RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive305

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 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>, <304>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, (new)(back)

Contents

Page about North Macedonia badly needs updating[edit]

Our page about North Macedonia badly needs updating. The first words of the article are "North Macedonia" but then all of the rest of the intro is about the problems caused by the country calling itself "Macedonia". And a lot of the rest of the article is about those ongoing problems as well. Of course, those problems aren't ongoing anymore now that the country has officially changed its name. So if somebody who's interested could update it, and add some decent references while they're at it, that would be great. Spud (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the article is a slightly dull run-through of 2500 years of history. And aside from nationalists fighting over it there's nothing missional about the country. But I moved a couple of paragraphs from the lede to the end, changed to the past tense, and mentioned Eurovision. --Annanoon (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Annanoon Thanks. You're a star! Yeah, I guess it was the controversy over the name that made the country vaguely missional in the first place. And that's all in the past now. Oh, well. Spud (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
How is North Macedonia not missional? It's a brutally totalitarian communist nation run by a child-dictator who likes to launch nuclear-capable rockets over international waters and send hordes of people into gulag torture camps, all while being shielded by China. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 12:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
And what about north mammoths? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What am I?[edit]

Apparently I have some Denisovan DNA alongside the Neanderthal, which makes me feel a little strange. When someone has this much non-Sapien genes, aren't they not completely human? Regardless, it wouldn't be so bad if they weren't chinless, gnarly rudolfs: [1] [2] Anyway, how do you feel about your Nephilim ancestry? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoss Both Denisovans and Neanderthals were fully human. Oxyaena Harass 01:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
They weren't Homo-Sapien Sapien. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@BobRoss Everyone has that much archaic human DNA in them, you're not special. We're no less human because of it. Oxyaena Harass 03:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Humans contain genes from primitive simians. Those genes are no less "human" than any other. The same goes for the alleged genes from non-simians due to horizontal gene transfers. CoryUsar (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Those so-called "primitive simians" were fully human, @CorruptUser. Oxyaena Harass 06:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@BobRoss IIRC the distinction between species is considered a bit fuzzy when interbreeding between two separate "species" results in fertile offspring (as opposed to infertile offspring like mules). Though I might be wrong about that. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
You share 60% of your DNA with the banana. Don't worry about it, that's how biology works --Imaginative username (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not truly meaningful to view oneself as a sum of DNA. It affects us, and potentially, depending on the changes in particular sequences, quite a lot. But if you assume every similarity in DNA results in a phenotypical similarity, your being reductionist past the point of evidence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There has long been a debate about whether Neanderthals are a separate subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis). This is not surprising because there are rarely a single clear speciation event. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
While it's true that I share 60% with a banana, that 40% that I don't share is what gives us the Pyramids, Collesium, Great Wall of China Sphinx, Michelangelo, Beethoven, etc. In genetics even the smallest difference is apparently pretty big. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
We can id individuals through their DNA, which means every persons dna is unique and doesn't automatically give us claim to any of the wonders you just mentioned. Féinléiriú (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Even if we take into account the hundreds/thousands involved in the construction of these buildings, they were but a blip in all the humans that ever were, that lived banal lives. Féinléiriú (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Not true. Some differences matter a great deal. A great many SNPs code literally identical proteins. Many mutations will just kill you before you're even a blastocyst. Some will change how curly your hair is and affect nothing else. Taking a quantitative measure of difference in genotype, and concluding it's a quantitative measure of difference phenotype is dumb. Dumby dumb, real dumb. What do holdover genes from homo sapiens neanderthalis code for? No one's even studied it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The difference between "different species" and "different subspecies" is whether, in the natural environment, they would produce viable offspring if given the chance. As modern humans are descended from neanderthals as well as cave-men, neanderthals were indeed the same species even if they looked slightly different. It's basically like asking if asians and white people are different species just because they look different; all the mixed-race people of the world are proof that we are the same species even if we were once separate subspecies. CoryUsar (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@CorruptUser You said even if we were once separate subspecies. How could that be? I was under the impression that before 10,000 BCE the divisions between groups that exist now were even more blurred. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no.
"Subspecies" is more of a tool used by biologists to better understand the world rather than any fundamental truth woven into the fabric of the universe, in much the same way we classify animals into different orders. Never mistake the map for the territory! The definition of a subspecies is twofold. First, the populations need to be relatively isolated. Second, there needs to be a physical difference between the two populations. And obviously, still the same species. When it comes to humans, until a few hundred years ago, travel was incredibly difficult, not to mention all but impossible between some continents. If we were to look at humans as not "people" but as a species of "East African Plains Ape", we would have many different isolated populations of EAPA of which there were obvious physical differences. These would indeed be different subspecies. But as soon as you invent air travel and it becomes not just possible but quite frequent that genetic material flows from one group to another, POOF! No longer separate subspecies.
As for "the divisions between groups that exist now", that's usually referring to the stupid arguments about whether, for instance, Ancient Egyptian race (and their achievements) should be classified as "White" or "Black". As they were the ancestors of virtually everyone, it's a nonsensical question, which is what you are alluding to. CoryUsar (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

ok, im usually pretty good at these things but this one has me stumped. the form doesnt even look right. they usually go 'my first is in apples, and my second is pears' and so on. cant see anything like that so i give up. what are you? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@CorruptUser That makes a lot of sense. The Khoisan are estimated to have broken off from the rest of humanity 100,000 years ago, and the Australian Aborigines have been isolated for 70,000 years. Someone has apparently given 200,000 years as the date of divergence for the Khoisan, [1]. Being conservative it seems likely that the Khoisan ancestral lineage diverged from some other Africans ~200,000 years ago. Strangely, the Khoisan lack an alveolar ridge, [1]. Secondly, there is the elongated labia, which some have supposed evolved to prevent rape. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
>elongated labia, which some have supposed evolved to prevent rape
and how exactly does that work without preventing consensual intercourse? Sounds like horse shit tbh. Those pdf links have timed out as well. Féinléiriú (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Féinléiriú I worded that badly. The idea isn't that it prevented rape, but that it made rape more cumbersome, and if the woman enjoyed it the whole ordeal would be easier. Horse shit? I don't know, it has to have some purpose. As for the second link, google Anatomical biasing and clicks: Evidence from biomechanical modeling, Journal of Language Evolution. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It still seems weird that genitals were your go-to example. A better example would be something along the lines of Peruvian tribes having adaptations that make them resistant to arsenic, or Europeans being able to digest milk, or the epicanthic fold in East Asian and Asiatic eyes that provides some shielding from light in snow and deserts. CoryUsar (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe they just have a big ol' labia, good for them. It doesn't have to have a purpose at all. So long as it doesn't have a massive disadvantage it might still stay around. The appendix in modern times does nothing except randomly kill people. I have no idea how it would make rape more cumbersome, but if it did it'd be in a minute manner. You can be aroused, and even come during rape mind, doesn't make it not a rape. The fact it is immediately assumed to be a rape protection tool is odd. That paper must be wack. Féinléiriú (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Genitals weren't my go to example, I mentioned an absent alveolar ridge before that. Other examples of evolution not commonly known would be the altered Australian Aboriginal response to fever, and the large crania volume (the largest) of Siberian and Arctic people. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Per Help:Manual of style the external links section seems to go before the notes and references sections. But what I want to know is why, since on every other wiki (eg TOW) the external links section goes last. Or is this just one of those things? — Dysk (contribs) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be a relic of our early days when we were a response to Conservapedia. That's the way they stupidly do it on Conservapedia. And we're stuck doing it the stupid way round in imitation of them. I completely agree that having external links at the very end of the page, after "See also" and notes and references, is the sensible and stylish way of doing it and the way that it should be done on any half decent wiki. Unfortunately, now that we have nearly 7,000 articles, more of which have external links than don't, I think that changing where we put those links would be more trouble than it's worth. I'm still going through pages to separate the notes from the references as a result of what happened after the Footnotes section was automatically changed to References on all pages. And that must have been about 3 years ago now.Spud (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
If memory serves, previously there was no consistent style and "References" and "Footnotes" were both used, with "Footnotes" used for both actual footnotes, references, or a mix of both. FCP just changed all "Footnotes" sections to "References", which was mostly harmless, but not 100%. Sorry to see you're still dealing with that :-( but I'm not sure if there would have been a better way to deal with that?
Changing order shouldn't introduce similar problems, I think? Just need someone to actually invest time in it (not me). Martin (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm assuming that changing where the external links go on a page would have to be done manually. Which would take a very long time. And it would probably be me that would end up moving them all. if, on the other hand, it is possible to move all external links to the end of the page automatically through some computer wizadry, well I'm all for that. I'd say that would finally make this a truly post-Conservapedia RationalWiki. Spud (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think there's actually an argument for keeping the order this way, not just because it's a lot of work to change it. Consider the case where one is reading straight through a page from beginning to end and not skipping around. The notes and references are both bidirectionally hyperlinked to the text. So if one wants to see the evidence for a statement one can either hover over the link or click on the link and then either use the back button of the browser or click on the corresponding link in the notes/references. The notes and references are embedded. This is not the case with the "See also" and "External links" sections. Sticking them at the very end would tend to bury them after potentially-lengthy notes and references sections, which few people are going to read through in their entirety. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense. — Dysk (contribs) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
there is also the reason of 'its makes no real difference at all' AMassiveGay (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I can get started tomorrow. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I might not be reading this right, but if the external links show up in footnotes or hyperlinked text within the article, doesn't that engage the reader to immediately check any claim without losing the context of the claim? I know people can get away with a lot of claims just by linking, but I like the point @Bongolian is making. Stylistically, how do you maintain a snarky or sarcastic or ironic description of something that is true without a confident link to what is actually true? And if you move those links to the bottom of the page, we're leaving out anyone who taps out when they don't start with poe's law? As a reference point, poe should probably be the second thing anybody is required to read on this site. Unless the plan is to drop the snark, then it's just Wikipedia. But if somebody stumbles across a ratwik article, doesn't understand poe, and hits the first couple sentences of an article, they might be disengaged. Or it might encourage more of the white natties and fascies to believe the community here doesn't actively make fun of those ideals for being less than researched. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Race segregation on Reddit[edit]

"Due to the overwhelming amount of white people and white opinions present on BPT, we are now restricting access to this sub for black folks only. Should you wish to gain access to post and comment on BPT again, please send us a modmail or make a verification post here at /r/bptmeta. Please keep in mind that it may take some time to process your request as Reddit has stringent ratelimits on the amount of folks we can add per hour, but we will be working as quickly as possible. If you are white, you may be afforded access if you appropriately apologize for your whiteness. Whites will be admitted on a case by case basis."

Source: Announcement: BlackPeopleTwitter is now for Black People Only

Similarly, the subreddit WhitePeopleTwitter is for white people only, although it is public and apparently they don't have any kind of verification.

On the other hand, as far as I understand, the subreddit AsianPeopleTwitter is open to everyone. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are all the bombshells being dropped on April fools? Féinléiriú (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe because if they were considered too outrageous then one can always says: "It April fools!" Indeed, some users of BlackPeopleTwitter really thought that it was an April fools. But it's not, you can see that BlackPeopleTwitter is actually asking for forearms photos to allow only black people to join it. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to describe Reddit to someone earlier in the week, and the best I could come up with was "Kinda like 4chan, but more civil".
I had no idea how right I was going to be. Kencolt (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Does the one-drop rule count? Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A 4chan thread starts up and within 24 hrs it's regurgitated on RW. Interesting. Millennium Scallion (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"We recently made a change to our BPT that it would be for “black people only.” While this was done as an April Fool’s joke, there was a very real reason behind it more than just some laughs. Much like how /r/games closed their sub due to the amount of toxicity in the gaming community, the moderators of BPT wanted to address the level of racism, casual and very very real, that was being shared every day on our sub. It was shared loudly and clearly by the black members of this community that many felt uncomfortable by how black voices were often drowned out of discussion in this subreddit, faced with various arguments blaming victims / defending bigoted actions, or otherwise making them feel unwelcome. We wanted to bring to the forefront that this subreddit should never make people of color feel out of place here or that they do not belong and wanted to rebuild a sense of community. Especially when the rest of Reddit can be overwhelmingly toxic and racist, and when this site continues to host dozens of actual white supremacist communities, the latest of which being /r/SubForWhitePeopleOnly."

Source: /r/BlackPeopleTwitter is open to everyone again

So it was (2 days long?) April's fools after all. Still waiting for WhitePeopleTwitter to announce their years long April's fools... Thinker(unlicensed) 08:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

In response r/subredditforwhitesonly was setup, and has already devolved into a reddit dailystormer. There's surely a law for this already, that pointing out racism proves provokes a horrendous racist response. The r/games response was ridiculous as well. Apparently pointing out injustices is "garbage politics". The absolute state of reddit. Féinléiriú (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"There's surely a law for this already, that pointing out racism proves provokes a horrendous racist response."
@Féinléiriú Who pointed out racism in this situation? Thinker(unlicensed) 11:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
That mod message you just posted. /r/SubForWhitePeopleOnly was in direct response to the April fools day event. It has many racist posts in it. Not too mention people losing their shit in the comments. Allow me to generalise for a moment, but there are many who are under the impression that black people in the US should have 'gotten over' any wrongs done to them by now. Then we get this response to white people being banned from one section of one website for two days. It's funny. Féinléiriú (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Féinléiriú It's certainly true that quite often, as you said, pointing out at racism results in more racist responses. Regarding this situation, you are mixing the order of the events: BlackPeopleTwitter announced a ban of white users, then (among many reactions) the subreddit SubForWhitePeopleOnly was created, collecting the most racist responses, then BlackPeopleTwitter releaved the April fool's and pointed out to many racist responses, especially SubForWhitePeopleOnly. So it's not the case that BlackPeopleTwitter pointed out at racism and this resulted in a racist response. Thinker(unlicensed) 12:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I have gotten the order of events mixed up. I'm never sure about these 'see how you like it' responses to these situations, maybe they should have done what r/games did and block posts all posts to the subreddit with a similar mod message. I never got the white and black twitter thing, I assume it's for white/black people in America rather than in general.
warning, barely relevant tangent. At a comedy gig once there was a comedian on saying thing's like "ya'll white people be doing <thing Irish people don't do at all but white Americans might>" and cut her act short when the audience was just outright confused. It surprised me because her parents were Nigerian immigrants to America I think, so you'd think she'd appreciate even a little that people in difference countries act different, even if they look the same. Other than that she was funny though. Still, not near as bad as any of European Identity horseshit the America churns out, both the supremacy type, but to a lesser extend the well meaning type. Guide To Smiling Politely When An American Says ‘I’m Irish’. Féinléiriú (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, I gotta say that this April fool's (if it really was one, and not some kind of plausible deniability) was a really really bad idea:
(1) I don't see how asking somebody to apology for their race can be considered as a funny joke.
(2) Asking for user verification pushed many users to post their photos or personal data, putting them at the risk of being doxed, at the same time that the whole racist part of reddit was coming to BlackPeopleTwitter. It's true that, after, the moderators of BPT said to not give personal data, but the damage was already done, and a lot of photos and personal data are still visible. That was really irresponsible from the moderators.
(3) The moderators of BPT justified their action by saying that they "wanted to address the level of racism, casual and very very real, that was being shared every day on our sub." This is a really dangerous concept: racism should not be fight by excluding people according to they race, that is just perpetuating racism.
(4) Many users of BPT who did nothing wrong felt excluded because of their race (including Middle Easterns, Jews and Latinos).
(5) An April's fools do not last more than 48 hours, and who makes the April's fools ignore questions about it being a joke. Instead the moderators clearly stated that it was not a joke. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You have to say that because literally any other interpretation makes you look like an aggrieved abject racist moron, looking for ways to pretend he's discriminated against. Like brain-slowly-dripping-out-your-ears stupid. Your entire worldview is based on making up absurd and sanctimonious condemnations of fictions you invent in your head, and it's really fucking sad. None of the problems you've ever complained about have been real, and you never learn your lesson. Shut the fuck up forever. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Well, I gotta admit that this time your reply used well articulated, logical, and factual arguments to demolish one by one all the points I made in my previous post... Oh no, wait! It's just your usual personal attacks, false accusations, and streaming "shut the fuck up" signature. XD Thinker(unlicensed)
Goddamn will you learn to shut the fuck up? I'm personally attacking you because you are a shit human being and you run in goddamn circles inventing conspiracies against white people you racist little shit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"Goddamn will you learn to shut the fuck up?"
@Ikanreed Will you learn that telling me to "shut the fuck up" has no effect except making you look like a loony?
"inventing conspiracies against white people you racist little shit"
Come on, more accusations! More! XD Just never give a single proof that I said something racist or that I claimed a conspiracy against white people. Never. Only accusations. It's all you're good for. (also blocking me while I'm replying to you.) Thinker(unlicensed) 19:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Like how goddamn are you that you think you were making "arguments" rather than post-hoc rationalizations about how you flipped out about an april fools joke? Like you have to know how full of shit you are. You have to.
There's no way you can see on april fucking first someone go "aha, this comedy site made an exceptional new policy on the first of april this must be a real thing" and then "they changed it back on the second of april" and end at "It must be a deep cover for their real goal of discriminating against white people".
You have to be the dumbest goddamn shit in the world. Applying less critical thought to this "the world's ending because of black racism" than I do to the process of picking my goddamn nose. You aren't just deserving personal attacks, you should and this is 100% serious never post again until you can stop believing every racist shit pie that's served to you by your right wing media sources. It's embarassingly stupid. You have long-since past the margin of deserving even a shred of respect for your arguments. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ikanreed, is he more or less dumb than your last few "dumbest goddamn shits in the world." RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's see, objectively, scientifically, and precisely speaking, without hyperbole, the only reasonable analysis is that they're real fucking goddamn dumb. I'm trying to have a rational argument about whether this moron is fucking dumb, and he's just making everything personal. Can't rationally debate whether he should shut the fuck up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
He isn't dumb nor a moron. He's a troll. A lot more annoying and useless than many. Skilled in intellectual dishonesty and fact fabrication as well as ad-hoc replies and a few other talents for fallacies. I've just put him on my ignore list. Nothing more to gain reading this guy. Pointless babble. ShabiDOO 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Well since we are bashing him, his Jorden Petersonesque "what do you mean by '<quote with no ambiguity>' " when talking to others rustles my jimmies. Féinléiriú (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It's hilarious how no reply is actually making a counterargument to my five points. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Did a user just type out some words. I see letters resembling:
Word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word.
But in my mind I hear:
Blah blah blah fart blah blah blah rip blah blah blah pow blah blah squeak blah blah blah deflate.
Is it permitted to flatulate in the Saloon bar?
ShabiDOO 23:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll humor him.
(1) Ok.
(2) It's a stretch to call a picture of your fore arm a dox risk, but ok
(3) I already stated this sentiment
(4) Ok, but since when were jews a race?
(5) I mean they asked us to worship king Jussie Smollet, it's an hilarious shitpost. It was obviously a shagging joke.
Your five cunting points aren't even the bastarding issue.
I don't think people even have an issue with your objections to these in particular, I think people, (and I'm a notorious social retard), have a serious objection to your rabid over reacting to mere drops in the ocean that is bigotry, tiny trespasses by individuals of groups that are mostly trespassed against. This in particular is a non story. Your post history looks like you're compiling a huge list of whataboutery (Gerry Adams would have loved you). You 'misunderstand' people all the time. You JAQ off. It goes on.. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A thousand bucks a month, baby![edit]

I love Andrew Yang. I think he does a good job of understanding his platform and putting it forward. I loved silly Jilly Stein too, but she wasn't as good at the platform as Yang. And I have been a registered independent since I registered in high school. I love the direction they push the platform,

The problem I have isn't with universal basic income as an idea. The problem I have is with the flat $1000 parameter. Do you know how much more I could do with $1000 than somebody on the coast? In four months, that's a like-new used car. In one month, with a friend, that's a lavish two bedroom apartment with money left over. I'm not against having these things. But, do you know what capitalism would do to cash in on that? It's a premise for inflation, it's a good idea, morally correct, and I think the conversation needs to lean that way. I am all for socialism in terms of education, healthcare, prisons, and housing, and I love the forward, disruptive thinking of Andrew Yang. Colleges are degrading their own credit for profit, poverty is not a self-sustaining cycle but caused by outer forces living off of the impoverished, and automation will drive wages down.

But I don't think he knows what a thousand bucks really even feels like, to me. And so as good as his understanding of the arguments are, it's shallow to say $1000 a month will fix it and not cause trouble. It's good forward thinking, and an important part of the conversation, and somebody needs to be saying it. I'd like to see Andrew Yang advance in the democratic clown car. But I'd also like to see another democratic candidate work on the UBI concept and out-do him in the process. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Our article basic income has a lot of info and it does mention as a disadvantage "It takes no account of people's individual needs. Disabled people, people with children, carers, and people in areas with a higher cost of living will all potentially lose out". Part of the point of UBI is that it isn't means tested and you don't need bureaucracy or complex assessment procedures or consigning people to buckets marked more or less deserving. However that also means it takes no accounts of people's individual needs, so you either set it high enough to meet everybody's needs (not going to happen) or you set it really low and most people are still in poverty. Nobody on any proposed UBI could afford a house in San Francisco, for instance, so enjoy your home. --Annanoon (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much what Annanoon said, as for health care and education that 12,000 wouldn't go far. I'd rather they'd subsidise, nationalise education and healthcare instead of the NEETbucks. Would have more of a benefit imo.
As for inflation, this is an odd example that needs a little context, Ireland has a centralised way of applying to all colleges based on the points (grades) you get in your leaving certificate. They decided to award 40 extra points to anyone doing higher level maths, the result being the points for all college courses went up by 40 points, maths related or not. Féinléiriú (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
the real problem with it is that it is a fantasy that has zero chance of being implemented anywhere, let alone stateside. i mean, of countries i could possibly see as having ubi the US is not on that list. it strikes me that for such grand utopian plans to be even a distant possibility you'd need an already serviceable welfare state - be that unemployment, housing benefits, health service, pensions and what have you - with a population that is comfortable with the idea that these are things that need taxation. you'd need a country where these things arent an onerous burden on people even with an average income and the disparities between rich and poor arent so striking. one where the society is not so polarised. thats not the us. a lot work needs to be done to get that sorted. ubi is the icing on the cake for when as a nation, you've really got your shit together. right now in the us with ubi i imagine the prevailing view will be 'free money? whats wrong with food stamps' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The funny thing is the United States is one of the few places with a "universal basic income"... of sorts. If you live in the right state, that is. Granted, it's much less than $1000 a month. But "you use up our non-renewable resources from our land, you better distribute some of that fucking revenue to the people" is clearly a non-fantastical model that I'd love to see implemented in a lot other locations, for a lot of other things. The tragedy of the commons is real. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Gol Sarnitt, Jill Stein is at best a quack or at worst a Russian stooge. Read our page on her. It would be nice if people like Andrew Yang and Howard Schultz actually ran for school board or city council first rather than let their ego lead them by the nose after they see that any idiot can become president. Bongolian (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the page for Jill Stein and compared it to the page on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and there's quite a difference. The page on Stein is mostly nesgative and lambasts her suggested policies, while AOC's, while occasionally mentioning criticisms, mostly takes a positive tone despite the fact most of AOC's suggestions are the same as Stein's - she even uses the same "Green New Deal" title. For example, the Jill Stein page attacks Stein's proposal for forgiving student debt, and uses several snarky sentences to explain why this might be problematic. However, the AOC page only mentions AOC's intention to forgive student debt, with no snark, and does not include any information against this. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm voting for Yang, I want my malls back. Robots are just lights and clockwork, we can't let them take over. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems likely that a AOC was primarily by an AOC supporter or supporters. The Bernie Sanders page has also suffered from this. More critical views of AOC, preferably with good references are welcome. Bongolian (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of a disconnect between what I like in a politician versus which politician I think is qualified. I meant to discount Yang and Stein as qualified, but I do like their talking points. I don't think a lot of you have taken issue with that point, but to clear things up, I don't think UBI is properly sorted out, but I'd like it to be part of the political conversation. I didn't think Jill Stein's college debt bailout plan was properly sorted out, but it makes corporate bailouts more distasteful. What I meant was not to say socialize healthcare by giving everybody 12k a year, because that is insane. I meant to say get healthcare socialized. I meant to say get education socialized. I meant to say get prisons socialized. I meant to say get housing socialized. But, I mean, yeah, @Annanoon has the point. And, offhanded, AOC represents a constituency, she's not running the world. She's a fresh member of congress. Congress is majorly fiery morons. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)04:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yang makes a lot of promises, but I doubt he can follow them through. Obviously his headline platform is the UBI plan, but anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics should know that if implemented it would cause inflation and wreck the economy, quickly negating the benefit. So as much as Yang is popular, with his literal "vote for free money" platform, I don't think he is going to win. — Dysk (contribs) 10:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

RW Server Upgrades - will involve 1-2hrs downtime[edit]

Linode do this thing where they upgrade servers while keeping you at the same dollars per month. Fine, I guess. We keep hitting CPU limits, so might as well.

I plan to do this on the weekend - probably Saturday, early afternoon UK time. apache3 (this here server) will take about 85 minutes. cache1 (the front-end Varnish) will take about 22 minutes. I don't think there's an option for a super nice "sorry, pending" page. But we should have slightly nicer serving after the downtime.

Any deep objections? I'll put notice on the Twitter, FB and techblog too - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh... poisson d'Avril or not? :P --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
He's serious. And I certainly don't object. Spud (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Besides, there's something terribly appropriate about proper, legitimate server maintenance for this wiki being performed at this time of the year and month. We aren't always quite so... serious. Kencolt (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Site notice! - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Did you mean this guy? Or this guy? Nerd (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Good luck, and thank you for investing your spare time :-) Martin (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Nice. — Dysk (contribs) 11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
And don't forget the UK tax year changeover. Anna Livia (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe I never realized we were on linnode. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard Thank you! Nerd (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

aaand we're back! - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

When I was a child, I thought ALL Christian colleges and schools taught creationism (even up to 15 years old)[edit]

I know I have mentioned before that the town I grew up in was conservative and there was 2 churches per square mile (Probably accurate). Now here is why I thought that- every Christian I met was a creationist. Almost every church in town taught creationism though many of those same churches went under. It took me awhile to figure out that plenty of Christians only take the Bible as an allegory. Weird huh? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

God I love being catholic (I don't believe, but that just makes me a bad catholic). Apart from the systematic sexual abuse of course. No creationism at all, and sex ed depending on the kind of chaplain and management your school has. If you're really lucky they'll support LGBT+. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
They'll hate abortion no matter what tho. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
When I was a child I thought burnt grass was a sign of impending doom, And the sun will be given power to scorch people with fire, and shorter skirts was by extension a sign that the Antichrist was coming soon. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat related: I watched Dukes of Hazard when I was young (about 10), it was on every day. It took me many many years (probably early or mid-twenties) before I learned that "General Lee" is not just the name of a car, and that not everyone brandishing the Confederate Battle Flag is a Dukes of Hazard fan.
In my defence, I did grow up in Europe at a time when neo-Confederates were less in the news. Martin (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about "plenty" of Christians doing so. Less than 20% of Americans believe that human beings arose from natural processes. In 2018. And believe me that's a serious improvement from the past. And 40% still believe in literal young-earth creationism. If you sample down to "Christian Schools" the proportion of creationists is still really fucking high. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, I live in a highly conservative area. I know that near the Owosso High School (Born and raised in Owosso, Michigan; still close by), there is a Seventh Day Adventist K-6 school. There is also a Church of Christ/Seventh Day boarding school in town. Both are creationist. There is also a Catholic school, a Lutheran School and there what used to be a Baptist school. I will point out that many of the churches that the schools were affiliated with went under. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

With the DofH reference 'and other such things' - on one level #not recognising/understanding the symbolism# is the best revenge. Anna Livia (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

American higher education compared to countries in Europe[edit]

What is the American distinction between College and University? If any? Because a college teaching creationism sounds catastrophic. Féinléiriú (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In the United States, the technical distinction between "University" and "college" is that a university's subjects are "non-vocational". How that works for technical universities that teach agricultural sciences, and engineering, and software development is pretty much entirely arbitrary. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
So it is catastrophic then. I was hoping it was one of the Irish/English? definition, where it's just a secondary(high) school with notions beyond its station. e.g. My old secondary school calls itself a college, but that being said, the phrase going to college/university means the same thing. Féinléiriú (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not hard to become an accredited university in the US, where accreditation of institutions of higher learning is actually a private industry that anyone can participate in, not a government function. Leading to things like the "Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission" who can just declare any dumbass TV preacher's scam school a "university". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
And even more to the point of this wiki than far-right religious schools, you can have a "university" "accreddited" by the "Council on Naturopathic Medical Education"(redlinked to maybe motivate me to make an article). Any dumbass ideology, no matter how far removed from reality, can just put together their own accreditation commission, and boom, respectability. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
One way to bypass reality based standards is to get accredited through the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DETC). They are a national accrediting organization that has recognition but lower standards. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I do this a lot so forgive me, bUt iN iReLaND, University is a protected term, requiring an act to be passed by the Dáil (parliament) to be named so. Although most universities have the word 'College' in their name. The 'vocational' equivalent is an Institute of Technology, which teach many subjects that Universities do, to the same level (Honours Bachelor), but in a 'now fuck off and get a job' kind of way, very based on what is employable rather than what furthers the bounds of knowledge (academia basically). They are government protected, so less religious quackery. Many ITs are pretty much Unis by now though and are trying to get upgraded to Uni status. As said in in the Ireland page most schools are catholic so there is a lot of social conservatism being thought, but little to no scientific quackery, (Catholicism's one and only saving grace as a religion, and even then they'd probably say condons caused aids if the government didn't have a word about it). The fact that your first four years of Uni are subsidised and then so many people go, is what makes Ireland less social conservative than it has a right to be, given that 95% of primary/secondary schools are Catholic. Féinléiriú (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Because the terms "college" and "university" are not protected plus separation of church and state, it is easy to start a diploma mill. I could start the Taco School of Theology, offer degrees with little course work all the while bypassing state law and make plenty of cash. It is where academic integrity goes to die. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

How reliable is this graph ?[edit]

https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/D0kz77kAN1qJ8Qg_nNBkRXzIpPE=/fit-in/1600x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/Futurism-Got-Corn-graph-631.jpg

Presumably comparing predictions from the Limits of Growth to actual data. I recently saw a pretty popular leftist talk about it in France. Diacelium (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't trust any graph that fails to source its actual data. Especially ones that project a trend. Double especially ones that project a trend that's more than extrapolation of current data. Anyone can draw a line from today's date and make it do whatever they want. I personally suspect some of the doom and gloom they're suggesting, but I don't believe it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree and I add: don't trust any graph that does not have a label on one of the axis. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It's too convenient that the arrow points to roughly the present. I would honestly like to know where this graph came from, as whatever it's cited for would give it more context. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
One thing that bothers me about this one is that not only is there only one axis marked, but the other one is covering five variables that, well, aren't measured in the same units at all-- and we have no idea what those units are. Thinkie's got my vote for "Yeah, that's a problem". Kencolt (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie It was cited on a presentation on ecology. I found it weird that the "collapse" would so near (I thought it was around 2070 in the book). And frankly, you'd think more politicians would talk about it.
The most possibly reliable source with similar informations I found is this : https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-the-limits-to-growth-2012-4?IR=T and this : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse Diacelium (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Diacelium The Guardian's article seems more detailed, so I will comment on it: The key sentence in my opinion is the last one: "So far, there's little to indicate they got that wrong." That's true, the three graphs match very well with the data from about 40 years. The problem is that in such 40 years span the studied quantities increased or decrease almost in a linear way respect to the scale. If something increases or decreases almost linearly (for whatever reason) that's nothing surprising in a long term prediction working well. So I don't think that the fact that the data matches 40 years of linear monotonic behavior should be seen as a good evidence that, in the future, the data will follow the collapse predicted by the model. Actually, it seems more an evidence of the contrary, that is, that the linear behavior will continue (not forever of course).
I try to explain it with an analogy: I give you a model predicting the grown of a tree, and this model shows that the tree will grow x inches per year for the next 30 years, then it will fall. After 29 years the data of grown of the tree matches perfectly my model. Would you think that the next year the tree will fall, or would you think that I just got right the linear rate or grown of x inches per year of the tree? Thinker(unlicensed) 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It also seems to confirm it's predictions on depletion of natural ressources. Thankfully, there's probably more than what we know, of course, but that only delays the issue. Diacelium (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Predictions are tough. A few years ago we all thought that Peak oil was racing towards us. But fracking falsified a lot of the predictions.Hubert (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
"Food" and "Services" and "Industrial Output" are not depletable natural resources. The world is not going to run out of corn. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WGSS 365. Angry White Male Studies. 3 Hours H.[edit]

"This course charts the rise of the "angry white male" in America and Britain since the 1950s, exploring the deeper sources of this emotional state while evaluating recent manifestations of male anger. Employing interdisciplinary perspectives this course examines how both dominant and subordinate masculinities are represented and experienced in cultures undergoing periods of rapid change connected to modernity as well as to rights-based movements of women, people of color, homosexuals and trans individuals."

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore... Thinker(unlicensed) 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you fuck off and edit Conservapedia, you fucking troll? Spud (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you telling a skeptic atheist gay man with a PhD in STEM to edit Conservapedia? That's a hell of a task, I should rewrite it entirely :-O Thinker(unlicensed) 15:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
But you probably won't change the pages that speak ill of any women or non-whites who might have done good in the world, right? But seriously if something exists there will be courses on studying it (if unicorns existed there'd probably be a biology course regarding them), and fascist dudebros are a thing, sadly.Towards-the Unknown (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
"But you probably won't change the pages that speak ill of any women or non-whites who might have done good in the world, right?"
@Towards-the Unknown Silly question is silly. In all my history on RW you can see that I never spoke ill of somebody because of their gender or ethnicity.
"But seriously if something exists there will be courses on studying it"
Are there other courses titled "[insert negative emotion] [insert race or ethnicity] [insert gender] Studies" out there? Maybe at the MAUPWikipedia's W.svg they have a course titled "Greedy Jews Studies", but I hope you are not gonna tell me that MAUP is a respected academic institution...
"and fascist dudebros are a thing"
You are conflating a race and a gender with fascism, very prejudicial. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The most interesting part of the text was the unstated but not particularly well-hidden assumptions implicit in the phrase rapid change connected to modernity. The phrase falsely suggests that this were an inevitable and inescapable phenomenon of the human decisions, rather than a political outcome engineered by and for the ones who benefit from it. It is time to slam the brakes on rapid change, and cast aside modernity while we're at it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
"this were an inevitable and inescapable phenomenon [...] rather than a political outcome engineered"
@Smerdis of Tlön What is "this"? Is it the existence of angry white males? Thinker(unlicensed) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No: 'this' refers to rapid change connected to modernity. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone else, when seeing a new thread, skip the text and check to see if Thinker wrote it, so they can safely not bother wading through a pile of steaming baity twatmaggotry? Avida Dollarsher again 19:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I started yesterday. It has made reading the Saloon-bar pleasant and useful. Though I have to say twatmaggotry is not the appropriate word. I'd say its more like wet-leaky-tighty-whitey-staining-explosive-fartery-maggotry. Or such. ShabiDOO 00:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I just want to point out what a vacuous phrase "PhD in STEM" is, given the way PhDs are fundamentally hyperfocused. STEM, conceptually, covers at least 4 different departments at any university. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I did an internet search on a PhD in "STEM" and all I found was secondary education teaching PhD's. Basically- a science education PhD. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
"PhD in STEM" means "PhD in a field which belongs to STEM." Considering all the personal attacks I'm receiving, the less information I give about myself, the better it is. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, fine. "I have an education from a school!" Leave your expertise hawking at the door if it's not actually relevant, no one cares. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have ever read a book on making friends and influencing people, I feel confident in saying: you are not doing it right.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Avida Dollars Congratulations! You have coined a new word that has now been used by at least one other person according to Google.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Since it's there's only one result for me, google made a suggestion: "People also search for stonetoss rationalwiki". Féinléiriú (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Troll Oxyaena Harass 10:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I honestly, for the life of me, can't figure out what anybody is mad about here, and furthermore can't figure out what the piling on is about, unless it's a joke that I don't get. Is there something that says the course is not sympathetic to the angry white man? Is it the joke that we "aren't in Kansas anymore?" Because that's a good joke, no matter which direction you interpret it. Like, the answer either way is "No kidding, this is evidence that the state is making strides."
I'm hitting a dead link, but I think calling the white man angry is kind of denigrating. Especially from a young, collegiate understanding, but not especially from a university within the state of Kansas. I am lost, what am I missing? I see no problem in this course existing, but I don't know who is even mad about what here. The course, the subject matter, the idea? I'm looking it up and I'm still completely baffled, what are we even talking about? An implicit distaste for what? I have my own implicit distastes, but everybody just started booing and I can't figure out why. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This is sort of an unfortunate incident. Unlicensed Thinker just annoys people. In this case it took very little. I'm sure he was hardly inconvenienced. "Angry White Men," is a problematic topic on this wiki. @Spud Was not speaking as a moderator, I hope, but as an aggravated user. UL can be quite annoying. I hate angry white men, myself (don't blame me). Ariel31459 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 You're absolutely right. @Gol Sarnitt I enjoy a good Wizard of Oz joke as much as anybody. And there wasn't anything about this particular post that pushed me over the edge. I'm just fed up of this fucking troll with his constant "I'm just saying" posts on the subject of stupid liberals being stupid. By the way, I can well believe his claim of not being a typical right-winger. Although he comes across here as a conservative troll, he'd probably very quickly get blocked on Conservapedia for being a liberal troll. And again, the truth is he's neither. He's just a troll. Spud (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't burn the house down while I'm gone[edit]

I'm gonna be on vacation for the rest of the week until about next Monday. My activity on this site will be very limited. Be nice to each other. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That totally sounds like the ikanreed you know. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
So I cannot launch my RW nukes? Come on! 😁😁😁😁😁 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Depends upon what the fallout is - cute baby goats, 'rat officers (whether or not having demarcation disputes or protesting about the impertinence of RW staff)', random disputes... Anna Livia (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Three RW nukes launched. Areas impacted: Nazi trolls. Seek immediate shelter. The RW Emergency Alert System has been activated (Just joking). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

My neighbor is an idiot- I have to vent about this[edit]

When my neighbor's power went out due to the tornadoes (oddly I did not), she was worried about not having entertainment. She told my mom that she would invest in portable DVD players for the next time power went out. I am sure battery powered radios would be a better choice. If power goes out and emergency officials needed to get urgent information through the EAS, the neighbor would not be hearing the alert (hypothetical). I am sure making an emergency kit would be better than portable DVD players. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If she can afford them, and provided that she does also have food, water and a battery-powered radio to keep up with the news, then why not? People need entertainment. After all, they always did tell you to include things like puzzle books and a pack of cards (deck of cards, as you Yanks say) in your emergency kit. She just wants something similar that's more modern and more expensive. Spud (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Computer Simulation could verify the possibility of theistic evolution[edit]

I came across this on 4chan, of all places. Has anyone else thought of this? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That's great! Theistic evolution is tight! So what if the 4chan post is incoherent nonsense. It's barely an inconvenience.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The universe being a simulation maps pretty much one to one with a transcendent creator God making everything and being omniscient and omnipotent. The idea isn't new, though it's not often expressed in those terms. As for theistic evolution, it's an untestable explanation because it offers no way to check whether or not divine intervention has happened. One can, of course, intervene in real-world evolutionary simulations, but that has no bearing on whether or not that happened in biological evolution in reality. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
4chan is a great source of disinformation. lol — Dysk (contribs) 11:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
As somebody whose degree is in Modeling and Simulation, I can assure you that simulations can never 'prove' anything themselves. They can only give an estimate based on valid assumptions. You *must* have corroborating data to verify those assumptions. I.e. you have to observe and quantify a diety to include them in a simulation, otherwise it is just a videogame. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Um, evolutionary algorithms have been known for a long time, and are one of the techniques being explored in the machine learning field. I'm not sure how one can make a theistic or atheistic conclusion from this. The main thing I've always thought about evolutionary programming techniques is that they can show *how* evolution works in an environment outside what nature does, the technique can come up with some interesting results sometimes from what I've read. There is nothing testable in biology one way or another. Don't care either way. I would personally not count on that invisible something in the sky, but if you want to keep your God while acknowledging the last 150 years of biological science, I suppose theistic evolution is a fair bit better than alternative theistic approaches like "intelligent design". Soundwave106 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Proving the hypothetical plausibility of something isn't the same as proving that thing. It's a bit like "watch me use these lockpicks to pick this lock, go in, rearrange my bookshelf, leave and lock the door again, that proves someone is doing that in my home every night". We've seen the effects of intelligent creatures guiding evolution in the real world, and the intelligent creatures are us. It does little to suggest the existence of god(s). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
What does this thread have to do with theistic evolution? The guy set up a simulation of bouncing spheres and a pattern developed that they pareidoliistically interpreted as "walking". There wasn't even any intervention. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering! But I thought I must be missing something.Hubert (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed, @Hannasanarion You're absolutely right, the title was poorly worded. Even though there wasn't any intervention, the programmer was the ultimate cause so I added theistic. I'm an agnostic by the way. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
For a better adjective for that concept, check out our article on deism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@BobRoss All the simulation showed is that patterns can develop in rules-governed systems, which is more or less self-evident. Shake up a bowl of ball bearings and they will settle into neat hexagon lattices. This isn't an act of god, or even evolution, it's just what happens when you do put those things in that circumstance, as a result of gravity plus geometry. Hannasanarion (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
So the title absolutely correct apart from the references to theism and evolution?Hubert (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Computer Simulation could verify the possibility? Féinléiriú (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The spelling was OK, except for an extra capital.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hannasanarion The simulation parameters (what the article refers to as 'force') were changed. This would be an analog to a diety changing the gravitational constant and seeing what developed. However, the process as described was completely blind and it was not an active alteration based on the data at all. This would be like a diety changing the gravitational constant (having no idea what it would do) and then coming back millions of years later and learning what happens when you change the gravitational constant. This wouldn't be guided evolution at all. It is throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks, not even knowing you are trying to make things stick in the first place.

I can also explain what likely happened in the simulation. In simulations with variables that interact with each other, the rate of change of parameters must be relatively slow compared to the timestep (or 'frame rate') in the system. If the timestep is too long compared to the variable rate of change, instabilities develop. They specifically stated in the thread that they increased the force to the point where the positions of the objects in the computer were uncertain. This implies such a high rate of change that there is no way that the timestep was sufficiently small to capture real phenomena. Further, the objects are set to move 'erratically'. If this is implying that their motion is dictated by a 'random' variable (most amateur coders use built in pseudorandom numbers generators), than the actual randomness of their variable is vital to making sure these patterns aren't simply the result of bad pseudorandom number generation. The built in pseudorandom number generators in most programming languages are terrible at avoiding patterns long-term, something this simulation was.

In summary, the poster provided evidence that they used very bad simulation practices. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@MirrorIrorriM What should they have done? I just downloaded Unity and am it trying it myself. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It depends on what you are trying to do. If you just want to have spheres that replicate, you can just use the Unity 'GameObject.Instantiate' function and spawn a prefab. If the spheres have a rigidbody attached and you are using the rigidbody.addforce command, you could input a random direction and amplitude of force, but the problem is unity as a whole is not going to be a stable engine for simulations unless you are very careful (it is, after all, a video game engine). You would never be able to use their physics engine for a proper simulation because you can't account for all of their internal variables. Still though, it is useful as an analog for some of the issues that face many simulations. Try loading up one of their example games (specifically one which uses physics), and then go into Edit->Project Settings->Time, then set their Fixed Timestep to 1.0 and see how their game plays. Chances are it will become unstable because the timestep is too long compared to the physics.
Edit: They also should have tested the random number generation of their system to verify that it is patternless. A common randomness test is called the 'Diehard Battery of Tests'. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Disclaimers, comments, etc, in articles[edit]

Perhaps it is because I was (and still am) content to read Wikis and understand their formatting rather than edit them, but it honestly puzzles me why some people attempt to post their complaints in the article itself. Do they honestly expect their edit to remain in the article? Do they lack impulse control? Some feedback would honestly help, as my attempts to understand this behavior have thus far failed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that it would be fairly easy to express concerns without vandalizing articles. That is why talk pages and the bar are here. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
But they don't utilize those options, hence my confusion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It used to be easy to put things like that down to well-meaning ignorance. That's a bit less easy to do now that wikis have been a part of mainstream internet culture for nearly 2 decades. So, yeah. I am inclined to think that most of them know that their comments won't stay on the page for very long and they're just trying to engage in a little low-level disruption and waste a little of our time by getting us to undo them. Spud (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably inexperience with wikis, so ignorance of talk pages, so they attempt to inject commentary to try to get editors to notice. My best guess. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it might still be best to assume good faith. Which means that it's usually best to undo the edits, rather than roll them back, and explain why in the edit summary. Spud (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In an attempt to inject commentary, I know I once edited a userpage of a troll out of pure frustration, and even then I got the smack, which showed up in my talk page. It was really helpful to see exactly how I messed up in a moment of righteousness. I mean, sure, Hanlon's Razor, but admittedly it was both ignorant and malicious on my part. In a very basic sense, Hanlon's Razor does not say a tool can't be misused intentionally, it just says if a tool is misused, start by assuming the person doesn't know how to use the tool. I mean, if they knew what they were doing, wouldn't they disrupt on a grander scale? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily. They might consider themselves too polite and too well brought up to go on a vandalism spree. A little low-level disruption might be all they want to cause. All right. Sometimes they're trying to be a little bit disruptive. Probably most of the time they don't know any better and actually think they're helping. It's pretty much impossible to tell. Spud (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I've read wiki articles for years, but I did find it quite confusing to edit them for the first few times. There are a lot of conventions and rules that are not obvious from just seeing the articles themselves. Driving a car and living in a city filled with cars for 2 decades doesn't mean you know how to build or fix one. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me like the "correct" solution is to Direct users to the talk page on their user talk page. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, this ain't wrong.[edit]

Found this, a collection of maps that don't tell you anything useful. some interesting choices in there... Kencolt (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, text to speech over stolen "humorous" images. I can think of worse compositions for youtube videos, but you'd have to actively try to be bad. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Serendipity, Rob Delaney just went on Fresh Air last week to talk about his show and losing a son and alcoholism and just, altogether, held up a really good interview. Late in it, he was asked about his first stand-up experience, and said he tanked by taking an atlas up on stage and joking about a town in Greenland he couldn't pronounce and then handing the atlas around to prove the town existed. I don't think he didn't know WHAT was funny to people, but I think in the interview he was trying to explain he didn't understand what funny was. This is a kind of funny, and kind of fun to look at. I ain't mad at ya. But any channel with "meme" in the title is the kind of re-post culture that makes OC an uphill climb.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Never noticed the channel name. I just found some of the maps amusing. Kencolt (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I too find each and every map fun. No blame for having fun with it, and the map complicated with statistics format is very on point here. I don't think it's not fun, and I don't think anyone should refuse to watch it. I think the best description, as a disclaimer, is it is curation without reference. Without any kind of bibliography or list of references, it's high-level plagiarism. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel we could use an article debunking commen Truscum arguments,and an article on Kalvin Garrah.[edit]

I feel we would really benefit ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

We cover the majority of it in transmedicalism don't we? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Spud is remembering his Dad[edit]

This evening I'll raise a glass in honour of my Dad on what would have been his 74th birthday. Spud (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Good fortune to his name. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you debunk this statement- or find where it came from?[edit]

Evolution is the religion of every atheist. look at how much they defend it. It’s obvious that it’s not just some hobby or just some mere field of study they learned in school. It’s much more than that. They are like vegans when you talk about animals, or gays when you talk about marriage. They are so invested because it’s their belief system that has been attacked. The funny part is, we are doing them the favor and showing them that they were lied to. The fact they are getting mad at us and defending the liars is proof that they have had their belief system rocked. They are so biased from indoctrination that they need it to be true. Not because it is, but because the only alternative is creation. 💥 Their cognitive dissonance doesn’t allow them to see anything else. — Unsigned, by: Easydozen‎ / talk / contribs

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism_as_an_organized_religion
Also, evolution isn't a belief system. It's a scientific theory that certainly can be falsified and corroborates evidence from many, many sources. We accept evolution as a way to explain observations for the world, and it also predicts what happens to certain phenomena in the future. "The only alternative is creation" is a false dichotomy as well, and creation also isn't mutually exclusive to evolution either, as evolution is an explanation for life that's already happening; it does not explain how life came to be, only how complex life is. So anyway, I don't know where that argument originated since it's like a meme at this point, but it's very easily debunked, and it tells us how very little creationists and anti atheists really don't understand their opposition. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Plus, lots of atheists don't care about evolution. There were loads of atheism before Darwin, from Heraclitus and Diagoras to Diderot and Shelley, as well as various Buddhist thinkers. And some post-Darwin atheists like Nietzsche weren't big fans (he was a vitalist). --Annanoon (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
One can also add Hume to that statement as well. Oxyaena Harass 10:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore many theists understand and accept the facts of evolution. So not only is it not necessary for an atheist to know or care about evolution in order to be an atheist; many individuals acknowledge the facts of evolution while still maintaining a belief in a god. So the whole argument is pretty absurd. Hubert (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This statement is oft-repeated but wrong, and it's wrong in a way that creationists latch onto and it gives their BS credence. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. It is directly observable. You can see it in the lab, you can see it in the history books, you can see it in fossils, and you can see it happening in the wild. It was known about long before Darwin. The "theory" part is evolution by means of natural selection, which is an explanation of why evolution happens. Theories answer the "why" question, not the "whether" question. Hannasanarion (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You can, hypothetically, make anything you want into a religion. It can't truly be debunked, because it's possible that some people infuse supernatural value into evolution. I can't prove that no one does. But what I can do is assert that if the evidence of an competing theory were actually compelling(to the extent of explaining the fossil record, the already demonstrated adaptation of living species, the exact nature of genetic similarity of extant species, reproducible in a labratory setting, etc), I'd stop believing in evolution. My surety in it is only bound by the consistency of its ability to explain the world through predictions. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as origin goes, it seems like this quote comes from some (best guess) Russian troll bot or something similar. A Google search for these phrases reveals nearly exact verbage copy-pasted in similar form as a comments (often by a user named "Knowledge") in several questionable video sharing websites (such as ruclip). The quote also shows up on Google cache attached to a couple Amazon reviews on evolution books; at this time the comments appear to be removed (probably because it was detected as spam). Sure, the argument doesn't make sense (as people have said above), but the words clearly are targeting religiously / social conservative audiences for the usual troll purpose. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The only reasons not to get a vaccine[edit]

  • Autoimmune Disease
  • AIDS
  • Cancer
  • Severe Combined Immunodeficiency
  • Allergies

These are actual medical reasons vs. conspiracy pseudoscience bullshit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kinda redundant to list both AIDS and autoimmune diseases. But also: anyone on immunosuppressors for transplants. Also anyone with compromised vital signs; e.g. a baby with a excessively high heart rate, implying a unstable condition, the adrenaline shock of a vaccine could cause a palpitation. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Either way, Pro-Plague people put those who are medically unable to get vaccines in danger. Also, a virus remains in the population which could allow it to mutate. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
What about diseases you will never encounter - not just 'rinderpest, sweating sickness and smallpox' (and not being involved in certain types of work - archaeology, pathology etc)? Anna Livia (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a sixth. I can't take the annual Flu vaccine shots because I have previously suffered (and I do mean suffered) wp:Guillain–Barré_syndrome. Fun little thing where your immune system goes somewhat wonky, and decides that your nervous system is invading, leading to all sorts of lovely things... including full body paralysis, permanent neural damage, and quite often enough death. And one of the very few ways that I could have a relapse (which I really do not want to do) is to have a flu shot trigger one. Other vaccines could trigger it as well, but I'm old enough that they're rather off my schedule, so... Kencolt (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The HIV Scare[edit]

A close relative of mine is telling me that HIV does not derive from a primate, but was created by scientists who arrived in Africa and tested it on non-human primates first. She also says the shamans in Congo reported no such disease as HIV existing in primates before the scientists arrived. This is a lot to take in and I can't find anything related to this. Can someone find these articles? I really don't know where any of this comes from. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I get the same kind of stories from a friend of mine who always tells me Q isn't far off from the truth. He gets his info from a group of people who follow Qanon. Well, when your baseline is a story from a person who says their clearance is almost impossible to reach, but they also share their information freely; if they were really preaching the truth you weren't supposed to hear, how would it have got here in the first place and why is it still here this many years later? Deep state woulda put the kibosh on that pretty quick, if they were worth a damn.
Of course you can't find anything related to this. It's either a) a true story that requires validation from honest African shamans or b) a fake story that... requires validation from honest African shamans. The bigger question is who gives a shit, if we all work to stop HIV now it can be put down like measles or polio or smallpox. Be as mad as you want about the origins of HIV, just make sure you're mad because it's a thing and not because somebody said something about a bunch of bullshit that doesn't matter. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Shamans wouldn't necessarily know anyways. SIV variants affect a large amount of primates, and not always in a pathological way (eg, a primate with SIV may not get AIDS like symptoms). At any rate, the above seems to be a part of the broad class of "AIDS as a bio-weapon" conspiracies, which is a 1980s example of KGB-spread fake news. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you cite a verifiable example of scientists actually creating another disease, not just biological warfare using diseases that already exist?
Better yet, given that all the rich old white farts generally screw around with young black women, wouldn't filling up the black community with infectious diseases be counter to their own interests? CoryUsar (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I narrowed this down to Jakob Segal, sort of. He never spoke of shamans in Africa. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's a non-random survey of AIDS origin conspiracy beliefs:[1] Bongolian (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Aids would be a pretty bad biological weapon. The ideal biological weapon would kill its enemies quickly and would be self-limiting in some way so that you could rapidly and safely take over their country/area after the epidemic has passed. It's difficult to imagine a biological weapon less suited to this purpose than HIV/AIDS.

Apart from this - why on earth would you test in an an uncontrolled wild population in Africa? If someone wants to test something on mice they don't go out in the fields, try catching some wild mice, and hope they can track them down later. They test them under controlled conditions in a laboratory.Hubert (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe alot of this stems from the original Soviet campaign to say HIV/AIDS was created by the USA government, Operation Infektion Lord Aeonian (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

But it ravaged the gay and black communities in New York in the early 1980's and the Reagan administration blew it off like it wasn't real! Clearly, correlation equals causation here. There was no coincidence that could have been cashed in on, surely it had to have been administered by the government. Gol Sarnitt (talk)

The conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories!!!! It is perfect!!![edit]

The moon has a base ran by the Free Masons that is armed with missiles that contain a virus that makes people gay! The purpose is to turn all Christians into Muslims so they could kill Jesus to sacrifice him to Ba'al so they could worship Obama! Once Obama is recognized as the new son of God, he will take over Greece to build a base to house the secret McDonald's! This secret McDonald's leads to the lab where Cyborg Hitler is being built! Cyborg Hitler will make a star gate that leads to the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden will become a Nazi base which will eat the fruit of life so they can take over the world! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

do keep up, dear AMassiveGay (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I just make parodies for fun but I don't think my jokes could reach Alex Jones level insanity. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I Still don't understand this[edit]

https://www.lionsroar.com/what-is-your-body-july-2013/

Contemporary cognitive science agrees. All experiences arise when consciousness is activated by a sense organ meeting an internal or external object. (Here, the mind itself functions like a sixth sense organ in relation to emotion and thought.) We assume we are “experiencing” the object that gave rise to the event in our consciousness. But the truth is that the only thing we can verify is the experience itself, however we may be misconstruing it. The idea of the body is like this. It is an idea based on unwarranted assumptions about the coherence of our conscious experience. f Also here is the other bit to the quote: The Buddhist teachings on the workings of mind, called Abhidharma, teach us that there isn’t a body per se, just a variety of momentary mental events. some of them we think of as “physical,” even though they’re not. When I feel an ache in my right leg, the Abhidharma analysis goes, this sensation is a mental event produced in consciousness when an object I call a leg activates inner sensors that awaken awareness in a particular way. Likewise, seeing, hearing, and all sense perceptions are mental events stimulated by apparently physical objects.

I know I have made threads about this before but I still don't get it. Is it saying that we don't have a body or that physical reality doesn't exist?Machina (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Suppose you understood this problem of yours? Would you use it to accomplish some further task? Or, are you hoping for the satisfaction that comes from acquiring certain knowledge? Many Buddhist teachings imply you should not inquire, but reflect upon contradictions. Some teachers would strike you for asking if reality exists. Eventually, the student stops asking. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't really help or answer my question really. My concerns rest with the original statement I made and the article.Machina (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course I didn't answer your question. I told you to answer it yourself. And you did not answer either of my questions. There is symmetry there for you to consider.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
When you accidentally cut your finger, there is a mental aspect (for most people) that sends a signal to your brain, that tells you "ow". It is possible to block this signal temporarily in various ways, and indeed there is a rare neural disorder in which people will never go "ow" when this occurs. The finger, however, will still be wounded whether you go "ow" or not. I don't know if the above is symptomatic of all Buddhism, or just the American Zen Buddhism style imported from Japan (to me that link had a very New Age woo feel), but I find this "we are nothing / we are everything" sort of cloudy mysticism quite unhelpful, even if there are some points that are worthwhile in the fog of ideas (such as noting that everyone has their own perspective). Some things are definitely mental, but pretending that no bodies exist seems illogical. Many American Zen Buddhist leaders have been involved in sex scandals, so apparently there is enough body-love among some of these leaders to engage in lustful tomfoolery. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
So I think the question I have now is, what is holding out in this article that hasn't been refuted? What is it about this article that actually holds you to it?
The tough part about nihilism is when you totally agree with somebody, and all their points points make sense. I mean, when dialing the proof of math down to its basic truths, a human came close but Russell's Paradox flattened the very end of it with a circular paradox. Now, I'm not so smart as to solve this paradox (EDIT: this is a really gross joke, just, don't ever ask me to do math for you). I'm not so wise as to tell you your ideas must be wrong and there must be something absolutely correct outside of them. But can there be something that fits the idea of correct for each person?
Here we enter the difficult realm of metaethics. And I don't think we'll ever be able to leave it, which isn't to say all ethics are useless, but I mean every time we get to something we agree on, it can be whittled down to a circular paradox. Here's a bullshit idea, maybe that's a property of the universe, I don't even know how anybody could start to make that claim. But I know it is tough to move forward as an individual when society is a construct, and so society requires both multiple individuals while leaving every individual out of its definition. Cultism isn't a viable solution to this problem. Society is defined by an individual (solipsism), society exists outside of an individual, society is made up of individuals (solipsists). The final circular paradox of Logicism probably doesn't fit 1:1 with human experience.
Go be a Buddhist, enjoy your Abhidharma, I don't mind. But don't keep looking to other people for a comfortable answer to the end-all paradox of your existence, if you're not even comfortable enough in Buddhism to accept Buddhism. Nobody even has math proved out right.
So again, what is your exact question? That the body and existence can't be separate? If no answer is good enough, maybe you've hit a paradox, or maybe you're not doing the work to ask a question that can be answered. Got nothing else for you. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well no one has really refuted the article, that claim that you don't have a body just the experience of the body.Machina (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And it doesn't occur to you when you simplify it to that sentence that it's meaningless drivel? The tests of a human body physically existing are innumerable: it displaces water when placed in a tub, it experiences gravity when put on a scale, it holds capacitance, it combusts if heated, if all you want is scientific evidence of matter existing and having certain characteristics, the number of tests you could do in 10 fucking seconds are multitudinous. You seemingly don't accept those answers merely because they're boring.
I can't really be the only one to get tired of these "deep" questions, sometimes, Machina. Because you have no standards for truth. You float from "interesting" point to "interesting" point and never does your fluttering butterfly of a "questioning the universe" process land and reflect on the course you've taken long enough to ask yourself why you're asking, and answer some fundamental-ass questions like "what does the word 'exist' mean?"
I wish I could say answering those questions would give you existential satisfaction the way "it's all an illusion disguising a greater purpose" does, but you really do yourself a disservice this way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean if you read the article, especially the part with "contemporary cognitive science agrees", you would see my issue.Machina (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
But... I refuted that by saying it sites no source for the "contemporary cognitive science claim"... What work do I have to do to prove that siting no source when invoking science is dubious? Do I have to agree my arguments contain nothing of value in face of yours? The ball is completely in your court now.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Heil Honkler[edit]

The time I tried and failed to learn Koine (New Testament) Greek[edit]

I remember when I took a course in Biblical/New Testament/Koine Greek and no matter how much I studied, I couldn't grasp the material. It was through the Christian Leadership Institute. When I requested to drop the course they were friendly about it. I was able to drop the course. Greek is a tough language to learn. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Greek is not an easy language, especially if you have no experience of the more old-fashioned Indo-European languages like Latin or Russian. It has very complicated verbs, active, middle, and passive voices, and a huge lexicon; studying 'New Testament' Greek gets you off easy because you get to ignore 3/4s of the vocabulary. The slightly unfamiliar alphabet is the smallest obstacle. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I need a captain planet villain[edit]

Please kill all the trees on the planet, so I can stop suffering. I'm mixing dangerous numbers of anti-allergy medicines to just make it through the day. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

BP Barron? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I hate trees because they screwed me up in Mario Golf one time. Just cut them all down. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Can't agree with you guys on that. My rogue on WoW is an alchemist, and she's gotta have trees because that's where the herb she needs for her elixirs grows. More herbs! More trees! Kencolt (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Big pharma thieves are responsible for my allergies. I knew it! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Herbs? Alchemy? Elixirs? That's alternative medicine! CUT THE TREES DOWN! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
“Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.”
― Mother Teresa and by extension, me. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it was pollen season, not fig season. Gave him fits, y'all gotta retcon this lame-ass Bible. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I tried to retcon the damn Bible, but the damn Bible, gleefully wanting me to hold its beer, beat me to it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
i've never had hay fever nor allergies of any kind. does that mean i am blessed or cursed? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Imagine if, for one month per year, instead of an alarm clock, you got woken up by having a brick slammed in your face each day. On rainy days, they make sure to not give you two black eyes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
But aren't alarm clocks a crappy way to start a day too?
AMassiveGay: Certainly not blessed because you don't get people blessing you every 2 minutes as I do when I get allergies and sneeze every 30 seconds. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 16:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I used to get allergy shots twice a week when I was a kid, got a big collection of TOPPS NFL cards from it, which I'm sure I've lost forever. I don't even have my full 87 White Sox baseball cards I won in some boy scouts thing. But like my TOPPS cards, I no longer have asthma symptoms, and I don't really have allergies very bad any more. I also used to get strep throat once a year, swabbing the throat was the worst. I know what it's like to be unable to breathe for no reason. I also don't know how to swim. I don't like being on boats, I don't like flying over water. If I ever survive a crash landing in water with no land in sight, I will drown myself as quickly as possible. I don't want to die without being able to breathe, I would rather take deadly deep breaths of water on purpose than run out of breath. The allergy shots, I don't know what their efficacy was, and I don't know what the shots exactly were made out of or what they did. But now I get hit with pollen from a tree and my nose and eyes just run a bit, my throat doesn't close. And my allergies are much gentler than they were even 10 years ago. My dad still tells me to try antihistamines that work for him. And my mom still asks me to take her expired inhalers and keep them on my person. Without either, I'm doing very well. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
POST-SCRIPT: SUCK IT, ALLERGIES ARE FOR WEENIES! No, that's not what I'm trying to say at all. I've been a victim of allergies, can't get a cat because that one has never gone away. People say "Oh my cat is so sweet, my cat loves new people" and I say "I have to go, NOW."Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Any good resources to learn more about Science?[edit]

As a mere Tekken player at my local, I feel lost in this post-truth society, where all I hear daily is agenda. Science, I feel, is one of the few things I could make sense of, should I learn to understand it more. I mean any field, really. I want to understand the 101 of things so I don't get swallowed by bullshit. Spoony (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"I mean any field, really. I want to understand the 101 of things so I don't get swallowed by bullshit."
Well, then I think that, instead of a scientific field to study, you are asking for prerequisites for a scientific/skeptical mentality. There's no unique path, but some things I recommend are:
1) Learning elementary LogicWikipedia's W.svg and, in particular, understanding common fallacies in reasoningWikipedia's W.svg
2) Learning elementary Probability TheoryWikipedia's W.svg and StatisticsWikipedia's W.svg
Thinker(unlicensed) 16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Art imo is a good offpath to help you examine the world and constantly reevaluate what you are doing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, I've gotta say I think UT's post is somewhat condescending, just natively assuming you're engaged in constant fallacious reasoning, and to the extent it isn't, it still doesn't actually reflect a particularly good basis of good skeptical thinking. It's more likely to get you a set of bad debate habits than good critical thinking skills, and particularly not for a general grounding in science. Studying logical fallacies with the belief that it renders you immune to them is, in my opinion, actively bad.
Also, it's hard to go wrong with a good book on the philosophy of science. When I was starting out, I found Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher to be a pretty good book on the deliniation between science and pseudo-science, and how fuzzy that boundary can occasionally be(and ways people falsely portray it to be fuzzy). It leans a little heavy on a central premise of smacking down intelligent design, but it definitely got me past naive "if it does observe->experiment->reject it's science, else not" that grade school taught. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at the following books.

  1. Gribbin J. Science, A History, 1543-2001. London: Allen Lane; 2002. ISBN 0713995033.
  2. Kakalios J. The Physics of Superheroes. New York: Gotham Books; 2005. ISBN 0-7156-3549-2.
  3. McEvoy, J. P, et al. Stephen Hawking for Beginners. Icon, 1995. ISBN 1874166250.
  4. Baigrie B. Electricity and Magnetism: A Historical Perspective. Westport, Conn. [u.a.]: Greenwood Press; 2007. ISBN 0313333580.
  5. Thorne K. Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. W. W. Norton and Company; 1994. ISBN 0393035050.

Enjoy! Nerd (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I recommend Walter and Litzka Gibson's Complete Illustrated Book Of The Psychic Sciences as a general introduction to science. It's from the 1960s and some information is dated, but the section on Moleosophy is still solid. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett sued by the city of Chicago[edit]

New York Times: "The city of Chicago sued the actor Jussie Smollett on Thursday, seeking more than $130,000 to cover the cost of a police investigation into his claim that he had been the victim of a hate crime attack."

Civil Action Cover Sheet - Case Initiation: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5835825/Chicago-sues-Jussie-Smollett-over-costs-of.pdf

So they were not joking. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

So they should, he did commit a fake hate crime. — Unsigned, by: 1.136.108.33 / talk

Double dare[edit]

A real beauty

I'll give $50 to the first person ~who jumps into the black hole! ShabiDOO 01:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll give a hundred to someone who comes back with proof. Kencolt (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I bet $200 to ski around a black hole. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
$300 for the first person who sticks their dick in it. Double dog dare. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 02:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I bet $600 for the guy to take a healthy shit in the black hole. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll bet a $10,000 for making this first black hole image more clear than being blurry. Besides, I think this picture looks fake to me, not very convincing. Mar9122 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mar9122 You realize this is a photo of a black hole over 53 million light years away, right? Of course the damn picture isn't gonna be very clear. Oxyaena Harass 04:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see this "This is a picture of a black hole" everywhere. I don't think it is. I think it's a picture of the effects of a black hole on nearby matter.Hubert (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Also it's a radio picture. — Dysk (contribs) 12:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You say that like all perception isn't like that. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hubert It's the picture of the accretion disk, not the actual black hole itself. We can't take pictures of black holes because they're black, they absorb all light, but this is a pedantic point, in all practicality it's an image of a black hole. Oxyaena Harass 22:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@OxyaenaWell, Yes. That's really my point. Hubert (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
We're talking fifty bucks here and you guys are trying to come to concise agreements about whether the aspects of a picture are exactly what a picture defines? I knew I liked you guys, but sheesh, you're out 50 bucks, I'm on my way to that black hole. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones and Minions[edit]

Alex Jones points out that "Astronauts died" during the race to the Moon and wonders "How traumatic was for their families" to watch a Moon landing conspiracy theories-joke in one of "The Minions" movies...

Rings a bellWikipedia's W.svg? Thinker(unlicensed) 15:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one who read this topic title and thought it was gonna be about Alex Jones' thoughts on the yellow things from Despicable Me? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Alex Jones on minions.png
Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, the title was intentionally misleading Thinker(unlicensed) 16:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Increasing the Earth's Mass[edit]

Worldwide over 50 billion chickens are now being slaughtered every year. If for some reason I took over the world and wanted to increase earth's mass with the dead chickens, how many years would it take for this to actually make the earth substantially bigger? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Stupid question? The Earth's mass would remain the same regardless of how much of said mass was in the form of "chicken" instead of water and various gases and minerals. CoryUsar (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
So not even mountains of chickens would have any affect? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The chickens of the planet Xorg-Xorg in the Zirkon galaxy evolved to feed off of nutrients from a fifth dimension. They certainly do add mass to their planets. However Earth chickens don't have this ability (as far as we know). Since all Earth bound organism are just made of Lego pieces lying around Earth...there can't be more mass unless it rains new Lego pieces...which is what happens 0n the planet Borger-Dorf-Prime in the Choppycox galaxy...but sadly not on Earth. We live on an unremarkable planet. ShabiDOO 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Some chap in the 19th century (I read somewhere) wrote a book on how meteors and other matter from outer space were possibly 'overloading' the Earth. Anna Livia (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh no! So for every asteroid that lands on Earth, we will have to fling several people of the same mass, out into space? ShabiDOO 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Or an equivalent mass of chickens. Fortunately, chickens can thrive on Mars. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Earth is full! Build a roof! 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9D7F:CB12:425:98B1 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Think of all the people who lose weight every year! Where does that weight go??? I suspect that there are series of mini black holes in subspace which absorb all the lost weight and thus the mass of the earth is constantly being reduced! (Or maybe it's just being redistributed.) Hubert (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anna LiviaThe earth loses hydrogen and helium and gains mostly iron and nickel from meteorites. Usually there is a net loss of material, on average about 55 million kg per year, that is about 10 to the minus 17 of earth's total mass.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I was just quoting what I read (and the original reviewer 'was probably not convinced'). Anna Livia (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's quite interesting actually. This thread inspired me to go looking down some unexpected rabbit holes. I suspect the original poster was not being entirely serious but it's always useful to have something to learn. So thanks.Hubert (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Was the (late) 19th century writer's concept based on valid science at the time (ie not being aware of 'gaseous escapes) - and what would happen to a tidally-locked planet or satellite if 'an excess of material' were to make landfall in a particular area? Anna Livia (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If it were big enough it would kill the dinosaurs? (If the hypothetical planet had any hypothetical dinosaurs.)
In most cases 'an excess of incoming over outgoing material' will merely have minor effects upon orbits/superficial soil chemistry etc, and there will be a few extinction level events and other disruptions (eg hitting a geologically stressed area, or 'the dam that held back the North Sea').
Consider our tidally locked Moon; what would happen if 'some combination of planetary orbits influencing asteroid belts and cometary debris orbits' meant that material tended to land in one particular region (rather than spread more or less evenly) - so that the centre of gravity changes. Anna Livia (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The Mount Rushmore Singers[edit]

Oxyaena Harass 23:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fun Conservapedia bit (Okay, about as fun as dropping a rock on your foot)[edit]

No creature has ever been observed changing from one Baramin into another. Evolutionist Richard Lenski claims to have observed a bacteria evolving, but even if the unproven claim is true, the bacteria is still bacteria, it has not left its Baramin.- Baraminology article

Last time I checked, evolution does not always mean species literally adding more cells, skin or organs. Not a biologist or anything but I remember somethings from Biology class plus my interests are largely in metaphysical ministry. Evolution is fact nonetheless. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that baraminology is silly pseudoscience. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And that "Creature changing from one thing to another" is a purposeful misunderstanding of evolution. "I choose to remain ignorant of your argument so that I can refute it" is an annoyingly common occurrence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Using the bacteria example here, let us say a bacterial strain thrived in hot, dry environments and only infected humans. Now as part of the hypothetical several volcanoes erupt and cause nuclear winter which causes many people to die; the bacteria might evolve a little to last in cold environments and infect monkeys. It is not a change into a completely different species, it is just environmental adaption. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The definition of species in the space of bacteria is not so clear and unambiguous as multi-cellular mammals. I would say a primary niche distinction that grandiose would convince any post-apocolyptic microbiologist that they were dealing with a new species. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
In point of fact "species" is not as clear a definition as we might imagine. In historical/evolutionary terms there is no clear dividing line where one species becomes another. It's simply a continuum of gradual change. The fact that the fossil record is necessarily incomplete gives us the illusion that that there are clear cut-off points but this is an illusion. Even today we have ring species which demonstrate this.Hubert (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
One example I'm pretty familiar with is brewer's yeast, in which a separation between "ale yeast" (Saccharomyces Cerevisiae) and "lager yeast" (Saccharomyces Pastorianus) occurred a few hundred years ago by "artificial selection", eg human activities (fermenting and storing beer in temperature ranges lower than ale yeast typically tolerates). I remember at one time there was some question on whether lager yeast is a separate species or not. The current consensus I believe is that it is -- S. Pastorianus is an "interspecific hybrid" between S. Cerevisiae and another yeast variety called Saccharomyces Eubayanus. In most non-bacterial cases that I know of, human-driven artificial selection (including human driven hybridization) has not evolved new viable species (at least, new species in that they are fertile -- humans have made *millions* of mules)... but there's still enough of an influence to change a wolf into a pug. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
What about [2] - and there must be other species that have likewise evolved into niches created by humans. Anna Livia (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. Even for bigger animals (that naturally evolve slowly over 1000s of generations) there's plenty of examples of smaller changes, due to the evolutionary pressure of human activity. (Elephants are a great example of how rapidly a trait -- tuskless -- can be adapted, even with relatively slow reproduction, under significant pressure.) Certainly for other fast reproducing tiny creatures (insects, fungi, bacteria) it is plausible humans have actually created new species with their activities, similar to the new species of yeast example. The London Underground mosquito is from what I read debatable, but there are other examples in the Wapo article (even if not outright new species yet, some pretty huge differences). There will probably be a whole lot more of this if the worst scenarios of climate change play out and the evolutionary pressures kick into overdrive. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article seems perfectly correct to me - "Baramin" is a term for a fantastical idea that exists solely so that people can deny evidence - so how could something change from one thing that doesn't exist to another?? :puz: A stopped clock moment! :)Aloysius the Gaul 03:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I know consciousness is weird but[edit]

I don't get why it's so hard for people to believe that the brain produces consciousness. It's like there is a need for it to be some kind of mystical thing that it really isn't like this makes it out:

where did the brain come from? You tell me, let's break it down. There is no infinity you say. Then that itself implies a beginning of creation. A creation that you believe is separate from one thing to the next, not all one thing working together and existing as one, as I see from my side of things. So what brought on this beginning? Where did the brain or anything else come from for that matter? If you have theories of your own I'm all ears. Everything in my world fits and works and it is the result of years of study and practice and experience and simply seeing parallels everywhere pointing to one possibility. That is the theory of consciousness Itself being the infinite, that which has no beginning and holds the spark of existence within its beingness. The resonance of said consciousness vibrates as everything we see and it is conscious of these objects within its own field of being. It's all one and it is the self, the only thing that could be. This brain theory has no basis that I can think up. Not unless I get wildly imaginative and start shoving pieces where they don't fit. Also it is up to the individual person to make up their mind as to whether there is a God or not. If one sees things as I do then you could call consciousness God or any other word they want. It is that which exists, the source from which this whole thing seems to have emerged yet I see that as the mind of existence. Please elighten me if I'm telling myself fairy tales seeking comfort. I want to know how a brain is resposible for more than the mechanical balance and upkeep of the body/mind. Truth is so obvious to me I can't look anywhere and not see it. I know what I am and am becoming more acquainted with myself moment to moment.Machina (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"The brain produces consciousness" and the word salad you offered up both describe the same mind-body monism. All of reality is various bits of reality (atoms) 'sensing' and interacting with each other (i.e. the universe is 'conscious' of itself, otherwise nothing would interact). That includes the brain, of course, but because all the interactions going on are a lot harder to follow we call it something different, more special. But is consciousness special? Is monism boring or magically amazing? *shrugs* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Except the brain does produce consciousness, we just don't know how. I wouldn't call the universe "conscious" of itself, more like a machine really.Machina (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The brain can't sense anything on it's own, it isn't sensitive enough. It requires two cameras, air chemical sensors, millions of pressure sensors, millions of temperature sensors, thousands of liquid chemical sensors, two frequency sensitive pressure sensors, along with a few miscellaneous internal sensors to create the experiences you feel. Brain injury can change personality, memory, sensory perception, language ability, etc. What exactly is left for a disembodied conciousness to do separate from the brain? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
you can only trust your own mind and body so far and my 'reality' fundamentally shifts as my perspective does. certainty only exists for religious zealots blind to their own failings. its rarely an attractive trait. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
We all know that 'we are entities in our bodies and observing the world' - and that from observation other people are the same; and there is something more to 'the entity' than the purely physical (otherwise why wonder, a sense of beauty, humour etc?). And, despite millions of person hours spent considering the subject, in philosophy departments, scientific research projects and pubs/bars (among other localities) nobody can come up with a definition of what 'the entity' is that everybody can agree upon. Anna Livia (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Wonder is useful because it is helps for finding resources and ways to solve problems; it helps survival. Beauty is important because it gives a preference for things looking a particular way which helps prevent consumption of rotten things and encourages reproduction with those who are healthy (although it gives bizarre secondary sexual characteristics). Bizarre secondary sexual characteristics give pretty strong evidence for 'beauty' (at least from appearance) being simply an evolutionary trait imposed on your brain. Humour is important because it both shows a level of cleverness (useful for survival), and usually shows non-hostile intentions. These things all evolved for a plethora of reasons, but we tend to use them for things far beyond their original function and that's fine. A wrench may not be a hammer, but you can certainly use it as one. The fact that a wrench may be used in place of a hammer even though it wasn't designed for that isn't magic, its coincidence. It can just be hard to swallow that cognition itself, along with all its hopes and dreams, love and care, resolve and dignity, is merely an electro-chemical coincidence. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
So why do we enjoy sunsets, music, art, 'cute baby goats' etc?
It is the way in which there is more to 'love' than mere physical attraction and cooperation, to 'wonder' than just curiosity etc, and the feeling that 'there is more to "sentience whatever that means" than in a purely scientific philosophy' which defines what consciousness is. Anna Livia (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, for music, pattern recognition is a huge part of it. Whether it is harmonically (the most common harmonies in music worldwide are the lowest whole integer frequency ratios) or rhythmically (rhythmic notation varies worldwide but it is fair to say that most music consists of set *cycles* of rhythms, divided in various ways, that fit a particular pattern people like). Audio pattern recognition certainly could be a theoretically useful survival trait. I would speculate that art might extend into that system as well. It has been suggested that some of the appeal about cats can be traced to human nurturing instinct so perhaps the same applies for "cute baby goats". There's even branches of evolutionary psychology devoted to explanation of other human aesthetics including "natural beauty" like sunsets (the theory less being about sunsets and more what we find as a "beautiful landscape" often is quite geared towards nomadic human survivability). So, yes, there are possible logical reasonings for all of the above.
That being said, there's no problem enjoying what it means to be human without worrying about the above (provided that someone isn't exploiting this for their own advantage, eg religious leader types that exploit the mysticism tendency of humans purely for greed and profit.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is kind of getting a little off track from what I was trying to say. But I tend to agree with the evolutionary aspect to much of what Anna says. I think you want to make these things seem like more of a mystery than what they actually are. Love is little more than physical attraction and cooperation. To me reality is less fantastical than people say it really is. Like the word salad saying that consciousness is the spark of creation, it's not. But it won't stop people from claiming it is.Machina (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of love, yes, it's little more than a unique chemical reaction when it starts, but it's the work you put into it based on that little more you get when you work on it that maintains its meaning. What you get back from something you love, something you enjoy doing, can be cut down to the minutia of chemical reactions. Interpersonal love is not a whole lot different from, say, building model trains at a chemical level. Just, interpersonal love requires another human with a brain, which is either more or less fun for you. So you're at a crossroads. The minutia of what you love and what you hate are built upon the same physical laws that dictate whether you love a stuffed Pikachu or hate a... let's just leave it at a stuffed Pikachu, I think that's confusing enough. So you have to use your brain, whether it's provided to you by some God or just physics, to decide what your brain is here for. Which is a lot harder than believing Karma or Dharma or Abhidarma can tell you what your brain is here for. I think the focus on the beginning of consciousness is a worthwhile endeavor, but only because I love searching for it. But it's an ambitious goal, like biology is a function of chemistry, chemistry is a function of physics, and physics is a function of math, and math is a cousin to, dare I say it, philosophy. It's easy to say without an expressed logical reason, value doesn't exist. But with our human social biology, value and reason have a uniquely human spin to them. Lucky or unlucky, it's what we've got.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Much of 'what consciousness is' is explicable by scientific means - adding to the chances of survival for individuals and the group (including social cohesion) 'and all the rest of it.' It is 'the bit that says there is more to heaven and earth and who I am than in your scientific philosophy' that is being discussed. Anna Livia (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
As I posted before, your consciousness evolved for survival. Some of the traits that came from that (such as pattern recognition, ability to recognize good food from bad food, ability to recognize good mates from bad mates, ability to recognize good people from bad people, ability to recognize danger, etc.) have neat side consequences such as enjoying sunsets. It is merely coincidence and nothing more. Again the hammer and the wrench analogy: the wrench is not designed to be used as a hammer, but regardless of purpose or original intent it certainly can be used as a hammer. But there is nothing mystical about the wrench being used as a hammer, merely a coincidence of the design. The stumbling point most people have is assuming consciousness must be some ultimately special thing, instead of just a weird quirk that is relatively rare. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
But - most people will express some variant of the Hamlet quote and 'I am a person with quirks, not merely a Number Six brain' (to bend a quotation somewhat).
What is the 'technical explanation' I came across once - aspects that develop as a system becomes more complex that cannot be logically deduced from the simpler versions. Anna Livia (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
i believe popeye said it best 'i am what i am and that all that i am' AMassiveGay (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It is called emergent complexity, and everything has that. A game of chess has more possible move combinations than there are particles in the universe. Point being that emergent complexity is nothing special about humans, and in all cases can be explained as the sum of its parts. The issue is that you cannot easily analytically solve for emergent complexity because the number of options becomes greater than is calculable (see chess example). We understand, at a electrochemical level how the brain works, and that everything within your mind is an product of that, but we cannot (given a set of electrochemical boundary conditions) predict how your mind will behave. That is only because of a lack of processing power though. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean, hold on, slow that horse, a game of chess having more moves than particles in the universe? I think I get the metaphor you're trying to make, but maybe dial that claim back. Humans can interpret the world in an unmeasurable number of ways. But that doesn't tie directly to infinity, which is the mathematical concept of no limit, and sometimes for math purposes that I will never comprehend, infinity needs a second infinity to multiply itself by. Unfortunately, there is a limit to human interpretation, it starts at our senses and ends with our brains. So a game of chess has a baffling amount of moves. But a game chess has strict, clearly defined rules, and a clearly defined space that it can be played upon. And chess is played between two humans, ideally, both adhering to these strict rules. So what do you mean by "more moves than particles in the universe?" That's bold, and I get the exponential number of possible chess moves is infinity. Like, you get down to two kings and you just move the kings around forever, but that doesn't mean chess is being played or chess moves are being made. I'm glad you are disassembling, keep it up. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The comparison of particles with chess moves is unimportant in the sense that a really big number is involved, and expressing that is the point. We do not know how many particles are in the universe, or even if there is a finite number of them. There is supposed to be 10 to the 86th power of protons in the visible universe. The number of chess moves is more difficult to analyze, but they are all contained in chess games. The number of distinct chess games comprising n moves or less is definitely finite. Clearly, as n becomes arbitrarily large the ability to play games with n moves becomes impossible for humans. Also, with respect to predicting human behavior, discovering the essential initial conditions required to make such calculations is also an obstacle (probably fatal). Ariel31459 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What make you think the Brain produce consciousness ? I know everybody do not walk the same way but if brain was made for that purpose ?

You can't make something from nothing[edit]

I'm not a big expert on astrophysics but didn't people say that we don't know what was before the big bang? I hear something about a singularity, but when I googled it they said that Quantum physics pretty much rendered that theory null. But then I get stuff like this:

And I don't know what to think.Machina (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I write stuff like that off as the rambling of the insane. My personal conclusion is that whoever wrote that long winded rant needs sleep, psychiatric help, or at the very least a very patient English teacher. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
They certainly seem confident in what they have "experienced".Machina (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Most people are, however that doesn't make them right. Further, it has been posited that a complete philosophical nothing (total nonexistence) may not be possible, rendering whatever point this person is trying to make mute. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s what he’s trying to say, I think. More like saying how can there be a beginning or something like that, and how something has always been. I don’t know what it’s trying to say but philosophical nothing doesn’t seem so.Machina (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We may never know what happened before the Big Bang, although some people posit that the Big Bang was the result of random quantum fluctuations, and then you have the multiverse folk, and then there are some saying that the Big Bang came about as the result of matter and energy being spewed out of the other end of a black hole. I think it's safe to say we simply don't know at this point. Oxyaena Harass 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit, I didn't read through the entire text. I just skimmed through it, and it seems to be the usual pattern: "Stuff can't be created from nothing, so some divine intervention must have happened for the universe to come into existence." This is just a case of special pleading, because people using these arguments fail to apply the same logic to the divine (usually the God(s) of their religion) which is implied to be eternal.
You are right that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang (or if that question even makes sense in case time itself was created by the Big Bang). Using naive reasoning and classical physics, we arrive at a state of infinite temperature, density and zero volume about 14 billion years ago if we evolve the universe backwards. This is the singularity you were speaking about. However, singularities are a problem in physics because you can't predict anything from them; also, the known laws of physics break down a fraction of a second before the Big Bang. This is why physicists don't really work with the singularity itself, and why the singularity doesn't fit with quantum mechanics.
While we don't *know* where the universe came from, it's not like we don't have any *hypotheses*. For example, our section of the universe could be a small portion of an eternally exponentially expanding universe - it's just that, in our section, inflation suddenly stopped some 14 billion years ago due to quantum tunnelling effects. We could be part of a much larger multiverse in which universes pop into and out of existence every once in a while. The universe could be cyclical in nature, i.e. it could collapse back in on itself after billions and billions of years and create a new Big Bang. All of these explanations can't be experimentally proven, unfortunately; not with our current technology and quite possibly never. But they're arguably better than any religious explanation anyone could come up with because they're compatible with the established laws of nature and don't require falling back to a god of the gaps argument the first time there's a phenomenon for which there's no scientific consensus yet. Imaginative username (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
God of the gaps is a solid point here, well said @Imaginative username. If you want to ask "how" something came from nothing, you're presupposing both ideas. "Something" and "nothing" need to be defined. I would like to hone in on "nothing" as a possible physical state, but I do understand it as a contextual point of reference. I mean, think about the number 0. Name one thing in the universe that exists at 0, paradox. 0 is a really great reference point, but it's only a reference point. Let's get back to solipsism here, when we want to talk about "nothing," are we on that not conscious shit or are we on that no physical effect shit? How can nothing come from something? Fuck, what gives you the confidence to say there ever was "nothing?" What importance does a beginning or end hold, and is it so important that it must hold true outside of your perception? If it's just to our own experience, then yes, "nothing" is a very valid concept (resident nihilist here), but if you want to argue against the physics that we can perceive, well, there's not exactly a bottom to that well yet, and I think the question about "something coming from nothing" is not even wrong here. You can still find fulfillment in the search for "something," but "nothing" is a reference point, a human construct. "Nothing" does not appear to be (and I will eat these words if I'm wrong) a physical possibilty. Why is it so much more intuitive that the idea that time and space and matter are not constants of our universe, and must be exceptional, must have a beginning or end? Why is that idea more realistic than the idea that time and space and matter have no beginning or end in our universe, are not exceptional, and are just perceivable properties of it? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, the old "You can't make something from nothing (therefore Goddidit)" chestnut is wrong on different levels.
Firstly,as Oxyaena points out it's special pleading because it claims it can't be done. Except a God can do it.
Secondly it presupposes the existence of a God which can do these things. This really is begging the question in the classical sense as it assumes the existence of the thing it sets out to prove.
Thirdly it assumes, as Gol Sarnitt says, that "nothing" is a possible state of existence. An arguably dubious premise.Hubert (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Besides, the premise is wrong. C®ackeЯ
Link leads to "Sorry, it looks like that page does not exist.". I'm not sure if that's a mistake or an incredibly subtle commentary on the proposition.Hubert (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW[edit]

What’s the density of the neutrino “soup” we’re apparently swimming in...is it time to bring back “the Ether”? 06:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I can't be bothered to look up the exact number, but I vaguely remember that we're penetrated by millions (billions?) of neutrinos every second. Since they travel with almost the speed of light, that doesn't mean that the density is crazy high. Anyway, what do you mean with bringing back the ether? Neutrinos don't interact with photons and, quite generally, don't have much in common with photons - they aren't the medium in which electromagnetic radiation travels. If you're talking about the ether as a omnipresent medium - well, that's a closer analogy to quantum fields, really. The neutrino density isn't even particularly uniform throughout the universe. On earth, most neutrinos come from the fusion products from the handy fusion reactor eight light minutes away, while in intergalactic space, one would encounter mostly cosmic background neutrinos which have a lower density. Please elaborate what you mean with your ether statement so that I can refute your points more accurately :) --Imaginative username (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

'As everybody knows' - the Big Bang was powered by all the hot air generated by discussions in the previous universe about their big bang. Anna Livia (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

HAHAHA, holy shit, I literally laughed out loud, this is so good. Awesome joke, great timing, perfect crowd. Fucking nailed it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure what any of this has to do with what the “OP” is trying to say with that word salad. I’m guessing God in his case is consciousness.Machina (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Something I find odd[edit]

How can a small YouTube channel like mine have more subscribers than a college? The Southwest College of Naturoprathic Medicine (https://www.youtube.com/user/NaturopathicSCNM/featured) vs my channel which is run by one guy with limited resources (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9-WwlVtCNBzbDtKcat4yqw?view_as=subscriber). The Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine has 1 subscriber while my channel has 169 subscribers. Is there a psychological factor I am missing? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

YouTube is huge, and 169 subscribers isn't all that much really. Still, you probably reach to a broader audience with your videos compared to some obscure college, and that's good. Meanwhile, my sister (whose account I share) has 40,000 subscribers. 👀 Probably haven't told any of you this but we make $1,200 off, like, mainly two videos. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You’re not advertising there, are ye? 06:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
It's allowed, we like him. No of course not, that would be bad, this is an interesting psychological question. :D — Dysk (contribs) 12:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
My intention was not really advertising, I could put that on my user page. I just find it interesting that an organization with far more resources and connections has literally 1 subscriber while I am one person with limited resources but far more subs. The really fun part is that the EAS (Emergency Alert System) community is very niche. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Because who would ever intentionally subscribe to a homeopathy school? Hannasanarion (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My Experiences with the "paranormal"[edit]

I honestly wish my parents would have never told me anything about demons. Sometimes I feel crazy because I'm not going to lie, I've heard and felt some shit in my late teen years. These aren't vague childhood memories and dreams from decades ago.

So the most notable example is this: I was seventeen and had just gone to bed. Thirty minutes went by and I had to use the bathroom (it takes a while for me to fall asleep by the way). Halfway out of my room I hear a close growling sound from my bed. My stomach lept into my mouth and I was instantly uttering the syllables, Jesus Christ. I know my brothers couldn't have made that sound, and although there was a neighboring dog, I had never heard her growl before and the sound was too close for that to be a possibility. This never happened again and to this day it confuses me. I mean I wasn't getting much sleep back then so I could have hallucinated it. What do you think? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You heard a one occurence of a growl, while being sleep deprived, in a silent house, and your mind was prepared to hear demons. This is a website that pride itself on rationalism and skepticism. What do you think is going to be the answer?109.205.5.33 (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
There is very very strong evidence to suggest that auditory hallucinations are entirely dependent on what the individual expects to hear. Believers in some religion or paranormal pseudoscience will always hear something that their beliefs assert is real, whether that's a demon growling, or a ghost going "ooooOOOOOOooooOOOOO", or a real person that they think is there but isn't (this has happened to me on several late nights: hearing my SO's voice then remembering she isn't home). Hallucinations are generated by beliefs. Hannasanarion (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"I was seventeen and had just gone to bed. Thirty minutes went by and I had to use the bathroom [...] What do you think?"
That's usually a problem of older men. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Squirrels, chipmunks [3] and other animals (even some birds) make weird growling sounds, and a lot of fighting and mating takes place in the middle of the night, so if your bed was near a window, you may have heard it. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Can confirm, although for me it's usually stray cats who decide to hold a fight club under my windowsill. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It can be hard to shake these beliefs. At the time I was sure I didn't believe in demons, but unconsciously I know I still did because it had been drilled into me. Do you think that's a form of abuse, namely teaching a child about demons from an early age and then paving the way for multiple demonic experiences? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Parents have Feet of clayWikipedia's W.svg. Ideally you would accept it as a stupid fear your parents passed onto you, and recognize that, as an adult, you now have the power to question it, reject it, and move past it. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Good point. As an adult you have the power to make up your own mind and revalvate whatever weird stuff your parents may have believed. I hope that most adults do this. (But I may be wrong.)
But I have a question as it's not clear from your original post. Do you still believe that a demon hid in your room for no other reason than to growl at when seventeen-year-old you when you went for a pee? I'm guessing you don't. I'm also hoping that you are not going with - "I can't explain X, so X must have been caused by a demon." Hubert (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe it was a demon, but I must have been crazy because this is not what it sounded like. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Ha. Well, it definitely wasn't that squirrel. Millennium Scallion (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My newest creation on RationalWiki[edit]

University of South Los Angeles

A mix of Christianity and woo. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fundie and alt med. Of course they team up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism seems condescending[edit]

I know that as a religion people say it helps them more than anything else, but in my experience it tends to be the other way around. Ever since I started reading it. I just get the sense that I am bad for what is essentially being human. Like how they say that since nothing lasts and is impermanent that there is no point in really striving towards it. In the case of friends and relationships they make it sound like wanting such things is a problem like this:

However it was through seeing love as an emotion like all others that I was finally free of the attachment and desire of constantly needing to find, upkeep and become embattled over that type of 'love'.

If you accept that all phenomena is conditioned, and that all things are impermanent then it is the natural conclusion that any relationship you ever get into is bound for the same, and thus emotional pain.

This doesn't mean that relationships are bad, but it does mean that through this logic we can move beyond harmful thinking like the 'One', 'Forever together' and 'Soul mate' fallacy and we can avoid getting into, or staying in relationships that we know to be harmful for us.

But the disillusionment allows you to go further, and to investigate your own desires, your own root's of these feelings.

Meditate and truly ask yourself where this fear of intimacy came from - not just ' It originated at x time' but try to look. For me, I had a turbulent relationship with my parents and then at fourteen/fifteen I was in an abusive relationship and then until I was twenty my years were spent being physically/sexually assaulted which caused my own views of relationships to be very harmful for many years, and I spent many years ruining or running away from anyone who would get close. I would lead them in from a desire to be wanted, but then run away to avoid all of my anxieties and fears.

Eventually I learned though, that a life of not trusting anyone or allowing them to get close to you is a lonely one - and if you are not yet ready to move beyond the need for emotional bonding (it is possible to transcend the construct of loneliness or at least need for intimate relationships too) then you have to come at relationships from a different angle - and that is one of mindfulness and mutual understanding.

I just get the sense that I feel worthless for wanting relationships and bonds just because “I’m not ready” to transcend the need for them.Machina (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Religions that require asceticism really aren't for most people, I don't see it as condescending, more so as it is a genuine religious practice that only certain people can handle, not everyone will be able to live the life of a monk for example. The Catholic Church requires its priests to be celibate for life, and that is incredibly hard to hold fast to, so parishioners often end up venting their frustrations on little boys. Oxyaena Harass 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
i'm sure you mean the clergy rather than parishioner there AMassiveGay (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Buddhist asceticism especially is a turn off because it discourages ambition, there is no strong desire to strive towards the betterment of oneself. Instead, there is extinction. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Buddhism, but it sounds like a futile attempt to escape suffering. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s more like I struggle with their claims like how “there are no objects in the real world”, whatever that means. I want to ignore it but I just get triggered by anything that contradicts my view of reality.Machina (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What happens if you stop talking to yourself?[edit]

Just curious really. I saw something about it on YouTube but I wanted to know here.Machina (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/2WW7dAgdzbQ

Actually this is where I got it from. The claim is that you are living in a world of symbols (or in this case thoughts) and not really in reality. Not really sure what any of it means per se. just sounds like more confusing Buddhist stuff.Machina (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Something I noticed[edit]

Alex Jones is going crazy lately. I feel if he keeps it up he could surpass Aleister Crowley as the most crazy guy of all time.Herriman2 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Our prophet and savior Alex Jones has always been crazy so it is really nothing new. As for craziest person of all time, that title goes to Adolf Hitler (my opinion). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
...Lately? Kencolt (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure I can agree, after the Last Week Tonight video about him. Out of context, Jones looks like a lunatic. In context, he looks like a snake oil salesman. Of course, perhaps his willingness to potentially harm people to make money is some kind of insanity, but I think the screaming lunatic is part of the act. That actually makes me like him less, though. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, John Oliver's expose of Jones was pretty good. Behind Alex Jones' batshit exterior lies a cold-blooded con-artist who exploit anything and say anything to make a quick buck. If he's getting crazier, that's only because he thinks it'll make his idiotic viewers cough up more cash for the bullshit he sells. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
AND HE'S RIGHT Commie Lib (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
In his recent lawsuit from Sandy Hook victims, Alex Jones has plead insanity. Linky Hannasanarion (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Which is contradicted by his statement in his child custody case that his entire thing is an act. Revolverman (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The insanity defense is not a get-out-of-jail free card. At "best", it usually means that you get sent to a mental institution instead of a prison. Bongolian (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but psychiatric stints tend to be shorter, because there's no mandatory minimum sentencing and psychiatrists don't really treat criminal evaluations as different from voluntary committal evaluations. At least if your condition is something other than an "untreatable personality disorder." For that reason, judges tend to be harsh against insanity pleas, though I personally feel there's probably a lot of crime that would better dealt with if treated as a kind of mental disorder than a moral failing that deserves to be punished.
By a related token, try to imagine Alex Jones presenting infowars on mood stabilizers. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Graves[edit]

We should have an article on Joseph Graves. He's very well referenced on this wiki as being the final word on refuting racist pseudoscience, but there is no article about his arguments and qualifications. How is this scholar and gentleman not graced with an article? Rupert R Rupertson (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ye we will do an article EK (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess you don't want your "authorities" like this affirmative action charlatan examined too closely. Rationalwiki: LMAO 13.125.122.191 (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Try not giggling so hard, it only makes you look like even more of a buffoon than you already are. Oxyaena Harass 15:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Whereas your mindless name calling is entirely characteristic. Punch the Wehrmacht (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
But the real question is, are you the Wehrmacht? Template:Emoji — Dysk (contribs) 20:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Directly adding complaints into the articles is vandalism, at least I consider it vandalism.[edit]

On the University of South Los Angeles article I had to remove a complaint edited directly in the article. We have talk pages and the bar for complaints. This has been an administrative message from RZ94 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhh.... If you look at the original edit of this article with your name on it, you'll see that the phrase "Why is this mentioned again?" is in the original article and was added by none other than...you. So you reverted your own edit as vandalism? Maybe you could ban yourself for a short time :) Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I feel stupid, forgot I added it as context. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
There are probably significant contradictions between 'traditional Chinese medicine' and evangelical Christianity. My understanding is that TCM flows out of Chinese traditions of vitalism and polytheistic religions like Taoism and other Chinese folk religions. I'd be mildly curious how they managed to spin this away. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The new Spirit Science "Sumerian Epic" first episode was released today.[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwksWaJDg1A

Don't let the first 8 minutes fool you, he goes of the deep end with ancient aliens and starts citing Zecharia Sitchin. It's thirty minutes long and only part one of nine. That means the whole thing should be around 4 1/2 hours long. This is going to be fun. Gdog1102 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

God I feel so fucking stupid!!!! Ugh!!!!!![edit]

I am taking a self paced Algebra course online and it is the same stuff I was taught in high school. Now, I am struggling with something I should know already. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not stupid, it's just math is a kinda use-it-or-lose-it skillset. All I can say is, if you find yourself memorizing formulae, you're on a bad path to (re)learning a particular skill in a way that keeps it for your future. The more conceptual your understanding, the better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm enrolled in one of those too, through a site called Straighterline. I suck at math. My lady friend who is a senior in high school (yes, she is 18) is undoubtedly better at algebra than I am with almost enough credits for my associate degree in business. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Almost everyone feels that way about algebra. Do the exercises until you can do them easily is the best way to study algebra. Here is a large problem set with answers.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Online courses are always harder than high school courses. I always had a problem with block scheduling in high school specifically with math. Any other subject, it was great. But 1 hour 15 min of a class every other day does not help you get in the mindset to learn something difficult. If you're not good at algebra, like me, it would help to have two blocks set out to learn it every single day. Problem is, you've gotta work and two and a half hours dedicated to untutored basic algebra every day is functionally wasteful if it's not pacing with your understanding of it. I always had a bad time with math. I got on the advanced math track, which really sucked for me, and I would get teachers who would pull me aside and talk to me, "your work isn't wrong, but why did you use all these equations? You just had to use this one. This was multiple choice and your work doesn't even get you close to any of these answers," and I would say "I don't know, I panicked." I'm very bad at reading math. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Try reading a range of 'maths-centred books' including narrative ones - sometimes you need several different approaches to understand a particular aspect.
Also establish or get involved in an algebra support group 'to accept the higher power{s).' Anna Livia (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 made a great point here, @Rationalzombie94. Math is not a spectator sport. The only way to become proficient is doing a lot of practice problems. Do some every day. Unlike @Ikanreed, I do not believe the more your conceptual understanding is, the better. Sometimes, memorization is necessary. By that I do not mean rote memorization. It is possible to remember a formula because you understand it and know where it comes from. Since you mentioned (ordinary) algebra, the quadratic formula naturally comes to mind. Try to not just remember the formula, but understand the derivation, which is neither hard nor long.
Do you have to take an online course, by the way? Doing things online makes you prone to distraction. Consider borrowing or buying an algebra textbook instead. (What level of algebra are you at?) Nerd (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I've got to reassert my position because it's been a powerful indicator of what I can use years later. I can regurgitate exactly zero trig identities, but having looked one up, I can tell you exactly why sin(x)²+cos(x)²=1 in terms of the underlying nature of what sine and cosine represent on a unit circle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed OK. But while the unit circle can help you remember the Pythagorean identity, it is not a proof on its own. It is an application of the identity. The standard trigonometric identities can be derived by a geometric construction, algebra, or a combination thereof. Check your precalculus or calculus textbooks if you still have them. Nerd (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I used to whiz thru quadratic equations in high school. Now when I see one I don't even remember where to begin. On the other hand, as a business owner faced with the daily decisions one has to process, all that training came from algebra. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @RobSmith Nice! Glad to hear it! Nerd (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker[edit]

Trailer. Wow. Just wow. This could be very interesting. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably going to be trash honestly. There's no way to salvage the series. I'll still watch it, however. 2601:CA:8200:34A:F50C:C74C:A51E:62C5 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it could be good. — Dysk (contribs) 20:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Could be. But is the "saga" really over at ix? I wonder how long before they try to flog another Star Wars triptych.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The word from the studio is that the Skywalker saga is over-- that is, the story started in Episode One ends in Episode Nine. They also say there will be more Star Wars movies (most likely), they just aren't a part of the Skywalker saga. (Examples are things like Rogue One and Solo.) What those stories might be, we don't know... tales of the Old republic, or what happens a hundred years from whatever? Kencolt (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The mouse is not going to let a valuable property go unexploited. It will be milked for brand recognition until people are throwing up from porg overdose. Star wars will then be left in a dumpster for 10 years until they reboot it like everything else corporate media touches. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I was a Star Trek: Next Generation watchin dumbass little kid. I watched Star Trek NG on TV, didn't really like it, mostly watched it to have an excuse not to go to bed. I watched the Star Wars box set on VHS, didn't really like it. I watched the remasters in the theaters, didn't really like them. I watched the prequel trilogy movies in theaters, didn't really like them. I watched the two newest Star Wars, I just don't get the issue. There is nothing wrong with them as movies. What in the world does anybody want from this franchise? It's high fantasy, and it's pretty good at it. I did watch a Chinese cam of Solo (it was still English audio with Chinese subtitles, it was nice, nobody in the audience laughed at the bad jokes) and that was a cash grab for sure. "You don't have a family? Let's call you Solo" ok but the pacing was bad, the scene was miserable and pointless, and if anybody cared why Han's last name is Solo, they cared about the wrong thing. But at the same time, who names a guy Han Solo? And the first alien he has to kill is Greedo? AND THEN HE LEARNS HOW TO WORK WITH A TEAM!?! I get it, 1977, groundbreaking, and it is good, I like it more today than when I saw it as a dumbass little kid. I'm not saying it isn't good. But I mean, was there ever going to be a better Episode I than the one we got? The Phantom Menace is good, by comparison to a New Hope. It is good enough to fit in the Star Wars universe, even if all the in-universe tech is rookie garbage-level continuity error. The fuck did you expect a high fantasy prequel to look like? The fuck do you expect Disney to do to "milk" Star Wars? Sell toys? Start their next trilogy at Episode XVII? Like there weren't ever Star Wars toys or promises of prequels and sequels, it was toyland universe building from the get-go. Let Disney have it if you're too grown up to like the Star Wars universe. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
'phantom menace is good, by comparison to new hope to a new hope' - that right here is a massive pile of bullshit. the problem with the prequels and in the 7 and 8, is that they dont know why the original worked along with catering to 'fans'. stars wars is and always was a a very simple story that does not do well when you try to add depth or over analyse it. all it does is draw attention the ridiculousness of it and to the many plotholes while making many more. films like star wars are best when they keep things light, in tone and in detail, to keep the plot moving at speed. the moment it slows down, giving you time to think about whats going, forcing to you pay attention to the stupid plot, it dies, you lose all suspension of disbelief. the extended universe killed star wars because 'fans', read: obsessives, couldnt leave it alone, and they gave lucas too much credit who believed the hype. the result was the prequels which just could not have worked under those conditions and with the genuinely poor director that lucas is. the depth and back story backstory only served to create a mess that sullied the origin. the later additions were stillborn because of this - the tone is wrong, the characters bland and while ripping virtually the plot of the the original, they forgot to rip the fun. they are just bad, by the numbers films. you can see the joins. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Very fair response, but I mean, I didn't say the prequels were good by comparison to the originals. I meant they are all good movies by comparison to a majority of films that hit theaters at the same time that they hit theaters. Really, they are, the amount of scrutiny it caught was different. Just, with Star Wars, they all exist in the space of a "good film" in that they are always well made compared to other films. The comparison between consistency in the Star Wars universe comes later, it falters in what was possible for the money to work versus the amount of continuity required by a fan. It doesn't make them bad movies, it makes it a crap story, from a continuity standpoint. Not as much within the two trilogies but across trilogies. But at least the prequels are a trilogy about the fall of a hero, that hadn't been explored before in the mainstream. It's too bad it got panned by audiences. Anakin going to the dark side wasn't fun to watch? Literally he has to, why would we, as a major audience, celebrate the rise of a villain when that villain is required to be an ultimate bad guy? It's a difficult story to write for the amount of mass appeal required of a box office prequel smash hit. I mean, it came out pretty shallow, but so was Luke's rise to greatness. Vader/Anakin's death rattle redemption speech was foreshadowed in everybody's accepted canon. I'm sorry I couldn't help myself from calling Solo pure shit, that was an aside. I just had to call Solo pure shit, the movie not only shat upon continuity, it did nothing that we don't see in any other movie. Just a clarification of my criticism, not a refutation of your points. I like the hero/villain subversion going on in the new trilogy, even when I have to roll my eyes at stupid shit. I'm willing to watch how it plays out. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
i guess none of these criticisms would be fatal if they were implemented well. the fall of hero idea kinda needs the hero to have risen first. he went from brat to angsty emo whose fall to the darkside wasnt exactly a drawn out or traumatic affair. he was never really a hero in the prequels - it never really got beyond a gifted brat who only really required the emperor to say 'ahh go on' to commit genocide. lucas as a director was just not up to task to convey the necessary emotion, the script was too convoluted and filled with unnecessary or confusing details that you just could not give a shit about any of it. you cant make it feel epic if you cant escape its ridiculousness. even the jedi was wrong here and it wasnt the midichlorians. if you look at epic films from the 60s say, and more often than not its christianity that underpins any the emotional conflicts that make the films feel epic. people know what christianity is. the force? the jedi? outside of magic and space samurai, people do not. constantly explaining poorly conceived concepts of poorly thought out religions, sects, lore and the like, its not going the provide the weight or dramatic weft as the motivations for so much in these films. vague ideas would have so much more useful here.
i dont want to say too much about the newer films as i having difficulty deciding if my failure to engage with them with them in anyway is because they are cold empty films or its a drug related thing. and i know new republic good first order bad, but i got no senses of what they are? is the first order a fully functional state? are they terrorists? are they isis? what is the resistance to new republic? whos in charge? i cant guage the stakes if i dont know what they are. what is it with star wars? too much exposistion or not enough?
they just seem to me like the were created like jigsaw of the necessary scenes or foreshadowing or tone shift that i cant see them as complete films. they just look like the product of committee and focus groups leaving character as artificial contrivances in world empty and devoid of life - look at the force awakens - what sense of a wider, living, galaxy is there? we get brief glimpse of some planets exploding, but who really cares? (rey probably wouldnt - 5 mins previous her entire life was an empty desert)
rogue one was the only one that has worked. you know where it stands in the time line, what is at stake, while you can still ignore 'canon'. solo was just a cash grab. they all have been. even lucas, who you'd think would very precious with his baby wanted to flog toylines in the prequels. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my criticism, I agree that Anakin's rise was not explored. Great little kid podracer, very bad emotional strategist. Still a demi-god. And yeah, the rest is totally jigsaw. I love the Jarjar omincron sith conspiracy. If JarJar Binks was the phantom menace, everything would be fixed. Nobody liked Jarjar, but nobody sniffed him out as the actual bad guy, they just hated him. Yoda being part of the Jedi council makes me hate Yoda, and the Jedi council. They did nothing to stop the Sith? I think this new trilogy is an explanation that being a Jedi is hard, being a Sith is easy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

toThe force awakens (Star Wars VII) was the only Star Wars film I particularly liked and I had no expectations because reboots can be great or disappointing and it all comes down to personal taste and is totally subjective (we are talking about a Space-Opera here). I don't think rebooting is a bad thing. Some batman series and some James Bonds and some Star Trek were far more enjoyable than the previous ones...for many of us. You can even say some were deeper, more meaningful, emotional and even touching. I hope IX is enjoyable, though I'll avoid trailers or long cinema reviews until I see it on the big screen. As long as there is no Jarjar Binks I don't see any reason why IX is doomed to fail. ShabiDOO 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This week in crappy trolling...[edit]

Mueller Report[edit]

I can't be the only person reading this today. The description of the meeting of Manafort and Kilimnik is fucking wild. They met to create a backdoor for Russia to control part of Ukraine and discuss securing votes from Democrats in midwest states. That is so fucking close to coordination, that I'm sure they couldn't legally prove it when the layman would see that and say it's coordination. - RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a link to the full Mueller report: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
When discussing it, pointing to the pages in question would be better. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
For those interested, there are also annotated reports here (Politico) and here (Washington Post). Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Only part that matters[edit]

On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know ....” 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Russia... Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.

The rest is dull. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources and method discussion is fascinating. I've been following the WaPo annotations, but they have multiple reporters reading different sections out of order. On Twitter, there was something about Sara Sanders admitting to lying that I found interesting as well. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I need genuine skeptical help(trump piss tape) Thinker(unlicensed) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and? I had a hard time rejecting that as fake, even though someone faking it made more sense, logistically, than it being the real thing. Still think it's real even if that one is a fake. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
As I already said, let's just suppose that the video it's real. Three consenting adults doing dirty things in a hotel bedroom... Nothing wrong with it, good for them. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Lmao, well yeah. But you know, you're kinda dumb(god damn you're so dumb, it ricochets through every stupid word you grace us with don't you know how dumb you are god it's just so fucking dumb) if you're gonna say "consenting adults" about that particular public figure, considering his documented history of ignoring both words of that phrase. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Except no one has accused Trump of rape or sexual assault in that instance. If we want to discuss Trump's sex crimes, there are better-documented examples. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just saying that UT doesn't give 2 shits about the ideals he picks up for rhetorical convenience. It's all a shell game of "what can I pretend to care about to win this line of this argument". My thoughts on the piss tape itself are: it's hilarious, it's real, and if politically meaningful ideals ever meant anything to this country, we wouldn't have trump in the first place. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You know, at this stage, with all the crap Trump has done and said, I'm inclined to think, what difference does it make if the piss tape exists? Do his supporters care what he does or has done, as long as he massages their hatreds? Ariel31459 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To reword my thesis: It's a totem of the irrelevancy of meaningful ideals in this country. In any real or pragmatic sense it means nothing. But it represents political nihilism to me. It's a bauble to say "Yep, that's how little we care" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, ikanreed, so the "Only part that matters" of Mueller reports is the part about the piss tape, which in turn "In any real or pragmatic sense it means nothing." Thinker(unlicensed) 20:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Woah, woah well well well well, it seems nihilism has been invoked. So the report didn't exonerate Trump, and everybody who took the time to laugh in my face over Barr's "not-summary" doesn't have to eat any shit, because they are still stupid and don't get how this works. Political nihilism is a strange term to me, since politics is usually mostly concerned with the public. Do we mean that untruth is equal to truth? Vote by vote, yeah, I think that's what politicians are starting to key into. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I can see the value in not holding onto political nihilism, but expecting the justice system to hold a president accountable is fairly naive. But the fact that he's a dumb, petty idiot who'd do that? Hilarious. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The Slam Dunk[edit]

Volume 2, page 2 point four:

...[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement. (My emphasis added)

This dude needs to be gone ASAP -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, yeah trump is vile and bad, and probably performed obstruction for his own protection, but also, what legal system are you imagining supports the legal theory of guilty until proven innocent? There's a dozen valid legal bases for impeaching trump, but all of them require the democrats having a spine and admitting that holding the president accountable for the crimes they commit with their power is worth impeachment(and like 15 senate republicans having any values at all). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If the end goal is the removal of DJT from the White House, the preferred an honestly most effective option, is to beat him in 2020. This batch of candidates (although there are entirely too fucking many of them) has so far proven to be thoughtful and engaging in policy and present a case that I think most Americans can get behind. But because 2/5 Americans actually vote and 1/4 of the voting population is an idiot, there is a fare reason to be concerned. But impeachment is not the answer, it is a necessity, if this administration will not do anything about the first part of the report, where it's made very clear; Russia wanted Trump, Trump Officials knew Russian actions would benefit them, and they continue to fuck around (someone was indicted for trying to interfere in 2018!)- RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
For clarity - 1/4 of 2/5 or 'two overlapping fractions' (and there are many sorts of idiots).? Anna Livia (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Americans usually turn out around 40% (2/5), and 25% of those that vote (1/4) tend to be either uninformed, unwilling to process any information beyond candidates party, and support proposals that are not aligned with their own morality or philosophy (fucking idiots). Though using precise language would probably be better, this board is about being general so...fuck it. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Impeachment will never get rid of Trump. All the rhetoric from Democrats during the recent mid-term elections in regards to impeachment was simply that, rhetoric. They don't want Pence at the helm, no one does. But impeachment means nothing, it's essentially an indictment which will require 67 out of 100 senators to support, and considering the Republicans have, I think, 53 or there abouts senators currently you can see just how futile impeachment is, and always has been. Trump bizarrely still has the same public support that got him elected, so we'll most likely see him get a second term. Unless one of a number things happen; 1. He dies due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, 2. He simply gets bored and quits, 3. He unfortunately gets assassinated, making him a martyr. During the run of the Mueller investigation many news outlets (TV, rolling news, newspapers and news websites.) used sensationalism to generate traffic and eyes to their product, which in return made this story bigger and more important in the eyes of the public than it had any right to. We repeatedly heard the refrain that the Meuller report will lead to Trump being arrested or similar, but there was nothing to back this up. We all wish that he was never elected, we all wish his term was finished, and in doing so seem to be blindsided by what is happening in that country. I'm still shocked that, unlike the previous presidents he hasn't started a war with anyone, although it's not for the want of trying it seems. America has become dangerously partisan, to a degree that is seriously unhealthy for the psyche of it's citizens. One side doesn't care what the other says, and vice versa, even if the other side is in agreement with them. If this continues I'm worried where it will lead to, and considering Nancy Pelosi is currently in my country reminding our neighbouring state what the Good Friday Agreement was about, I hope it's only paranoia that leads to me think America is heading towards civil war. (By civil war, I'm using Margaret MacMillan's definition, when two or more factions each believe they know how best to run a country, so much so that they are willing to tear it apart.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

TL;DR This word salad seems to hit a lot of points that are all over the fucking place:
  • Trump is not as popular as he was when he was elected, the midterms made that clear
  • It's not a given Trump wins in '20, it's insanely early
  • Impeachment is a political mechanism not a legislative mechanism. Even though the legislature must initiate the action, they will not act unless it is politically expedient for them.
  • America is not nearly divided as the Right portrays. Most people just want to be left alone and live their lives.
So chill bruh -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Didn't read and yet gave bullet pointed replies, well done.
BBC's briefing room yesterday in regards to Trump's standings https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00046sv
Impeachemnt, well have a listen through here https://trumpconlaw.com/
Aye, it's only a year away from '20. True it's insanely early to say he'll win, and maybe he'll do a Bush Sr.
Maybe I want to see it all burn down. (Actually I don't. But hitting points all over the fucking place is great fun.)

Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"America is not nearly divided as the Right portrays. Most people just want to be left alone and live their lives." Never realised Salon was a right-wing outlet.https://www.salon.com/2017/10/14/america-may-be-more-divided-now-than-at-any-time-since-the-civil-war/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the impeachment point. I never was worried about Trump, he's just the face of a much more toxic ideology. Trump is in his 70's and is in poor shape, I'm honestly surprised he hasn't had a heart attack by now. When Trump is gone, Trumpism will still exist. Impeachment will turn Trump into a political martyr. The only way I think we can defeat Trumpism is with the ballot box. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Make the job either too dull, too tough or too embarrassing for the man to want to be seen doing it. And he might quit. Maybe he needs a President Gregory Ammas Stillson moment instead :) Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"And he might quit." And how does that help? Even if Trump goes into self-imposed political exile today, what does that mean for us? Trumpism as an ideology and its adherents still exist. Trump isn't the main problem, it's the ideology (or collection of ideologies) that he enables. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree. He represents a worrying ideology that's been gaining popularity for some time. Trumpism being his own brand of oversimplified, populist, self aggrandizement. It's no real surprise he has a fondness for dictators or for people like Putin, Rodrigo Duterte, and Viktor Orban.
As for "And he might quit", what makes such an outcome seem unlikely? He's not exactly renowned for perseverance. It won't help if he quits, but then again has he ever made any suggestions that he wants to help anyone other than himself? Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to think of a position more ego-stroking than that of President of the United States of America. It is hard to think of an action more ego-damaging than "I quit because it was hard and people were mean to me". I think he would leave kicking and screaming. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Help[edit]

One of my elderly relatives that I really care about has been sucked into pseudoscientific "Chinese medicine" unfortunately I caught this late stage and they're already parroting the usual talking points about only curing symptoms and others. Knowing the dangers of this "medicine" I am really worried about their health. How can I convince them this is dangerous. Commie Lib (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)I

So be mean, I mean that's what everybody does, be mean, show me your mean face. I am here with you, this sucks. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Some people are ready to listen to facts and reasoned arguments, and others aren't. You have to figure out which they're likely to be, then proceed from there. If the former, we have the Aristolochia (廣防己, Guang Fang Ji) page (about as dangerous as TCM gets); besides the toxicity, the most disconcerting things are that it literally took thousands of years to find out how dangerous it was and the fact that TCM allows for plant substitution, so you're never entirely sure what you're getting from herbalists. Controversial ingredients are another concern because dangerous ingredients have been found in TCM (pharmaceutical, mercury, lead and arsenic), sometimes off-label but mercury and arsentic are actually part of the TCM materia medica. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I am currently telling them stories of people who took this medicine and died or refused treatment and died. Commie Lib (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As you've probably read by now, with many people, stating facts (that conflict with their ideology) actually reinforce their own stupid ideology. So just presenting the facts may not be enough. There are multiple other approaches you can use. One would be theoretical. For example, ask the person what they would do if one of their treatments lead to someone dying? Ask them to answer the question seriously (be it making a mistake or being wrong about an herb). This plants seeds of doubt and opens a whole new thought process. You can also ask them by what method experts have come to be certain about the safety of their herbs. Ask them to give a very strong and detailed explanation, never accepting "personal experience" or "anecdotal evidence" as sufficient conditions (we wouldn't do the same with airplane safety or with anesthetic during operations). Ask them to explain to what extent they are willing to review their own practice. Most people who practice stupid medicine or stupid anything, don't keep good records of what they do nor do much follow-up. It's easy to remember the successes and its easy to forget the errors. How will they track the efficacy of treatment? What will they do if the find that treatments usually don't work (ask them to seriously answer that question). Will they admit they were wrong? Will they refund their clients money? Ask them if they somehow end up making the same kind of salary as a doctor if they will donate most of that money into herbal research or better yet some charity (after all modern medicine is just a capitalist venture to push pills and make money). Asking lots and lots and lots of questions and responding with more questions is sometimes more effective than "yeah but!". The last thing the world needs is another bloody quack or placebo pusher. ShabiDOO 19:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the backfire effect that you're referring to, @Shabidoo. It may not be as strong an effect as originally postulated. I updated that page last February with more recent information, so you may want to take a look at it if you haven't since then.[4] @Tabula Rasa. Bongolian (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, this sounds like great advice. I will make sure to try not to get the backfire effect. Commie Lib (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump[edit]

Hey folks! Please take a look at our page for the infrastructure policy of Donald Trump and decide whether or not it is on-mission. It was forked from the policies of Donald Trump. If most people vote to delete it, I will move it to Wikipedia, which, at the time of writing, has no equivalent. Thanks! Nerd (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna level with you, a lot of his policies, of all kinds, while definitely living in the range of pretty dumb to real fucking dumb, get pretty far off mission. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


*wet farting noises*[edit]

Lo, and the Internet just became both far more dangerous-- and stupid.[edit]

You know that moment when you have this brilliant idea for a internet service and discover that someone already has the domain name you wanted? Here's how not to go after it. Kencolt (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I wish there was some way to get all the money off the internet. It would get rid of the most annoying parts. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia repare attempt[edit]

It seems our friends at Conservapedia have been able to "repare" the ontological argument.

Hopefully they will be able to "repare" all of the other proofs for God as well and finally prove his existence once and for all to all us godless baby-eating atheists. Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I get the joke, but "repare" is perfectly valid middle English, and considering that the early 14th century is where they get all the rest of their views... ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it really? Do you have a source for that? The file is here. I had trouble embedding it.
I mean, I'm just mocking conservapedia, but also of course I've got a citation ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
That is perceptive in more than one way. Conservapedia's views on science and religion adhere more closely to those of the Dark Ages than those of the Enlightenment, and their autocratic, stratified structure, with arbitrary and severe punishments, not to mention a total lack of elections, reminds one far more of the Plantagenet monarchy of the time than of anything the Founding Fathers could have dreamed up. Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I know this isn't the point. But premise one is crap.Hubert (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Premise 2 is worse, and makes the whole argument circular. By the way,@ikanreed , do you think CP's adoption of Medieval English is an attempt to reverse the "devolution of English"? A noble goal, indeed. Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I thought this place was hella dead for years now. Keep on chugging, Andrew! --Spoony (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My farts are magical. No one has 100% that my farts are not magical. Therefore, my farts could be magical. Therefore, my farts are magical. (Optional:Therefore my farts, which are magical, can cure cancer.) Anyone else see the problem with my argument yet? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with logic-only existence proofs is they only work on mathematical objects. Descartes offers thought as proof of his own physical existence, but it isn't objective proof. Stick a thermometer in yourself and you have better proof than that. Also, logical proofs can not even attempt to distinguish Yahweh from Vishnu, the Destroyer of Worlds. Make the wrong argument and Vishnu may show up and wipe you out. Nothing personal...Ariel31459 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

there is a problem with assigning any kind of logic at all to deities which are fundamentally based on faith and whose works are entirely in the realm of miracles ie. beyond all scientific law (the threshold for miracles increases as scientific understanding increases). who are these kind of proofs for? who are swayed by them? they are akin to memes, a kind of punchy seemingly clever soundbite used only to convince/delude their users that their beliefs are entirely rationally and logically considered because 'i just believe really hard' doesnt flatter their intellectual ego or they are just simply embarrassed by that idea, or their faith is in reality not as strong as they would claim.
i would prefer the honesty of people to just come out and say their beliefs are a question of faith. there is a kind of desperation in the contortions of logic and science to rationalise religions. probably makes it difficult to legislate or attack those groups you dislike using your religion as a basis if you freely admit 'its just how it feels in your heart' AMassiveGay (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I would prefer that too. Because the reality is that they are not convinced by these arguments either. But I suppose that, at some level, they might know that's a pretty crap reason to believe stuff so they come up with this convoluted contractadictory stuff to justify themselves to themselves.
I find it hard to imagine that any atheist has ever been convinced by this balony but - far more importantly - I'm betting that no theist has ever stopped in believing in the god of their choice after seeing one of these arguments refuted. Hubert (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I now propose the Ontological proof for the existence of Unicorns, based off that of WLC himself.

1. It is possible that unicorns exist. 2.If it is possible that unicorns exist, unicorns exist in some possible world. 3. If unicorns exist in some possible world, they exist in all possible worlds. 4. If unicorns exist in all possible worlds, then they exist in the real world. 5. Therefore, unicorns exist. Checkmate, a-unicornists! Summa Atheologica (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica Goodpost.gif ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Thanks. Summa Atheologica (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I always liked the "my hot canadian girlfriend, you wouldn't know her" variant. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
What is that version? Can one of y'all show me an example? Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It is possible I have a perfect, hot canadian girlfriend you haven't met
She would be even more perfect she existed and we already decided she was perfect.
Therefor I have a hot Canadian girlfriend. You wouldn't know her. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure she's gorgeous, but why stick with just one? Expand your horizons! Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Discord Election[edit]

For those that haven't noticed, there is currently an election on the Discord to pick new mods there. If you are on the Discord and want to vote, you can do so now. Polls close next Monday. — Dysk (contribs) 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dysklyver You should probably make that more prominent TBH. Oxyaena Harass 06:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre Dame Fire[edit]

It just started and already the blame is being put of refugees and Muslims. Nice... Commie Lib (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember, when something bad happens you must play the blame game before all facts are gathered. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but I read someone instantly blaming it on the ongoing renovations, and that made sense, used context clues, and proved to be correct. Making informed predictions is fine, as long as you're not a dumbass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
At the opposite extreme, I found a few idiots celebrating the fire as the destruction of Western colonialism. Skarka's Law comes to mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I hear the damage is not fatal and have no doubt the roof and spire will be reconstructed. — Dysk (contribs) 13:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the whole Church could be reconstructed, the concept of fatal damageWikipedia's W.svg is quite fuzzy...Wikipedia's W.svg Thinker(unlicensed) 16:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that various other 'major building fires' (Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace, York Cathedral, Houses of Parliament (1834) etc) were the result of 'old buildings repeatedly repaired and rebuilt, sometimes with whatever materials came to hand and without regard to possible problems arising' and human fallibility (overloading the furnaces with tally sticks) these are the most reasonable first assumptions.
A number of 'billionaires etc' have already pledged large sums - so some aspects of capitalism 'work.' And expertise is already being offered eg [6].
Such destruction has always happened for various reasons - fire, imperfect construction, 'the wrong sort of royal' (William II and Winchester Cathedral) etc. Anna Livia (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that it was rather remarkable that Notre-Dame lasted as long as it did in its current form. Most buildings from that period with extensive wooden superstructures have either had them replaced or have not survived. The roof of Chartres CathedralWikipedia's W.svg burned down in the early 19th century, and was replaced with an iron roof with copper cladding, to no apparent esthetic loss. Notre-Dame itself was extensively renovated at around the same time, but the wood was kept. Not sure who ultimately makes the decisions here, but that kind of replacement would seem advisable. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't help but thinking that if we had, today, the multi-generational longitudinal thinking in architecture that it took to build Notre Dame, we'd be building a space elevator right now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If we build a space elevator, suddenly my conlangs may become useful. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a pity due to the works of art and centuries of history lost to the flames. That said, the usual loons are having a field day, and I'm pretty sure some Fundagelicals out there are celebrating the fire due to their hate of Catholicism. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The usual fringe loons will have a field day no matter what, but note from that link that this loony bin fringe was too nutty even for Fox News. Personally, the only slightly political thing I saw in my personal social media space was some meme-age reminding people of the three black churches burned down recently, and the outcome of that was largely positive. (Obviously it was easy to find "the Muslims" and other edgelord type stuff in groups like 4chan's /pol/, but what do you expect? Practically every other sentence is a racial slur there.) Soundwave106 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see is, this conspiracy about Muslims being to blame is already being coopted by mainstream media. money=grabbing trolls being citied is the end-all, our time on earth is nigh. Fucking, who cares about a national monument or an old building!?! We come across destroyed shit that we have no record of, cool, try to recreate it on paper. A Cathedral burned down, a Cathedral that is thoroughly ON PAPER, I know it was a marvel, I know it's a huge point of pride for France, an old beautiful building built in honor of a very Catholic god, a huge architectural work for its time, home to a huge catalogue of works of art that mostly survived. But my God, build a fucking playground, build a hospital, rebuild it on the moon, I don't care, just do something other than care about whether this Cathedral was burnt down by Muslims so an imaginary mosque could be built instead. And if you really care about that, build anything secular in its place. Anything other than a place of specific ritual worship beats this conspiracy. But, no, of course not. We'll spend billions to rebuild the Cathedral. It means too much to too many people to ever disappear. I'm slighting that exact concept, not disagreeing with the reality of it. Deep breath, in summation.
I'd just say, rebuild it on the moon. Perfect chance for Catholicism to be cool again, Lord knows, collectively, they have enough money to do it, and then it's forever protected from anyone who doesn't spend enough to get to the moon. I mean, how many levels does this have to work on for the Vatican to get behind it? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually rebuilding it on the moon might not be so impossible. Macron seems to think it can be rebuilt in five years. I'd say that the rebuilding it on the moon would only be a little more challenging than meeting that deadline.Hubert (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want something on the moon, a Gothic style Catholic cathedral is probably not the best choice. — Dysk (contribs) 12:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure that's true. Such a building would, however, leave a fascinating puzzle for the next post-apocalypse civilisation. But, yes, it's a kinda slim justification. So probably best to go for Macron's Paris solution.  :-) Hubert (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Meaninglessness of a building re:Gol Sarnitt[edit]

First a disclaimer. I think Notre Dam is architecturally unremarkable and its ugly and I don't quite understand why people love that. However I understand why it is devastating to lose it...and I don't blame them for grieving over it. Every country has something that if they lost it, it would be soul destroying. It isn't only a building. Canada for example doesn't have one building where its destruction would devastate the whole country. Some would be delighted to watch parliament buildings burn down, the CNTower is not that meaningful to someone thousands of KM away on the other coast, there aren't so many historical buildings to begin with and none are older than a few centuries. In the USA however, there are multiple buildings whose loss would horrify the country. The White House (preferably while any other president was in power), the World Trade Centre to name two examples. Canada does however have important natural features. If Niagara Falls somehow blew up or eroded over night leaving an unremarkable river, it would devastate Canadians especially the millions who visited/propsed/honeymooned/concieved/gambled/partied there. There will always be some who find it unimportant. Just a rock with flowing water. Doesn't make the majority stupid for mourning its loss. And we don't need to go into the reasons why people identify with, are proud of, love, cherish buildings/features they never participated in creating etc. Here is a list of things that some people find stupid and yet the majority would be utterly devastated if they dissappeared: Big Ben, Astronomical Clock, Brandenburg Gate, Colliseum (for all Europeans), Taj Mahal, Great Wall, Ayers Rock, the stupid angel in Rio De Janeiro, Sphinx, Matterhorn, Rhine, Nile, Mt. Everest, Grand Canal, Bolshoi. Etc. ShabiDOO 10:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably 'many centuries-old, repeatedly-partially-rebuilt-and-repurposed buildings are major fires/other disaster waiting to happen - and a combination of 'luck' and 'the best protection/repairs/health and safety measures that can be undertaken under the circumstances' have kept them safe.
Consider who gains the most from any fire in such buildings - the 'fund this rebuilding project' people, the builders, artists, craftspeople, archaeologists, academics etc, etc. Does anyone ever blame #them#Anna Livia (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
In the end, you can intellectually devalue anything pretty easily. It is, after all, just the same particles everything else is made of arranged in arbitrary shape. The value ascribed to Notre Dame comes from the people who value it, and the history they mentally write on it. If a cathedral falls in the middle of the woods, and no one is around to cherish it, it doesn't make a sound. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
We better get to work launching these things to the moon then! I understand there is a huge cultural relevance to Notre Dame. I don't share it, which I do not think is only because I'm not Catholic or from France. I don't know if I would share the notion. What I'm denigrating is that the idea to cope with losing something is deciding to build the same exact thing in the same exact place so you can pretend it is just as important to you or your country as it was 800 years ago. I understand that it has cultural relevance, national relevance, but I think that is security-blanket-level thinking. I am ready to let people mourn the loss. I'm sorry, I cannot speak on this without being sarcastic and mean, it is just a dumb idea to me to unleash a vast amount of stagnant capital to recreate a single building. What use, what good, what importance has a 2019 reconstruction of a thirteenth century Cathedral got that a burnt down 13th century Cathedral ain't got? I get it, I'm there, life sucks and things go away for no reason. But you can't just pay for a REPLACEMENT NOTRE DAME like it didn't get burnt, that's stupid. Build it on the moon. That's stupid too, but at least it's useful, at least we're going somewhere. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal Experience[edit]

Last thing I heard the conspiratards are whining about how the fire wasn't put out soon enough. I was talking to one and he said that in all the videos provided by the MSM, there was only one fire helicopter at the scene and there should have been more. He went on to talk about how this was likely a false flag by the Deep state to get another war in the Middle East by blaming the Muslims. That, he said, or it was the Muslims. I commented to him that the fact nobody actually died probably means it wasn't a false flag, but he said that 9/11 had already permanently justified the War on Terror and this was just a small reminder. He then insinuated that the motivation behind limiting fatalities was to prevent this causing a rise of Islamophobia and removal of Muslims from Europe. So, in conclusion: If it "looks like a false flag", it's a false flag. If it doesn't, it's a coverup, and also a false flag.Totally not shoehorning in any way whatsoever. Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like the typical conspiracy mindset. Must have been a pain to listen to.Hubert (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that the general reaction seems to be 'blame it on the refurbishments and problems arising therefrom/lack of previous funding for maintenance as has happened before' and it did not happen at Easter itself (or even Benedict XVI's birthday), a singularly bad warning.
And the argument against using more helicopters was - their rotors might have stirred the air enough to create further damage.
And there seems to be an inherent contradiction between 'ramping up the war on terror in the Middle East' and 'aiming to prevent rising Islamophobia' - or am I missing something? Anna Livia (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The Donald suggested to use flying water tankers against the fire. Besides the possibility of so much water falling down further damaging the structure of the temple, there's some reason why said planes are seldom used in cities (if they're used at all). Panzerfaust (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Besides - there is a large amount of water readily to hand, called the Seine. Anna Livia (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Anna Livia, do you have a source for the rotors possibly causing damage? I would love to read more about that. Also, while to a normal mind there might have been a contradiction, the conspiratards believe that the NWO/"elites" want both. In fact, they think that the War on Terror was made in part to create refugees to flood Europe with. Summa Atheologica (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Summa Atheologica How about not using ableist languages, it only further stigmatizes the intellectually disabled by doing so. Please and thank you. Oxyaena Harass 15:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. That was not my intention.Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Summa Atheologica - someone 'heard it on the radio.' The usual quick websearch produced eg this which seems relevant. Anna Livia (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
SA - I think my response to you and yours to someone else could

be reversed for clarity. Anna Livia (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to do that? Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

State ownership[edit]

Due to the revolution and a 1905 law, all church building that were built prior to 1905 are stated owned,[7] so there's actually a good argument to be made for the government to make an effort at restoration due to the building's architectural significance. The government may have actually shown negligence in not properly maintaining the building prior to the fire. Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Negligence is a massive problem when it comes to old laws. Either the laws need to be cleaned up, or they need to be followed. There are so many examples where laws explicitly state something, but not even the government adheres to enforcing them. This is a stranger scenario, where an old law isn't useful not because it's impractical, but because it has been actively ignored. But it's still on the books. In America, the protection of a religious rule by law is called a blue law. I don't think this is blue, but to ask the government of 2019 to maintain a Catholic place of worship/art museum independently, and to call it a governmental responsibility, reads a little bluish to me. I'm sure the church wouldn't like to see the fire marshal walking through its halls taking notes. Not that it would be a bad thing, it would be a safety thing, and probably could have prevented this uncontrollable blaze thing. But I think that's also a little bit of an oversimplification. This is coming from the guy who is calling for the rebuilding on the moon thing. And I will double down on that last point. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The good news[edit]

These parishioners survived. Anna Livia (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't actually think there were any fatalities. Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Might want to click that link, it's quite possible there might have been a couple of insect casualties. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Masturbation[edit]

What are the benefits of not masturbating? What are the negatives? How long have you gone without masturbating? Bonesquad11 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nominally, for men, the only known medical benefit of masturbation is reduced risk of prostate cancer. There are no known medical benefits from abstinence, though many common beliefs about it granting "Manliness" in some abstract way through testosterone. Not well established through the literature. I don't want to share my sex life with a fucking wiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Are there any benefits from abstinence for women? OK maybe not you personally but what's the longest anyone has gone without masturbating and what did this do to them? Bonesquad11 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, one could argue that female abstinence results in a considerably decreased chance of unwanted pregnancy. That's about all I can think of. Kencolt (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Buddy, you might want to double check the title of this section. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Now, I've never seen the girl... thing... or whatever. But if girls gotta sit to pee with it I assume it's a LOT bigger than what I got. And word is, blood comes out the lady-dangle once a week. Is it fair to say that scares me? I think it is fair to say that scares me. I also hear this is why ladies who... do the bad thing... bleed in the first place? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
There is an inherent difficulty which faces anyone wanting to carry out any large-scale long-term study on the effects of mastrrbation on healthy human males. The problem is finding a sufficiently large control group of long-term non-masterbators. Hubert (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Same with porn use, according to what I've read. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Stress relief, mostly. Plus, masturbation prevents nocturnal emissions. Maybe. CoryUsar (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I've heard emissions and prostate cancer correlate. Makes enough sense to me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone had to pick the cotton - Surprise, sur-fucking-prise! This thread was started by Unlicensed Thinker! Read on if you really must[edit]

USA Today: "This season, the Yankees replaced [Kate Smith's version of "God Bless America"] recorded rendition, one they had used for 18 years, with other versions of the song. According to a report Thursday in the New York Daily News, the change was made after Yankees officials were alerted that Smith previously sang songs with racist lyrics."

One of the racist songs sang by Smith was That's Why Darkies Were BornWikipedia's W.svg. Indeed, it seems a very racist song even for 1931, so racist that I wonder if it wasn't some kind of parody of racism that today is difficult to understand... Thinker(unlicensed) 12:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson. That is all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, I think the kate smith version is probably pretty emblematic of the actual opinions of the kinds of people who demand patriotism side-shows at sports events. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Only a minority take it as a parody. Most see it as an example of songs composed by whites who fantasized about black experience. In any case, blacks are offended by it and other faux Negro Spirituals Kate Smith popularized. @UL, note that this didn't work out as a "those damn liberal snowflakes have gone too far this time with their political correctness" conversation starter as you may have hoped. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Please, don't go off-topic. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Paul RobesonWikipedia's W.svg recorded the song in the same year as Smith.[8] "Someone had to fight the Devil." Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This is up there with Penn State not playing Sweet Caroline after the Sandusky revelations. Is there anyone who is actually, genuinely offended at Kate Smith's rendition of God Bless America? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Woody Guthrie (y'know, the folk song writer whose guitar "killed fascists" and was considered by the fascist crowd to be a commie) was irritated at that song back in the day (apparently because he thought it was overplayed). I think his answer song is the better one honestly. So, "meh". The big irony here is that Irving Berlin got some flack about "God Bless America" back in the day because he was a Jewish immigrant. I guess in America, things haven't changed a whole lot in a century... Soundwave106 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Didn't Springsteen's "Born in the USA" and CCR's "Fortunate Son" get co-opted to appeal to the exact opposite message the songs were written about? I know Springsteen openly shrugged it off and embraced the money, but occasionally played it true-to-intent. Listening to the first Kate Smith track I could find, it seems pretty tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, why is anybody worried about whether any version of the song "God Bless America" potentially has ties to the theistic/slave-oriented state-building of North America? Can any version of "God Bless America" avoid being interpreted as tacitly racist or subtly tongue-in-cheek? Otherwise, it's just an anachronism and a stupid song with some words we like, which means any version of it is fine. Any version of "God Bless America" is fine, if that's what you want to play. Kate Smith or otherwise. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)