RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive306

This is an archive page, last updated 11 May 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>, <305>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

2012 2030

Greta Thunberg at European Parlament:

"Around the year 2030 we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it."

Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

And what are we supposed to take from it? Ridicule a girl's concern over our mistreatment and relentless exploitation of the environment? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a vague concern, but a precise prediction. Saying that our civilization will end in 2030 is an extraordinary claim that require extraordinary evidence, and a community of skeptics should be interested in inspecting that. Especially because of the platform and echos this claim is having. Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The link didn't actually state a precise prediction, but beyond that date, her concerns on everything else is valid. She didn't quite say civilization will end in 2030, she said 2030 is a crucial year, probably referring to tipping point, the "runaway climate change" fueled by positive feedback loops that would make controlling some elements far more difficult, if not impossible in some cases where it was possible before. Why am I arguing with you? I shouldn't waste time like this. It's really my bad for engaging with you, but comparing legitimate concerns about ocean acidification, deforestation, and climate change to 2012 hysteria is appalling. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have evidences supporting the quoted claim about 2030? Otherwise, I agree that your are wasting time. Thinker^(unlicensed) 22:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

this overall trend line conjoined with this paper estimating most kinds of "irreversible effects" in the 800-1000 ppm range would point to that time frame not being inaccurate, the only problem being the gross simplification of the matter. In general, yes you're wrong. Yes, you're stupid. Yes, you're basically engaged in science denialism. And yes, you're gonna come back offended that someone could condemn you for the things that you "happen" to not know. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 23:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That Climate change is expected to be much worse in 2030 is true enough. That civilization will begin to collapse seems to call for more discussion. Here we have a review of articles on the subject, and in 2013 damaging effects were predicted. The review in the link "explores the extent to which articles have identified potentially catastrophic, civilization-endangering health risks associated with climate change." The abstract concludes from over 2,000 papers reviewed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information "..., recognition of the most severe, existential, health risks from climate change was generally low." Now, for all I know, this is wrong. I buy Climate change. I'm not sold on a collapse of civilization. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

thats a relief i thought i might have had to make an effort there or do the recycling properly. this is the thing with climate change - its not real to people, its not tangible and when it is, it'll probably be too late. the steps required to prevent or merely slow down or lessen the worst effects require governments to legislate for things that increase taxes and costs all round, and inconvenience the general public to varying degrees. we know all too well how easy it is for populist fuck nuts to exploit even the most minor irritations while the public at large will listen to anyone if it means they can hang on to their suvs a little longer - more so if it means their bills are a little less. theres still plenty of time right? theres no looming deadline is there, like 2030? oh, why is everything underwater or on fire?

pedantry and quibbling from someone so keen to throw shade on a schoolgirl they missed the point entirely - times running out. it must sting to find a 16 year old is sharper than you.

@ariel - whose civilisation are you talking about? pacific islands will vanish soon and many of the poorer regions of the world are already hit by worsening droughts and flooding, increased disease and mortality. europe and the us? we'll still complain that theres not much of this global warming when it gets a bit parky. i'll probably need to wear a hat though. i am effectively albino and i hate the sun. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay I imagine various concepts of civilization were presented in the constructs of investigators from various scientific disciplines and intuited by the authors of the aforementioned review. I for one am relieved to observe competent minds discern that near-future doomsday scenarios are probably not in store for most of humanity. I don't know what the young woman has to do with any of this, and it in no way supports the collapse hypothesis to regard her as personally significant in this discussion. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

i'll try my hand at pedantry and quibbling now by saying she doesnt appear to predict the collapse civilisation at all but rather its end 'as we know it'. i am inclined to agree that is the case whether that means trivial or major change. its neither here nor there though because, as i said earlier, it misses the point entirely. the point is time running out. the speech was a call to arms, to galvanise some kind of action to prevent what will be disastrous for all of us, and already is in some parts of the world. it was not a summary of a scientific paper, it was not a precise timeline of forecast events. it was a short, strong and emotional plea for action put as unambiguously as possible because time is running out.

thats not contentious at this point by any reasonable person so instead of asking what we should do we latch onto a generalised indicator of the timeframe, insist it was a precise prediction of the date of our demise and now we are arguing over the most trivial and irrelevant nonsense. this is my point. this what we have been doing, are doing, and will continue to do.we find some reason, some justification to not have do anything. its scaremongering, the data is wrong, there is no consensus, its not any time soon, its not that bad, its a scam, or even its already to late. its not real to us if we keep delaying meaningful action, but when its effects make it real, it will be too late. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Damage is effecting earth's environments at increasing rates. That is as much as one can say with scientific confidence. Only a fool would assume that predicate and conclude that nothing could be done. What could convince skeptics to believe that the process of climate change is taking place? Accurate predictions. What could possibly encourage continued skepticism? Inaccurate claims.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

we are going in circles. the science is done. we know all we need to know. the skeptics are charlatans. its not the scientifically literate who need convincing. laypersons and dumbfucks like me are pulled one way or another by weight of opinion saying its happening, we are fucked and spivs saying its all fine, theres nothing to worry about, blessed are the oil companies. leadership from our elected representatives is needed but absent as they eye the next election and fat envelopes from lobbyists. this girl made no inaccurate claims. she made no precise or specific predictions. that was not the purpose nor was it necessary. she told us to get a fucking move on. the clock is ticking. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I like when UnlicensedThinker gets his ass kicked, he goes completely silent and actually does us a favor and shuts up. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nazis in Ukraine ?

I've seen claims that the current ukrainian government has openly neo-nazis in it and that the far-right is powerful there, how credible as these claims ? Diacelium (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That might be a reference to Svoboda. They are on some regional councils, and nationally grabbed 37 seats out of 450 in 2012 (only to lose most of them in 2014). They originally *were* a neo-Nazi party (in their SNPU days -- hey, check out that logo!) but I guess they've tried to hide... er, moderate that bit of the philosophy... somewhat. Like a lot of far-right Europe parties, frankly.

It's a thing, but from what I can tell, support is kinda limited. (There has been some usual Soviet shenanigans exaggerating the problem, I guess, so if there's a source being hysterical about this... well...).Soundwave106 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There may be a host of Nazis in the Ukraine. The Kremlin's perspective is widely reproduced in the international media and that's what they seem to say, so there's that. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The Ukrainian "Nazis" had Jewish leaders, so they're strange kinds of Nazis. Really they're just pro-Ukrainian anti-Russian and this is a smear. They do appear to use some Nazi symbolism for some reason, but that's about the only similarity I know of. GlamourSICKLE 13:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pro tip when Nazi boy tries to open his trap

We really need to stop responding to this troll and either troll collapse or revert. These responses to an obvious troll are clogging up Saloon Bar and we already have two troll collapses where I was tempted to remove them but people kept responding to the troll. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We're definitely not equipped to deal with persistent trolls who are willing to use proxies. At least he hasn't figured out how to circumvent CAPTCHAs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe having Captchas of Jews being happy and relaxing on the beach will work a lot better. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

And it's such terrible boring trolling. Such a snooze inducing snore fest. Sleep. Snore. Zzzzzzzzzzzz ShabiDOO 17:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nazi trolls love to clog the pipe for some reason, I support straight up ignoring them. Nazi punks fuck off!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring clogged pipes isn't good for water flow. I ain't a plumber for nothing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A right wing church in town

They put your usual right wing screed on their sign. Plenty of homophobia, transphobia, creationism and climate change denial to go around. I did notice the decline of attendance to these right wing churches. The Methodist, Catholic and Episcopal churches are doing just fine in contrast. Guess people are tired of the conservative based churches. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I see your story, and I raise you the fact that live maybe a mile or so from the Westboro Baptist Church. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 03:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but outside of the very extended family and a few converts, like Steve Drain, just how much clout do they have in your part of town. Aren't they seen as a joke, even there? RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, literally everyone here hates them. Problem is, that doesn't stop them from putting on their Sunday best and picketing on random intersections whenever they feel like it. Sometimes they do it for major events, like sporting events or even my goddamned highschool graduation. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Damn, sorry to hear. When the church I mentioned put homophobic shit on their signs, gay rights activists protested them. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the gay rights activists push back against the WBC here as well. Someone bought up two houses across the street from their cult compound and painted them in the colors of the gay and trans pride flags. It's glorious, because the WBC fuckers can't avoid looking at them whenever they leave their fortress. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, what kind of person has spare money to buy houses next to people who hate them? Maybe they're just braver people than I, living next to those who'd see them dead. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The guy purchased the first house through his nonprofit humanitarian group called Planting Peace, and the group now uses it as their main office. Then they raised money to buy the Transgender House. They also use the houses as venues for entertainment functions like a show wedding between Gandalf and Dumbledore, drag shows, and an event where gay people would kiss their SOs. Here's the Wikipedia article on the house: Equality House DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

WBC came to my high school in 2005, the group they were protesting thought they could rally a counter protest, but really most of the students laughed at both the GSA and WBC. What a Wonderful World (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Student sentenced to 12 years for rape but didn't have sex - Surprise, sur-fucking-prise! This thread was started by Unlicensed Thinker! Read on if you really must

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Caution: SEALION ahead!

Vibe: "Wilson was given the sentence on Wednesday (April 3) in addition to a lifetime of probation and a mandatory sex offender title for the events that transpired in September 2016. Wilson, who was 20 at the time, met the then-17-year-old girl at popular college spot Jayhawk Cafe. [...] The victim claimed Wilson took her back to his place where he raped her but Wilson shared a different story with the jury. “She didn’t seem intoxicated at all,” Wilson said as he claimed the two kissed and engaged in other sex acts but never had sexual intercourse. Kansas Bureau of Investigation scientists testified that Wilson’s DNA was found on the girl’s chest — where he said he kissed her — but no seminal fluid or DNA was found."

This seems alarming. Thinker^(unlicensed) 13:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Their encounter also apparently lasted 5 minutes according to on-site video surveillance. I don't know how long an incident of actual rape takes, but that seems like an awfully narrow time window to execute such a crime; especially since both were seen walking back after the incident. The girl did have bruises on her thigh though, so perhaps attempted rape is the more justifiable sentence. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"and other sex acts" Well, there you go (potentially). In Kansas, the rape statute defines it as any sort of penetration, not just traditional intercourse, so there's that possibility. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

UT isn't exactly concerned with trying to establish the contextualized facts of a situation. That's never been a meaningful part of his MO. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"The girl did have bruises on her thigh though, so perhaps attempted rape is the more justifiable sentence."

@MirrorIrorriM Sexual battery? Aggravated sexual battery?

"In Kansas, the rape statute defines it as any sort of penetration"

@Noir LeSable This seems legitimate. It wouldn't make sense, for example, that abusing someone using a dildo instead than penis would not be considered a form of rape.

"UT isn't exactly concerned with trying to establish the contextualized facts of a situation."

@Ikanreed ...says the user who joins the thread without making any comments about the trial, but only to speculate about the intentions of who started the thread... Thinker^(unlicensed) 15:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm past the observe and speculate stage of this hypothesis. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I read the title of this post and I knew immediately it was written by our resident troll unlicensed thinker. It's not just the topic but how it was written to provoke and cause outrage. I haven't read the content because to do so is to totally miss the point. I don't believe for a second unlicensed thinker cares about what actually happened to the girl (probably wouldn't be particularly bothered if she had actually been raped) but wants to punch a hole in the idea that women are raped by men and that most of the claims these women make can be trusted. Instead of delving into this topic and learning as much as he could, unlicensed thinker almost certainly found a case where some guy perhaps raped a girl but the evidence isn't clear or we don't have the full story or its just a he said/she said story. Even these details are totally beside the point. Unlicensed thinkers aim is to sew doubt into the minds of people that women who accuse of rape cannot be trusted. Despite the fact that a small percentage of claims turn out to be false and that victims of ALL FORMS of crimes sometimes make up the story, it's rape in particular and women victims (only women victims) who should be doubted. The final point is the focus heavily on the real victims of these "so called rapes". Unlicensed thinker cares deeply for men public ally accused for rape, as he feels their live have been destroyed over what is likely a false claim. Because women cannot be trusted and it's just some sexual misunderstanding after all. This isn't the first or even the tenth time I've read the headline of a new topic and I knew it was unlicensed thinkers attempt to troll this site. His recent concern about "fake racism" to name but one other example. He doesn't care about the truth but poking holes. And by doing so he thinks that by pointing out one counter example (usually BAD examples) that somehow he has demonstrated that racism isn't a problem or that rape isn't as big of a deal as it is and that all these problems that we are just exaggerating and making too big a deal about. This game is boring and transparant its useless, we all know what unlicensed thinker is trying to do and its a total waste of everyone's time and energy. Unlicensed thinker, unless you have something remotely more interesting to offer the salon, something more than a bad counter example or a "yeah but what about this contradictory case" or until you improve your trolling beyond boring tedious attempts to provoke with the lowest quality methodologies and accomplishment of putting most of us to sleep...you could take your time wasting bullshit and take it to another website where you might have even a sliver of success? ShabiDOO 15:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Another problem with this case: Wilson was found guilty by an all-white jury of nine women and three men. Isn't the jury supposed to be more balanced? I thought in US half of the jury was chosen by the defendant's lawyer to avoid possible racial and sexual discriminations. Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And what are we supposed to take from it? Sexual harassment / rape accusations are just a farce? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think that pointing to a seriously questionable rape conviction means saying that all sexual harassment and rape accusations are fake? Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask this if you weren't a troll. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Because if I'm a troll then it makes perfectly sense to ask me that... Do you have any comment on the conviction of this student, or do you think that asking rhetorical questions and accusing me of being a troll is more valuable? Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It's absolutely more valuable to push you for you to reconsider being a disingenuous fuck to your face, than it is to comment on a news story where the state presented medical evidence of sexual assault compelling to a jury as if it will overturn the conviction, because it doesn't match the arbitrary standards you've decided it must to be your own internal definition of rape that is to be honest, quite rapey.

That's what you want us to say, the contentious, but basically reasonable counterpoint, that a guy doesn't need to cum for a rape to happen. That way you can quibble and argue on technical definitions and the underlying dishonesty can be disregarded in the pursuit of a mundane series of facts. You don't know shit about this case, we don't know shit about this case, but you want us to be angry, because it ties into a men's rights debate on "fake rape". Fuck off. Grow up or go home. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"because it doesn't match the arbitrary standards you've decided it must to be your own internal definition of rape that is to be honest, quite rapey."

@Ikanreed You must think to be some kind of psychic, since you believe to know my own internal definition of rape.

"That's what you want us to say, the contentious, but basically reasonable counterpoint, that a guy doesn't need to cum for a rape to happen."

Why? I totally agree that a guy doesn't need to cum for a rape to happen. I just wrote a couple of posts above that it's totally legitimate to consider rape an abuse, for example, done by using a dildo.

"because it ties into a men's rights debate on "fake rape"."

Actually, this seems to me more a debate about unfairness in criminal justice. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A. Fuck you, I'm not doing the thing you want, because your game is more obvious than you think. B. No, you want a stupid, weighted debate on the subject based on a dishonest misrepresentation of a single case. I know you don't listen when I say this, but the world would be so improved if you could learn to shut the fuck up. It's like you know how full of shit you are, but you love the sound of bullshit splattering against the walls. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This type of shit is even fucking worse. First this fuck revives racist and homophobic concern trolling over Smollet, then to try and present "both sides" brings up a rape case involving an black man. This case sucks, but she was underage and it's still fucking rape. The logic @UnlicensedThinker is deploying attempts to conflate an series of issues he doesn't understand to protect him from criticism. Presenting a case where a gay black man lied or at a minimum grossly misrepresented an attack, where the conventional wisdom was to believe the "victim", then presenting a case that on it's face has facets of institutionalized racism (all white jury, black male in Kansas, rape accusation), but clearly has underlying evidence of a crime. This will allow him to later bring a similar situation later and then claim RW is inconsistent.

Anyway fuck you UT, I hope you choke on your troll boner. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"I'm not doing the thing you want [...] you want a stupid, weighted debate on the subject based on a dishonest misrepresentation of a single case."

@Ikanreed Oh boys, I don't want you to do anything... I suggest you to take a deep breath and considering that maybe, just maybe, you don't know every my intention. That should avoid you to make other immediately-proved-false assertions like the claim that I want you to say "a guy doesn't need to cum for a rape".

"First this fuck revives racist and homophobic concern trolling over Smollet"

@RipCityLiberal Well, the Osundairo brothers "revives" Smollett's case by suing him. If anything, get mad at them...

"This case sucks, but she was underage and it's still fucking rape."

She was 17 and he was 20, that wouldn't be a problem per se... and about the "still fucking rape", maybe you missed the questionable way in which this has been established.

"The logic UnlicensedThinker is deploying attempts to conflate an series of issues he doesn't understand to protect him from criticism. Presenting a case where a gay black man lied or at a minimum grossly misrepresented an attack, where the conventional wisdom was to believe the "victim", then presenting a case that on it's face has facets of institutionalized racism"

You are trying to "conflate" two different posts of mine. I never made a parallel between Smollett's case and this rape conviction, and sincerely I don't see how I could, since they are completely different matters. Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you stop posting concern trolling on the bar. It's very tiring. Commie Lib (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa He isn't going to stop unless there are consequences for him doing it.@UnlicensedThinker Don't get fucking cute. We all see what you're doing. It's right out of the right wing playbook. Start with "Just asking questions" or "Isn't this interesting". Follow that with racist/homophobic logic that is questionable but not explicit, and then getting defensive when we call you out. You are the one posting it here, You are the one instigating a literal Nazi.

Go choke on your troll boner. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

UT is a master at staying on the right side of the law. He hasn't done anything ban worthy so we just let him talk. Commie Lib (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"He isn't going to stop unless there are consequences for him doing it"

@RipCityLiberal Straight to threats...

"Follow that with racist/homophobic"

I'm gay by the way.

"You are the one instigating a literal Nazi"

I'm not responsible for what other users write on RW. If somebody wrote Nazi stuff on a thread of mine then it's the moderators' job to handle that. Thinker^(unlicensed) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that UT has never shown homophobia. Conservative ideas definitely but not anything more extreme. Commie Lib (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)\

"If somebody wrote Nazi stuff on a thread of mine then it's the moderators' job to handle that." Hmmm seems to be happening a lot lately. I wonder why? Could it be you happening to be using language and logic in line with white supremacists? I wonder... Also your personal identity has zero, zilch, nothing to do with engaging in homophobic language (Milo).

Also @UnlicensedThinker if I was threatening you, then I would be alluding to physical harm I would perform on you or wish on you. I'm implying that while engaging in your daily fellating of yourself to instigating more shit on this board, you choke. In conclusion, Fuck you. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal

• "Start with "Just asking questions" or "Isn't this interesting".

If unlicensed thinker was interested in an actual conversation about what should constitute non consensual sexual acts, or fairness in the justice system, then he would link an article that deals with that topic, not some dubious borderline case designed to provoke discord. Better yet, he could full out ask the question himself...it's not hard to actually ask an interesting question in a non concern-trolling way. Imagine the useful and interesting conversations we could actually have on these topics if unlicensed thinker gave a shit, was even remotely interested in the veracity of the topic and the meaningfulness of rape-protections and LGTB+ advocacy...and if he were interested in non-sneaky discourse. So boring.

@RipCityLiberal

• "He isn't going to stop unless there are consequences for him doing it"

Something worth discussing.

@Tabula Rasa

• "I have to agree that UT has never shown homophobia."

No his cunning tactic is to not outwardly spout vile things. But it's not a coincidence he selected a black gay man for one of his boring sleep inducing concern-trolling posts. His concern against LGTBQ+ advocacy and women's protection wouldn't be a problem at all if he were simply honest about it and attempted meaningful discussion. ShabiDOO 23:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Preach brother, preach. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

So the fucking troll is now surprised that this thread has become all about calling him out on his fucking trolling. Not so long ago, somebody would have developed a special template by now that would get put at the top of pretty much everything that Unlicensed Thinker wrote to warn of the concern trolling ahead. I think all the users with the teknikal skillz and interest in making such a template have gone now. But I promise you this, from now on I will alter the headings of every thread I see that Unlicensed Thinker starts to add something like, "Surprise Sur-fucking-prise! This is a thread started by Unlicensed Thinker. Read on if you really must." Spud (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spud Not a bad idea to have a “Warning: Concern Troll!” template. If you tell me a bit more about what exactly you’re looking for, I’ll see if I can take a crack at it. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 03:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini You know, you have good taste and artistic flair. I'd be happy to commission you to create a "Warning Concern Troll" template and I'm sure I'd be happy with whatever you created. I must say, when I said that some previous users would have created an Unlicensed Thinker warning template by now, I was thinking of this one. But, yeah. It probably would be better to create a general purpose concern troll template, rather than one for a specific user. As far as text is concerned, you might just want to use what I wrote before and replace the words "Unlicensed Thinker" with "a well known concern troll". But again, just create the best template you can. Spud (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 ??? This??--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 08:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I think a more obvious, bigger and bolder concern troll template wouldn't hurt. Spud (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario @Spud @DuceMoosolini If putting a bold disclaimer or a cute puppy next to my posts makes you feel better... go on. That's says a lot more about you than me... Thinker^(unlicensed) 13:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be doing this if my patience didn't run completely dry as the surface of the moon to you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't our concern templates feature cute sea lions too? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I like mine too much to change it. Wanna do a separate template? I'm thinking a "sea lion petting zoo" themed one. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini LOL you beat me to it. I just finished a prototype template here but yours is funnier and more to the point. Though you might want to consider a different font. ShabiDOO 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I think yours is good if we need to play hardball with someone, which I'm sure will happen fairly soon. Also, wanna do the sea lion one? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, if no one else does it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments related to the trial and conviction

So, unfortunately, the thread has been turned into a trial against me. If somebody has comments on the conviction of the student, please post it below. @MirrorIrorriM and @Noir LeSable made valuable comments, maybe they are interested in continuing the conversation. To summarize some oddities of this case:

• Their encounter lasted 5 minutes according to on-site video surveillance.
• The girl had bruises but no seminal fluid or DNA was found.
• The man was found guilty by an all-white jury of nine women and three men.

Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool, now you can go constant post updates of your trial on your Saloon Bar. It'll be a nice break from the Smollett stuff, don't you think? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

UT reminds me of a certain mathematician I know.... — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Why disputing the outcome of a trial is usually a bad idea for the uninformed.

@UnlicensedThinker, I mean you: The "oddities" you have listed don't seem very odd to me, e.g., Kansas is a very white state, so white juries are to be expected. Also, the all white jury was considering two felony charges, and agreed only on the one. If you are concerned that the case is the result of a misunderstanding, then I would advise you to stay out of Kansas. The reasons we should not make hasty assumptions about the outcome of a jury trial without extensive study are as follows:

• Often we are made aware of the trial by a media correspondent of unknown reliability. In this case from "Vibe.com".
• We have not examined any physical evidence.
• We are not prepared to evaluate expert testimony, e.g., the frequency of DNA being dispositive in assault cases. See this if curious.
• We are sometimes asked to consider irrelevant, superficial circumstances, e.g., Trump complained about the Mexican heritage of a Federal judge.
• We have not heard the testimony nor read the transcript.

Ariel31459 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Finally, somebody that has something to say on-topic!

"Kansas is a very white state, so white juries are to be expected."

That's why I asked: "Isn't the jury supposed to be more balanced? I thought in US half of the jury was chosen by the defendant's lawyer to avoid possible racial and sexual discriminations." Race aside, there's also the problem that the jury was "nine women and three men". Kansas is very white, but I doubt there are three times more women than men.

"Often we are made aware of the trial by a media correspondent of unknown reliability. In this case from "Vibe.com"."

I agree. Vibe doesn't seem very reliable, but I didn't find much more reliable sources on this case except maybe this one. If you have better sources, they are welcome.

"We have not examined any physical evidence. We are not prepared to evaluate expert testimony"

That could be said on many things that have been discussed on RW, for example Mueller's report... and it didn't prevent having a discussion on such topics.

"We are sometimes asked to consider irrelevant, superficial circumstances, e.g., Trump complained about the Mexican heritage of a Federal judge."

I have no idea of what you mean by this.

"We have not heard the testimony nor read the transcript."

Is it possible to find it online? Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, the transcript is not accessible. You are incorrect about how juries are selected in the US. There is no uniform selection code for the several states. In the case of Kansas, juries are expected to be representative in as far as is reasonably possible. Thus racial representation is not mandatory. Kansas was reported about 84% white in the 2010 census, with about 5% Black. This means, subject to random selection, about 60% of juries would not have any Black jurors. The gender disparity you raise is also not addressed in methods of jury selection. Juries are often dominated by males. It is reported to be a common assumption that women are more severe in judging female victims, while men, as jurors, are more likely to be protective of women. e.g. [1]. This is also disputable (see the same link). So, you see, it would be pointless to argue about not only this trial, but any trial, without extensive study. When you try, you are liable to just make a mess. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 brings up the point that is critical with virtually all court proceedings, unless you were directly involved in the trial, you're just guessing. Although there are some high profile cases that have had cameras and in depth reporting, 90% of judicial proceedings are viewed from the outside without context. It's why hot takes about either of the concern trolling from UT is pointless. We don't know the evidence, we don't know the strategies from the prosecution or the defense, and we aren't aware of any of the jury deliberations. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia proving Liberals are "fascist"

Uh oh. We just got exposed. How will we ever recover? https://www.conservapedia.com/Template:User_Liberal_Facist Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I do actually resent the implication that I prejudge people based on their faces. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Fascist" doesn't mean banning everyone that disagrees with you. It means national solidarity. And that's the last thing we want for the West. GlamourSICKLE 15:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And even that's an overly broad view of fascism. Unity for the sake of consistently upholding a shared ideal is not the same as unity for the purpose of "strength". The former being a not-unreasonable description of enlightenment era liberalism. But the latter being an appeal to base tribalism. The superficial similarity is enough to fuel an almost infinite number of Jonah Goldbergs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I find myself in total agreement. National unity is a too broad definition of fascism, and we should narrow it down to just enlightenment era liberalism, which is a fundamental component of national unity. GlamourSICKLE 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of fascism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.. I highly doubt RationalWiki is fascist going by that definition. Your far right folks and even far left fit that bill. General liberals do not fit that bill certainly. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This might be a good time for me to mention that I've been spending quality time with our fascism article, so anyone can pop over there to see what fascism really is. (please clap) DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

""Facism" is whatever I don't like." -Andrew SchaflySumma Atheologica (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So, does anyone else here get told they're being condescending when they speak in language that isn't loaded?

Because I spent seven hours last night trying to convince an idiot to stop harassing someone without bringing personal baggage into it, and they wouldn't stop saying that. The idiot is an admin on a Discord server I frequent, and I've already reported their ToS violations. I would go on a rant about how he angers people to the point where murder plots are hatched against him, but that's not the topic at hand. Rather, it's about how he consistently stated that I was being condescending for asking him things like "What, exactly, did you say she was doing when you told me she was in the wrong?" after he said things like "She was probably feeling horrible and confused like all of us." in response to my asking about her feelings. For reference, he said she was singling someone out because she "just didn't like him." Does anyone else have to deal with those kinds of accusations if someone can't follow your logic, even if the path is right there? Tyrian (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess in retrospect, I should've expected a mathematician's answer. To elaborate on this train of thought, I wanted to know how the hell people tolerate it. It's driving me up the wall and the person who's doing it is, as I've said, a staff member. I don't want to assume malice over idiocy, but I can't help but feel like he genuinely has a vendetta and thinks he's doing the right thing. I've sent a message to the Discord support people for the many ToS violations he's committed, but they haven't gotten back to me yet and if they don't, I'm seriously considering a lawsuit for criminal negligence. The ToS says I can't hold them accountable for things I do, but there's nothing about me holding them accountable for failing to punish things others do. Like this hypocritical emotional abuse the admin is dishing out. Tyrian (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

discord isnt accountable for anything on discord that isnt illegal content. u should find a better server. EK (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's pretend to attend Donal Trump's funeral

All men and women come to pass. The grieving process is complicated and personal, I've been through it. And all great figures have extravagant funerals As unfathomable as it seems, Donald Trump will also some day shuffle off this mortal coil, rest his eternal soul. When he does, there will be a funeral, by which his death will be a greater event than yours or mine. Let's have a few eulogies for him, pre-posthumously, just so we're a little more prepared. I will start, but by no means take this as the tone. Donald means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I will attempt to have some class during this.

AHEM: We may have never locked him or her up, we may have never built the wall, but we know one thing about our dear Mr. President, he said he wanted to do whatever anybody told him he wanted to do. And he told it like it was, whether it was winning a golf tournament that should have been taking place when it wasn't or just plain talking shit on a dead guy that called him out once. Whether it was his love for Wikileaks, or his total disavowal of any understanding of Wikileaks, he was the vocal barometer of the head of the executive office, the one true life that mattered, his life. I shudder to think that we must move forward, not knowing exactly how Mr. President feels at any one second, to maintain our country without our lead executive's barometer constantly spewing into our social lives. Whether he knew what he was doing or not, he always let us know that he felt exactly like his constituency should feel. I'm sure he is already missed as president, and I hope his family can grieve quietly, safely, without constant press coverage or his guidance on bankruptcy law. Mr. President, Donald Trump, it was an honor to survive your command of my country. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure the wall is being built as we speak, and 2020 isn't a foregone conclusion yet. — Dysk (contribs) 11:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with fantasizing about people being dead. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I would wear a party hat and dance on his grave. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump is an abhorrent disgrace to this world, and the day he dies is a day of summing up all cases where he inflicted harm or even death on people and also spitting verbal seethe at the people who supported him. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Give him a break. He has done what he could for America. Nobody is perfect. He hasn't done any of you personal harm, and none of you are 100% innocent. How would any of you like it if Donald Trump's name above was replaced by any of yours? 2600:1:F1A8:AC53:F50F:EE64:20F7:849E (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump is a dictator, racist, sexist monster who has made a mockery of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why should we give him a break? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll grant you "racist, sexist monster" but [citation needed] for the rest. What makes Trump a dictator? Who are the people he's physically harmed/killed? Why haven't I heard about this from the media? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's call him a "dictator wanna-be". It's pretty clear that he has authoritarian tendencies. However, the US's governance divisions are rather strong, and Trump is rather weak. His list of major achievements are rather small (putting "conservatives" on the court, a tax reform bill). In the meantime, he is soiling the office of the presidency with poor moral character, poor managerial skills (as evidenced by the turnover rate of government officials), and stoking national division through populist tomfoolery on Twitter. I think he will, without further adjustment, appear near the bottom of most historian's presidential rankings in the future. (One other "accomplishment" I think I am seeing, and this is something that began before Trump but is being reinforced... now that Donald Trump is the "God-Emperor" "false prophet" of the evangelical movement, America are moving away from institutional religion at a *very* fast rate. So I guess there's that.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably because you think CNN is fake news don't follow the media where people say this. — Dysk (contribs) 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a great non-reply you got there. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So there is no shortage of people who say Trump behaves like a dictator and kills children on the Mexican border, which is why I am suggesting it's due to the media you watch. — Dysk (contribs) 17:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right, there is no shortage of such people, including in the media. I was wondering whether it's all based on lunacy such as somehow blaming Trump for immigrants taking their children on perilous journeys. You seem to be suggesting the affirmative. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

They're just being rude. If Trump does nothing wrong, they can say so politely. 00:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F1A8:AC53:F50F:EE64:20F7:849E / talk}

The problem is Trump does almost everything in a manner that is either useless or counterproductive. Further, being polite over such things is outright stupid, not to mention fallacious. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Trying to reason and be civil with Trump is nearly impossible. I am not an unreasonable man and at one point I believed Trump's lies, hyperbole's and distortions. I come to realize that Trump and the Republican party in general is insane. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If he's anything like his predecessors, he'll shoot himself in a bunker. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What would Trump be doing in a bunker? He's not waging a losing expansionist war. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Redacted. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever he has done, we should respect him as a fellow human and the president no matter what he does or whether he deserves it or not. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:f169:ab59:374e:b385:4d81:bea8 / talk / contribs}

Bullshit. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not bulls***. He is a fellow man. And currently the president. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F169:AB59:374E:B385:4D81:BEA8 / talk / contribs}

"Whatever he has done, we should respect him as a fellow human and the president no matter what he does or whether he deserves it or not." So what? Why should we care which title he sports? He's a wretch of a human being and the world would be better off if he dropped dead. Further, why the everloving fuck should I give my respect to someone who has not only failed to earn it, but is very much unworthy of said respect? That's pure idealization of authority, purely to idealize said authority. It is moronic to revere someone purely because of their title, and not because of the content of their character or the worth of their accomplishments. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not Revere. Respect. Also, he is a fellow human in addition to being president. We respect even if he does not deserve. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F169:AB59:374E:B385:4D81:BEA8 / talk}

No. You "respect" him even though he doesn't deserve it, proving to everyone else that you have no self respect. Do not use "we" when you speak solely for yourself, and are quite alone in your sentiments. Further, your repeated argumeent reeks of the tone argument, as well as an appeal to authority, repeatedly endlessly without variation or elaboration. If all you have is "he's a human and therefore we should show him respect" then you have piss poor reasoning skills. When he dies I for one will shed no tears, nor mourn his passing. Nay, I shall be quite ecstatic. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I thought this was RationalWiki, a place known to make Trump's idiocy obvious. Why the hell is the guy two statements above this one supporting him? Tyrian (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. Here is Glenda Jackson's speech to British parliament when Margaret Thatcher died. https://genius.com/Glenda-jackson-mp-house-of-commons-speech-on-baroness-thatcher-annotated . Annotations are super basic, but the speech was from a member who actually cared about her constituency. She got booed as being inappropriate and continued with her statement. And she waited for her turn, she had some fire for some bullshit other members were spinning. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump is human. Whether he is an idiot or not, whether he is bad or not, he is a fellow human being. Humans need to love each other. Even if they do not deserve it. In other words, We should love all humans both righteous and wicked. We love the sinner and hate the sin only. And appreciate the virtue and the virtuous person. We can point out and punish wrongs but not be rude. Not just Trump but all humans deserve respect. So if anyone cannot respect Trump as a president,they can as a brother (since all humans are brothers and sisters). And respect him for any positive deeds he has done. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F178:B84E:BF5E:F0AF:2C33:9626 / talk}

Yeah... no. I'm not sure you get this whole, "he's a horrible person with no redeeming values" thing. Again he's a human (as opposed to a rabbit, snake, dog, cat, etc) so what? Woopy-fucking-doo! "Humans need to love each other. Even if they do not deserve it." This is stupid. This is naive idealistic drivel. If someone seeks to harm me or my kith and kin, hearth and home, I'm not going to love them and show them kindness. I'm going to remove the threat, plain and simple. Likewise, if someone does nothing but harm to others I will not show them one iota of respect, nor admiration, nor kindness. The idea that happy thoughts alone will solve the world's ills is incredibly naive. Sometimes you just have to eliminate a threat, plain and simple. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

But neither does mocking solve ills. If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F178:B84E:BF5E:F0AF:2C33:9626 / talk}

Fuck your flowery metaphors. He. Is. A. Psychopath. OK? OK! Fuck your tone policing. Fuck your Appeal to pity. Civility at the cost of accuracy is nothing more than insanity. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

hes not just a human being hes pres of the us. it comes with responsibilities and absolutely must be held to a higher standard. people are not infallible and the post comes with constraints. that needs taking into account. but he was not voted in yesterday. deliberate policy are not mistakes. actual 'mistakes' get compounded and no apology is coming. respect can only last so long before its lost. what effort has he made to regain our respect? has he curbed his behaviour? corrected mistakes, or even admitted to any? has shown us any respect? has he shown any respect to the institution he heads or those that work in unison with it? has he shown any kind of consideration to anyone not kneeling before him with his cock in their mouth? you can turn the other cheek if you like, but that only works if all that is being done can be shrugged off as easy as a slapped cheek. respect is mutual and he lost ours while he never had any for you in the first place. and you expect people to be polite? you should be thankful there are not riots in the streets, and the only real violence trump faces will be the ballot box. that is what respect is. not politeness. i'm british. we never stopped saying please and thank you while we enslaved half the world. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

World would be a better place if every single human loved the sinner and hated the sin and only punished to protect not revenge. So we jail to keep someone from troubling others not to revenge on them. And we pity not hate the offender and hope they change. As for Trump, if people just spoke with him, he may become a better president. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:f178:b84e:bf5e:f0af:2c33:9626 / talk / contribs} So, let's just love him as a fellow being and politely tell him off if he does wrong and appreciate any benefits he does for the country. And not just him but all political rulers and nonpolitical rulers. OK?^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:f178:b84e:bf5e:f0af:2c33:9626 / talk}

That's a charming viewpoint right up until you realize that our world contains people like Khameini, Bin Salman, Al-Baghdadi, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-Un, Joseph Kony, and etc. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Overlooking the reality of a person's actions isn't helpful in life or death. I'm surprised so many people are coming to Trump's imaginary posthumous defense when he continued to attack McCain posthumously. I mean, is the guy a human and our president? Do we respect his actions? Why can't we talk shit on him, even as an exercise in pretend eulogy, if his position commands respect? Aren't his actions the baseline for respect? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

NSA song

— Oxyaena ^Harass 23:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A good point, but crappy singing.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica I thought the singing was great, a good imitation of the original song. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What original song?Summa Atheologica (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Minecraft

Why is everyone suddenly deciding to get back into Minecraft again? For the longest time it was the butt of numerous jokes and poked fun at for being a "children's game", but now everywhere I look I see people suddenly super into it again. I myself haven't really played it in years since most of the recent updates didn't really do it for me, so was the most recent update really fucking phenomenal or is there something else at play here? 24.205.30.64 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's because Fortnite caught the attention of those think how cool or funny it is to insult games that happen to have a large audience for children. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

But hasn't Fortnite been around for almost an entire year? I've seen people equally mocking the Fortnite community well before Minecraft started getting popular again, which makes me skeptical as to whether or not it actually had a hand in anything. 24.205.30.64 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. And I probably will never know because I find it mystifying and defying careful scientific study that people find making fun of Minecraft and Fortnite even remotely funny. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I never really understood the appeal of such a thing either. I guess we'll just chalk this one up to the internet being the internet. 24.205.30.64 (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Minecraft is pretty fun. I would assume the new updates have gotten people more excited, and made some crutches (such as going into aquatic areas at night) less useful, therefore making the game more prestigious and challenging to play. Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, the newest update revamped the aquatic biomes right? Maybe I should give it another go then, if it's completely renewed public interest in the game then it's gotta be pretty damn good. 24.205.30.64 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's an I am very smart moment, the last time I played Minecraft, pistons were new. When I first played it, early, it was fun to dig a tunnel and build an aqueduct to make an underground lake and a lava tunnel to light the whole thing, just to do it, got what is now called griefed by a friend who spent his time dropping tnt everywhere. He also found people who were AFK and just mined them to the bottom of the map, they would come back and be buried. When I found out about redstone, I tried again and only cared about redstone. When I played Minecraft, I hated keeping myself alive to build what I wanted to build. I could play the game, but the game was stupid and frustrating, because I was too busy for the game. I got my combo locks done, was fine with it, said Minecraft wasn't for me. I had a friend get into Minecraft like 6 years ago, and we went into dev mode, because I refused to play survival. He built a castle, and I was supposed to build him a combo lock lava door. I hated every second of the work I had to put in to making that door, he did too, because he got sick of building and I got sick of my redstone not working right. He finished his castle in like two plays, and I was like fine, turn on enemies but let me work on this shit inside your castle and turn them off when I ask you to. When it finally worked, pistons and levers and redstone and lava source, I said "I will never play this game again." My circuitry was so inefficient, just a million miles of repeaters and torches that I had to dig an even bigger million of miles of space to try and make, I worked for weeks straight to get those pistons to open and close right. Survival mode has nothing for me, redstone is brilliant but so far outside of my wheelhouse, Minecraft is over for me. I could see how little kids and pure geniuses could like it. In a positive way, even, just leave me out of it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)02:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this a copypasta? 24.205.30.64 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about Creationism: If everything in the Bible is literal and word for word, would that not limit the powers of God?

We have a God that can literally do anything but only does things mentioned in the Bible which was physically written by man. Do creationists not see the obvious gap of information there? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A young Earth creationist would respond that the Bible was written by man but inspired, or "breathed out" from God (see 2 Timothy 3:16, or 2 Peter 1:20-21, for example). God could have done things differently from what the Bible says, like create the Earth in millions of years or in a split second, but that God says differently through the Bible.Sovereigntist (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Gimme a literal interpretation of this: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God....Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor. 1:11,13). nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 16:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

theres the problem with taking things like the bible literally. you are taking literal shit literally. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would. This is in part why many creationists actually ignore many parts of the bible, especially those that would contradict the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god. This idea comes more from Aristotle and the theologan tradition than the Bible anyway. There is little to no biblical evidence that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Hannasanarion (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the bible talks about a powerful god, a fearful god, a terrifying god, but not omnipotent in the "controls every little thing" sense. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed You forgot "a vengeful god" and "a jealous god"... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to highlight the clauses Christians usually point to to say he's omnipotent according to scripture. Those are literally the things it says. It definitely doesn't say things like "God controls all things" or "The lord decides what happens". The bible makes less of a go of making god sound powerful than Infinity War does for Thanos. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

God almost lost to Jacob in a wrestling match. Now, Jacob was busy wrestling his twin brother Esau in the womb, so this was something he was very good at. Jacob and Esau were always at odds, but Jacob didn't give a shit about Esau, once let his brother Esau almost starve and then dressed up in Esau's clothes to talk to his blind dad Isaac just so he could be the older brother and get the totally real birthright via a father-son kiss. Jacob then proceeded to marry a little girl. So Esau rolled up with a bunch of dudes later to say fuck you Jacob, you been screwing with me our whole lives. Jacob, for the first time ever, prayed to God like he meant it and fucking ran away like a BOSS. So God either dropped down himself or sent an angel to wrestle Jacob, because that's what an omnipotent power would do. The heel didn't lose, but he had to punch Jacob in the crotch to free himself before sunrise so the identity could remain secret, and then Jacob was the favorite in the eyes of God as well as his blind father Isaac. This is fucking canon. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Omnipotence (not sure what's the origin of omniscience) is justified from some verses in the NT. The OT has lots of examples that prove those things are not present there (besides the above examples, the iron chariots, not seeing Adam and Eve when they hid after eating that fruit, descending to see the Tower of Babel, etc). At best that verse (at Isaiah?) where He claims to be the source of everything as light and darkness or good and evil. Panzerfaust (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Osundairo brothers sue Smollett's legal team - Surprise, sur-fucking-prise! This thread was started by Unlicensed Thinker! Read on if you really must

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

USA Today "The two brothers who say "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett paid them to stage his Jan. 29 assault announced Tuesday that they have filed a federal defamation lawsuit against his legal team [...] The lawsuit, obtained by USA TODAY, asserts that after the collapse of the criminal case against Smollett in late March, Geragos and Glandian defamed the Osundairo brothers multiple times in public statements and in the media, claiming they "criminally attacked" and "criminally battered" the actor and that they may have been wearing "whiteface" during the attack."

Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This boring shit is still interesting for you to share? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Who's Smollett again? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the fuck should we care? - RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Who the hell are these people? Why should we give a shit? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker Why do you post the news on Smollett's situation here? Why do you think I or anybody should be interested in that fraud? Nobody likes schadenfreude.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

) He's the guy that faked a hate crime making it easy for people to dismiss actual crimes. Commie Lib (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Why should we give a shit?"

"Why do you post the news on Smollett's situation here?"

Isn't this site interested in hoaxes and frauds? (I'm not saying it was certainly a fraud, currently there are two pending lawsuits and an FBI investigation.) Thinker^(unlicensed) 07:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

All right. A black gay man faked a racist and homophobic attack on himself. And committed the crime of wasting police time by reporting that fake crime. We know that. And even though the criminal trial against Smollett didn't go ahead, he's going to pay for what he did for many years to come. I mean, who's going to hire him now? His showbiz career is over. But just because one gay black man faked an attack on himself, that doesn't mean that racism and homophobia aren't really problems. It doesn't mean that violent crime isn't a real problem either. @UnlicensedThinker, may I point out to you that your previous "Look at these stupid liberals complaining about racism, I'm just saying" post drew the attention of a genuine Nazi who took the opportunity to post some truly vile stuff here. Is that what you want? Because that's what's gonna keep happening if you keep doing this. Spud (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"All right. A black gay man faked a racist and homophobic attack on himself. And committed the crime of wasting police time by reporting that fake crime. We know that."

Legally we don't.

"he's going to pay for what he did for many years to come. I mean, who's going to hire him now? His showbiz career is over."

That's not how a justice system is supposed to work. People pay their crimes after a trial has established their guilty, not according to public opinion. Why should Smollett's career being over if (currently) he has not being found guilty?

"But just because one gay black man faked an attack on himself, that doesn't mean that racism and homophobia aren't really problems. It doesn't mean that violent crime isn't a real problem either."

Of course, who said that racism, homophobia, and violence aren't real problems? The fact itself that they are real and serious problems begs to understand if and when they are faked and exploited for personal profit.

"may I point out to you that your previous "Look at these stupid liberals complaining about racism, I'm just saying" post"

I never used those terms, don't build a strawman.

"drew the attention of a genuine Nazi who took the opportunity to post some truly vile stuff here. Is that what you want?"

Of course not. Am I responsible for what other users write on RW? You are a moderator, remove the Nazi stuff, it's your job. Obviously every post somehow related to race will attract the attention of racist users, but that doesn't mean that we should stop to talk about anything related to race. Thinker^(unlicensed) 13:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on Smollett's story one way or another. I am more concerned that he seems to be the external victim in an internal feud between the Chicago PD and the Cook County prosecutors. Lawyers looked at the evidence they had and decided not to pursue the matter. Lawyers like to win, and these apparently saw a loser. They did the right thing and backed off. No one, especially not the Chicago PD, ought to be carrying on and making demands based on the 'truth' of the narrative that Smollett allegedly faked a hate crime. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that @UnlicensedThinker is a concern troll of the worst kind, one that thinks issues of homophobia and racism are overblown, despite the clear evidence they are not. Besides his previous post that got the attention of an actual real Nazi, he keeps this shit up when the story of a brutal racist 1998 murder is back in the news because the convicted is being put to death. @Ikanreed and @LeftyGreenMario have called out this bullshit before from UT. I honestly don't know how y'all continue to tolerate him. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We try not to ban people unless they're being intentionally and unignorably disruptive. That's because this wiki was originally created to oppose Conservapedia, which likes to ban people for any or no reason. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't have to ban him but we can continue calling him a moron. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Giving him a platform to continue to air his platform of psuedo-skepticism gives his opinions the same weight as those challenging him. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yah but he's not exactly breaking rules. I can't perform action on him just because we don't like him. That's what makes those slippery clapping beach-ball-toting whiskered fools so hard to deal with. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'giving a platform' and endorsement. This is a point that apparently needs to be driven into some heads with a sledgehammer and a railroad spike. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Individual Arbitration Clause Supreme Court Ruling

In the United States the supreme court ruled 5 to 4 that individual arbitration clauses in contracts are legal. People are saying this is a really big deal but I'm not very familiar with law. Does this mean that you can't bring class action lawsuits against companies in the states anymore? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The ruling applies to employment contracts and how they handle arbitration. What the ruling seems to mean is that the court system cannot allow employees to seek arbitration as a group if there is no clause in their contract providing for it. Essentially, if a group of employees is wronged by their employer somehow, they all need to seek redress on an individual scale. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You know how if someone screwed you over, the legal system was your means to address that? Well, too bad, fuck you, I can defraud you and you can't do shit since you signed a boilerplate contract.

Literally murdering your boss will soon be the only recourse you have to things like "paying you what they agreed to." Any sense of the law being fair and neutral is dead. I know the supreme court fucks who did this won't see it this way, but they just signed the death warrant on social trust of the legal system. I can only hope enough people murder their "3rd party" arbitrators that no one wants the job. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, you work to eat. In the US, work eats you. Is it my confirmation bias, or are worker rights getting eroded or just aren't enough for this society? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's always push and pull, but "we" aren't winning the tug of war. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think what Ikanreed said about social trust in the justice system is the most concerning. A legal system only works because people trust it. If people think the law works for the benefit of the corrupt, but not for them, they won't follow it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes people only follow a legal system because they fear it. That tends to be a sign of a dying society though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Damn you, Trump, for appointing Kavanaugh and Gorsich in the first place. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

If for what ever reason you had zero choice but to attend a fundie college, what one would you choose?

While it would be a tough choice, I would probably choose Cedarville University. Seems more liberal than Pensacola Christian College. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the curriculum would be terrible at all of them, it wouldn't matter which one I attended, so I'd pick in a large city in hopes there'd be a few sane people nearby. Avida Dollars^{her again} 07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, there is one that doesn't ban video games they don't like and pretty much all kinds of music. I think I'd die without them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I listen to metal, so I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be fine with me either. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Um, keep the money you would spend, and get a good manual trade or something at minimum? Are any of the fundie colleges actually accredited and have good placement prospects? Unless you are preparing a career for fleecin' the rubes in the Fundamentalist Christian cult bubble, my impression was these degrees were pretty much terrible and useless. (Some non-fundie *Christian* colleges have good reputations and are accredited, but I can't think of one aligned with the fundie side offhand that is known for anything.) Soundwave106 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume the question is posed at a "if at gunpoint" kind of way. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Wheaton College count? It's so close to Chicago I could tolerate the BS. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wheaton does count. As for the question itself, it is like a gun to the head question. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, Wheaton *is* an evangelical school with a credible reputation in some things. I wouldn't get a science degree there ("evolutionary biology" and all of that), but a business degree probably be acceptable quality.

Exploring Reddit threads however gave another answer: North Park University. They are aligned with the Evangelical Covenant Church which from what I'm reading seems more Midwestern mainline Protestant in nature these days (they seem to be having internal debates with the LGBTQ kind of like Presbyterians and Methodists are instead of doing the Southern Baptist hellfire brimstone crap); the school also seem to have a slightly better reputation overall (seems to have okay business, IT, and nursing programs). I'd still rather not, and geesh even in the Christian scope there are better schools near there (Depaul is in Chicago, Notre Dame is a couple hours away). North Park is probably also not acceptable if someone insists "fundamentalist". But if you are forcing the "evangelical", there is my answer "so far". Soundwave106 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait is this free room and board, while being able to heckle professors who make dumb assertions? Because sign me the fuck up. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I can just imagine 4 years of you going into every class and yelling at the professors "THAT'S BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT" - RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Rational Zombie has asked this question before as I recall, so it seems like this is a burning, non-hypothetical question for him. The question that he needs to ask himself is what does he want to do with his life, and will such a college degree further that goal. As indicated above, getting a fundie degree is going to narrow your prospects. If you could go to any Christian school it would be different. Southern Methodist University would be a good choice under that constraint, for example. If you're economic situation looks miserable if you don't go to a fundie school, getting an apprenticeship in the trades as mentioned above might be a reasonable alternative to college: some of them pay quite well after you've been fully trained. Bongolian (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't sincerely think every class would be bullshit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I could imagine a situation were a parent or a relative or some local religious congregation would offer to pay 100% tuition - on the condition you go to a fundie college. And if the alternative is no college (because of no money), then this is a hard choice. Also there could be the scenario where parents give you an ultimatum: attend a fundie college or get kicked out of the house. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

unless you going for a specific sciencey subject, would a fundy college be not a whole lot different to a regular college, though obs more jesusy. how badly could the bible fuck up english lit or media studies? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Easy. Stillman College, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome

@LeftyGreenMario, @Spud, @DuceMoosolini

You made my day, guys XD

Do you really think that putting an awesome image of a pirate skeleton is an effective way to deal with somebody that you accused of trolling? It's like a giant cool "attention sign" that attracts everybody!

If you think that somebody is a troll, then DON'T do things that will attract everybody's attention on him.

Don't worry, I'm not going to start new threads to recruit an army of pirate skeletons... because I'm not a troll. I just wanted to point out the absurdity of your "pirate" idea. Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I deliberately went for humor over meanness. If you want a angrier template, get @Ikanreed to do it. (And yes, the picture is great). DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a fair complaint. I don't really like complaints, but I think you can sincerely have this one. Contrarian thought is welcome in my world, and I think ratwik has been dismissive of you. Being said, if turnabout is fair play, don't go doing the whataboutism routine anymore, because this is the trolliest "I'm not crying you're crying" post I've seen from you. I see you, we all see you. But you stand contrary and you get angry and dismissive when your points don't have answers that you like. Nobody is going to protect you from your own opinions. Just look at the thread on what to do about Nazi spamming. Nobody agrees what to do, even if they all agree certain opinions are incorrect. The common denominator is your opinions, not you, and if you take it personally your opinions are irrationally precious to you. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The 3 Phases our site went through, according to Kiwifarms

Just like to point out that Kiwifarms has nothing at all to do with New Zealand - we have to own up to Ray Comfort - we'll take that on the chin - but not this bunch!!Aloysius the Gaul 08:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/rationalwiki.14720/page-119#post-4613323

Have I missed something? I wasn't a member before July 2016... They also don't like it that their page has received more edits (something about us being obsessed with Joshua Moon...), than the Armenian Genocide Denial. And something about RW doxing people aswell or doxing more people than the Kiwi's do...

GethN7 (didn't even know you could get verified on a forum...) claims to have an account here. And they're enjoying the current fight between this site and Conservapedia. And we're a bunch of hypocrites.

Also, who's Oliver D. Smith? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

They say that like Armenian Genocide denial is a live fish still coming up with new excuses that need documenting, the way holocaust denial or kiwifarms are still active and making up new shit. But nope, pretty much just turkish nationalists deny it happened, no other governments push Turkey to formally acknowledge it and that's it. That's the whole thing there. Meanwhile kiwifarms remains an engine for misinformation(and occasionally accurate doxing) to be spread on the internet. They're dumb fucks, and you're better off not reading their opinions about being judged for it. Worrying about what angry, obsessive losers think of you is the perfect formula for being miserable online. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It gets better if you read ahead. Abd starts yammering about his dumbass lawsuit, the kiwis mock him, and it spirals into them speculating whether Abd is gonna be a new lolcow. (I also don't get why everyone there thinks we're an "SJW" wiki. I personally haven't edited anything social justice-y ever, and our scope is far beyond that.) DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's frankly not "everyone". It's more like the manosphere anti-feminist warriors tend to be extremely loud and annoying trolls, and tend to be super-offended at anything outside their strange worldview. (Freud would like a word with most of them.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's because a great deal of bullshit is racist bullshit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The fun part is that they think that our pages on Pseudoscience, creatonism, Conspiracy theories and all other woo is good. But the rest is, apparently, "SJW bullshit". Having viewed that thread a year ago, I saw the names "Ryulong", "Arisboch" & "Narky Sawtooth" alot (I think that last guy is the one that got doxed by a kiwi member called "Dynastia"). I've seen some controversy over here with this "Ryulong" guy, but the kiwi's don't seem to care about that. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@N7.Geth Wow, way to be a two-faced bitch. And since when did RW ever cause someone to commit suicide? Apparently self-awareness isn't your strong suit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You pinged the wrong guy m8, I've never owned an account on kiwi farms.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 05:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Fuck, I noticed that. Sorry. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I am greatly relieved that somebody I consider to be a wiki-friend of mine has not turned out to be a secret arsehole after all. Spud (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Man, I can't say the same for on guy on another community I go to who turned out to be a transphobe. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, GethN7 on Kiwi Farms is not the N7.Geth here, but User:Arcane. Hasn't been active here since 2015.Tobias (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

And I can already guess why he left and why he says: "this place has changed". He became enlightened an saw the truth! Tinribmancer (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms criticism of this site is actually rather accurate: the good are the articles that refute pseudoscience and conspiracy theories from creationism, man-made climate change denialism to "9/11 was an inside job", etc. The bad is the so-called SJW bias on some political articles. I've edited here for 7 years and I've rarely touched the latter.Tobias (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Accurate" isn't really synonymous with "I agree". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to head any conspiracies off, my username (and previous username) is based on an Adventure Time use of a very midwestern euphemism for God Damnit. I have no relation to this Gaul. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

GethN7 is a nice guy to me. I used to be a Kiwi Farm member and I only been there for one day before getting banned. He then told the KF to let me be and gave me an advice to never come back and move on. Pretty much my hero. Mar9122 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That's some serious damning by faint praise. "He's the best, he told me to leave and didn't send rabid attack dogs after me when he did". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Essay:2020 Democratic Platform Proposal

Like minded folks got an opinion? Any economists wanna help me with numbers? -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you also running for President as a democrat? Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal You propose a 1% capital tax, say that everyone under $200K would not be taxed, and everyone under $100K should receive $10K in refund. 78% of citizens earn less than $100K in the US, which assuming the population is 350 M means 2.7 trillion dollars in refunds per year. People who earn less than $200K represent 41.2% of taxes paid in the US. Total income tax revenue in US is just over 1.6 trillion (little under half the federal budget), which means that not taxing those under $200K represents a roughly $600B revenue loss. The current average effective tax rate of those earning more than $200K is about 25%, and they represent a current income tax revenue of $1T. If this is 25% of their income, it means that they have 4 trillion dollars total. Offsetting the loss from those under $200K brings the necessary tax rate to 40%. Finally, adding the 2.7 trillion dollars in refunds increases the money needed to 4.3 trillion dollars or a tax rate of 107%. Throwing in a personal capital tax would be unsustainable because their tax rate is over 100%. I think you would have to tax corporations as well. Also I may have screwed up my math somewhere, so someone please correct me if I made a mistake.

Numbers taken from Pew Research Center article, but I did some quick math from the numbers.^{— Unsigned, by: MirrorIrorriM / talk / contribs}

Taxing corporations is a bit outside my specific knowledge, but I would imagine taxing corporations based on their assets as well. Probably less than 1% (I saw somewhere around .05%). I just think taxing income is generally unfair, when we should be taxing wealth. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh I didn't catch that. Are you proposing eliminating the income tax entirely and just having a wealth tax? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal According to wikipedia article "Financial position of the United States", the total amount of assets in the United States as a whole is 270 trillion dollars. Taxing that entire amount at 1% would only barely pay for the 10K dollar refund for those earning under $200K. And that isn't even counting that many assets are held by companies, and you are only proposing taxing their wealth at 0.05%. Your going to need an income tax too in your platform, or you won't be able to afford the refund and the current operations of the government. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

you could have the most fair and progressive tax system in the world, maximising revenue and it will be for nought if money collected is pissed up the wall on bullshit or you cant convince what their money buys is worth having. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

My rough cost analysis of the essay was not to say that the core ideas are bad, but rather to point out that the numbers here are important and make or break a tax policy. I'm all for responsible spending of revenue and acknowledge that policy is more important than the raw dollar amount, but you do have to have revenue at some point. Intentions will only get you so far. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGayMy goal with this was to essentially focus on radical wealth redistribution. I think@MirrorIrorriM is right that the money for individual taxes would create an issue. But I addressed that with changes to the corporate tax rate. Essentially the ultra wealthy will see their wealth redistributed through progressive tax reform, and corporations will fund the federal government. My vision would be to only have a tax reform this aggressive for no more than 30 years. Land reform would be important to this as well, but as you can see from my writing style in the essay, I'm not great with the actual numbers, but I'm decent with a idealized vision. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@MirrorIrorriM Flipped some numbers around. I think it's current form is more workable. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Avengers: (Biblical) Endgame

Just got out of Avengers: Endgame. Man, it was crazy how Jesus Christ rose again to defeat Thanos, destroy evil, and Rapture all the true Christians. I never thought the title meant "Endgame" in the Biblical sense. Very cool movie. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Damn I guess I have no reason to see it tonight then #HeHasRisen -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Actual spoiler: the heroes come up with a brilliant scheme to defeat the bad guy, but it has a hitch, and then they're on the edge of complete defeat when a sudden, if slightly obvious, turnabout happens. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, don’t call it obvious. I definitely didn’t expect Jesus to show up. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't you mean the Spanish Inquisition? (Not being an Avengers fan myself.) Anna Livia (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Honestly, at that point, everyone was expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Kencolt (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

With a Norwegian Blue #and# Four Candles? Anna Livia (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The four candles, yes. Expected if you paid attention. As for the Norwegian Blue, well, that was dead before the snap. And after. Pretty much dead. Didn't appear after the first half hour, got dropped, an ex-plot point. Kencolt (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Meeting a congress person

How hard would it be to meet Alexandia Ocasio Cortez in person? Does she have a lot of security like the president? Medicare for All (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Seven. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that an answer to the first question or the second? 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

How would that even be the answer for the first question? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

420. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker's 🔥 supreme hot take 🔥 on TheFatSexTherapist

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Caution: SEALION ahead!

"Sonalee Rashatwar is an award-winning social worker, sex therapist, adjunct lecturer, and grassroots organizer. Based in Philly (licensed in NJ, and PA license is pending), she is a fat queer non-binary therapist working as a sexual violence crisis counselor, specializing in treating sexual trauma, body image issues, racial or immigrant identity issues, and South Asian family systems, while offering fat and body positive sexual healthcare. Popularly known as TheFatSexTherapist on Instagram" (source)

Rashatwar is spreading anti-scientific and unhealthy ideas. These are some statements from a lecture she gave on St. Olaf College about a week ago:

• 40:54 "I don't use terms like "obesity" because hyper-medicalizes our understanding of fat without really the needing to be a medical pathology around fatness."

• 50:12 "There is no good or bad food. Unless the food is poisoned. But it's not a bad food. Even if you are allergic to it. I have a friend who is allergic to shellfish, but they love shrimps so much that the still eat shrimps, and it okay I'm not gonna judge them."

• 53:28 She shows a video making a parallel between people of different sizes and dogs or different breeds.

• 56:33 "The pursue of intentional weight loss... what we are actually discovering in scientific... is not possible."

• 59:04 "The reason why I want us challenge fatphobic science is because it's often actually eugenic science... it's Nazi science"

It's bad that people with health problems might listen to this "therapist", instead than to a serious medical professional. Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That quack needs here license in Philly revoked. This just provides fuel for bigotry and pseudoscience. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No surprise an article posted on the alt-right outreach platform Campus Reform and Breitbart is getting regurgitated here by UT. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

If we wanted to read Breitbart shit, we'd just read Breitbart. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

She seems eccentric to say the least. But, as mentioned above, only right-wing media seems to comment upon her outlier notions. This is a bad sign at the outset.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you telling me that a therapist giving unscientific and unhealthy suggestions does not deserve RationalWiki attention because Betbart & CO. wrote about her? Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No. I would say she is not an influential person and doesn't fit the profile for special attention, but still, she is is attacked by right-wing media. Why? That's just who they are.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Right wing outlets heavily promote stories that assist in gaining sympathy for their own ideas. The operative nugget in this story is that an outlier who fits the profile of radical gay compared fitness trainers to Nazis and criticized Brenan Tarrant for being a fitness trainer. This helps feed the trope that liberals erroneously call people Nazis. Millennium Scallion (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Believe it or not the title of this post didn't give the concern trolling away. I actually had to read the first paragraph before it became apparent. Once I saw "a fat queer non-binary therapist working as a sexual violence crisis counselor" it was pretty obvious Unlicensed Thinker posted it and that posting it wasn't about anti-science but about playing games and in that sense it would be a waste of time to read the rest of it. I wouldn't be surprised if she is also non-white, supports democrats and its an active or possibly agressive SJW. Judging from people's responses it seems as though there is a woman, probably within the SJW sphere, who is doing and saying things so stupid and crazy that not even people who have some sympathy to what other SJWs say, could defend it. So let's deal with this now and stop wasting our time with UT bullshit. 1. If she said stupid unscientific toxic things, then that's not cool. 2. Yes people who advocate admirable things like equality and freedom and inclusivity can also say some pretty stupid shit as well. No one here denies it Unlicensed Thinker, yes we are capable of calling out people who say a lot of stuff we agree with and some stuff that is totally batshit crazy. So if that is the reason you posted this to see how objective we can be in this sense, then you'll see nothing but people who can criticize and call out this woman for the stupid things she says and advocates. I don't think there is a user here who would defend her despite doing and saying stupid shit. Just as many people on the conservative side won't defend everything the most stupid crazy fundamentalists nazi-cases say. 3. But that wasn't the point of this post. You don't care about the truth of this nor do I think you thought you would have caught us up in some trap where we defended this woman. You wanted to jam a crazy person, an LGTB, a non-binary, a fat person, someone in the SJW camp and a crazy whacko with stupid crazy ideas...all into the same camp. You want to taint people with all of these qualities, with the extremism of an indefensible character. You're really good at finding these cases and posting it here as though its knowledge and ideology you are interested in, in this case the "anti-science" when its really all about creating lots of guilt by association. If you cared about anti-science people saying stupid things, you could pick from no end of examples and we could have an interesting conversation. But no, you pick a a fat queer non-binary therapist and once again expose your crufty boring predictable stupid annoying trolling. Why are you wasting our time with this stupidity? And on a Friday night? Why? ShabiDOO 22:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Shabidoo

"But that wasn't the point of this post. You don't care about the truth of this nor do I think you thought you would have caught us up in some trap where we defended this woman. You wanted to jam a crazy person, an LGTB, a non-binary, a fat person, someone in the SJW camp and a crazy whacko with stupid crazy ideas...all into the same camp. "

But you guys are supposed to debunk pseudoscience! Aren't you guys against the idea on giving minorities that spout bullshit special treatment? Why aren't you taking me seriously? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I lurk on over here every few days and I gotta say GODDAM! The fact that you folk haven't gotten rid of this sleazy sealioning s-word is really impressive in its... fairness? Putting up with this kind of consistent bad faith disruption in the interest of giving everyone a voice does not go unappreciated. Cheers! 2602:252:D46:350:31D1:54BA:A7A:CA71 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We tried. Next best thing for me to do is just to write short responses. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"she is a fat queer non-binary therapist" as if somehow that's relevant, and way to be a douche too, Breitbart, is it really too hard to refer to someone by what they want to be called? — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena "fat queer non-binary therapist" is how she wants to be called, I copied that description from her website, not from Breitbart.

More unhealthy and unscientific advice can be found on her Instagram page. For example:

"“isn’t it interesting how we pathologize ‘stress eating’ but not ‘stress skipping meals?” if there is no medical reason for you to be worried about overeating, then really ask yourself why you’re worried. fear of gaining weight is fatphobia. i’d also challenge the term over-eating. bc our bodies ~will~ actually stop eating at a certain point, even if we eat beyond the point of comfort. and even the discomfort is also temporary. so why the pathology? I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes w blatblobia"

source: https://www.instagram.com/p/BwCQVqChkcT/ Thinker^(unlicensed) 09:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake! Of course overeating is bad for you. Of course being fat is bad for you. The right wing do not have a monopoly on stupidity, OK? Straight white men do not have a monopoly on stupidity or pseudoscience promotion, OK? In the unlikely event that this person ever gets a RationalWiki article, it will be a highly critical one. Now why don't you fuck off? Spud (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

its just seems an extreme reaction to fat shaming/abuse. its usually seems to manifests as becoming comfortable with ones body shape/weight rather than cycle of self harming behaviours and negativity. isnt that how these things work? 'you are [slur]' so you reply 'fuck you, i'm [slur] and proud'. probably better than bulemia. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's ironic how almost you guys try to accuse me of attacking TheFatSexTherapist for political reasons, while I just called her for her unhealthy unscientific advice and I never made an argument about her political ideas, it's you that keep trying to make this thing political. Learn from Rationalzombie94, he called out the quackery without caring of the political side of who is spreading it.

"its just seems an extreme reaction to fat shaming/abuse. [...] probably better than bulemia."

@AMassiveGay I think too that probably Rashatwar developed her medical ideas as an extreme reaction to deal with abuses. But regardless of that, she is now a licensed therapist, lecturing people, telling them to not listen to their doctors, and spreading denialism about the scientific reality of eating disorders, obesity, diets, allergies... that's really bad. Image how many people with weight problems can fall victims of this "science is fatphobic" idea and aggravate their conditions. Thinker^(unlicensed) 12:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

probably very few. maybe slightly more thanks to the exposure shes received. very probably the point of the polemics in the first place. she is not the problem, its that general dickishness to those outside of an 'ideal' type produces nothing but stigmatism and social isolation, compounding physical issues. cut through the hyperbole and its more about how the medical profession treats such people. its counterproductive to pile on the shame in ways only your dr can AMassiveGay (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"she is not the problem, its that general dickishness to those outside of an 'ideal' type produces nothing but stigmatism and social isolation, compounding physical issues."

Why can both Rashatwar's unhealthy and unscientific advice and dickishness to fat people be problems? It's not like one excludes the other.

"cut through the hyperbole and its more about how the medical profession treats such people."

Wait, are you saying that doctors mistreat overweight people? Because I thought that when you were talking of "general dickishness" you were referring to ordinary people, not medical professionals. Thinker^(unlicensed) 13:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker If you have a few minutes you might find this useful. Listen to the entire interview if you can.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

shes not a problem because she doesnt have any reach while her message isnt quite as clear cut anti medicine as you would imply. she appears to be a social worker in trade specialising in domestic and sexual abuse, in building confidence and well being. coming out of such situations, i'd imagine its not too good for ones self esteem to be told you are a fatty who needs a diet then handed a diet plan you cant stick to followed by a disapproving lecture from the dr. it may not be the best approach to instil long term life style changes in patients when 'success' is virtually imperceptible any time soon, while every set back reinforces all your bad habits.

i'm sure the veracity of all that can picked apart if anyone can be bothered, but why would they? we are going by instagram and the polemics of her lecture. i doubt anyone will mistake it for anything more than generating publicity. the only reason we are looking at her now is because the likes of breitbart are telling us too, magnifying a problem that wasnt really there. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"her message isnt quite as clear cut anti medicine as you would imply."

She tells people to not listen to their doctors and she denies the problems of being overweight...

"i'd imagine its not too good for ones self esteem to be told you are a fatty who needs a diet then handed a diet plan you cant stick to followed by a disapproving lecture from the dr."

and in fact no medical professional dealing with overweight patients does that. It's absurd that you are taking the defense of Rashatwar, saying she is not so "clear cut anti medicine", while you can read and watch all her unscientific claims, and at the same time your portraying real doctors as dicks who shame fat people. Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

look at your sources. a guest lecture and the lady's own website. the lecture is 2 hours on a subject im not greatly interested in. im not bothering to watch it in its entirety. the quotes you provided dont touch on the stated topic 'race as a body image issue' and tney all come from a section in the middle, so i am guessing you havent watched it all either. none of the quotes make a whole lot of sense and without wasting two hours of my life i am without context for these quotes. only one quote is patently false. the rest i will write off as hyperbole and polemical. i can not say how much weight to give these or how much she has knowingly exaggerated or for whatever point. these quotes tell us nothing.

the lady's website is more enlightening. still vague. a charitable reading gives me impression on what she means, but ive np clue how it fits with the day to day reality of her work, if at at all.

i suggested a possible interpretation of one aspect. i make no claims to the veracity of this, but i feel its pretty unambiguous to suggest a drs bedside manner is not always the best. it seems a small leap to think there may be issue with how the treatment of over weight people in society combined with how the average gp may broach the subject might not be optimal. even less so in the context of a domestic abuse survivor.

i make no claims of veracity. i do not believe, with what we have, you can either. in all likelihood she is spouting nonsense. she is hardly notable and i very much doubt she will have any kind of wider impact. i have only bothered to comment at all because it ties in with things i have observed or believe to be issues with body image, weight, and the stigmatisation and shame associated these things.

perhaps you had some grander plan, but really, there was nothing here but your own poor rep. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This motherfucker is gonna keep this bullshit up as long as he:

1. Is allowed to post this absolute bollocks
2. Gets a reaction

Honestly this dude just cruises alt-right places, gets articles that wildly misinterpret basic information, then actually finds a way to add more bullshit too it. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I've honestly been ignoring him of late -- as long as the source pool is the junk he clearly trawls through, it's not worth a lot of effort. Rationalwiki already has an article about the problems of the fat acceptance movement. This person is only notable because she seems to have lately been trolling the "Nazi acceptance movement" (eg sites like Breitbart) by (irrationally but trollistically) linking fat shaming to white supremacy or something. Meh. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't quite put my finger on what's going on with UT until I saw the analysis in this video clip suggested by Ariel. Nailed it. If you want a preview of UT's future postings, the playbook is here. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I literally could not give less of a heck. Commie Lib (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw something truly amazing today, it was true divine intervention

The County Road Commission actually fixed a road!!!! Seriously, it is rare that roads are fixed in Michigan. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Welp. Michigan beats Ohio in one area I guess. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Into the mind of nobs

So, I checked his account and saw that he had 5 essays. One of them being this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Global_jihad

Is he a conspiracy theorist? That thing is just like the International Jewish Takeover, except in muslim version... Tinribmancer (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember kids, stay in school or you end up like nobs.

Seriously though, nobs does come off like a conspiracy theorist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer Are you seriously asking this? The answer should be obvious. It's nobs, lmfao. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That Nobs is a conspiracy theorist (and bigot) is well-documented here: Conservapedia:RobSmith. Bongolian (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian has a special relationship with Nobs here, he of all people should know. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought he was just a die-hard Republican (can you tell the difference?), who watches Fox News a bit too often and sometimes drinks a bit of this really cool drink that has a great taste. Turns out he's one of those people that drinks too much of it. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

He's a conspiracy theorist, but he isn't just making things up. The essay you linked to is actually how a lot of Islamists actually view the world. CoryUsar (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist? What? Just cause Biden and the Democrats got Ukraine to shit-can Manafort as their chief lobbyist in Washington and hire Hunter Biden for $166,000 a month instead, then get Ukraine to turn over poop on Manafort to the Clinton campaign and FBI after Biden gave them $1 billion in loan guarantees, why would you call me a conspiracy theorist? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 21:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Those two sentences are just *chefs kiss*-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You just answered your own question with those 2 sentences, nobsie. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh geez, now that Rod Rosenstein is out, the investigation into Ukrainian collusion can begin. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 22:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

SMH. The deep state is strong with this one. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The question is twofold: (1) Should Barr & Trump co-operate with the Ukrainian Attorney General, and (2) Why is Biden running? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The question to those questions are (1) Should Barr & Trump cooperate with each other if they aren't trying to deep-state, and (2) Why wouldn't the whispery grandpa run? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I already found out via a fun page that nobsie is an "inside-jobbyjob" Twoofer, but "them" aswell? Does he also believe in the Death Camps? Tinribmancer (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this weird?

I haven't really noticed until recently, but I can look at an attractive woman's face and be just as aroused than if I were looking at more southerly regions. I was once asked whether I'm a butt man or breast man, and I answered breast, but added everyone likes a pretty face, and nobody imagined I meant that in a sexual way, but I kinda did. Do I need re-education in Cardi B's gulag or am I not the only one? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Not weird. The emotions are reflected in the human voice and facial expressions. Body shapes are what everyone sees. It's a pretty fortunate thing to look at someone face to face and get the impression that they like what they are seeing. Some might call it exciting.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

For me it's the voice in a big way. If I don't like the sound of your voice, my sex response goes absolute chill in a way I don't have much control over. 2602:252:D46:350:31D1:54BA:A7A:CA71 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's weird at all. Arousal is just a general emotion in the end, and I'd imagine people get aroused just imagining entire bodies and their overall pleasant shape. I don't get all that aroused myself by people in general, but whatever you're feeling is certainly within realm of possibility. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Not weird at all. Spud (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

pervertsAMassiveGay (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @AMassiveGay. I had all of my sex drive beaten out of me as a child. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

i struggle to understand the circumstances that liking a pretty face could even be thought wierd. i am of the opinion that normal is not a thing. if there were such a thing, pretty face would at number one. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

People have actually said they think this is freaky, mainly if the desire is equally or more strong than the mainstream ones. I think the term freaky was reserved for people like Brian from Family Guy though. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

you know its all a facade. the more pedestrian they try to appear, the more specialist equipment and/or donkeys are required. dont touch anything in their houses. guarantee its been up their arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Pedestrian? Could you elaborate? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

you cannot elaborate on pedestrian. thats the point. its dull and unimaginative. run of the mill. vanila. but they will have a cupboard or draw filled with toys crafted from silicon and rubber. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing weird about finding a specific feature of a person sufficiently attractive to take interest. Just because some people obsess over certain areas of the body and create these false dichotomies (ass or tits man) doesn't make that normative or the only healthy way to show physical interest in someone. Some people even focus on very specific things, like the first thing they look at is the persons shoes/boots or can be sufficiently turned on by the simple fact that the person is very tall and skinny (regardless of how nice the rest of their body or even face is). While that is more specialised interest, not even that is particularly weird, lots of people have pretty specific focuses or fetishes. Being particularly attracted to a face over the body or taking personality as important (or even more so) than physical traits isn't weird in the slightest, it's a natural behavior in millions of people. I'd be very careful to not take laddish babble (locker room talk) too seriously (especially in the form of online chats, blogs and youtube video background commentary). It's usually hyper exaggerated, often where humour and grandstanding is the aim rather than sharing authentic interest or real-life experience. People may laugh or go along with what some people are saying but it is unlikely that most people have done even a fraction of the things talked about, or particularly like obsessing over a person in a specific way or treating/relating to a person in that kind of way. Be equally weary of basing norms on most porn. Liking a face is pretty natural. If you want sort of weird, we'd be talking about not deciding on physical/sexual interest on another person until you hear the sound and smell their body noises like farts or queefs etc (not that there is anything wrong with that) or being turned on solely by a non corporeal aspect of a person or showing interest in people with grotesque body features or playing extremely elaborate and out of this world sex fantasy scripts. And even then there are numerous people who do this and have healthy sex lives. ShabiDOO 15:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The part about farts and queefs genuinly made me laugh. You're right about people having extremely 'specific fetishes. I didn't think I had any but then I realized that the faces I'm attracted to have a defining quality, they're all very graceful. If a woman has a robust face I'm intimidated if that makes sense. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

genuinely weird and unique isnt really a big deal anyhow. the worst from something leftfield might mean you scratch your head trying figure out how they came upon that one. the disconcerting stuff - rapey, incesty, paedaphilic stuff - its practically commonplace. even thats not really an issue. the fantasy is very far removed from anything close to reality usually. stuff that is just physically unpleasant in someway is pretty rare too. most folk dislike anything surrounding shit. you'll not be surprised that even less get a boner from it. i'll the worst problem anyone may encounter, if not sprung on you at the last minute or so horrorific you declined their invitation, the worst problem will be that it is just boring. there is only so much you can do with a foot fetish if its not your thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

According to Joe Rogan this is improbable and unnatural, and I only trust men who get punched in the head as a hobby to have correct opinions about sexual attraction. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

punched in the head? real men get choked out.

i clicked on couple of his videos about bruce lee now jordan petersen wont fuck off. he seems to live in the recommended section. honestly, half the people we have articles on here, my first and only exposure to them is solely on rw. click on video, and joes interviewing all of these fuckers. thanks for that joe AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

JOE ROGAN OWNS A PERSON THAT SAYS NON-TRADITIONAL SEXUAL ATTRACTION IS NOT ABERRANT! I don't think I need to link that, since that is every Joe Rogan clip on sexuality, but I would like to address that non-traditional sexual attraction is viewed as aberrant (adj. departing from an accepted standard). It is important to not normalize certain things, like pedophilia and rape are inherently sex without consent, and asphyxiation which is fucking dangerous, especially if you're not sober. Pornhub is inundated with semi-incestuous themes. Step-mom, step-sister, step-dad, brother, sister, son, daughter. There is not a "prove you're 18" filter in front of these sites, and I know I was searching for porn pics at 10 years old (1997). I found my brother's playboy cards when I was about 13, and I had around two weeks of massive confusion, they were the only thing that made sense. A couple years later I snuck into his room and played his Gamecube and methodically USB stole his porn videos that I liked (USBs didn't hold gigs at the time). He had a lot of porn videos (nothing in the vein of pedophilia, rape, incest, or asphyxiation), and a lot of them were gross or uncomfortable to me. They were tame compared to what you can just conjure up these days without even trying. I do worry about dumbass little kids and what they think is normal sex, now that porn sites don't need a credit card to filter out the ten year olds. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A Toast to Touissant Louverture

Here's a drink to Touissant Louverture, the genius responsible for transforming Haiti from a slave colony into an independent republic. Cheers! — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Erm. You mean Toussaint Louverture. There's the right link. Spud (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Even in death, he is worth respect. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Even a century after his death, the US still held Haiti in debt for the "cost" of freeing the slaves(and seizing the masters' land) there. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed You mean France. The US had nothing to do with this, France did. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope you weren't thinking we were sitting idly by. We funded and armed the fleet to "retake" Haiti with sign off from TJ himself, and we've since used our security council position to veto debt cancellation attempts before in the UN. You're right that the material debt was actually held by France. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget that American hero Woodrow Wilson ordered the invasion and brutal occupation of Haiti, which killed 15000 people and resulted in shitty incidents like the time the US Marines took a photo of a corpse and published it around the country as a threat. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 05:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ooh ooh don't forget when they held an election for the new America-friendly constitution and printed ballots without a "no" option Hannasanarion (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrative Message

The following message is transmitted at the request of RZ94-

Why is it right wing nuts will use every excuse to get rid of Martin Luther King statues? They cite that he cheated on his doctoral dissertation. While that is true it does not mean that he was actually evil, MLK just did something wrong but that does not invalidate his civil rights work. Tell me what person never did anything wrong in their life? Are right wing nuts so racist that they drum up every excuse possible?

That was a message from RZ94. This concludes operations under the Emergency Alert System. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

He's black. Féinléiriú (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(EC)"Use the form but not the function of sound left wing arguments" is pretty much conservative rhetoric 101. "Monuments to slavery supporting monsters erected a century after they died as an obvious targeted threat towards civil rights activists are bad" can easily be deformed into "any character flaw, no matter how minor, is reason to decelebrate political opponents" if you're a willing enough liar. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"Why is it right wing nuts will use every excuse to get rid of Martin Luther King statues?" Cause they're racists. The more you know. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! GI JOE!!! — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

NOT KNOWING is the other half of the battle. 2602:252:D46:350:D1C6:D58C:67B8:24D (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The other half is red and blue lasers that never seem to damage organic beings-- not even dogs or pigeons-- but tear the shit out of highly advanced armored vehicles. Kencolt (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"Why is it right wing nuts will use every excuse to get rid of Martin Luther King statues?"

@Rationalzombie94 These claims would be more interesting if supported by sources. I typed "remove Martin Luther King statue" into Google News and the only pertinent thing I found is https://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo/2018/10/buffalo_martin_luther_king_jr_statue.html which dates back to 2018 and is actually about removing a statue of MLK to replace it with a better looking one. So could you please post a source? Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

My immediate assumption was that he was in an internet argument about taking down a different monument, and this was a lazy tu quoque he saw, not any specific event. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing Deepak Page

Are the quotes on the wiki page here for him really that crazy? I mean isn't the one about chicken and human somewhat true at a certain level?Machina (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You're gonna have to explain this one. I think this is a poor accusation of bias because "chicken" does not appear on the page, so the one you're talking about is not cited here. Is this what you mean? Is this what you mean? I'm just trying to get a feel for what your question's parameters are, Chopra is not a baseline and both are... such faulty agruments. Please advise. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. It's an inspirational quote thing on the right-hand side. Yes, it is very crazy, because consciousness is a result of evolution, not a cause of it. Consciousness CAN drive evolution, it can drive selective breeding, but selective breeding can be driven by environmental circumstance without consciousness, so the assertion is a partial truth. Like trees that survive better when their coconuts float from island to island. What Chopra's asserting is prokaryotic to eukaryotic was an adaptation that included consciousness, that adaptations of organisms from wet to dry environments always include consciousness. Basically, the misconception that evolution includes some kind of desire to evolve that can manifest a hundred generations down the line intentionally. Like saying "my grandparents wanted to win the lottery, my parents wanted to win the lottery, I want to win the lottery, so my children are more likely to win the lottery than anybody else." It's just faulty. Consciousness can be "a" driver of evolution as an outside force, but it is not a requisite, since unconscious natural factors can play the same role. That quote sounds so made up, even for Chopra, I had to look for it. I can't trace that quote, it's probably a mashup of two things he's said. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I meant the one about eating a chicken and it turning into a human.Machina (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh. That one. Well, that one is crazy, unless he's speaking in a purely materialistic sense... in which case he's woefully inaccurate as to measurements. At most, the act of eating a (implied entire) chicken absorbs enough nutrients to make a smallish part of a human-- or is burned as calories, thereby not granting mass, or is expelled as waste material, so that part of the chicken doesn't even become a part of a human. (Although from what I recall about the eating habits of the average barnyard fowl, from personal experience yet, that waste could quite likely become part of a chicken again.) He's even farther off in the case of the other comestible he mentioned, the banana. Which I thought was Ray Comfort's gig. Although kinda doubt Ray and Deepsie are likely to see eye to eye. Kencolt (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

sooo what we excrete comes round to an unending circle of shit eating life. our own shit and everyone elses. if you ever doubted our lords plan, look upon the unbeliever and with love in your heart, eat his shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess the response to that would be what is the chickeness of a chicken. Break it down to it basic components and it is made of the same things as everything else. all things are just atoms and matter, hence everything is the universe.Machina (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the chickeness of a chicken? I don't think it's so simple as breaking it down to atoms (and water is also atoms, so that's a little redundant), but asking the question doesn't mean there's a legitimate philosophical answer. Kencolt's response is great, I would not have thought of it that way, yet I am still made of atoms. I do occasionally refer to life as agents of entropy. But the chickeness of a chicken is a difficult question to answer. I don't know, do chickens have to have a certain chickeness about them to be chickens? Do bananas have a banananianity to them? Do humans have to have a certain humanity about them? I'd avoid getting into semantics on Chopra's prerequisite that "consciousness drives evolution" point, unless you want to argue that dandelions act out a dandeliononess conscious action. Or you can leave Chopra's prerequisite of consciousness behind, in which case I think you'll get it faster. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)01:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Biden vs Sanders vs The Washington Post

A user from the subreddit r/SanderForPresident posted this infographic from The Washington Post, where you can see that, although Joe Biden got 13% of the preferences, his bar is more then three times the length of the 9% bar of Bernie Sanders. Hence, the user accuses The Washington Post of misrepresenting Joe Biden's amount of support.

Do you think that infographic is really from The Washington Post? I tried to find online a copy of the incriminated page, but I failed. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The free low-resolution front page scan from this newspaper scanning service seems to bare out that yes, that's what they published. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm, suspect auto-redirects to login pages aside, here's the raw image ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Augh. The old wedge strategy/mistrust of the press gambit. UT, you are really shitty at being an agent provocateur. Give up. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't distrust the press in the US you're in trouble. If you do distrust the press, chances are you do for dumb reasons. There's no winning that game. Our press sucks amazingly badly at presenting useful, coherent, and accurate information, but our alt press is somehow even less informative, mostly composed of shitty conspiracy theorists shilling pseudoscience scams. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"The old wedge strategy/mistrust of the press gambit. UT, you are really shitty at being an agent provocateur. Give up."

@Millennium Scallion Ehm... actually the "mistrust the press" claim comes from a user of r/SanderForPresident, not from me...

"The free low-resolution front page scan from this newspaper scanning service seems to bare out that yes, that's what they published."

@Ikanreed Wow, that pressreader.com is useful (I wonder if it is legal...) and the image is not even low-resolution, you can zoom it a lot. I did some pixel counting and, assuming that the length of the 9% bar is correct, the 13% bar actually represent a slightly more than 30% figure. Maybe The Washington Post incorrectly typed 31% instead than 13%? But in such a case what bad software are they using, where percentages labels and bars length are typed separately? Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not gonna speculate because I'm pretty certain I know the answer from when I was actually searching for the image I linked. But I'm not gonna share my findings either because I'm an ass. Suffice it to say there is a really quite plausible explanation available, based on information easily accessible from google based on something in your original post. Colors matter. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You are turning it into a riddle... "Colors matter"... I don't know. I don't find a way in which that infographic could be considered a correct representation of the said percentages. Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, they're incompetent at putting graphs together because wasn't there a "no preference" option. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If the graph was to scale (54% being the highest number), you would not be able to see the diff between 4% and 3%. Alternately you could make it to scale, but it would take up half the page. Millennium Scallion (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You do have to google something. It's not in any of the images posted here. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

My point was that people assume newspaper graphical charts are designed to be precisely proportioned to reflect accurate scale. They are not. They are designed to be eye catching. - Millennium Scallion (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Fuck, the editorial board issued a correction. It was the 31% thing, not my genius super idea that had to be totally right and I will never cop to. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"If the graph was to scale (54% being the highest number), you would not be able to see the diff between 4% and 3%."

@Millennium Scallion OK, but making a 13% three times more long than a 9% has nothing to do with this kind of visual problems...

"My point was that people assume newspaper graphical charts are designed to be precisely proportioned to reflect accurate scale. They are not. They are designed to be eye catching."

So you are saying that the graph was designed to eye catches the difference between Biden and Sanders.

"Maybe, just maybe, they're incompetent at putting graphs together because wasn't there a "no preference" option."

@RipCityLiberal In such a case the wrong proportion would have been that between the "no preference" bar and all the other bars, not the proportion between two orange bars. It doesn't make any sense.

"Fuck, the editorial board issued a correction. It was the 31% thing,"

Here is the graphic director of The Washington Post saying that they erroneously typed 31% instead of 13%. Thinker^(unlicensed) 07:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Another concern troll mission complete? Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

it was a nothing post with no expectation of being anything more than a nothing post with no where to go and still failed to live up its void of promise. its like you are turtling a shit that does not have the substance to drop and you kinda suck it back up into arse and you've lost nothing gained nothing except a lingering faintly imperceptible feeling of wrongness. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Another concern troll mission complete?"

@Millennium Scallion Me and ikanreed fact-checked a claim about The Washington Post, how is that trolling is a mystery.

"it was a nothing post..."

@AMassiveGay ...and still, you feel the need to intervene. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Psychic Chinese Children Teleportation Experiments From 1981

A month ago I tried multiple times to post this and failed so I gave up. Hopefully it works now, here goes. Read pages 56-58. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have any other way to ask this, but did you read the special report cited, or the about page of the writer? Hold on to your butts, because I have two full paragraphs from the special report to quote.

"One of the more interesting examples of controlled experiments with Uri Geller was one in which he was able to cause a part of a vanadium carbide crystal to vanish (Hasted et al., 1975). The crystal was encapsulated so it could not be touched, and it was placed in such a way that it could not be switched with another crystal by sleight of hand. A more spectacular series of rigorously controlled (and repeatable!) laboratory experiments occurred in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). In September 1981, an extraordinary paper was published in the PRC in the journal Ziran Zazhi (transl.: Nature Journal), and this paper was entitled, “Some Experiments on the Transfer of Objects Performed by Unusual Abilities of the Human Body” (Shuhuang et al., 1981). The paper reported that gifted children were able to cause the apparent teleportation of small objects (radio micro-transmitters, photosensitive paper, mechanical watches, horseflies, other insects, etc.) from one location to another (that was meters away) without them ever touching the objects beforehand. The experiments were operated under exceptionally wellcontrolled conditions (both blind and double-blind). The researchers involved included not only observers from various PRC colleges and medical research institutes, but also representatives from the PRC National Defense Science Commission. Because of the involvement of the latter, it was deemed necessary that an unclassified Intelligence Information Report be prepared by the DIA (see Shuhuang et al., 1981), which included a detailed English translation of the article. "

This is what the entire opinion piece seems to be based on. However, it glosses over the huge portion of hypothetical math addressed in the report that is never sorted out. The report itself addresses part of it here:

"At present, none of the theoretical concepts explored in this chapter have been brought to a level of technical maturity, where it becomes meaningful to ascertain whether any form of e-Teleportation is theoretically possible between extra space dimensions and different or parallel universes/spaces. However, there is the exception that traversable wormholes (three- and higher-dimensional) provide a solid physics principle for the implementation of teleportation between parallel universes/spaces. And traversable wormholes can be devised to connect 3-branes together. Kaluza-Klein, superstring and Dbrane theories do not allow for any useful form of macroscopic-level teleportation to occur between space dimensions, because these theories require that the extra space dimensions be ≤ 10−35 m in extent. Last, it is not yet possible to do theoretical calculations to make predictions or even to experimentally verify most of these theories. Three-brane theory is the best parallel space theory there is with the possibility that macroscopic-level teleportation is possible between space dimensions. But this theory is still in the stage of maturing theoretically and getting experimental verification."

While a really fun idea, I don't think this is a rigorous take on the Teleportation Physics Study, which I worry is a strangely biased report in the first place. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

further reading Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

My bullshit detectors are going off. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, at this time, the US federal government was paying soldiers to try to psychically manipulate goats at Fort Bragg. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The flies moved of their own accord and the rest of the items are examples of 'the capacity of things you are urgently looking for to teleport "elsewhere"/change key aspects of what you remember of them etc and back again until you have wasted an hour/bought a replacement' phenomenon. Anna Livia (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Outed

Looks like I've been outed as a member of The Cabal. Bongolian (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Spud is remembering his sister

Even more than I usually do, I'm thinking about my younger sister today (30^th April) on what would have been her 43^rd birthday. Rather than raising a glass in her memory, I'm going to have a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar in her memory. It's what she would have wanted. If you'd like to join me in having a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar in her honour, preferably British brands or the closest to them that you can get, that would be great. Alternatively, my sister was lucky enough to visit the States one year and absolutely loved the hot food and the ice cream from Dairy Queen, so you might like to honour her by going there. Spud (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't do the British-brand chips, but there's a Dairy Queen just up the street from my college campus. What was her favorite thing from there? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 05:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I don't know specifically, and I also didn't want to upset or alienate any vegetarians (it's too late for vegans, I know). But my sister did say that Dairy Queen did the best burgers she'd ever had. So really just any hamburger and any ice cream that takes your fancy would be fine. Thanks for doing this for me and her. Spud (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it's no problem. I've been in the mood for a burg. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 06:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I`m sorry for your loss. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss Spud. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unironic F for my man Spud right here. 24.205.30.64 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for a reminder, to remember.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Spud: What's your sister's favorite food from Dairy Queen? Specifically? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Like I told DuceMoosolini earlier, I don't really know. I never asked. But if I had to guess, I think that if my sister would have enjoyed a 1/3 lb. Double with Cheese Lunch with a strawberry sundae and a cola. Spud (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If your sister was even half as great as you are, she'd have probably achieved apotheosis RIP.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 15:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@N7.Geth My sister was a better person than me in very many ways. But she sure would have enjoyed being a goddess! Thanks. Spud (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Notch will not be invited to Minecraft's tenth Anniversary celebration

https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/minecraft-creator-excluded-from-anniversary-due-to-comments-and-opinions-exclusive-1203200050/

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes I guess. Of course conservatives who play the game are accusing Mojangcrosoft of allegedly being guilty of political bias. (These are the same wingnuts who thought that the reason they were updating the game's graphics recently were to squeak clean every single trace of Notch, which is just ridiculous.) 24.205.30.64 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I never heard of this Marcus “Notch” Persson. Actually, I never played Minicraft. If the guy made any statement from which Microsoft wants to distantiate, it's perfectly legit that it won't invite him.

My only comment is about how bad are these kind of journalistic articles, where it is said that somebody made transphobic (or racist, or homophobic, or whatelse bad...) statements but no complete quote of at least one of such statements, or a link to it, is given; so that people could judge the statement by themselves. Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We do have a Rationalwiki draft article on him, eh? A brief browsing through Google and Reddit and other sources reveals a person who prefers to use his vast wealth to get in vaguely manosphere oriented Twitter wars. (Say what you will about the Microsoft decision, which might be overboard or not, whatever, that's quite a waste of that fortune. I'd personally use that money to travel to interesting places and hike around and get as far away from the hellhole called Twitter as possible.) Soundwave106 (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr Persson posted a tweet saying "It's Okay to Be White", a white supremacist dog whistle. The fact that his Twitter account wasn't immediately suspended means he, in fact, got treated far more leniently than he deserved. Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, this is part of a wider pattern of hostile and hateful terminally online rhetoric, not just a one off dumbass mistake. He's done enough toxic things enough times that he's a brand microsoft doesn't want on their family oriented video game. His name is still listed in the credits, because he did in fact, work on the game. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Remembering" Chief Wahoo

Remember when the Cleveland Indians had that racist caricature positive symbol of Native Americans for 71 years. Those were fucking horrendous good times. I can not believe they did the right thing and got rid of it caved to the libtards. I will always burn Chief Wahoo merchandise cherish the good times we had. RIP Chief Wahoo 1947-2018 he will always have a special place in my cold, rotten soul heart. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Our shamefully racist representation of american natives was meant as respectful homage to the people who used to live here and vanished for no reason at all. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sports mascots are chosen for the qualities we hope they inspire in the teams: so you get a lot of fearsome warriors and ferocious animals. Native mascots are a gesture of respect when cant is taken out of the picture. (This is why the Bucks are losing: it's damned difficult to draw a deer with that sneer of maniacal aggression you see in the face of your typical sports mascot.) Claiming that Chief Wahoo was racist was just attention-seeking behavior from activist busybodies who want the free publicity that comes from annoying their neighbors. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why we don't have the San Diego Arabs then, preferably with the mascot looking like some oil sheikh for extra stereotype "respect" points. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Because there aren't a large number of Arabs living in San Diego, presumably? Echoing Smerdis, if one actually bothered to look up the history of the Cleveland Indians the kvelling about Chief Wahoo being "racist" only makes the complainers look more like idiots. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently my sarcasm flew right over your head. Welp. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. ASD does get in the way of such things, as I can plainly see now. I am duly humbled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel ya, I`m autistic too. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanos Nazi on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/bidevx/the_current_lack_of_human_natural_selection_is/?sort=new

I just hope he actually lives up to his contributing human being ideal. Eco-fascists are crazy but a hypocrite is disgusting. I would love to see how he would do in the Savanah. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Some good gems in this thread, Let’s start with you OP. Go ahead and make the sacrifice.

You can be the first autist we remove, Natural selection isn’t “people I don’t like would be killed by nature”. Natural selection is “whoever has the traits most advantageous in that moment in time will survive”. And even that is overly simplistic.

Humans care for other humans, because unlike other species, we have empathy, and that is why humans are the most powerful species on the planet. What you are saying is inhumane and irrational.

It’s up and coming! It’s called anti vaxxing

I love how the edit hopes we all have a great day, but the content from the post wants plenty of us dead. That's so painfully stereotypical of a certain 'manners before empathy' culture. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Less "Thanos" and more Nazi. Kid's basically just regurgitating shit that fascists have been saying for decades while thinking that he's some kind of genius. Morons like that are all over the place. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 05:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

True, Thanos was impartial. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is why he failed. He should've wiped off the bottom 50 % of society. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:add9:3fdc:2338:971c / talk / contribs} .

Ah yes, super hero fiction, the place where antagonists are defeated by the notably weak and powerless. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

He should have just killed everyone Disney doesn't have the movie rights to. Off screen, of course. I haven't seen it, so maybe he did. I'm interested to see how they can shoehorn the Muppets into the next one. 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

HE GOT GOLD?!?! Commie Lib (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If we're gonna talk about Thanos, let me make this clear: I never liked Infinity Wars. I consider myself a decent reviewer of works of fiction because of several factors Dunkey can explain in better detail that I can (aware of your tastes, consistency, making it clear who is talking,) and Infinity Wars isn't my kind of thing. Yeah, the visuals are pretty, and the idea of someone being forced to do something so horrible because of how the world works is intriguing, but everyone in it is being stupid. Thanos could've doubled the world's resources instead of killing half of everyone, and they had a huge opportunity to end the quest there that they didn't take because one person would die. Okay, don't kill him. Thanos will kill him anyway to take the stone.Tyrian (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Thanos could've doubled the world's resources instead of killing half of everyone..." Wow, it's almost like the genocidal maniac space warlord was a genocidal maniac. Who'd have thought? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Then why did he state that he hated what he was doing the entire time? Why the hell didn't he use the obvious alternative?Tyrian (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Because he's rationalizing something he suspects is wrong. He's CONVINCED that it would have worked on Titan, and now he has the power to prove the naysayers wrong. He's a lunatic, and a fundamentally selfish one too. Or maybe the Infinity Gauntlet doesn't work like that (haven't seen Endgame, so no spoilers please).

Furthermore, the school of criticism that says "Character X is an idiot, and that makes the movie worse" is fundamentally stupid. Characters don't have to be smart because not only are people IRL idiots, but also because we as the audience have a fuller picture of the situation than the characters within. Put yourself in Thanos's situation, and you'd probably be doing a few stupid things too. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. To make it clearer, I'm not saying the movie is bad because the characters are stupid, but rather, that they're stupider that they are in other canon works. You remember about all the angsting about whether or not to kill a guy to take one of the stones, right? He's going to die whether or not Thanos kills it to get it from him or they killed him to destroy it, so why are they whining instead of getting shit done? They've made much smarter decisions outside of this movie.Tyrian (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A public service announcement.

Dolphins are evil incarnate, and will eventually enslave us all. You may now resume your day. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought that sealions and Ferrets were doing that? Tinribmancer (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget doorknobs as well. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A fellow extra-zonal tourist! What brings you all the way out here to the grey? Most perceptoids find this place rather boring; I wasn't expecting anyone else. What's your home zone designation? The Equivalency Exchange? I simply must know.Tyrian (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When your doctor recommends Daniel Amen

I got a new psychiatrist the other day. Upon talking about an EEG I had received before, they recommended I try to get an appointment with the "integrative medicine" expert Daniel Amen to get a SPECT test done. Should I get another doctor? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL yes. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the hardest things about being into evidence based medicine is how few medical professionals also care about it, when the whole idea is that you're trying to rely on expertise rather than your own intuition.

I'd say "yes," but before jumping to conclusions, is your most-likely diagnosis something detectable with brain tomography? Are there other brain radiologists in your region? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

as someone for whom questioning your dr for anything but the most obvious quackery is not advised, and not having the medical expertise to do anything more than ask what will this test/procedure/pill do, how does that work getting second opinions and the like? i'll just take the pills im given and go back if they dont work. is this a better approach or is it better to march in and i tell them i googled this thing and of the dozen things it matches this one caught my eye and they do some nice pills i saw on the telly (give me some opioids while ya at it, this is SERIOUS, and throw in some antibiotics cause you cant do too many of those -is there a catalogue while i'm here?)

whats the middle ground here? how do i spot the cancer my dr missed and not be a massive dick about it? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Second opinions are a great choice for when your diagnosis or prescription are really suspect. Constantly getting them is a bad idea. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of doctors that I've run into are reasonably competent, and if you come up with a reasonable medical question they can probably answer it. I'd think at least some of them would be much happier if you *do not* talk about Magic Pills On The Telly, because one of the issues with American doctors (over-prescribing useless medicines) is from what I understand a phenomenon that largely occurs due to consumer pressure. Outlier scam doctors and publicity snake oil salesmen (like Daniel Amen) unfortunately are the most visible folks, and make everyone else look bad. I do think it's a good idea to get a "Wikipedia level" understanding of various procedures and medicines and whatnot -- Wikipedia and other reliable health information sites (like, say, NIH or MayoClinic in the US) won't make you an expert by any means, but it might give you a better understanding of what is going on, which can lead to more productive discussions with health care people. As always, avoid the "fake news" health sites. (A competent doctor is probably not going to appreciate someone who babbles the bullshit on, say, Natural News.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

what does suspect even look like? ive never felt it necessary to question what my dr has told me. if i had a giant tumour growing out of my head and they said i had flu, i might be suspicious. if they said they were changing my meds to course of chanting and happy thoughts i would ask are they sure? that has never happened to me and ive only heard of similar stuff happening as crazy tales from this one loon someplace else whose struck off now. it just doesnt happen and i can spot it if it were. wrong tests done, or test not done, wrong doses of medicines or contraindicated - im not going to see that until after the fact. if im properly ill, of the 'its going to get worse before its gets better' variety - im not going to see its not working until maybe its too late, even then i may think 'well, i am very ill'. if i have cancer or similar long term debilitating illness i will probably read up a bit so i can discuss treatment options, but ultimately i'm going to trust the guy with certificates on the wall.

i need to trust my dr. i do not choose a dr like i was choosing a pair of shoes. i register with the local gp, who you get when you first drop by - thats your dr now until you or they move on or one of you dies. thats how its done and they send you specialists when required. i do not understand the idea of going check the dr on next the street might have better deal. i do not want think i know better than my dr. i want the best deal from my currant dr, and it would the same deal at another clinic because tbats the best option and its their job to provide it.

do americans trust their drs? do they have more medical knowledge than us molly coddled brits? if medicine is delivered via a sales pitch i'd imagine you'd need to be but if treatment is dependent on what your insurance package allows, is choice and informed decision in any way real, or is treatment ultimately decided for you like in the uk, only not by drs but by insurance companies?.

i think i would be demanding more second opinions - i'd be a paying customer after all. i dont want choice though, if i am ill, i want be well again and get the best way to achieve it. i generally dont need a second here because dr arnt usually plugging shitAMassiveGay (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no single answer to that. Unfortunately, the question you're asking is a field of gray, and the shades of gray vary wildly from situation to situation. Gradients of gradients. Just keep your mind open to "that doesn't seem right". It can and does happen. I guess if you're looking for a heuristic, it's "I was supposed to get better now, and I'm not". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's the point of a second opinion. But if you watch anything with ads, you'll find an ad that tells you there is something physically wrong with you. Back pain? You probably have ankylosing spondylitis, go tell your doctor you have a condition and need Cosentyx. Feel depressed? Go tell your doctor you want to try Zoloft. Sometimes you feel good but sometimes you feel really bad? That's a symptom of bipolar disorder, which can be managed if you just tell your doctor you have it and get a prescription for Celexa. I'm not saying these medicines don't help people who need them, but they are advertised as if everybody probably needs them. The ads play like horoscopes. And if you assert to a doctor "yes, I'm fucked up in this way all the time" and it's a hard thing to diagnose, doctors will prescribe the medicine just to get you out of their office. Not their fault, they have lots of people to see in a day. I'm not trying to belittle actual conditions or necessary medicines, but why would you spend money to advertise a medicine to the general public if you weren't trying to cash on it? That's suspect. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC) 04:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

thats something else that doesnt happen anyhere else - adverts for prescription drugs. thats fucking insane. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's better than that, we had ads for highly addictive pain-killers that emphasized their not-addictiveness. There's no bottom to the "wait healthcare in the US is that fucked up?" barrel. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@ikanreed To answer your question about whether brain tomography could detect it, I know nothing about neurology but it seems logical that the answer could be yes. The question came up because an EEG revealed an area of my brain was not responding to stimuli and a particular brain wave spectrum had no signal (specifically, my brain has no auditory P2 response, whatever that means). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The conclusion I come to is about the same you did, that's weird and suspicious, but ambiguously so. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Game industry used C R U N C H.

Should we have an article mentioning the game industries' abuse of its workers? 184.181.12.187 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

By all means we could, but we don't even have an article on sweatshops, which makes this particular concern feel a bit like nerdocentrism. More of a reason to create a proper sweatshops article instead of just a redirect than not create the video game one, I guess. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a good and needed article idea, but I probably wouldn't get around to doing something like that for a long time. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I put sweatshop in the To do list.184.181.12.187 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any other white-collar sweatshops like in the game industry, by the way? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Like Bioware "magic" and anthem crunch? Commie Lib (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of game industry sweatshop, but I mean, is there any other white-collar work (which I define as like $50,000 starting wage and can go to $100,000+ for senior workers) that's on a similar level of physical and psychological abuse, on par with sweatshops, as game industry work? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It happens, but usually localized to particular shitty bosses. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I sometimes hear that 3D animators are also pretty mistreated in general. Some movies studios (e.g. Nitrogen Studios) work their employees overtimes and refuse to give them their overtime pay. I've also heard that Huawei's work culture is totalitarian and demeaning. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought there are some checks at least in movie studios? Aren't there unions there? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the Nitrogen Studios/Sausage Party controversy (the only case I really remember), a union did end up filing official complaints. A lot of movie animators are on contract though and aren't part of unions. It is also a pretty close knit community, and you can be blacklisted by a company and have your career ended if you complain too much. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Favorite Mass Effect character?

Mine are Javik, Legion, and Wrex. Yours? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The entire set of squad members from the first game are really well done, Ashley, in particular. She says some things that, taken in isolation, would seem racist, but if you combine them, indicate a cynical, but not bigoted, world view. Tali, meanwhile, seems so amazed at so much, because she's still something of a newcomer to stuff outside the Migrant Fleet and it's adorable. Outside of the first game's squad members, I also like Grunt, Thane, Legion, Kasumi, EDI, and Javik, off the top of my head.Tyrian (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My most favorite was Tail'Zorah and I loved her, very much. Until I went to Rule 34 Paheal and saw a pornography of her which me start hating her. Still today from 3 years ago, I miss her. Mar9122 (talk) 2:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

EDI, Samara, Thane, and Garrus were all great as well, Zaeed too now that I think of it. Tali was definitely one of my favorites. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Exercise

Do you people exercise ? I run a Push/Pull/Legs split 2 x week with rest on sunday. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:1521:a3d3:e64e:54af / talk / contribs}

I push away from the table 3 times a day. Sometimes 4.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I walk, does that count? — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I used my finger to type this, does that count? Avida Dollars^{her again} 10:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gotten lazy and only do an hour of cardio and no weight training lately. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

iv got sick abs. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I sleep, and occasionally dream of running from something like a bowl of noodles with googley eyes. Or my job keeps me in shape Idk LurkingGnome (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I breathe, does that count? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Sonic Movie Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvZaBf9QQI God is dead and we killed him. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

What the fuck did I just watch? — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The horror...the horror... RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." Commie Lib (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

We had the Mario film. We had the Doom film. We had the Street Fighter film. We had the TMNT film. We had the Bayformers. We had that live action Dragon Ball film. We had Twilight. We had Epic Movie. We had Garbage Pail Kids movie. We had Manos: The Hands of Fate. We had the Emoji Movie. We'll live. I'm more concerned about God, though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As a Sonic fan, the events leading up to this trailer debut have been fucking painful:

- First, we get that absolutely awful teaser of a shadowy Sonic which raised immediate alarm bells.

- Then we have the poster with an angle coming from Sonic's Dick and fucking Nike shoes.

- Leaked images of Sonic showing his full design and describing him as "Chill and Lickable".

- Then we get this and he somehow looks even WORSE than the leaks.

It's just fucking awful. That's all there is to say on the matter. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 02:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When I first heard that they were gonna make the movie PG-13 I knew something was wrong. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh god, they made Dr Eggman live action. Oh fuck. LMFAO. I gotta see this movie. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I'd say it's worse than '06 but '06 Eggman had GIANT GOLDEN NIPPLES! 68.0.189.224 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No intention of watching the trailer. Already saw an add for Detective Pikachu. Ugh, creepy. I prefer movies from the 1990's and back. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m strangely interested in these “GIANT GOLDEN NIPPLES” LurkingGnome (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@68.0.189.224 Is that a reference to the Great Clement? Nice. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a groanfest that won't even give you a minute to make fun of what you just watched. Carrey as Robotnik, perfect casting. But I mean, this is a mish-mash of nostalgia and 2019 jokes. That can not work out. At least with Super Mario Bros, they took the movie seriously enough as a movie to be worth making fun of it years later. I doubt there will be time to riff anything before the next slapstick joke or meme reference crashes into the movie's train of thought. And I doubt it will be a coherent film. Maybe they are banking on half dumbass little kids, half nostalgic parents, but this will be bad, and it will never be cult. Pro-tip, if you want to make fun of a movie as it plays, get some friends together and watch "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale" by Uwe Boll. A-list actors, zero production value, Burt Reynolds is literally too drunk to not slur his lines, and the orcs are obviously in rubber masks with plastic weapons. Spot. On. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

is any of this surprising? video games do not make good movies. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably from the track record of video game movies, I can't think of any good video game movies off the top of my head. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

firstly, they are always a cash grab by producers who have no interest in the original just see a ready made market to exploit. secondly, plot wise games and movies are two different beasts. they do not translate well. thirdly, game mechanics make people over look the fact that most video games have hackneyed plots that already been done to death ('should be a fallout game' - there is its called mad max), fourthly, games like mario or sonic are sooo abstract that mvies are at best 'inspired' by and piss off fans of the game and win few new ones who arent, 'good' directors wont touch them so you get stuck with hack directors or worse uwe boll. fifthly, its an immersive active experience vs a passive one. why would you expect a game that these days has multiple endings, dozens of moral choices, limitless amounts of lore that you already know and love make a good movie after you strip all that down a linear truncated plot with characters that pay only lip service to what you know them as in the games?

if you can show a film based on a video that works as a film and stays true to game, i'd be very surprised. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC):

Honestly, things like Mario and Sonic work better as episodic anyway. Also, what about games translated to book and comic format? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I found the Netflix Castlevania series to be a well-done piece that follows rather closely with the games that I played. To be fair, it's been some years. TheTallMass (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not fair, sure, Castlevania lore left a lot of room for a Belmont and a Belnades to meet each other, and the story is not canon to the games. I am not that upset by this. Warren Ellis (of Transmetroplitan, my favorite graphic novel) was a key writer, so I have a bias, but the series took itself very seriously, and drove its own direction. I appreciate that about it. It didn't just exist because Castlevania is cool. The games never established a necessary canon, to their fault, but they did create a universe. So at least the Netflix Castlevania was true to an aesthetic and tried to work within it. I know this is super biased, but the idea is always hard to swallow for a fan. The execution always looks worse, and the intention looks abysmal. I wasn't upset that Castlevania didn't have a million callbacks to my favorite games, or that it didn't care to fit in the canon, because it was pretty well done. It was Ellis and Seibert, a dream team. Would have liked to have seen bosses like Puppet Master or Legion or the Lord of Flies in there, but that would have required extra seasons, and I don't think we'd expect that much out of it. Instead we got a complicated romance/forgiveness story that tucked into itself as soon as it realized it wasn't going to go any further. Don't hire Warren Ellis to write a story that doesn't have a conclusion. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @LeftyGreenMario The Sonic Archie comics were phenomenal, pity they cancelled the series. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

there is also the fact that such films are going to be heavy on effects and thus very expensive. studios dont take chances so its all focus groups and commitities looking at bottom lines. if they going to work you need someone at the helm who has some love for the source and has a genuine idea for a film beyond a paycheck. comics or tv shows - not really seen much of these, but smaller scale more chance of getting someones coherent vision or labour of love. you just not going to get that for multimillion dollar blockbuster. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

At least there's no Bubble Bobble movie. Amazingly fun game, and both Bub and Bob deserve to be left alone in their game universe. There are a lot of efforts, but mercifully no one's thought to try to force them onto the silver screen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yellow vests

It's already one year since this movement started. Thinker^(unlicensed) 14:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you expect a movement that hasn't gotten what it wants to just go away? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Worked with the Luddites... MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out the anniversary. About what the yellow vests want, I'm not very sure. I remember they started rioting because of a fuel tax, but then people protesting many other things had joined the movement. Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why Moscow would want to stoke awareness of this, I'm not sure. Millennium Scallion (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

they like to stir the pot. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker They're essentially protesting the tendency of the French government to fuck over the poor in favor the rich. You know, classic neoliberalism. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

But is it true? Because I read that France has one of the best welfare in the world, so the idea that the French government consistently favor the rich instead of the poor seems to me quite contradictory. Thinker^(unlicensed) 07:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. There has been a trend towards so-called "austerity" (or, in the vernacular, is called "fuck the poor") in France over the last twenty years or so, and Macrone has been trying to roll back welfare. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

austerity in its current form is a response the european debt crisis. thats been not quite 10 years. france still has one of the better welfare states around, but not knowing the details, i could not say who it is currently failing and people dont want to be on welfare anyway, no matter how good it might be. its probably best not to say all austerity has been bad without looking at why it was brought in the first and the detsils of what it involved. something i certainly cannot do. all i can be sure of is it disproportionately effects the poorest through higher tax and decreased services and after 10 years of that one might wander if its has been useful. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget OWS Hannasanarion (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

being british and not being particularly au fait with french politics, its difficult to see this being much than the french being french - they have long history of this kind of protest. scratching deeper it looks very much like the french version of protesting against austerity, protesting tax increases and service cuts disproportionately effecting the poorer sections and of society. we've seen similar issues in the uk, similarly seeing discontent from more rural less metropolitan areas. unlike france though our 'protest' turned out to be brexit. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Poway synagogue shooting

"We can't pretend as though we didn't have some responsibility for him [the shooter] — he was radicalized into white nationalism from within the very midst of our church." — Rev. Mika Edmondson, Orthodox Presbyterian Church[2] Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's indeed remarkable: A leader of a religious community that recognizes their responsibility for the radicalization of a terrorist. It happens almost never. Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I read this in WaPo. Honestly I knew this overlap existed, but most of these white supremacists identified as "cultural Christians" (Fucking WASP bullshit), this guy was explicit in his Christianity. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins also identifies as a "cultural Christian," that term is plainly disgusting. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

All the cultural religion bullshit is just lazy spin for people who aren't willing to engage in a debate over religious beliefs and an excuse to continue supporting oppressive ideology. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess this is just another one of many Professor Dawkins' embarrassing misuses of specific, loaded terminology such as "Darwinist." — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, isn't this more a case of anti-semitism than white nationalist/supremacism? I think that, oversimplifying, there's a tiny part of Christians that share anti-semitic feelings, because "Christ was killed by the Jews, etc..." Thinker^(unlicensed) 08:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The second most important rule of Christianity is in essence tolerance, so if the religion of these bigoted asshats actually was real, the bigots would be in deep shit. As it stands, the transformation of American Christianity into Republican-politics-with-a-cross is merely accelerating a trend in the US towards secularism. It's great to see at least congregation reflect on this trend, but overall the loudest voices in American Christianity right now would probably be considered heretical by the actual text standards. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

whats the problem with the term 'cultural christian' here? i always taken it as meaning someone who grew up with christianity steeped in the culture that it cant help as providing the touchstones for your views, consciously or not. what exactly is 'disgusting' about it? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Saying you are a "cultural Christian" is a cover for saying things like: "Abortion is an abomination" / "Gay people can't be Christian". It's a load of bullshit from people who aren't practicing the faith, but instead use their narrow experience growing up with it, to justify their trash opinions. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

no. no it isnt. it just means i what i described and its a very broad descriptor. if thats changed its because we keep letting these cunts frame the debate instead of explicitly branding extremists for what they are AMassiveGay (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think what you are saying and what I'm saying are mutually exclusive. People often may have Christianity as a cultural reference (For example I went to Methodist and Baptist churches, both my grandparents were Methodist ministers), and that experience guides their current ideology (I however do not). On occasion, people will use their definition of "cultural Christian" in an argument about abortion, or gender, or sex, or ideology, and reference the bible, frequently the Old Testament, as their reason for thinking that way. But they are not members of the faith or participate/follow the Bible. People using "cultural Christian" in this way are the dangerous ones and generally use this to deflect criticism. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

who does? googling the term brings little more than what i have described. or page is little more thsn i describe with a final sentence saying its shifted a little. we are letting them frame the debate. a label becomes toxic enough they change the label to something neutral. even nazis dont want to be nazis they alt right now. some cunt, with explicitly white nationalist, explicitly religious extremist, explicitly racist motivation, on any other day hes nazi prick. today we arguing over what was a neutral term - cultural christians. lets not keep doing this. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Human Biodiversity" and "Creation Science"

So, I've noticed a lot of overlap in the ways these two groups have attempted to sneak their ideas drivel "ideas" past the peer review system. As I've noted in a now lost talkpage comment, both use vague terminology and set up their own "science journals" in an attempt to appear externally legitimate but fail to actually get their ideas through the review process. Have any of you observed behavioral similarities? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition: I have found the edit in question. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Human biodiversity is bullshit, plain and simple. Not very much biological difference other than skin pigment. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 I thought my writing style made that apparent. However the discussion is about how the methods of these two groups are very similar, in some cases even identical. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Setting up own "science journals" in order to bypass the review process is a practice common to any pseudo-science, not just creationism and racialism so I don't think there's much to discuss about this. Pick any sufficiently developed field of pseudo-science, and you will find that it has its own journal, disconnected by any traditional peer-review process. Thinker^(unlicensed) 07:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well it's still worth noting, just in case some poor rube is deceived by their shoddy "scholarship" and deceitful practices. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

FSTDT is officially ruined

What is this piece of crap masquarating as fstdt.com? ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.194.235.81 / talk / contribs}

What are you going on about? Your post gives zero context for anything. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

clarify please I’m confuzzled LurkingGnome (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So, I went to fstdt.com. Turns out they don't like right-wingers all that much. Wow, who would have thought that a website which was originally set up to record, criticize, and mock a predominantly right-wing movement, might not be big fans of the right wing?... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The only issue with that site is ita unbearable format on a phone. It makes me feel old using enlarged letters to read lol LurkingGnome (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, at the momemnt, the site seems to have (a) no entry page, (b) no index or links, (c) no formatting of any kind, really... just a list of excerpts from the usual platter o' awful. It is looking horrible and hard to read even on a desktop. That may be what the BoN was helpfully trying to inform us of.

Also, one of the articles listed claims that Sargon will be elected PM because 98% of Britons approve of rape. So, they haven't given up on their mission at least... Kencolt (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks for the clarification I noticed the formatting it was like having a book in your face and trying to read. LurkingGnome (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Rationalwiki also sucks on mobile An ordinary human man (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Red Flag

... heads the 'Recent Changes' list - but no mention of 'O Christmas Tree.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree... Erm, I mean, The working class can kiss my arse. I've got the foreman's job at last.Spud (talk)

"The Communists can take a break. Capitalism works just fine." Nerd (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

'Invalid source' - and this if anyone is interested. Anna Livia (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And I thought I knew crazy before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFtbwP4UuFM

Let me just say that I won't get back the time I spent listening to this. I thought I knew batshit but this takes the cake, reality is a comic book?Machina (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Once I got drunk and ate a bunch of mushrooms. I don't know how long I was stuck in my bathroom, but I was stuck on the floor in my bathroom. I had chosen to sit down to pee so I wouldn't miss, and then everything kicked in, I had eaten a "God dose" while I was pretty hammered. Thinking back, whole time I was probably in a wrestling match with my pants. But I perceived, sincerely, that I was stuck in hell and everything I was dealing with was a cosmic punishment that would last forever. When I finally made it out, I was naked and I was pretty sure I was some kind of time traveler, but I could walk again. Made it to my bed and half dreamed everybody in my life was in on some kind of important spiritual battle, and I was the bumbling hero who hadn't figured it out yet. I proceeded to make a lot of sense to myself. And I had just been pants'd in my bathroom by some greater power. Shaking off a trip like that takes some time. If the dude likes to trip and is good at comics, more power to him. I don't agree with his perception of reality, but he's good at what he does. The old "everybody likes sausage" adage, good artists see a reality and move to create it. Groundbreaking art is not a switch a normal person can just flip on or off. But, yeah, when you look at what goes into it, these people either drain themselves until they are nuts, or start out that way. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost 20 years on...

...and no end in sight for the Afghanistan War. When will we finally realize staying there just isn't worth it? — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's a waste of resources better spent elsewhere, and there's always India to help prop up the Afghan government, since the Taliban are essentially Pakistani puppets by this point anyways. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Afghanistan is a highly divided country, so divided it would make an average American (or Briton) cringe. You cannot help them build a nation-state if they do not want to do that themselves. They love blowing up sections of the Ring Road, intended to bring different parts of their country together. Afghanistan is no Korea or Japan or Germany. That country is also responsible for an overwhelming majority of the world's opium. According to a recent BBC report, U.S. efforts to cripple the Taliban financially by going after their opium supply, Operation Iron Tempest, has not been successful. Sound intelligence, good target selection, but poor timing. As the authors of my AP Economics textbook like to say, "Don't cry over sunk costs." Nerd (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the indigenous Pashto tribesmen have essentially told anyone wanting to restrict their cross border movements to "fuck off," since the Durand Line is an artificial, arbitrary remnant of British colonialism anyways. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is when the word "tribalism" is literally true. Sad story, really. Anyway, India is more trustworthy than Pakistan in my opinion. Nerd (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

True, I once made the point that Afghanistan is still essentially in the "tribal" level of development, since modernization was forced upon them, and they have explicitly rejected wanting to modernize in the first place. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Taliban are pretty popular in Afghanistan, well in some areas of Afghanistan, honestly the best thing to do for the Afghani people is to let them decide their own fate, without outside interference. Fuck Pakistan, fuck India, fuck the US, fuck Russia, fuck China, and God only knows what else. This is something for the Afghani people to decide, not us. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You know how stubborn the US can be though, we absolutely have to stick our noses in EVERYONE'S business. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 04:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess the US is still looking for Osama bin Laden. That was why they invaded, wasn't it?Hubert (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Oxyaena Edgy much! But if the Afghans want to remain a museum of tribalism, they should be free to do so. Go, India! Go! Pakistan can keep paying tributes to the Middle Kingdom. Nerd (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hubert That was but one of the reasons. The other is to build a functional democratic nation-state. Nerd (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that when Bush decided to invade that building a "functional democratic nation-state" wasn't high on his list of priorities.Hubert (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan is the poster child for failed state building. After WWI, the West decided to carve up the former Ottoman Empire with no regard for tribes, religions and resources. A series of autonomous regions would better suit that region than a central government. Also unlike ISIS, the Taliban will at least except a political framework that most of the world has agreed to. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

didnt leaving them to it result with the world trade centre being levelled? and did not the taliban only rise in the first place because of us help to oppose the soviets? i mean as interventions go, its one thats really been going on since 1978. at least. not really sure what the ottomans have to do with thisAMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Dude, fuck off. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal The reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place was to catch Osama, who's been dead for nearly a decade now. If allowing the Taliban to take power will bring stability to such an anarchic hellhole, so be it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Technically the cause listed was "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The president could 'determine' literally anyone, place, or group to be responsible for 9/11 and take unlimited measures to 'prevent future acts'. Which is pretty consistent with the foreverwar we now find ourselves in. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

All of this could've been prevented if we had just given Mohammed Mossadegh the help he asked for in fighting the Islamists. Government incompetence strikes again, smh. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena To be clear, I agree with you on this topic, but we invaded Afghanistan less to catch bin Laden and more to punish the Taliban for giving him refuge and resources. I support the idea of the Taliban controlling an autonomous region on their own as long as people choose to live there, there is freedom of movement, and they don't attempt to expand their influence beyond those who support their vision. Also stopping the support for criminal enterprises would be nice. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mossaddegh... was not exactly anyone's idea of a great guy either. Doesn't justify the British and Americans overthrowing him, but (somewhat like Allende) people often forget he, too, had a complicated relationship with democracy and human rights. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Still, he was for secularism and women's rights, he was far better than the alternative. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Oxyaena Oh my god! I'm scared. Nerd (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Did you wet your bed yet? — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I know where to release my wastes, thank you very much. Nerd (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Sure doesn't seem like it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I'm not the edgy one running around with profanities, sunshine. Nerd (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd I`m not the one picking fights, sunshine. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena If you go back, you will find that I am not the one running around insulting entire countries for no good reasons. Nerd (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Nerd Is it not true that Afghani culture is overwhelmingly conservative? Is it not true that Afghanistan is still predominantly tribal? Grow up. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Ha ha ha! But if you go back, I did point out just that. Afghans are unlikely to be building a progressive/liberal democracy any time soon. Nerd (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Then why pick this fight in the first place? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Because you made an inappropriate comment. I pointed it out, then you responded with more inflammatory language. Nerd (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nerd, you're being a fucking baby about naughty language again. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Damn you are so fucking dense. You made a flippant response for no reason and then got mad when I told you to piss off. Poor baby. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Why did you tell Nerd to fuck off? The only comment from him I can see above that is him saying the US started the war in part to turn Afghanistan into a functioning democratic nation, which is true. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, he was being kinda shitty. His actual last comment at that point was that Afghans were a bunch of tribal primitives who can't run a nation without outside interference. Telling him to fuck off is a 100% valid course of action. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

In general he's always been sort of a dick. One grows used to it over time, however. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Update on the Sonic Movie

So it turns out the public reaction to the trailer was so negative they're actually going to rework the design for the final product. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That a studio might notice a backlash is not that surprising.

That they would notice a backlash and instead of proclaiming that "It's just the complaints of a minority of loudmouths" they recognize reality and act on it is. I am impressed with Hollywood this time. Kencolt (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, what action do you think can be taken on a movie that's been filmed, produced, mixed, dubbed, and edited already? Trailers aren't exactly the first step of movie making. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The glory of having a CGI character is you don't have to reshoot any scenes when you change the character's design or costume, you just have to change the model and re-render them. The model is going to have almost the exact same rigging, and all the animations are probably still going to work find with just a face change. The scenes can be exactly duplicated just with a new 3D model; just replace the old clips with the new ones and presto. It will of course still cost animating dollars, but if done right it might only cost animating dollars. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the release may be delayed-- but a lot of the work isn't nearly as hard as you might suppose. Remember, Sonic is an entirely CGI chracter, and it's not going to take that much (compared to reshooting everything, or re-animating were it traditional animation)... sort of. It'll cost.

But the main objection-- and one that was almost universal-- was that one character, and his design. No-one complained about anything else, really-- just the fact that Sonic didn't look like Sonic, but like some kind of demented fuzzy Gollum on a caffeine high. FIx that, and the film might break even instead of being the sheer unrelenting bust it was headed towards. Now, they have a chance. Kencolt (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

films get re cut or get scenes reshot and added all the time at any point during the filming right up to test screening. it doesnt usually bode well if the studio doesnt trust its director's vision or just negative buzz. you hear stories all the time the studio loving thew dailies, loving the cut right up until the last test screening when janette from omaha would have liked a happy ending. i think it happens a lot more these days because budgets and are so much bigger for blockbusters - studios wont take chances and they've never trusted directors. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sonic is CGI, but if they're going to rework the proportions and size, they will have to rework the camera too, so. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

They better pay me to see it. It looks terrible. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see Sonic played by an massively overweight guy in a sonic costume that’s way too small. “Gottta go *pants* fa- huh huh fast* LurkingGnome (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Gotta go fast! DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

ahaha lmao I needed the laugh thanks LurkingGnome (talk)

Any person in Michigan can relate to this parody video

https://youtu.be/rGbOIRsrx78

Fucking potholes are annoying. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say that’s why Ohio is better buuuut as someone from Virginia (family is from Ohio) I have to admit y’alls roads up there are barely pavement at this point. LurkingGnome (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Me and my family spent a good couple hundred replacing each car tire. All developed holes in them quickly. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Michigan's a third world country compared to Ohio, just saying. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Domo arigato, Mr Roboto

One of the greatest songs of all time. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Lies this is . Lol https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8amtq5aXRL8 LurkingGnome (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A classic rock song to piss off fundie Christians

Freewill by Rush. https://youtu.be/bpOyQhgM1FU

103.9 WRSR --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the best bands of all time. 2112 is probably my favorite song. An ordinary human man (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well this isn’t exactly “classic rock” and not really the greatest band but playing Ghost (He Is, Faith) without telling them may piss them off later on. Tbh some of those songs don’t sound satanic out of context until they look it up. LurkingGnome (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ghost is amazing! They have a great Blue Öyster Cult sound. Also, side note, good to see another gnome on this wiki. An ordinary human man (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have always found that fans of Rush/classic prog are the smartest, nicest people in the world, until you tell them you don't like Rush. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The reason I said classic rock is because I hear it on the classic rock station often. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

All Hail the God King in Chief!

I feel like this went under the radar: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/29/president-trump-has-made-more-than-false-or-misleading-claims/?utm_term=.a03720a33e0e 10,000 lies, some highlights from last week -

• Democrats support executing babies[3]
• Obama/GWB created the Child Separation policy[4]
• A litany of bullshit on trade and NATO that is so obviously false he definitely has a degenerative brain disease.

This doesn't even bring up the bullshit about not complying with investigations[5] and literally suing banks to keep banks from revealing financial info[6]. I feeling like impeachment, if only to increase investigative powers, is necessary -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

you dont need to believe this bullshit to keep coming up with it and you dont need other people to believe it. you just need to keep making bullshit claims, keep ramping up the crazy. the waters will forever be muddied, folk will still spread the lies because thdey'll be overrwhelmed by shit and associate dems with dead babies. some folk will start believing if you keep it up, or start believing nonsense just little less crazy - 'well, baby organ farms on mars is just silly, but there must baby organ farms - no smoke without fire'. this is what 'free speech' looks like with no limits and a free press with no regulation. everything drowns in shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We're definitely approaching(or maybe even past) a point where misinformation outweighs ignorance as a source of harm. And the misinformation is malevolent, adaptive, organized, and resistant to traditional countermeasures. It used to be a conspiracy theorist was the town loon, now there's at least one in every family. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's tricky to regulate "the media" @AMassiveGay because we don't have a definition for what counts. I think we need to definitely hold people responsible for the actions people's words inspire. There are a variety of incidents where 8chan, KiwiFarms, Gab and 45 have inspired violence or attempted violence. But we lack a mechanism to punish these people for how their words inspire, I'm just not sure how it can be enforce without abuse from a future party, like another DJT. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

it is tricky and it requires constant vigilance and acknowledging mistakes will be made. but this happens in various degrees in europe already. this is always the response to anything remotely free speech issue. its always framed with what you got now compared to n korea or china, as if the us the bench mark on freedom and democracy and no other country has tried it. you are even allowed to cross the road without permission.

deciding where to draw the line is tricky. i dont have answer. its often a case by case examples with a cigerette paper between them. but you know what happens when overreach happens, or mistakes are made? public scrutiny. we all look, maybe without outrage maybe not, and we forced to consider the limits of what we can say, what we can say but probably shouldnt. they are tricky questions but made trickier when you never ask them. a false dichotomy of saying anything you like to comparisons to soviet russia just shuts down the conversation because tough calls would be needed. its hard justify one thing and not another and refusals to see what the differences actually are. its stunted you. there are no differences if everything is permitted and you are unable to draw lines if its required. even the 'shouting fire in a crowded cinema' isnt discussed. so much could be effected just by looking at what thst actually means in this day and age.

people are asking these questions in the us. but its google. its facebook. are they making the choices you would have?

free press and speech with no regulation that can work when a pamphlet is printed by hand, distributed by hand, taking weeks to reach the handful of people who could read it.

but now lies can spread 10 times round the globe before the kettle is boiled and lives are ruined before the tea is brewed. bad ideas no longer wither under the spotlight but are given wings to find an audience that could not previously grow, limited by a need for physical contact. warnings from reasonable people are drowned out by a tide of misinformation and lies. algorithms and targetted ads keep the right messages alive, but whose messages? governments dont need to stifle free speech - its choking itself. it needs no check on the press, where it isnt a punch and judy show, all news are lies and all thats heard is loudly shouted memes made all the more awful with the lack of restraint from the free speech thing.

i will not say this is all fixed in frsnce or germany or uk. i will not say there are no issues. i will not say its better. but steps have been taken. more will be needed, as will caution. in the us? you are not even talking about it. you are probably right its isnt possible there. different cultures, different problems. not one thing but lots all interconnected. the way things are its easy break things. just lie and shout repeatedly and loudly. you dont need any working solutions to scapegoat. the system works fine for that.

you want change though, for healthcare, fair taxation, civil rights, political reform. they are tough sells. you need to educate people about the systems now and then how you want to better it. justify the costs, the upheaval, teething problems. justify why you will be laying waste to their sacred constitution and keep sustained interest and pressure for a generation at least. all the while wading through lies and shit thrown, as they clutch the constitution in one hand and a flag in the other. this is america and something about socialism.

i fear you are already dead in the water AMassiveGay (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"it is tricky and it requires constant vigilance and acknowledging mistakes will be made. but this happens in various degrees in europe already."

@AMassiveGay Can you make an example of a law about speech that exists in a European country and that you would like to see implemented in US? Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker Can you stop being a sealioning prick for once and actually come up with something constructive to contribute? Just a thought. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your point on Google and Facebook is correct. They have too much control and are definitely not making decisions on the self interest of citizens, rather they are only concerned with profit and not rocking the boat. i would welcome the level of the oversight the EU has proposed over both of them. I would even support breaking the companies up significantly so they can appropriately regulated , as opposed to hiding behind one part of their business or another. I have wondered about creating an advisory board with some teeth to address instances of clear bias, spreading misinformation and supporting conspiracy theories, but I think Congress is loathe to approach things that way.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal We need more trust busters like Theodore Roosevelt, the corporate overlords need to be brought to heel. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

i cannot give details of the what should be in the us. its beyond my wit to draft law and i do not know where the lines should be. i do not think it should be rigid. it needs to change as society does. the us is hamstrung on that score.

europe has various hate speech laws. that would be good place to start. that time the guy with as nazi dog got nicked is an example where tweaking is needed. if its wrong, there needs to be a conversation to see what needs doing. independant watch dogs are needed. accountability. in truth lots needs doing that picking one thing here or one thing there would be ineffective, while massive systemic is change impossible. i dont have the answers. systemic and cultural changes are required but these are incredibly resistant to change, probably by design. it still decays though so its stuck with a system ever more corrupted, trust in institutions becomes ever more weakened. asking folk to give more control to government over an ideal so ingrained it cannot even be questioned.

this is where we are. this is where the trumps of the world have taken us. chaos and collapse. in europe, in us, in uk. distrust and dissent. the farages and bannons seem so pleased with themselves at their machiavellian success, it was easy to do, aided by complacence and hubris. i wonder what fantasy they have for us all? this surely isnt the end game for them. we might never know. they dont have a plan to move on from this. no idea what to build or how to rise the from the ashes, just how to chip away at the foundations. they'll be stuck in the ruins with the rest of us. cunts AMassiveGay (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@OxyaenaI agree with you. It's one of the thing's I'm trying to incorporate into Essay:2020 Democratic Platform Proposal. We need to rebalance the scales. Some of that is about wages, taxes, campaign influence. The free speech discussion is a part of the campaign finance discussion. Not enough people though are discussing breaking up Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, IBM and Microsoft. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"i cannot give details of the what should be in the us."

@AMassiveGay I'm asking for one example of a EU law about speech that you think US should implement. Somehow everybody agrees that there should be limitation to speech, and indeed there are already ("shouting fire" laws, "call for action" laws, defamation laws, privacy laws...). So, unless you start to be more specific about what you have in mind, you are talking about nothing. Thinker^(unlicensed) 08:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Up until now "Section 230" (of the Communications Decency Act) has limited platform liability for said exceptions in free speech. This is the one thing where I am a bit torn as to how much to push back. For instance, 8chan's /pol/ has spawned two terrorist attacks in two months. They seem like an obvious target for any "bad faith" momderation, in a sense. But I have no idea how much responsibility the platform needs to shoulder for their role in hosting (it probably depends on the details of what they have or have not been doing, which I don't know. Being a racist asshole is not a crime, being a real-life violent Nazi is.) I know that some US politicians are chomping at the bit to get rid of this, often for bad reasons (eg "conservatives" on the white nationalist side think repealing this law somehow will magically prevent platforms from moderating hate speech, which is bullshit, but there you go). FOSTA-SESTA (which amended this) already had some pretty ill effects regarding adult content providers on the web. So my official position is no change necessary until American politicians get smarter. (I think there is a way to word things so one can separate bad faith non-moderation from legitimate efforts, but I don't trust American politicians to come up with the wording at this time.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ive ben pretty clear that i dont have any answers but you know what? i mention hate speech laws. i mentioned a case of someone being prsecuted. ripcity and oxyaena talked of ways of dealing google and facebook. what is it do you expect from a nomark on the internet? seems that talking about nothing is your thing. fuck off AMassiveGay (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

When he first got to DC, someone told Trump that both parties routinely exaggerate each others positions, and Trump (being Trump) decided he would be the "best" and the "toughest" at the game, so now we get things like Obama Founded ISIS, Dems Want Open Borders, Dems Want To Execute Babies, Dems Want To Take Away All Your Guns, etc. — bullshit that gets repeated by toadies and supporters. Getting Trump out of office in 2020 may not totally end the flow of BS, but it would substantially decrease it. Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

But @Millennium Scallion, Trump is not the poster child for exaggeration and lies, that title goes to Fox News. Trump is the supercharged version of a Fox News voter; white, old, low information, racist. It's just that unlike most Fox News viewers, Trump actually had the means to gain real political power. Nothing he has said, hasn't been said on Fox News, and though the content of his lies are particularly awful, the fact that we repeats them constantly is actually far worse.

@Soundwave106@AMassiveGay I appreciate both of your examples. The threat that 8chan poses I think clearly outweighs it's utility has a free speech vehicle. We arrest people who literally incite violence, we should eliminate the vehicle they use communicate and hype each other up (ditto with Gab, Stormfront and the Daily Stormer). Hate crime laws I also support, problem being that there are white people in power that aren't yet ready to deal with their racialist beliefs.

@UnlicensedThinker I would assume 99% of the people on this website aren't exactly experts on policy and regulations. And with a system as complex and bureaucratic as the EU, I'm sure there are overlapping regulations that function to manage speech. So chill. Motherfucker. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"i mention hate speech laws."

@AMassiveGay Which are different from one EU country to another, and which cover a lot of things, so you are not really giving any information...

"i mentioned a case of someone being prsecuted."

Yes, you said "that would be good place to start. that time the guy with as nazi dog got nicked is an example where tweaking is needed." and I admit that I skipped that, because I wanted to be charitable. Is the trial of Count Dankula really the first example that comes to you mind when you are asked about speech laws reform in US? Really? You gotta be kidding me... Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"I would assume 99% of the people on this website aren't exactly experts on policy and regulations."

@RipCityLiberal You are making a strawman. I asked for one example of a law, not for detailed description of EU policy and regulations. It seems to me that everybody can make abstract claims like "speech should be more regulated", but unless they are able to make at least one concrete example, the conversation is pointless. For instance, you wrote "I think we need to definitely hold people responsible for the actions people's words inspire." Don't you see that inspire is practically impossible to define? Somebody could read these threads and, inspired by the many negative comments on Donald Trump, decide to kill him. Should the people who negatively commented on Donald Trump been held responsible? Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker You're correct inspire is a bad word. Incite is the right word. A quick google search (which you could do) yields this (http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws) which provide some interesting examples:

• Denmark: Article 266(b) of the Danish Criminal Code criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred", making it an offense to use threatening, vilifying, or insulting language intended for the general public or a wide circle of persons.
• France: France's principal piece of hate speech legislation is the Press Law of 1881, in which Section 24 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. A criminal code provision likewise makes it an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication.
• The Netherlands: Together, Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the Dutch Criminal Code operate to prohibit making public intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one's race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions.
• United Kingdom: Sec. 18(1) of the Public Order Act of 1986 (POA) states that "a person who uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, is guilty of an offence if: a) he intends to thereby stir up racial hatred, or; b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby." Among the panoply of other British hate speech laws is Section 5 of the POA, which makes it a crime to use or display threatening, abusive, or insulting words "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby.

Although this particular source has a negative view of these laws, the general summary of each seems to address the context. As well there is a solid example for South Africa [7]. It seems the larger problem is enforcement. Which is why I alluded to the creation of a board to address hate speech laws. Especially if such a board could then refer statements to the DOJ for prosecution, would allow administrations to trust the advice of advocates and experts in determining if language was used to incite violence, rather than just a vile position. Also, the first amendment doesn't stop the government from removing mechanism for these groups to rile each other up, or companies from choosing not to host these mechanisms because of the negative portrayal of working with these groups. Deplatforming has been shown to be effective. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@ut - are you fucking dense? i mentioned the 'count duckula' fella specifically because it was controversial. ive been very clear there are problems and i gave an example of one (i'm not losing any sleep over that dick though). i am not claiming any where has been transformed into utopia, ive been careful not to, just that laws do exist, that a conversation is possible and needed for these things. its early days. they are a work in progress and most states are playing catch up to deal with issues that the internet represents. its not even bout the specific laws but how to implement them fairly and effectively. that what recent eu regulation has been about. for details of hate speech laws - you have google dont you? wikipedia has a whole page. its interesting because of the dozen or so countries they list, the us has none. the 1st amendment makes it difficult and even broaching the subjects elicits some hysterical responses.

@ripcity - trump really is a poster boy for lies and exaggeration. getting rid of him wont end it though. hes laid down a blueprint that others will follow and fox will continue to help them. politicians like trump and organisations like fox news feed into each other to the detriment of all. who holds politicians to account if the 'news' organisation not only falsely corroborate the lies but add their own too? all the while genuine reporting of actual events is slandered as fake news? cynicism reigns, no one trusts the news, no trusts the politicians with the only winner is the liar whose lies are the loudest.

and nothing can be done about it while news organisation face no sanctions for outright lies. libel laws are ineffective for this. commenters and content providers on internet face no sanction for adding their own lies and defamation and everyone complains when some get taken down, and everyone complains when some dont. stridency, hyperbole, defaming of entire peoples gains sales, clicks and vote. there is no line that cannot be crosed it seems, so everything becomes more strident, more hyperbolic, and defamation more extreme and blatent.

as much as facebook and google share responsibility for a lot of this, they will be part of the solution. if much of this happens on their platforms, whatever action is decided against them, we are going to have work with them to implement anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"@ut - are you fucking dense?" you know the answer to that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay This is where being on the outside looking into America may fractal a bit of what you're seeing. The way Trump lies, is the way Fox News lied from 2008 to 2016. Fox News didn't adjust to Trump, it taught him everything he knows. Getting rid of him will also not solve the problem, but it will lower the temperature as Trump has exaggerated another feature present in the GOP since Goldwater; racist and xenophobic dog whistling. Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz would never come out and say "Mexicans make America dirtier" (well maybe Ted Cruz might), but they'd use some other bullshit like "illegal alien". Trump though has no fucking filter at all so he'll just spew out his racist/racialist ideas. Currently Fox and Trump serve as echo chambers because a Fox personality (Hannity, Ingrahm, Carlson, Dobbs) will say something outrageous, then Trump watches it, supports it, then Fox talks about how the President supports whatever outrageous bollocks they concocted. A tacit understanding of Roger Ailes also makes another thing clear; Fox News is not a "news" organization. It is a propaganda arm of the conservative movement. Something that I'm sure would help the public discourse is reintroducing equal time provisions, so that Fox can't have three straight hours of opinion masquerading as news.

Also UT isn't dense, that would imply that he doesn't understand what he's doing. He understands perfectly well what he's doing, he just wants you to give him more info hoping to find an error in your logic to invalidate your entire argument. It's quite tiring but because @LeftyGreenMario @Ikanreed @Oxyaena and some others don't want to box his ears, we have to just jump down his throat every time he fires up the troll fingers -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The God Emperor Protects. Ollanius pius (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Different conversations

The United States is very exceptional when it comes to free speech. It is nearly absolute (except for certain forms of inciting violence, creating panic, public disturbance etc). Meaning you can be a douchey foul mouth vile vicious offensive racist nasty asshole and likely get away with saying something that will disgust others and upset just about everyone. Europe/Canada/Aus/NZ/Japan all have laws on free speech (some quite different to others) but from an American perspective, you cannot possibly call it free speech. In that sense there isn't free speech in the UK or in Spain where I live. Saying quite specific things is a crime. For the most part the government cannot oppress political opinion nor can one citizen threaten harm if another citizen expresses their mind. The protections of free speech are mostly designed to avoid civil disturbances and avoid injustices. For example, there is a fairly well established correlation between how openly people express racism (and politicians as well) and the amount of hate driven crime that follows. You've seen that in the United States pretty much since the day Trump arrived. A huge increase in racist attacks and harassment of immigrants. But freedom of speech is a fundamental part of the US constitution and Americans are not willing to give it up for the protection of marginalized groups. And there is nothing necesarily wrong with that. It's simply a choice Americans have to make. There are benefits with being free to speak your mind and there are consequences.

One of the easiest ways to see just how open one is to free speech is to take the Westboro Baptist Church and how they hung around funerals of fallen US soldiers and protested them claiming that their kids died because the US let fags get married etc (and rightly so). For most Americans I've spoken with, very few people agree with it, think it is repulsive and unpardonable, however that is the price of free speech. Ask Canadians and every single one I asked said that it was harassment and yes the police should stop it. They are willing to give up a certain measure of free speech to avoid gross offense, to have a law where you are allowed to harass people in mourning with vile hate speech. The same pretty much goes for most Europeans. It would be illegal for Westboro to troll funerals in most European countries and no doubt they would be arrested and possibly jailed and most citizens wouldn't feel the slightest pity for them. Different countries have different laws on hate speech. Some are very strict (Spain) while others are a little more free (Netherlands). In Spain making homophobic comments in public in general can get you charged. And it does get extreme, where insulting the King is a serious crime. Same applies to some forms of religion bashing (not the people who profess a religion but the religion itself). I can understand (to some extent) avoiding harsh hate speech against Muslim people living in Spain. The reasoning being that kind of pointless open speech leads to more hate attacks on muslim people. However criticising Islamic theology, saying something offensive about the Virgin Mary and the Pope. An actor was recently charged for saying something pretty nasty about Christianity. I thought it was hilarious, and it is pretty hard to imagine it creating hate violence against Christians...but it was pretty over the top and there was a general consensus among everyone I know that criticism is one thing, vilely pointlessly offensive vicious cruel speech is another (regardless of the topic). Only recently a Bishop was charged here for making comments about the need for gay conversion therapy which is considered anti LGTB+ hate speech. The insulting the King part is beyond my comprehension. The point is, Spaniards who live in a healthy fully functioning democracy, a very open and reasonably tollerant society, are quiet willing to give up parts of free speech to avoid things like hate crimes increasing, the accumulation of toxic speech in public and grossly offensive actions. Americans are not. And I can't think of a single reason why Americans "SHOULD" have stronger laws, especially if most haven't showed much interest in limiting free speech, since they are the only place in the world who actually has free speech, and I cannot imagine politicians easily giving up the right to say outrageous provocative attention seeking things. Plus that whole constitution thing. It's pretty clear. This pretty much rules out much control of the media, even if people tell lies. The EU and the USA might as well be different universes in that sense...and so a Nazi saluting dog or a malicious fake news article looks quite different to socially minded Brits vs. most Americans. ShabiDOO 00:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As an US citizen, I can agree that the 1st amendment (the part of the constitution that grants unilateral freedom of speech) is often considered to be the most sacred of the constitutional rights. The 2nd amendment (the one about guns) is often defended in the US with the statement "You don't have the 1st amendment without the 2nd". I can definitely agree with the sentimentality that extremist groups and hate crimes is considered the 'cost' of freedom of speech. US citizens are often very distrustful of their government due to how polarized their political parties are. Even those who would restrict some kinds of speech (such as hate speech) often fear setting a precedent that would allow someone they disagree with ideologically (such as Trump) to restrict speech they wish to protect (such as criticizing the president). It is almost like mutually assured destruction; if one party limits speech the other party wants, then when the other party gets in power they will limit the speech of the first party. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The only disagreement I have with this is that the conversation about free speech and hate speech has often times excluded the victims of the violence this type of language incites. As well the structures of government have a history of spreading incendiary language but also encouraging the violent response this language incites. South Africa had to have a real reckoning with it's history of racism and oppression which the US has not. During Reconstruction the US had an opportunity to address these issues, but failed the landing when they let racialism drive the new agenda. Also hate crime laws, like most of the US criminal justice system is more punitive, than trying to address the root of prejudiced, which is necessary- 17:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I can agree with that sentiment, the conversation of free speech often does exclude those who have been marginalized by it. I don't know how intentional that angle is though. It is often said here that without free speech we would have never gotten women's suffrage, slavery would have never ended, and there would still be no LGBT rights. Whether that position is absurd or not is another question. My personal opinion is that bigotry in the US is deep rooted. I think that without people being loud about their mistreatment (and having the protection of their speech to do so), US politicians would have never given anyone rights. The US is very big, and relatively sparsely populated. Unless people make headlines with their problems, no one will ever hear about them. I think rights groups were only able to gain sympathy for their cause because they could get exposure through the media. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

whats frustrating is that this is exactly point. that there can be no conversation because its always portrayed as being between absolute free speech and none at all. it ignores whats going on in other parts of the world and assumes the us is the benchmark for 'freedom'. much of those issues you mention the us was either behind the curve or has fallen behind on. its true politicians would never give rights to anyone without a hue and cry, but how do think they are gained elsewhere?

i can just see no benefit from such a rigid view. i can see no real rights being protected beyond those of bigots. small groups needing protection arent if to be heard they need to shout increasingly louder. the deafening noise of free speech makes accountability less likely. what gets through is dismissed as fake news anyhow. i cant even point to anything that tells me the unchanging nature of it has been unquestionably a saving grace. the us since its inception has made much the same mistakes, done its share of awful things to its people as everyone else.

i am under no illusions free speech in the us will change anytime soon. i do not even think it is the main issue or the only issue. just that its sole purpose - to prevent government silencing unpopular views or its critics - it is failing at. corruption is blatant. government increasing unaccountable. corporations buying protections and influence. all thriving under a cacophony of shit. its been effectively taken out your hands anyway. facebook, google, twitter are silencing people on their properties - the public forums of the day. is that any better?

what is it people want from free speech? is this what you are getting or have ever got? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Fuck y'all. We yankees or honkeys or whatever u wanna call us ain't gonna talk like the rest of u in ur shithole countries. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)