of the subject.
i'm not commenting the 'deal'. it wasnt central to the point i was making, and i'd hadnt even thought it. i have my suspicions but it would be speculation and not what is needed right now. i might counter with them if thought would help, but i would be countering idle speculation with idle speculation. there is far too much of that.
this is all happening in a wider world. you must have wondered why this story is still being reported, when the actual known facts are so entirely trivial. its not the procedural elements that are interesting. look at the response from the mayor and from the police. look at there responses to other crimes - crimes committed by the police. chicago pd does not have a sterling history nor reputation. look at the victim of the originally reported crime and the alleged culprits then look the alleged victims and the supposed culprits of other similar crimes, there have been quite few, that have been proven to be spurious.
there are issues here we are not addressing and we have to be very careful not to contribute to them. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"you've taken a quote and appear not to have looked at where you took it from, what it related to specifically, or to the wider conversation, and ignores pretty much all i have written. stop doing that. that is just some dishonest bullshit right there."
@AMassiveGay I cannot quote your entire previous conversations in a response. I try to quote the essential part I want to reply to. What you consider "dishonest" in reality is just the attempt to summarize.
"you should also be aware that words and how they are are used give explicit and implicit meaning, either intentionally or accidentally."
I understand that but, frankly, I don't care. I do my best to make my point. If people don't understand an think that saying that the Smollett's case is interesting from legal perspective means that Smollett is guilty... then such people are idiots, and it's not my fault.
"you must have wondered why this story is still being reported, when the actual known facts are so entirely trivial."
I have no idea of what that means. The story is interesting enough to be reported, either if it was a hate crime or if it was a hoax.
"look at there responses to other crimes - crimes committed by the police."
"look at the victim of the originally reported crime and the alleged culprits then look the alleged victims and the supposed culprits of other similar crimes, there have been quite few, that have been proven to be spurious."
Again, what does that mean that there are quite few? There are cases (I don't know if in Chicago) of people who faked to be victim of a crime and then have been convicted. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
ok, lets go through this nonsense point by point.
point one. summaries are fine. what is not fine is when the summary does not reflect what was being said and even worse when the quote taken out of context gives it a different spin. this is dishonest.
point two. you should care about the implication of your words. you should care very much. you are not really making very good arguments if you not considering how they might play, and worse people might get the wrong impression. the most innocuous of phrases can have a myriad of interpretations, and some awful ones. it has very little to do with stupidity of the reader, and more about ignorance of the writer not understanding how other people will see it. on divisive issues, where things can become even more ambiguous, its paramount to be even more aware of that. it no good crying 'i didnt say that' after the fact. that looks even worse.
Point three. you have no idea why this has been reported on to such a degree? when it was you each time starting the threads on it? none at all? you've not done any reading around or looked at opinion pieces on it? i don't believe that. frankly, i believe that to be lie. how could you not if you have found the story interesting in the slightest.
Point four ties in with point three and your apparent interest in the case. the recent history of the chicago police is very germane. its not 'whataboutism' - you would know if you were that interested. its about hypocrisy and double standards, and about a racist police force. look at the murder of Laquan Mcdonald for example and the resulting suppressing of evidence, and the sheer amount of effort it took to get police to relaese dash cam footage. compare to how strident the police and the mayor have been, and continue to be, on smolletts case - a misdemeanour.
Point five again ties in to three and four, but i admit, i could have clearer. i refer to the many cases of people calling the police for the crime of being black. you can google the phrase lots will show up. they basically cases of white folk seeing a black person going about their lawful business then having the police called on them because the caller was 'in fear for their lives'. (also remember that police have a habit of shooting black people in the us). very little in the way of reporting. compare to smolletts case. a mention of a maga hat and the president of the united states is tweeting about it. the chicago mayor and police are losing their shit over it and still going on about it. you yourself are repeatedly starting threads on it.
as i said, the procedural details are just not interesting to sustain any kind of interest and yet here we are. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Do you have any factual point to say about this event? Because you talking about the "implication words", "interpretation"... is just going off-topic; you talking about "racist police force" (the same police force that spent $130.000 for finding the alleged perpetrators of a racist crime!?) isn't backed by any evidence that racism coming from the police is related to Smollett's case; and you saying that "procedural details are just not interesting to sustain any kind of interest" is just an opinion...
"you have no idea why this has been reported on to such a degree?"
I didn't say that I have no idea why this case has been reported to such a degree. Obviously, an alleged homophobic and racist attack from white men wearing MAGA hats against a Black and gay TV celebrity has many reasons to be reported. I said that I have no idea of what your sentence ("you must have wondered why this story is still being reported, when the actual known facts are so entirely trivial") means.
Unless you are going to reply with something factual and related to Smollett's case, I don't see the point of continuing this conversation. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
its like you dont understand what words mean. i make a point then you misinterpret it. i clarify and try to clear up your misinterpretation then you misinterpret the clarification. i try to clarify the clarification then you...and it goes on and on.
what is you want here? facts? what do we do with the facts if not consider the implications? how can we do that if we dont look at the things surrounding the facts, that you dont want to look at these things? how can we consider what it all means, the implications, when you cannot even the consider the implications of your own words?
if this has veered 'off-topic' its because i have to repeatedly explain the same thing over and over and over with you wilfully misunderstanding each time. thats the work of someone shutting down the conversation because its not going the way you want. i'll be generous and just say you are a fucking imbecile AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do people assume nonsense makes sense?[edit]


I just want to know what makes people take stuff like Zen koans so seriously or that they have any wisdom in it. When I read things like this I just wonder to myself if it's either nonsense or if there is something that I just don't get.Machina (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have answered this sort of question in two different ways:
The first way: this is complete nonsense. I smile to think I ever had a thought about it. I have seldom regretted thinking so.
The second way: it is clear that people can be confused by profound teachings, and I may be one of them. I will treat the wisdom of others with respect because of my own short comings. I have seldom regretted doing so.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer it for me. Because you get two different views and one doesn't buy it, while the other claims to have had their troubles, fears, and worries gone and known peace. Isn't one obviously "correct" if it yields such things?Machina (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, such peace is back on the shoulders of solipsism, it doesn't make it "correct." Buddhism got entagled with Hinduism pretty quickly when the idea that you should strive for or want to desire nothing became the overarching ideal. As a pure ideology, it's a bad anachronism. So it picked up a couple Hindu concepts that had a mass appeal. There's the Dharma concept that the says more you act upon your spiritual truth, the better. Like it's better to be a bad philosopher than a good soldier, even if you would make a great soldier but your Dharma leads you to philosophy. If your dharma leads you one way, and you desire nothing but to chase your Dharma, do that and accept that nothing will come of it. It originates in Hinduism, but with the Buddhist ideal that you don't even smoke em if you got em, it's easier to cooperate with the idea that what you want to do, outside of meditation and fasting, you should go for. Kind of like how Karma is a popular idea, you do good things, it comes back to you, you do bad things you get hit later by other forces. But Karma is the idea that the good and bad things happen to you because you are owed them from a past life. And Dharma is the idea that you don't self-actualize, any job or caste you're born into is the only thing you own, and you'd possibly make a better bad slave than a good artist, even if you would like to be an artist. So anything that leads you to success or fulfillment beyond just being alive isn't pure Buddhism. So I appreciate the epistemological approach here, but I have to commit the taboo and ask a question.
If Buddhism or Christianity makes more sense and appeals stronger to us humans outside of their purist forms, along with Hindi concepts such as Dharma or Karma, that are difficult to describe and usually misinterpreted but inform the pure Hindu faith entirely in a way that most people disagree with, can a bastardized version of a dogma be a "correct" interpretation of what formed that dogma? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I am going by the claims being made by the guy in the article who claims "if you understand this story then you will be liberated of all worries and fears". If something can bring one such lasting peace then isn't it correct in some way, even if people say they experience it?Machina (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You have not taken my answers in the sense I intended. You have two choices: take the assertions as nonsense, or spend the time and effort to determine their value to your own life. Instead you ask others for advice, and in fact, to do your work for you as if what they discovered in the course of study and reflection will profit you in some way. It's possible I suppose, but unlikely.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well because I don't know enough to analyze this. I just know what they say and what they feel. The only reason I listen to them is because for some reason I believe Buddhism to have some kind of special position over other religions and philosophies.Machina (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you need to re-examine the underlying premises you're working with. Namely, what is the end goal of your pursuit for what we might call "truth." If, for example, you take truth to be something that is objective, then personal experience should be largely irrelevant to the truth of a particular proposition: said person could be mistaken about the underlying cause for their experience. In which case, you'd need to dig deeper to try to discover what the "truth" is: whether it is a philosophical analysis, a scientific analysis, etc. If you're going to take truth as being built in some way on personal experience, then there's not really going to be an underlying big-T Truth underlying various claims: a single person's experience with Buddhism and its effects will be true for that person, but may not and need not be true for you or anyone else. In that case, if you wanted to examine a claim about the effects of Buddhism, all you'd really be able to do is genuinely try it out for yourself and see if you encounter the same effects. But if you don't have some sort of overarching idea in mind of how you are going to assess these claims, any individual claim about how a person is affected won't serve as evidence for anything other than that the claim was made.
Strictly speaking, the purpose of philosophy in general is supposed to be that you have to discover things for yourself. Other people can help in training you, giving you the tools to help you discover things, but you can't be handed knowledge or understanding. This statement would be as true for anyone attempting to explain the claims from the Buddhist articles you are presenting as it would be for the claims made in the articles themselves.--Mabian (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A collaborative approach to philosophy is a very tried and true method, historically. For me, personally, there was harm in believing an intentional lie when I learned about the Easter Bunny. My parents didn't protect me from ideas very well, when I was 4 I started asking why a bunny would leave eggs, and how a bunny would hide eggs all over the house. My parents took me to the dining room, sat me down, and explained a very gentle truth. I was in the Easter Bunny club now. The Easter Bunny is not real, but it is fun to look for eggs, and it is fun for them to hide eggs for my brother and me. This was a VERY important club and I was not allowed to tell anyone else in kindergarten about it. I asked if my brother was in the club, they said yes.
So I went and told my brother, on Easter day, "I'm in the club now." And he asked, flatly, "What, the Santa club?" I lost my mind and cried and cried, I was so mad at my brother, because the two things made a lot of sense suddenly, and nobody else could figure out what I was crying about because I couldn't talk, I was crying too hard to do anything but breathe and cry.
Today, I think this is kind of funny. I also was horrified by Ghostbusters at the time, and for a while I swore ghosts were making noises in my house. I now don't believe that ghosts exist. I disagree with my mother and basically everyone I casually talk to about it, I mean, ghosts have to be a real thing, according to everybody. Same with the western Karma idea. Try convincing an adult that what they heard or saw isn't valid, especially when they pull from all sorts of different magical points of thinking. Ghosts are what you make of them, they are not human spirits trapped in our realm that either move things around or knock on floors and walls for no reason or make a spot in a room cold or get caught on camera. Just, none of those make ghost belief make sense.
I'd say the harm of the lie rests in the time spent believing it, including the backwards justification it takes to reach any belief.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
you were scared by ghostbusters when everyone else who watched it aint afraid of no ghosts. why would any on believe anything you say when your interpretation was so wrong there? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hahaha, way to pile on shit to my 5 year old self. Do you even remember the first scene? I loved the Dewey Decimal system, I didn't have to be able to spell a whole word to go look up books on whatever animal or planet I liked. That's where the scariest ghost lives now? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


"When rectum-sex enthusiasts are allowed to promote their gender-bending degeneracy openly, that deeply harms all of us. That brings down the moral character of society. That destroys the sanctity of marriage. That teaches the world that sexual desire — no matter how base, how deviant, how contrary to God’s will — is acceptable to pursue and, in fact, must be pursued. The LGBT indoctrination program, however, doesn’t want you to recognize these harms. They want you to think gay sex acts are “victimless” and that marriage between men and women is not a sanctified institution." This is just an example of the many many crazy homophobic contents of this site. It seems that all the articles are written by the same person, who apparently is an alumnus of Philosophy at Harvard University. (!) Thinker(unlicensed) 10:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Another site lists his citations as a bachelor's degree in physics from Harvard. (Note: He's also a Darwin "skeptic", what a shock.) Apparently any lessons on biology were ignored. Fortunately, I would characterize this person as "fringe" -- 2.5K Youtube subscribers? Not notable, I've seen Youtube collectors of obscure music of all kinds get that amount or more. Unfortunately, fundamentalist cultures all over the world do tend to share this point of view. (Bizarrely these fundamentalist cultures often hate each other regardless. I mean, one of the few notable media places I see that actually linked to this guy was The Daily Caller, who aren't exactly very tolerant of homosexuality themselves...) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
These homophobic arguments are true gems. Purely based off hate and mixed with big words to sound intelligent. Who cares if someone is a homosexual? It is not the business of a bigot. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sort of impressed that just about every sentence manages to be both largely meaningless and yet utterly wrong at the same time. It must be a gift given only to the morally outraged.Hubert (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"Who cares if someone is a homosexual? It is not the business of a bigot."
@Rationalzombie94 Well, in some way, it's exactly the business of a bigot, since bigots are the only who cares. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The The Daily Caller showcases this fringe Muslim for the same reason Fox showcases black on white crime and illegal immigrant/gang member crime. Millennium Scallion (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
For sure, but given the Daily Caller's somewhat confused yet very "traditionalist" (read: not generally in favor) position on homosexuality, it's logically strange. Unless you frame things in a pure tribalism mode, where no logic applies, and any story which allows one to say "...but *THEY* ARE WORSE!" is greenlighted. (Note that this type of attitude makes things such as the Daily Caller whitewashing the anti-gay laws of DA PUTIN rather easy to accomplish. Sigh.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Millennium Scallion Oh, he's not "fringe." Not at all. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to rethink skepticism[edit]

I've believed so long in my life, that science is the ultimate tool for understanding the world. That if you frame things as hypotheses, and bring them into compliance with previous mechanical observations, apply parsimony, and replicate all observations, you arrive at a vision of reality, that if not perfect, avoids many of the flaws of human thinking. It's been a powerful traveling companion.

But now. Now I've seen things that defy all science and reason. With my own eyes. Truth I cannot deny simply because my previous theories say it's impossible. And they continue to happen before my eyes no matter how sober or restrained or controlled my experimentation.

It's impossible.

I have to find another view.

Somehow... Somehow shaking a clove of garlic around in a plastic box peels it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

PURGE THE HERETIC! Also, could you tell me your technique, because when I do it that way I end up with a bunch of gently-bruised still-beskinned cloves. Semipenultimate (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You're acting like I didn't just discover this profound world-changing experience. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
How is this not scientific? You tried various methods until one yielded results. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Don't take the joke too seriously). Science has to be parsimonious and congruent with other laws. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like you are becoming more skeptical. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I find myself completely convinced by this story from a random individual on the internet! I now believe the Earth is flat, homeopathy works and God(s) exist(s). Thank you for opening my eyes. I cannot understand why others are so closed-minded.Hubert (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's not be hasty, shall we?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my ideology is now to agree with whatever internet posters say if it makes no fucking sense at all, since they were right about the garlic thing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You found the needle of truth in the haystack of bollocks. The effect will where off. — Dysk (contribs) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You've stumbled across one of the four sacred shifting truth objects (four leaf clover of conscience, the small twig of redemption, the long antenna of the sacred short wave radio and self-pealing garlic cloves). I encourage you to explore the other objects deeply and to avoid glutton and instead eat only kale salad, to de-vaccinate your children and to read my new book available on Amazon and select Barnes and Nobles stores. ShabiDOO 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ikanreed It was... wait for it... ALIENS. Only rational explanation out there. Oxyaena Harass 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the analytics of my YouTube channel (Undead EAS Productions)[edit]

Views by Gender[edit]

  • Male: 90%
  • Female: 10%

Views by Age[edit]

  • 18-24 yrs: 77%
  • 25-34 yrs: 9%
  • 35-44 yrs: 15%


Note- not in percents

  • Mostly Americans
  • Some Canadians

I now know my main audience. Anyone know ways to expand my audience to countries other than the United States and Canada? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Post a link on Donald Tusk's Twitter. Tinribmancer (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps explain to us what the fuck it's about? I had a quick squiz and had no fucking idea what you were prattling on about. --MtDBogan 01:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
you could try opening a box of something. i hear thats popular right now. or if you cant find any boxes to open you could show your reaction to a tv show.
honestly though, worry about puttng out content you are happy with. if anyone else likes its a bonus. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)