RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive307

This is an archive page, last updated 22 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>, <306>, <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)

Vox

Just read this great article from WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/opinions/spains-far-right-vox-party-shot-from-social-media-into-parliament-overnight-how/?utm_term=.a77bba3f479d) about a new political part currently rising in influence in Spain. The analysis about how there is a new crossover of the far right parties, unifying behind Islamophobia and a return to Christian Values is fascinating. The cross pollination of strategies from Bannon and the Alt-Right is frankly horrifying as American partisanship has begun to influence European right wing parties. Would an article be of value to the RationalWikimission? -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would. But why be US focused? Look more at the rise of the populists in the EU, and the voting block Orban has formed with Poland, Italy and, for now, the nicotine stained man frog, Nigel Farage.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00048p9/episodes/player

Plus Alaxandr Dugin (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/most-dangerous-man-world-paul-knott-putin-fascist-philosopher-1-5703698) and his influence on the fleg (sic) obsessed Jim Dowson https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2018/05/01/jim-dowson-kosovo-connection/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of Europe has far right parties with representation in their legislatures with the only exceptions I know in the UK and Ireland. (No UKIP is quite right but is not far right. Parties get WAY worse than UKIP). Spain had been another country with no far right until a few days ago. About 10% voted for them. Throughout Europe and most of its democratic history between 10-20% have voted for far right parties during legislative elections Luckily only got 10% of the vote in Spain this year. The media barely covered them, (resistance to insulting hate language and nor giving them airtime for saying stupid offensive shit is exactly what they want (Nigel Farrage and the British media help each other out with that all the time). They are mostly scorned in Europe and almost no party wants them to join them in a coalition. As all they do is try to normalise stupid outrageous shit by saying stupid shit. Whatever few actual valid complaints they have could be dealt with more effectively by being decent humans and speaking constructively. However in Austria (known for waves of unconcealed racism) has a far right party in a coalition. Italy, Poland and Hungary have rather right wing parties in government too (though its a matter of debate how far right they are) and the Spanish region of Andalucia did so too which disgusted most of the country, that moderates would work with hate mongers. Countries without far right parties being elected into national legislatures (the US, Canada, UK, Ireland) really focus on this stunning "break through" of VOX. A shocking moment apparently. It was barely mentioned in Spanish media cause having 10% of the population vote for a scummy party is an inevitability in a country with proportional representation. The dynamics of various parties and the possible coalition with small Catalan separatist parties was far more pressing (and interesting). If Canada, UK and US had proportional systems, they would quickly have a far right party that got a few seats and said stupid shit to try to normalise stupid shit. VOX isn't a breakthrough. Whats amazing is that Spain was without a far right party for so long. ShabiDOO 23:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Steve Bannon article already covers some of his European actions, though the section could be expanded. And certainly an article on VOX would be good. (Other European far-right/nationalist parties such as the Northern League, The Finns, and Our Slovakia also could do with more coverage.) --Annanoon (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyhing about far-right US politicians financing EU ones, but supposedly VOX people met with Betsy Devos which should give a hint of what they're up to. Their politics are also, of course, right-wing ones in the economical sense.

That said, it could have been worse -I guess people disliked some of their statements, as wanting everyone to be able to carry a gun if they wanted so, and turning out to have behind the support of organizations related with people who miss the Francoist era. As usual, they blame the mass media of what ended up happening-. There were internal polls that showed them being the third force in Congress, which would have allowed them more than just repeating what happened in Andalusia with the People's Party (right, even if they're now claiming after the curb-stomp they suffered to go center-right again) and Citizens (center, or at least they claim that). Panzerfaust (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Spambot's still at it

You know sometime you'd think the person running the spambot would figure that this is a fruitless endeavor due to all the magical anti-spam features we've put in place, but nope! The dipshit thinks there is still profit to be made from this. To quote Einstein, "Insanity is when you do the same thing multiple times expecting a different response." — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What spambot? Is it Coombes?Summa Atheologica (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Check the account creation log with all the account names with more than 25 characters. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Is consciousness an illusion?

I know that Susan Blackmore said a few bits about how she personally believes that consciousness is an illusion.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kZ83DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2016/00000023/F0020011/art00004

Well the wiki page says she believes that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion. I’m not at all sure what any of that means really. Like is the world not real? Or something else? I just don’t get it.Machina (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The issue is 'the whatever that sits somewhere in your body and thinks that such statements are invalid ('I am not an artifact of my brain (or a number) - I am myself (and not SB, Machina or anyone else). Anna Livia (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t get it, so is it like idealism? I know there is a segment in one of the links where she says we look at something and then mistakenly assume that it persists beyond our vision.Machina (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

From the excerpt in the book, her criticisms seem to be similar to those of Daniel Dennett who objected to the model of consciousness as a theatre where something in our brain sits and watches perceptions play out on a screen (this model is incoherent because it seems to require that within the brain's internal viewer there's something much like a brain/mind, leading to neverending recursion - instead Dennett like many other materialist philosophers of mind and neurologists suggests that there are a variety of modules in the brain performing different functions and driving different outputs, but no central point where they all come together - I'm saying this from memory though). I don't think it's coherent to say that consciousness is an illusion, because you can't have an illusion without consciousness? And if consciousness is an illusion, what does that change? So presumably she is saying that the way we think about consciousness is wrong. (The idea that free will is an illusion is better-known.[1] Although you can argue whether that's true or important.) --Annanoon (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

To be fair most of this stuff is pretty over my head. My thought was that she was saying the outside world isn’t real but I doubt that now. Consciousness is a weird thing to define already, and to call it an illusion makes no sense at all to me. Machina (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

with much of the stuff like this, my first thought is not so much do i understand it but does it has anything effect or make any difference at all to me, if its true or not. theres probably lots stuff that in many fields does make a difference but not at a level where i could do more than passively experience the results of other peoples work - improved medicines and technology and the like. and there are things that do not and will not ever effect me whatever the truth, if i understand it or not. there is not too much point in losing sleep over the former and non at all over the latter. questions of consciousness and illusion are very much the latter. where does all this stuff about whats real and whats illusion take you and is worth fretting over? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No. No it isn't. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, consciousness is what we've got, defining consciousness is a little paradoxical. Trying to make the best of it for yourself is the difficult next step. Whether it's an illusion or not, it's something we are all always dealing with. I'm with you, whether I have the exact answers I want or not. But it's pretty cool that all the answers don't have to come from yourself, right? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

None of this makes any sense to me really. But I don’t think it effects my life very much.Machina (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that's philosophy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Biogeography

I have created and expanded the biogeography draft, but I doubt I can make a page all by myself. Can someone please help me? Summa Atheologica (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look anything like a RationalWiki article. Can't you rearrange the pictures a bit so that it does? Spud (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe just move it to mainspace. I read about the topic long ago (Alfred Wallace and E. O. Wilson) and might be able to remember something. Bongolian (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I rearranged the pictures so the article looks a little more orderly. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@TheUmbilicalCordGuy Yes, that's a bit better. Thanks. Spud (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Russ Pitts left The Escapist on 11 February this year.

https://www.gamerevolution.com/news/494803-the-escapist-russ-pitts-gamergate-zoe-quinn

Something for the Gamergate Timeline article? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Creationism

How do I become a creationist?Bonesquad11 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

By bashing your brains in until the smart goes away? — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

you need altered brain structure by smashing your head against a hard object LurkingGnome (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Be raised in an environment where the single most important thing in everyone around you's life is a badly written book from 2000 years ago, have every iota of intellectual curiosity inside you crushed when it deviates from "correct" behavior, and have your only power you're allowed to exercise be treating the next generation the same way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Or create a storyverse that earns you megabucks and hordes of fanfic writers (who do some 'very interesting things' with your characters). Anna Livia (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Rule 34 is calling you, Anna. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this? Anna Livia (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bible is a fanfic, if you think about it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh fuck. throws up Oh shit. I did not need to be reminded of that. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget to found a ministry and on an Evangelical radio station preach to (mostly) illiterate inmigrants who know even less than you of what you're talking about, and spew out BS as evolution or the Big Bang being far less believable than Eve being born from an Adam's rib or the Sun turning off when Jesus died. Or tell in 1984 fashion in one statement that the Flood took place 200 million years ago causing Pangaea's breakup, just to later on in other programme claim that there were two Floods, one taking place 10 million years ago and the other being much more recent and being the Biblical one, having broken up Pangaea -this peppered out with the same nonsense of fossil sorting up, etc.-. Either that or the same PRATTs of evolution denialism, mitochondrial Eve being the Biblical one, and all that jazz.

Don't forget at the end in all those cases the same "we're evil, wicked creatures who deserve to be doomed to Hell, but Jesus gave his life for us in that cross, etc". Panzerfaust (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

With my suggestion you-the-author get to create the rules of the universe/storyverse (rather than having to abide by a collection of long-dead authors) - and, providing you can write reasonably, you will not be subjected to RW (and other) snark. Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Go to an independent baptist church and they will tell you. Public School Girl (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to be born into it. If you're a skeptical person, stories about magical genies creating the world by wiggling their nose, pointing at a star and shouting "ABRACADABRA!!!" absolutely reek of bullshit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Mugabe's still alive?

What will take for this bastard to finally keel over? Nukes? — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No idea. Thankfully, he is not important anymore. No action is necessary. Summa Atheologica (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

True that. I hear Zimbabwe's finally on the road to recovery after that tyrant despoiled and ravaged her for almost forty years. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Would be nice if they toss his revolting wife in the klink too, she was every bit the part of Elena Ceausescu or Jiang Qing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Haven't they tho? I thought she was under house arrest. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably. I didn't see anything saying much about her either way, understandably most of the attention was on her crazed husband. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

She was arrested trying to flee.... Uganda I believe? — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Creepy Uncle Joe

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

Caution: SEALION ahead!

So, it's been a while that videos and pictures of Joe Biden inappropriately touching little girls have being spread over the Internet (here some examples).

What's your take on it? Personally, I never saw somebody so deliberately touching someone else's daughter. I don't think this necessarily qualifies as sexual assault, but I would never trust this guy around little girls and I believe he abused his position of power to touch kids in a way that, in any other circumstance, would have got him a slap from the parents. Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I read this before checking out who wrote it. My bad. I believe that you don't give much of a real shit about politicians being inappropriately touchy but are merely interested in finding something that can cast a negative light on a leading democrat contender for the whitehouse. Yes, it's unacceptable the way he behaved and he should be called out for it (which he has relentlessly been called out for which is a good thing). And he has appologised multiple times which is exceptional for a politician to do (most politicians either deny it or a few joke and brag about it or say its not a big deal). So you have the innapropriate behaviour of Biden, but then, meanwhile you have politicians who joke about grabbing pussy or married ones who get caught with whores or who have even been jailed for full out rape and it's once again extremely interesting that of all the examples you could have brought up, you mention the possible leader of a political party you don't support. It's a good topic to discuss, too bad you brought it up for all the wrong reasons. It makes me sick how you are using a genuine subject of concern (sexual harassment of women) to do the same shit you are always doing. It's so gross. ShabiDOO 17:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"I believe that you don't give much of a real shit about politicians being inappropriately touchy..."

Believe what you want, but this is a thread about the real world, not about what you believe I think

"he has appologised multiple times which is exceptional for a politician to do"

First, if he behaved right, he would have had to apology only once. Second, his apologies suck. In the last one, he called his behavior "gestures of support and encouragement" and compared it to shaking hands, finally excusing it by saying that "social norms have began to change" like it was socially acceptable to touch little girls that way ten years ago. Third, the fact that most politicians do not apology (if even true...) has no relevance: bad behaviors of others doesn't justify Biden's.

"So you have the innapropriate behaviour of Biden, but then, meanwhile you have politicians who joke about grabbing pussy or married ones who get caught with whores or who have even been jailed for full out rape ... you mention the possible leader of a political party you don't support."

Joking -in a private conversation, with another man- about grabbing pussy is sexist, but touching inappropriately little girls in public it's on a totally different level. Even a husband cheating on his wife is better than that. And about the jailed for full out rape guy... is he running for president? Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

He’s apologized and if you were listening he was explaining that the social norms of being like that weren’t as hyper analyzed and overblown as they are now. He admitted he was wrong. “Gestures of support and encouragement” is better than “I touched people because it makes me hard” LurkingGnome (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

He didn't need to apologize to those who know his story. I try to imagine that everything I had hoped for and loved in my own family had been destroyed in an instant: my wife my 13 month old daughter, dead. I might see them again, in little girls and young women. I don't see creepiness, I see sadness. Tears come to my eyes when I think about it. Biden gets a pass from me. He deserves a pass. Unlike that rat-fuck in the oval office.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hugging kids and patting them on the head is quite different from bragging about walking in on and groping naked teenagers. Joe's an old man who grew up before America's "stranger danger" phase, and nothing he does or did was ever sexual. Again, we all see right through your bad-faith shitposting. At least admit you're just here to troll; at least that way you won't be insulting everyone's intelligence. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"He’s apologized and if you were listening he was explaining that the social norms of being like that weren’t as hyper analyzed and overblown as they are now."

@LurkingGnome I already answered to that: "social norms have began to change" like it was socially acceptable to touch little girls that way ten years ago.

"He didn't need to apologize to those who know his story. [...] Biden gets a pass from me."

@Ariel31459 That's not how it work: No matter if one lost his daughter, one doesn't go around touching little girls like that; and nobody gives special "pass" to this behavior.

"Joe's an old man who grew up before America's "stranger danger" phase, and nothing he does or did was ever sexual."

@DuceMoosolini What part of "I don't think this necessarily qualifies as sexual assault" you don't understand?

"At least admit you're just here to troll; at least that way you won't be insulting everyone's intelligence."

If I were a troll, image how good are you all making things for me: I start a thread about Joe Biden inappropriately touching kids, and everybody jumps to defend him... Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Except no one actually defended him - they have correctly pointed out your bad faith concern-troll bullshit. Aloysius the Gaul 03:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you guys still put up with this guy? He's way past benefit of doubt. All he is doing is clogging up Saloon Bar the same way shower gunk gets clustered around the drain. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead, rub it in...we deserve it.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Except no one actually defended him"

@Aloysius the Gaul except Ariel31459 wrote just a few lines before you post: "He didn't need to apologize to those who know his story. [...] Biden gets a pass from me." Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not actually defending - it is accepting. Go get a dictionary along with your next serve of troll juice.Aloysius the Gaul 01:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I created a new section in Joe Biden's page, to cover this aspect of his persona. Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

So gross and intellectually foul. ShabiDOO 00:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I agree that such behaviors of Biden are gross, but I wouldn't call them intellectually foul. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Dude. Just stop. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You're so transparant Unlicensed thinker. If anyone is intellectually messed up it is you. But it's good to see more of your true colours coming out in this thread, you're not as patient and polite as your concern trolling usually has you, probably because you're being called out on your bullshit more thoroughly. You make me nauseous with your fakery and feigned concern. It's so loathsome. ShabiDOO 20:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

History channel‘s bad jokes

While unsuspectedly browsing through my Youtube recommendations, I suddendly stumbled upon this video:

After having seen this video, I had a few subtle questions cross my mind:

How can one be so stupid and so ignorant?
Why does a channel, which doesn’t even seem to know how to pronounce Ramanujan’s name, make unfounded and PIDOOMA claims/assertions (that are clearly in the Woo category) about Ramanujan’s life (while JAQing off) and then mixes these up with the opinions of some people who indeed know something about Ramanujan?
Why aren’t all the producers behind the Ancient Aliens series already fired? It’s amazing with what type of garbage they manage to bombard the public...

^{— Unsigned, by: TiltedAtBullshit / talk / contribs}

I`m not touching that crap with a thousand foot pole. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Because Youtube is filled with, mostly, twats. Hope that answers your question. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The History Channel is shit. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 23:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

All the photos of the man have him in western dress, yet in their "recreation" they have him in some cloth. This reminds me of the time a history channel show was describing how the Spartans used to declare war on the helots (their under class) so that the younglings get be blooded. MFW their recreation scene was a Spartan murdering a black man. The helots were fucking Greek. Serious projection. Féinléiriú (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Féinléiriú The helots sure weren't black, but they sure weren't Greek either. Also the Spartans made war upon the Helots to intimidate them, Helots outnumbered the Spartans by an order of magnitude, and the Spartans feared them. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

how were the helots not greek? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This type of shit makes me yearn for the days when the History Channel was "the Hitler channel" (due to showing all sorts of WWII documentaries that at least were somewhat factual). (And no shit that ancient astronaut theory more often than not carries a whiff of that old timey colonialism-imperialism superiority complex; however, my impression is that Ancient Aliens is a little more equal opportunity bullshit woo than the usual ancient astronaut crowd. The same episode that aliensdidited to Srinivasa Ramanujan also aliensdidited to Steve Jobs. Progress! :p ) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson's 12 rules for life, an antidote to chaos

So, I've been watching Hugo & Jake read Peterson's book. It's... fun. I recommend watching their video series on the subject. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Those guys really don't get enough credit. Some of the best atheist youtubers out there. I love their "Atheists watch" series. It's like an atheist MST3K. An ordinary human man (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

When advertising a law office, you obviously would want someone who is professional and uses actual legal terms

There are two offices that offer the same services to the same demographic- equal representation of men in court. The first one is the American Divorce Association for Men and the Second one is "DumpMySpouse.com". Keep in mind that these ads were on the radio station I listen to.

The American Divorce Association for Men has ads that get right to the point and talks about the services they offer.

On the other hand, DumpMySpouse.com has a catchy jingle with lyrics such as "cramping your style" and "busting your balls". After the jingle the office talks about the services they offer.

If you were going to choose a law office, would you want one that has a professional demeanor or one that uses childish terms? I might not be an advertising expert but having an unprofessional jingle seems like a bad idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The latter reminds me of that absolutely cringeworthy pepto-bismol commercial with the rap. Just thought I'd point that out. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 01:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes usually those goofy immature groups are usually filled with inexperienced lawyers and or shady legal teams from my experience. They are cheap and thus are the same in quality. Though in advertising in other things loud, bright, and flashy usually brings in the sales. LurkingGnome (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Consider the costs of creating an advert (including design, jingles, placement on one or several stations, repeats etc) - and the company expects to make a profit. What can be deduced about the chaps to whom the advert is expected to appeal? Anna Livia (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

DumpMySpouse.Com is lawyer Terry Bankert, and while not total crap his ratings don't seem to be as high as the divorce attorneys I can Google under the ADAM banner. Go figure. Usually an unprofessional lowbrow oriented jingle is indeed a bad sign. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

its probably a mistake to base your choice of lawyer on the strength of their advert what ever the production values they put into it. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Dumpmyspouse.com claims their domain name is just to get attention. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Caveat emptor then. Anna Livia (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Discord question (since people are posting like mad)

ED? As in Encyclopedia Dramatica? The site that shits on us and adores Kiwi Farms (which the Kiwi's use as some form of source for some reason...)? That ED? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Holy fuck, take this discord shit elsewhere. honestly, the Rationalmedia foundation needs to take better care of what gets to put its name to. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC) |}

ATTENTION, EVERYONE

— Oxyaena ^Harass 02:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:944:60B6:E7C1:DEF3 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sex with aliens will save the Earth

Huffington Post: "Extraterrestrials are breeding with human beings to produce a superspecies which could one day save the planet from climate change, according to an Oxford University professor. [...] Dr Chi said this week he was “looking for more evidence” to support his theory and told HuffPost UK “the majority of reactions” to his claims “are like ‘yes, you are right, I have also experienced abduction by aliens, I can tell you more in detail if you wish’ or ‘what you said may be true’”."

If they say so... Thinker^(unlicensed) 15:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Fighting climate change is hard enough without 'help' of this sort. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A very odd story. I frankly didn't believe it but The Times has it and so do lots of other papers.Hubert (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if I was desperate, I would not bone an alien. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

but,...are they cute?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I would ....why not. LurkingGnome (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

unless they were truly horrific in some way aesthetically or penis severingly incompatible, for the sake of its not something ive knowingly done, i would certainly look into it. assuming they are sentient thinking creatures that are keen on or adequately equipped with cock. they cant just be space cattle or something. or even vaguely insectoid. they can fuck right off AMassiveGay (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

im not too keen on space aids either. so theres that to consider. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Idk still would do it *takes drag* LurkingGnome (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

they are from space. they'll have all that stuff sorted. it'll be sweet AMassiveGay (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Do they have to have the right number of everything? That guy Roger Stone has a dick in the front and a Dick in the back.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How the hell are the aliens interbreeding with humans? We're not even from the same planet, genomes would be wholly incompatible. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Genetic modification I suppose or like the Asari from mass effect. LurkingGnome (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

genomes would not be wholly incompatible because the they would be space genomes. this is just basic science. we should be unconcerned with viable offspring anyhow. we should be more interested the unique and wondrous ways we may be compatible with space genitalia. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Space genomes" lol. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I know of a few actresses who look like aliens, or rather the popular conception of aliens resemble them. I'd do it, space aids or no. I'm Kirk what can I say. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In my younger and more vulnerable years, I came across an article citing this man in a news feed. The theory was that pigs and monkeys did the dirty, and that's how humans were formed. His domain used to look credible, his credentials look credible, I swear his site didn't have a photo of himself thinking really hard at the top of almost every page when I bought into his bunk hybrid theory. But I did buy into it, and for a while I was wrong. I had to own up to telling people who cared less about science than me that I got burned. Yeah, ok, a pig and a monkey bumped uglies and that's how I was born, the joke writes itself and I don't think that anymore. Being wrong is ok, it sucks, but yeah, sometimes you're wrong. The danger is when you try to make it last forever. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If Homestuck has taught me anything, it's that the sex part is not required, you just need a giant egg made of cavities so you can make slime babies. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

that would be like really boring though AMassiveGay (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read Homestuck :V --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 23:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Why does this site exist? They violate the law of "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." while claiming to be Christian. I am all for making some discussions (i.e. evolution is a sound scientific theory but it will undergo changes or be discarded with new evidence) but violating the Bible and claiming to be Christian is unnacceptible. This is not a conservative or Christian site. It is propaganda. In fact, most conservatives and christians would opposed this site I am sure. 2600:1:F178:B84E:B1C9:9B18:BAF:32CD (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Do not get why the comparitavly more sound CreationWiki in spite of its flaws would endorse somewhat this site. Like it falsely claims Obama as not from Hawaii, when CreationWiki correctly says he is from Hawaii. Would they not see the lies in the false Christian site? 2600:1:F178:B84E:B1C9:9B18:BAF:32CD (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s a site full of frothing madness and stupidity. Propaganda and persecution complex is very prevalent on that site too. Unfortunately not everyone is level headed and hypocrisy usually comes with fundies. LurkingGnome (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia exists because Fundies discovered Wikipedia and reality. As you may have guessed they didn't take either very well. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear ole persecution complex, a key ingredient to Conservapedia. According to them, the Institute for Creation Research was denied accreditation due to religion and absolutely nothing to do with academic quality. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia is nowadays mostly a group of angry has-beens longing for the good old days of the Dark Ages the Bush era . — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely, Conservapedia has-been, and will continue to be, a great value of humour and entertainment. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 02:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Where else are we going to get updates on the King Andy Version of Holy Scripture (AKA the Conservative Bible)? Or is he still up to his special efforts in redefining blasphemy for a new age? Kencolt (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Somehow,the admins tend to censor or misrepresent facts. This is not Christian at all. Like not only blacklisting the name of RationalWiki even if I may not agree with it either, but implying that EvoWiki simply died rather than merge with RationalWiki. Hopefully others have seen the fraud Conservapedia is. 2600:1:F178:B84E:B1C9:9B18:BAF:32CD (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia is near universally mocked, almost no one uses it as a reliable source. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.quora.com/Would-you-rather-use-Conservapedia-or-Rationalwiki-for-the-rest-of-your-life Medium Bob (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing. Wm Shakespeare. Scream!! (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Aw man, that link had a "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! mention there. No fair. 🍻 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, while biased as hell, and counter-informative in a number of respects, conservapedia is at least a encyclopedia in design, and tries to have articles about lots of subjects. RW is not useful for any information that is just uncontested truth, we only cover that which overlaps with bullshit in a meaningful way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(reset) Question - to what extent is taking the opposite views to whatever CP says (unless said statement can be backed up by several 'reasonably or better' reputable other sources) 'the correct option or starting point'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Backed up by several reputable sources? You must be thinking of some other website. Spud (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Big Daddy on Boolean Union

Well so I was going to the Boolean Union to see their tract dissection of Chick's "Big Daddy"- ...aaand all the commentary was gone. Does anyone have any idea what happened? Here's the link, y'all can check for yourselves. http://www.boolean-union.com/Chick/BigDaddy/BigDaddy.htm Summa Atheologica (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica After a few clicks it appears that the entire tract index is gone, complete with a 404 error. Tragic... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I take that back, though it does appear the whole site is starting to suffer from lack of maintenance. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Some other tracts are still there, but Big Daddy, which was formerly on their tract list, is now only accessible through an internet search. http://www.boolean-union.com/Chick/ Summa Atheologica (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

suggestion

What if we adapt WP's rule here, this would give a rule basis to stop concern trollng. Commie Lib (talk)

No, I really don't think so. RationalWiki very much is a soapbox. Of course, we don't want spam, self promotion or (baseless) scandal mongering. But all the other things mentioned in that section certainly do have a place somewhere on RationalWiki. And the only way to deal with concern trolls is to make them feel unwelcome so that they'll eventually give up and leave. Spud (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't working UT has been here forever. Commie Lib (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If you really want UT to bugger off, then you need to find out how to get rid of Sealions. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Forever? He's been here for six months. He created his account in November last year. Trust me, a year from now, nobody will remember who he was. Spud (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

a year passes by, UT is still clogging up the Saloon Bar. Nope, he's not going away any time soon. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also it's worth noting despite years and years of making nobs unwelcome, the old goat's still here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Spud, this is very much a forum. — Dysk (contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has that rule because it's an encyclopedia, and we are not. UT is a pain, but much less of a pain than others we've had. Avida Dollars^{her again} 11:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

can we not get rid of people who are disruptive? are they not disruptive? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The wiki has always been staunchly anti-authoritarian, so it doesn't automatically ban people with different views, as long as they're not vandalizing, stalking, etc. Millennium Scallion (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

its not 'different views' that the issue here though i it. its derailling every discussion they are involved in with deliberate misrepresentations so you end up not discussing whatever it was you were meant to. i welcome different views. i welcome my points taken apart. this prick does none of that. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Aren't UT's sealioning tactics enough to get him banned? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm afraid he's done nothing that warrants a lengthy ban. Spud (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(Reset) There are people who can be described as creatively disruptive/employing some version of the Socratic method/want their ignorance enlightened (and ask the right sort of question in the wrong way)/(would-be) humour merchants and similar who between them contribute to Rationalwiki directly or in being responded to, and then there are those who cause annoyance, disrupt what other people are doing and in general subtract from the sum of human knowledge. Unfortunately it is not always possible to identify which category people belong to in the short term - and no matter how 'nuisance proof' (insert actual words of choice) RW is made they are somewhat ingenious in finding their way in and are gluttons for punishment. Anna Livia (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole thing of "concern trolling" and "sealioning" has clearly gotten out of hand. First, these two terms are used improperly.

(1) "concern trolling" would require at least that the alleged troll is somehow "concern". Precisely he pretends to be of the community ideology and to be concerned of something about a contrary ideology, in order to challenge the community. So a concern troll on RW would write things about woo and pseudo-science saying "I'm a skeptic but look at these UFO pictures..." and similar. Now, I keep getting accused of concern trolling for posts that have nothing to do with that: I post on a licensed therapist who gives unhealthy and unscientific advice during lectures: I'm a concern troll. I fact-check a claim about an infographic of Washington Post: I'm a concern troll. I post about Joe Biden inappropriate behaviors making clear my position about it: I'm a concern troll.

(2) "sealioning" consists of persistent request of evidences to the point of harassment. My request of evidences are only when someone engage in the debate, especially if I'm accused of something, and they never got outside of the debate. But even if I do not make any request of evidences, for example in the thread on Joe Biden, I'm still accused of sealioning.

If there's something disruptive are these continuous accusations of trolling. If you look at my threads, you will see that I keep them separated, on some topics I agree with some users, on other I disagree with the same users. On the other hand, there are users who join a thread only to make an accusation of trolling because of other completely unrelated threads...

Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

UT is just a troll. He gets off on people's reactions. He's so intellectually bankrupt, I swear he's just Milo just less obviously a Nazi. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well in the very least, he's a good indicator of what narrative the right wants to push at any given moment; (political correctness gone wild, crimes and treachery by shiftless minorities, the threat of yellow vest socialists, system rigged against Bernie again, Biden the woman molester, etc.) Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

So RipCityLiberal accuses me of being a Nazi... @Millennium Scallion aren't many on the right actually sympathetic to the yellow vests? Probably because the yellow vests are against Macron, who is disliked my most of the right. As far as I understood the yellow vests are a so heterogeneous movement that left and right doesn't make sense applied to it. And the system rigged against Bernie Sanders isn't too something that comes from the left? In my thread about the Washington Post infographic, it was indeed a supported of Sanders that suggested that the system was rigged against Sanders, I instead said that it was probably a typo... Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I forgot, I have to use the most precise language with you otherwise you'll whine: Your authoritarian tendencies, combined with racially motivated concern trolling and deceptive thought experiments, have the distinct flair of a certain former Breitbart editor, known to have sympathies for right wing white supremacist movements. Now fuck off. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty hilarious how Unlicensed Thinker not only knows how much concern trolling he does and actively plans out his concern trolling (his posts aren't random or accidental and are planed with the hope of following a certain narrative) and yet gets politely indignant when he is called out for being such a first class concern troll. So there is concern for topics he brings up that he isn't even concerned about and then concern for his reputation which wouldn't be any concern to anyone if he just stopped the concern trolling, acted like a decent human being and developed some intellectual integrity. ShabiDOO 00:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m done with NDE people

“Cain said >"Again you cling to ideas that have proven to be false"

Proven to be false ? By whom ? No one has "proven" anything either way and proof is only available in Mathematics.

Cain said >"All the claims of NDEs have not been shown to be true."

What claims are you referring to ? All the prospective studies, conducted by the medical professionals who actually investigate this phenomenon, have produced replication ie there is something definitely going on.

The "sceptics" on the contrary, who haven't carried out any prospective studies themselves, but who's materialist world view (dogma) is threatened, simply ignore the data.

There are more than 100 documented cases of accurate veridical perception occurring during cardiac arrest (when the brain is not functioning). There are literally thousands of these events reported all around the world now. You make assertion after assertion without pointing to any source to back it up. The reason is, Mr Cain, there is no source for what you claim (only general remarks you've probably picked up), you're (likely) just another mischievous young internet atheist doing your bit (you think) for the cause.

No scientist from any academic institution has the slightest idea how the interaction of chemicals and a little bit electricity gives rise to consciousness. NDE's provide a big hint that consciousness may be a fundamental property of the universe. Science will continue to explore it and I certainly won't be taking your patronising advice.”

The above is a response to an (albeit fruitless) exchange with someone who thinks that near death experiences somehow prove that consciousness is a feature of the universe and not a product of the brain. I really don’t know how else I can put it, but the wiki article seems to say that NDE tests don’t hold up well to reproducibility.Machina (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The interesting thing about NDEs is that they bear some resemblance to other hallucinogenic experiences triggered by man-made chemicals, especially ketamine in particular. Small wonder, considering that scientists have investigated the NMDA (glutamate) receptor as a possibly key element in the "NDE experience", with one postulate being that some of the effects are due to neuroprotective chemicals that also happen to also be NMDA antagonists. (Ketamine happens to also primarily act as an NMDA antagonist.) Other biological responses (such as dopamine oriented stress phenomenon) can offer up some explanation of the NDE phenomenon. I can't claim to be a neuroscientist by any means, but it is pretty easy to go to Google Scholar and see some actual neuroscientists and people in the field proposing legitimate biological postulates of this phenomenon. If you want to make an otherworldly explanation, sure I guess, whatever makes you feel good or something -- people "see God" etc. on man-made hallucinogenic trips, too. But your sparring partner seems to have quite ignored what the science is actually saying. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Who wants to watch bullshit get destroyed?

https://youtu.be/zP73rCmkehs

I love Professor Stick's channel. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Fall from Grace… Family Fellowship

“”…The entire system is rife with abuse. And not just from the top down, sure there are abusive church leaders, but church leaders are abused by their congregants as well. Church people are just shitty to each other. I spent my entire life serving, loving, and trying to help people in my congregations. And the lies, betrayal, and slander I have received at the hands of church people left wounds that may never heal.

—Dave Gass, former-evangelical megachurch pastor at Grace Family Fellowship[2]

Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking back I wonder- How in holy Hell did I support Trump? I must have been crazy

I am not a bad guy but somehow I was swindled into supporting Trump. I know that the wall is wasteful bullshit and I know immigrants are hardly a threat. You might get a few immigrants who are crooks but that is minimal. I was also misled on what socialism actually was. I am glad that I came to my senses. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I was an anti-Trump Republican. Now I'm not a Republican. But I will say, that of the ex-Trump supporters, I've seen two groups: the ones who drank the Kool-Aid but regained their sanity, and the ones who bought into the "but think about the economy/SCOTUS/Hillary" argument. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I`m only 17, turning 18 in slightly less than three months now. Will be able to vote soon, I suggest registering as a Democrat. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy you saw what a real con Don is. What's your breaking point? What do you think Trump supporters should learn from you? What do you think Trump opposers like me should learn from you? Don't feel bad about how you felt in the past, learn from your mistakes, reflect on the consequences, and use your moments as learning opportunity to not buy into con crap from not only right-wing but left-wing too (though right wing is deeper in to it). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I used to support Trump as well. I considered myself an "independent" (read: thinks of themselves as a free thinker but agreed with the republican party on every issue but was too smug to consider myself bound to a particular political party). My turning point was when Trump used missiles on Syria, combined with banning transgenders from the military. Previously, Trump had painted Clinton as the apocalyptic war candidate, and himself as a "leave other people alone" candidate. Further, he walked on stage once with a pride flag touting how much he loves the LGBT community. Trump said a lot of conflicting things, but if you are invested with confirmation bias you only hear the things you like. Once Trump started flagrantly breaking from his campaign persona post election, (combined with the Republican party's flip flop from majority anti-Trump to pathetic attempts to get his approval), I decided to divorce myself from the right side of the political spectrum entirely. Nowadays I don't usually avoid asserting any opinion in political left-vs-right issues; my confidence in my own reasoning has been knocked down quite a few notches in light of the 2016 elections. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As for my breaking point, it was his antiscience rhetoric. As for being suckered in, I guess he was good enough to be a smooth talker and I am also paranoid. I was distrustful of the news and Obama dumping money into Israel didn't help. Not something I agreed with it. Then hearing plenty of people claiming that they were offended by random things. All that destroyed logical thought. During 2017 and 2018, I became distrustful of Trump, I noticed him acting nuts. That brought me back to reality. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't wanna be "that guy", but what about Trumps history could possibly lead you to believe he was ever telling the truth. Like watching him in 2015, I knew everything out of his mouth was a lie, how could people not see that? 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's history was irrelevant. He is a billionaire who owns a business and that was all it took to make people think he was competent enough to control large groups of people, and by extension the country. The first thing I ever heard about him was that he was immune to corruption because he was too rich to bribe. While that must sound insane, you have to understand that there is a large subculture within the right that downright worships rich owners of businesses. Someone being a leader of a business automatically makes them perceived as more competent and moral than any career politician (after all, if the politicians are competent at leading people, why aren't they in a business making millions? They must be making tons of money off of illicit transactions, the swine!). You probably heard it said over and over as a response to anything uncovered that was crooked about Trump: "Hillary is probably worse", "All politicians have skeletons in their closet", "He isn't as bad as all the other politicians". If you honestly believed that people who owned businesses were the hardest working, the most experienced, the ones who have had to sacrifice the most, and the ones with the best "common sense", then these responses actually aren't surprising. So with Trump's "credentials" established, what about the perception of people at the time set the stage to make his campaign successful?

I would say it stemmed from an exaggerated perception of problems in the world combined with counter-culture and inertia. The sentiment that I had, and the people around me who thought the way I did, was that the government was fundamentally broken and needed to change course now or there wasn't going to be another chance. Even if Trump is bad, he is unpredictable and different and this makes him the best possible candidate. Since it was perceived that no one knew how to solve the complex issues of the day, it was figured that whatever was the mold of a standard candidate was the core of the problem. Deviating from this mold could be better or even worse, but one thing that was said was "it is better to roll the dice with Trump than guarantee death with Hillary". It was almost like having a gambling problem. "I'm almost out of money, so this roll has to win. Since this roll has to win, this roll will win. Since I'm almost out of money, I must roll. Then everything will be alright, things will finally be fixed." All information regarding the bad odds of the roll are ignored, as is the case with confirmation bias. The moral at the end of it is you didn't need to roll in the first place, and a bad roll is likely to make things worse, never to help. The US is not on the verge of collapse, immigrants are not stealing all of the jobs and increasing crime rates, ISIS is not going to kill everybody. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MirrorIrorriM I'm glad you've come around. Maybe context from people like you can help bring other people back. Can't make this mistake twice. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to ask, how come Trump's views on women and minorities didn't bother you? Or his climate change denial? His appalling attitude, including the attitudes of the company he keeps (i.e. his voters having a large portion being complete misogynists), toward those subject matters are the two biggest reasons for me (who is a woman and lives in an Asian-majority community with a sizable Latino base and has Latino best friend) being absolutely disgusted by him. I didn't really see you delve into it, but how come those didn't bother you immediately? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself of course, but for me I felt that the climate change issue was less pressing than the economic situation that was being portrayed as doomsday. Most of the people I knew who supported Trump flat out rejected climate science, others took the line of thinking: "Who cares about climate agreements if Hillary makes us go to war with Russia? WWIII will cause far more ecological damage than 4 more years of coal." As for the misogynistic comments, it wasn't until the "grab em by the pussy" tape that I had even heard of anything about him and women. By that time though, the sentiment was "His attitude towards women is bad, but Hillary killed people in Benghazi! If you have to pick between electing a murderer or misogynist, you pick the misogynist." By the time the serious proof of Trump's behavior had come out, the well had already been thoroughly poisoned. I also wanted to add that towards the end of the campaign season there was a dialog shift on the right that I experienced. It changed from "Trump is the best candidate" to "The media will support Hillary no matter what she does in office. Obama already abused presidential powers with ordering drone strikes, and the NSA is only possible because both Bush and Obama are providing funding for them. A Trump presidency will weaken the executive branch of government and shift power back to Congress." In other words, elect him because he is unpopular, that will make people not give power to presidents, and then the government will be more balanced. It was all a spiral that was just the current moment, no forward or backward thinking. The perception was that Hillary was literally the worst possible candidate ever and would destroy the country. I can't even remember the arguments for why Hillary was so bad, it just somehow became accepted as fact. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

One other thing that snapped me out of the right wing spell was learning how corrupt former Governor Rick Synder was. Didn't realize how much he screwed up Michigan. Another reason I became disillusioned with the Republican Party in general. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I'm fairly sure I know the answer to this: It didn't effect them and thus it didn't matter. Throughout the campaign, I had conservatives use the same arguments above (He can't be bought, he's not a warmonger, he's a business man), even though there was pretty clear evidence of the contrary. But the Bitherism was it. That was the fundamental failing of Donald Trump, he couldn't possibly believe a black man could be president without foul play. And when that didn't pan out, he then sought Obama's academic records because he couldn't believe a black man could go to Harvard Law School. People brushed this off because Fox News had made this a mainstream story, but those of us outside the bubble saw it for what it clearly was, a racist attack on the first black president. I'm glad for conversations like this, and even happier to have people fundamentally acknowledge their failings, but Trump isn't the root here. He is the fruits of decades of dog whistling, war mongering, class conflict and psuedoeconomics from the GOP. And I worry that post Trump, conservative minded people will fall back into the fold without addressing the roots poisoning their party. (but I'm not exactly confident in that when they realized a lot of this in 2012 [3] and instead doubled down) -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm that elephant in the room who still supports Trump. Better economy, sensible SCOTUS nominations, trolls the mainstream media... what's not to love? Public School Girl (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The fucking nazis. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, shitlords, stand down. I had a hard time voting Clinton for two reasons. 1, I was literally volunteering against the Keystone pipeline when she was secretary of state. 2. I was voting in a dead-red state, and my vote did not matter. But watching all the pundits switch sides and start screaming that of course Trump won turned my guts, because they are the worst people to listen to. Pundits are worse than politicians. You are not a bad person for voting the way you did. You are an incomplete person and a poor vote if you wait for a pundit to tell you how to vote. This punditry includes your Facebook friends, I guarantee that.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt I feel like this is a cop out. Hillary, ostensibly, was a great candidate. Virtually everything we want from a president she had:

• Foreign policy experience
• held public office
• created policy proposals
• was white

The standards for her were so much higher because: 1) she was a woman and 2) she had four decades of history in the public eye. I get that some people didn't like HRC, but she was clearly better qualified, and actually cared. Also @Public School Girl Trump had zilch to do with the economy, the SCOTUS is now filled with judges that are anti-democracy and trolling isn't a policy. -18:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking back at 2016, I'd still vote for incompetence and corruption over the alternative. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 02:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RWW

Should we recreate RationalWikiWiki? Who would be willing to register the domain and make it independent? — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What domain would it be registered on? I mean Wikia is probably the easiest but when I tried emailing them to recreate it, the said that the Wiki wasn't really in line with their policy. We could always recreate it there but I don't know how secure it would be if the Staff notices it. --RWRW (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There are several other wiki sites which are far superior to wikia. Their advertising is relentless, ugly and very distracting. If it isn't going to be that big (I cannot imagine a wiki of rational wiki being that detailed or image heavy), you can try wikidot which has a lot more subtle advertising and is just as easy to manage as wikia. Wikia staff can also be pretty ridiculous sometimes but when I was active on wikidot I never had a single encounter with staff. ShabiDOO 16:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please, no, not again. Bigs revived it a couple of years ago; there was little interest, it became a troll site and Wikia closed it down. Any new version must solve the problems of maintaining long term interest from more than one or two users, removing trolls and preventing it becoming a drama playpen (something the first version indulged in freely). Also, there are pages from the old version on this site, and other pages are on the wayback machine (see Saloon bar threads from the last couple of years). Avida Dollars^{her again} 20:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am involved in hosting Wiki sites and could do this, however, I can't see why exactly we need a separate site? — Dysk (contribs) 20:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If RWW is re-created on a free wiki hosting platform like Wikia it will get deleted. Rome Viharo, Mikemikev and several others shut down the last RWW after sending complaints. So be sure to register an actual web domain etc.Tobias (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Being separate from the wiki entails a more unbiased and neutral POV regarding things, if we do have articles hosted here on the wiki complaints and flame wars will be thrown our way, just look at Nobs and his article for a good example. Also if we are going to use this, we should make the wiki independent itself, with its own domain. @D — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

so theres discord, and there used to be twitter handle and and facebook page. with forks for non english languages and now talk of rww again, what is missing? have we a myspace page? friends reunited? if it helps i could repurpose my grindr profile. i'll go out on a limb and say we are versatile. what is our stance on unsolicited dickpages? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there does not exist a RW amino :V --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 02:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this as one of the co-founders and tetrarchs of the rebooted RWW; I'm done with it. We never attracted enough attention from here to make it worth all the work of maintaining and editing. If someone wants to restart it, I'll send them the downloaded file of the articles I got from Wikia. But aside from that, I'm willing to, as Kylo Ren put it, "let the past die." RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I really don't miss the most recent version of RWW either. The article about me was lovely, though. That's one way it was different from the previous version of RWW, most of the articles about editors mainly said nice things about them. I don't think it's worth trying to bring it back again. Having said that, however, if somebody does try to revive it one more time, I'd like to be in it from the very start this time. Spud (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There was an effort at some point to host it here but that hasn't been done yet. I also have the database dump and I tried EditThis but its MediaWiki version is too outdated. Maybe a subdomain of this site? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

IRL

Have any of y'all met IRL? OR is this Wiki maintained by introverts? Bonesquad11 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Define "in real life". Outside this website? Yes. In person? No, not that I'm aware of. Further your inquiry raises a false dichotomy, that we have met "in real life" or we are basement dwelling losers, when in fact communication via electronic devices is a perfectly valid option. (It is, after all, one of the primary reasons such devices exist.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Bonesquad11 - Have you met any other RW users in real life? If not - what does that make you?Hubert (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have, although perhaps it would be more accurate to say that people I knew IRL have subsequently registered on RationalWiki. — Dysk (contribs) 21:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Having internet friends is fine. Internet connects us with people all over the planet, that I could never run into. Also just because we enjoy this website to deal with a particular urge, doesn't necessarily mean we would be chummy IRL -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

all my friends are dogs LurkingGnome (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't using the word introvert in a negative sense. I just meant someone who is shy and reluctant to meet new people. That being said I do agree now that it was a false dichotomy. You don't have to be an introvert to not meet in real life. Bonesquad11 (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bonesquad11 I at least did not read hostility into your original post, merely what I viewed as poor wording. As for meeting new people, I meet them as I encounter them but for the most part I do not actively seeks out social encounters. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

IT'S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN!!!

What I think of in regards to the Trump presidency. — Dr. Oxyaena ^{quack specialist} 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds accurate. Trump will probably not last much longer. Reverend Zombie Rat --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Still one more year before the US has elections. He can still do more fucked up stuff. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Luckily the courts and Congress are starting to rein in his more destructive tendencies. — Dr. Oxyaena ^{quack specialist} 10:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

THE CULT OF PERSONALITY

— Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 11:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

My second favourite Black metal band. My favourite being Fishbone. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I first heard this song in AP US History. Good times. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 04:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's so fucking accurate too. "I EXPLOIT YOU, YOU STILL LOVE ME, I TELL YOU ONE AND ONE MAKES THREE!!!" — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Cuckoo Bird for self deception?

I know I used to post stuff about that “actualized.org” and many people on here told me to ignore that site and the stuff he said. But I think fear keeps me gripped to him. Like the bit he did about self deception (into three parts) where he goes on about the mind tricking you and telling you it’s doing what’s best for you. He made an analogy with the cuckoo bird in the third one, but I’m not sure how a cuckoo is self deceiving when it lays eggs in the nests of other birds.Machina (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe he's on drugs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the video link that it is based on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9MS701rvoQMachina (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is OK, but I would like to point out he claims this is about 1% of what he has to say on self-deception. He does a good job of listing proper complaints. Not a huge fan of his refutation of his complaints. I mean, he is crafting refutations to his own complaints, which is pretty much against what he's saying. But he's raising fair complaints, and that's worth paying attention to. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, when you see his other videos you'll see what I mean. Also 1%? That seems.......sketchy.Machina (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It is. I posted that kind of early and about half an hour in I was ready to write him off as nuts. But I mean, he does a good job of listing common complaints. The problem still is he is both listing and addressing his own complaints. I think this can best be described as strawmanning. But for over an hour? Dude has chops. His insanity is self evident, I'm sure we all see that, but credit where it's due, dude can drink his own koolaid and talk about it in real time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Article I Stumbled Across

https://arrow-journal.org/why-people-of-color-need-spaces-without-white-people/

Ordinarily I'd post this as a WIGO, but this was interesting enough that I wanted to get some in-depth analysis from people who know better about this than me. Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Complete nonsense, which can't do anything but harm. Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that article killed some of my brain cells. The stupidity and racism from the article is mind boggling. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

really? how so? just sounds very safe space like to me.

i can well understand how a person of colour may find themselves uncomfortable around white folk. the history of us race relations is hardly stella, and the present is none too great. i personally find myself discomforted, constrained by the presence of straight folk, under a probably less overtly horrific past and present history of prejudice. its wearying to be constantly on edge. some might say you should engage with people and break down barriers, bring us all closer together. jolly good. knock yourself out.

but we all need a break now and then. we all need be able to express ourselves without fear or judgement. sometimes that means away from who ever it is, whatever group might be the source. for this person, white people. for me straight folk. it makes no difference if they are friendily people, nonjudgemental, open minded, and supportive. their presence can still constrain. its in our own heads as much as anything. its not all abut them. you got to step back. to refresh, and get things right in the own head things you dont want to or are unable to discuss with people who may not understand or be offended by. you need the release to be yourself or to just work out what that is.

without somewhere to go there is likely no release. frustrations build, anger and resentment grow. you will become more closed off, and reserved. distant. it will become harder to be anything else and whtever issues you had with this particular group will fester.

if you are this white group, or for me this straight group. back off a little. you form the majority. most places wont be as constraining for you, and few places are off limits but you'll have similar places of your own, perhaps personal, less specific without maybe the same exact need. you dont need to be able to go everywhere all the the time. we dont need to do everything together. we can still be friends

as with all things the form these spaces take will vary for all involved. pubs and clubs for a specific clientele worked for me, but may not be what this person envisaged, i gather they preferred something more spiritual. or pubs and clubs maybe not available of the right kind depending on the community.

it not about segregation. it is not about keeping us all separate. you cannot engage with people or integrate yourself in a wider society if you do not have a sense of what you are about or have distinct sense of self, an identity separate from this deeply dysfunctional relationship or that it is a reaction to.

but it seems this is all dangerous stuff to some. to some its nonsense. to others its some how an attack on free speech because apparently being able to step back from someone in your face constantly is a bad thing.

its none those things. it could be something very positive. it could be a very constructive and a very calming influence if it means we less on edge with each other, less suspicious. not take offence or over react to things.

if all it really means or ever becomes is a chance to step back once in a while, it is still a worthy thing if just that. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in it, especially for stressed-out p.o.c. There is, of course, the obvious fallacy that all p.o.c. would feel comforted by one another. Some might. One should get comfort where one can find it.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

some people might appreciate, depending on where they are based, just being somewhere that they do not form the minority. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If we allow 'people of color' to do this, we also have to allow it for the colorless. There is in any case little or nothing that can be permanently and effectively done about voluntary self-segregation. It's something that is going to happen regardless of how intensively we try to shame it, especially if we do this with different degrees of intensity based on who the people doing it are. The best thing would be to just learn to deal with it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Smerdis, this is just absurd. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

what is absurd about exactly? its a sentiment that have experienced myself and its not something especially healthy if left unaddressed and to fester. it is true that is a simple thing to self segregate, thats not really what this is. that doesnt address those feelings of discomfort, of unease, of constraint, of feeling exposed. if you not in a big city and you might add isolation to that too. it doesnt address what to do with these feelings or why you even have them in the first place. if that part doesnt happen then it is far from healthy. discomfort and unease can easily turn to rage and resentment, and very easy to radicalise. and alienation is even more pronounced, barriers erected more impassable. self segregation is even more permanent.

knee jerk reactions of its dangerous nonsense or that its racist do not help. you shouldnt have to say it to realise somethings might be best for poc to deal with some things without some white guy turning up to insist that actually they are the racists. are poc not allowed to do their own thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Smerdis. MassiveGay is in the wrong. I speak as someone who is gay and while the idea sounds good on paper for being with your own kind, the mentality just prolongs the issue at hand. I find the company of straights tiring because of things like this, encouraging the “otherness” that forms the root of my feeling (not that I really have anything in common with gay people). Allowing people to have these little breaks does more harm than good and just serves to create more division down the line. We need to suck it up and get over the fact that we are just human in the end.Machina (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It does, while safe groups are useful, if you use it too much you lose perspective and fall victim to groupthink. Echo chambers are bad for a reason. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

i'm not really sure why any of this would be in controversial. why would it be problematic to have some place set aside for exploration of some of the issues that ive mentioned and have admittance restricted in some way if not doing so inhibits openness and honesty? and to do so with a group that has shared experiences, faced similar challenges? its the main purpose. racism is an insidious thing that is going to perceived differently by white people than by poc. there is a power dynamic. it effects how we view one and other, how we view our selfs, our interactions with all kinds of things, with some things obvious to some, others oblivious, contentious. homophobia could be viewed in a similar manner. sexism could. alot of things can with different in groups and out groups. this is not encouraging otherness. that is nonsense. its front and centre. how much of these things are central to your identity effects how much othering you may feel. but it will have an effect.

where i live, who my friends are, who my lovers are, how i speak, how i am viewed by others, where i spend leisure time, what do due in it. this are all effected for me by being gay. things i have consciously and unconsciously changed, been forced to change, or cannot effect. it has brought joy and misery at different times whilst time has not lessened the angst and unease that has come froms years of internalised homophobia, actual phyiscal and verbal assaults on my person, and the casual homophobia endemic in some strata of society, in media, and in places i encountered. i do not encourage otherness by recognising that i am not part of straight society to any significant degree. my experiences are neither unique nor in alignment with all, or even most gay people either. but there are commonalities that are broadly similar for of folk. why should i not seek the company of those that are like me? seek solace them. draw strength. take advice and offer it to people who are like me. not judging or attacking me for simply existing?

should i not discuss things with this group things that others would not understand, would be critical of, attack me for? would it be better to discuss these things i am not comfortable discussing with a group that makes me uncomfortable?

i have said nothing about not discussing anything anywhere else. i have said nothing about self segregation except to say it is not advised. the course of normal human discourse would continue long side this one thing that help take the edge of a situation and allow discussion of things that would otherwise go undiscussed openly, honestly, or at all.

these all seems like uncontroversial and obvious things to me. it seems strange that i need explain at all that things central ones being, like race or sexuality, on their own or combined with things like racism and homophobia, shifts different one groups perspective of things that puts me in one camp more than the other. that the other has been antagonistic and continues to exert negative influence in many ways. i am not creating division if i recognise that it exists. i do not fix that division if i ignore it. it is idiotic to pretend there no fundamental differences between people and between groups. that we all are human in the end doesnt magically resolve any issues or make them any easier. what i am i meant to 'suck up' here? AMassiveGay (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously safe spaces are okay and bigots should be banned on sight, but it's unhealthy to not have open discourse on many topics, circle-jerks are bad for a reason. There's a reason the term "devil's advocate" exists. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"it's unhealthy to not have open discourse on many topics"

What's most unhealthy about this thing is young black people growing up being taught that only avoiding white people they can be their "authentic selves", otherwise they will always being subject to "white dominance". This is the way one builds a racially divided generation. It's similar to those religion groups and cults who teach that only in their community life is safe, in order to isolate their members from the rest of society. It reminds me of this Vice video

Thinker^(unlicensed) 10:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So to clarify do people want to stop everybody from spending time away from the social consensus and general population (no gatherings for muslims, punks, socialists, board gamers, Jewish people, gay people, or a million other groups), or is there some reason this applies particularly to black people? --Annanoon (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

in a word - no. the blog author expressed feeling uncomfortable amongst white folk. felt exposed and vulnerable, and constrained. this led this person desiring a space accessible only to those of similar background to be able get things right in their own heads and explore issues of how much of their identity was a reaction to the constraining environment and negative emotions they have with white folk. this amounted to setting up a space for meditation and felt it would not be effective in their aims if white folk were present and thus not able to be free and open about these issues, about racism, and could result in a needless confrontation. that was it. its in the link above should anyone care or bother to see for themselves, and maybe they should because there was nothing there about shutting yourself from the world. there was nothing there that suggests an echo chamber of any sort or that they would no longer hear differing opinions from different backgrounds and there was absolute fuck all of anything that ut has just suggested, any kind of seperatist intent racial or otherwise, nothing cultlike. it was vaguely new agey in its vagueness. just desire to find some place to consider how race, racism, and identity effected them, a person of colour, free the baggage of there daily lives.

jesus fuck it wasnt that difficult. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What I don't agree with is when racist trolls whose posts are entirely related to criticising non white people, non straight people, non-men and non-rapey people (or underhandedly obsessively criticizing them in a concernfull way) think that the only way they can be real trolls is by hanging out only with other racist trolls whose posts criticize non-whites non-straights and non-men cause if they don't do that, then the social justice warrior brigade will jump all over them and make them slightly less transparantly gross people! ShabiDOO 14:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"So to clarify do people want to stop everybody from spending time away from the social consensus and general population (no gatherings for muslims, punks, socialists, board gamers, Jewish people, gay people, or a million other groups)"

@Annanoon Of course not. I'm sure nobody here wants to stop people to create their own circles where only people of category X are allowed to enter. They are free to do so. What many users are saying is how bad this idea and its motivations are.

"the blog author expressed feeling uncomfortable amongst white folk."

@AMassiveGay Which is immediately problematic. Anybody who feels uncomfortable having around people of a certain race has some serious issues.

"there was absolute fuck all of anything that ut has just suggested"

I wrote: "What's most unhealthy about this thing is young black people growing up being taught that only avoiding white people they can be their "authentic selves", otherwise they will always being subject to "white dominance"" and indeed in the article it is written: "We need spaces where we can be our authentic selves without white people’s judgment and insecurity muzzling that expression", "In integrated spaces, patterns of white dominance are inevitable." But no, there was "absolute fuck all of anything" I wrote in the article... Thinker^(unlicensed) 14:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

yes. absolutely fuck all. because context matters. is a problem that someone is uncomfortable around white people? undoubtedly. the blog writer would agree. thats why they wanted to do something about it. you'd have to wonder would make them so uncomfortable. we dont have to wonder though, they give an explanation. racism. inherent and pervasive. unthinking and deliberate. a history of slavery, of oppression, both historical and present. it has an effect on people. it is different for the those from the oppressors group to those from the oppressed. everything is framed in that context. significant events that occur do not have the same the resonance or visibility that they do for POCs. it limits their reactions and responses to events that they would identify as racist when in a predominantly white environment, white ignorance of the event, or confusion as why its a problem, or outright hostile and defensive responses stifles adequate discussion. its done unthinkingly, usually, or at times deliberately by a group that does not share the touchstones and shared experiences of those from the oppressed group. it stifles responses. it effects a reaction in people of colour. that they are being watched, controlled, contained. issues are not addressed, problems raised, systemic issues, or the effects ones words can have when you are oblivious to struggles of those outside your group is greeted with disbelief and defensiveness 'your just overly sensitive. i'm not racist'. everything that is done a reaction to this negative stimuli, this inhibiting environment, that someone may no longer notice when they are checking themselves. you would doubt yourself. doubt your entire identity as nothing more than a construct of oppression by a group that still oppresses today.

thats the context. thats the white dominance. of its inevitability in this environment, and of a search for authentic identity. you cannot examine this, how and what effects it having on you and others like you from within that environment. any space set aside for this task does not achieve this by recreating that environment. that means, in this instance, white folk should give some space, to allow this to happen. their presence would be disruptive on these specific issues. there are other forums if you feel you can contribute. that would be welcomed. this is not separatism. it not segregation. it should not lead to these things. thats what happens from intransigence of white folk. from continued racism. its what happens when people of colour are not even allowed to address these things on their own terms, without the discussion being controlled by white people. then that will be the message black youth will be taught. its a message you made. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"is a problem that someone is uncomfortable around white people? undoubtedly. the blog writer would agree. thats why they wanted to do something about it. you'd have to wonder would make them so uncomfortable. we dont have to wonder though, they give an explanation. racism. inherent and pervasive. unthinking and deliberate. a history of slavery, of oppression, both historical and present."

@AMassiveGay A black person feeling uncomfortable around any group of white people because some white people are racist toward blacks- is not different from a white person feeling uncomfortable around any group of black people because some blacks are criminals. Both are making a massive generalization based only on people races, both are racist. You can try to twist it as much as you want but no more "context" changes this situation.

People of the same race gathering together to discuss their common problems is not an issue, but as soon as they start putting "no race X allowed" signs they have cross the line of racism. They are free to do that, but that's a very bad idea that does nothing but creates racial division. Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

i dont have to add context, twist anything, or even change the situation. i merely look at what was writen about racism. see how pervasive. how insidious. i can see how its evils are not divided equally. i can see some groups massively more harmed than others. are imprisoned, murdered by police, slandered, sidelined, disadvantaged in everyway. i see one group bears alot more responsibility for this. and it is so endemic in society, so thoroughly ingrained that responsibility lies in all of this group. that silence, equivocation, justifications and rationalisation of unjustifiable evils that reinforce and spread so completely a thing that in reality there is no situation in any place is free of its poison.

you cannot say discomfort experienced by a black person around white folk due to an all pervasive racism in society that not merely silence but anything less than actively confronting it makes us in some part culpable, is comparable to racism of a white person uncomfortable around black folk because of a racist stereotype of black equals criminal. you cannot say there is no difference between these instances. you would need to ignore everything here and everywhere that has been said by me and everyone else who is not blind or liar. you cannot say you are concerned about racial divisions that might be caused by something so insignificant and clearly and unambiguously for a stated purpose that is reasonable enough that you would require an inhumanly thin skin to take issue with it while being so blind that darkness would be total. as if any of these concerns were genuine. we have the same knee jerk over reactions, the same equivocations, rationalizations, the same exaggerations, and of course the same wilful ignorance.

its funny. your response from the outset was precisely the kind of idiocy that was wished to avoid.AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

People already naturally segregate into tribes. Already much social activities are segregated into "person of tribe space" (one only has to attend a diverse popular music calendar to see this). Much of the problem with "racism" is tribal power related, when one tribe dominates the power structure to their advantage. (In America, it is European based caucasians that tend to have a lot of the power. This is not the case worldwide, and we can go case by case on the various tribalism that happens in various societies.) Diversity in general is a good thing to strive for, as you get to experience a lot of different perspectives and viewpoints of the world. Many humans strongly resist diversity, even those on the non-power wielding tribe end, as this article proves quite nicely. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No matter how you slice it, all it is is an attempt to rationalize separation.Machina (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"i merely look at what was writen about racism. see how pervasive. how insidious. i can see how its evils are not divided equally. i can see some groups massively more harmed than others. are imprisoned, murdered by police, slandered, sidelined, disadvantaged in everyway. i see one group bears alot more responsibility for this. and it is so endemic in society, so thoroughly ingrained that responsibility lies in all of this group."

@AMassiveGay} Wow... at the end you did it: you accused all white people of being responsible of racist imprisonment, murders, slanders... The white man who is not racist and whose family moved to US a century after the end of slavery: responsible. The white lady married with a black man: responsible. The white social worker who protects minorities: responsible. The baby who is just born and happens to be white: responsible.

You're racist, man. Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

we have that in common then dont we (if we ignore the context and degree and the reasons for what was being said) AMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Nope. I never accused an entire race of being responsible of something, you did. It's curious that you replied with only one sentence, after some very long posts. Are you afraid of being catch saying other racists things while trying to put your previous claims in "context"? Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@UnlicensedThinker This such a copout. That single "gotcha, I'm out!" moment is so pointless. You can't just be like "you're racist too, haHA! Racism is par, discussion is moot!" and dance away like nothing happened. I mean, you can. But with all this talk about context and safe space and ownership, I think there's a point missing. Black people were told they had a defined space for years and years and years in America. White people told them what space was theirs, and what space was not theirs. Black people have been relegated by law to certain spaces, just because Jim Crow ain't a thing doesn't mean anybody has got up and out of the trap in a meaningful way. The culture and context of these spaces belongs to the people who lived there, grew up there, learned how to live there. Somebody from a place that their parents/grandparents were told they HAVE to live in wants ownership of it, some people don't really want to share them indiscriminately, some people want black ownership of the places white people told them they had to stay in. So what if some dude wants ownership of his culture? I really can't argue against that. Ever been to a gay club? You don't have to be gay, but they'll take you in as one of their own and not sexually harass you if you're not a dick about it, and they'll eventually tell you why they don't go to other bars even if you never ask them. Not every single one of them, but the community will have your back if you're honest. Mostly, it's because drunk dudes will harass them. They just want you to know, my dude. People naturally segregate, sure, but you'd be surprised how easy it is to step into somebody else's clique if you just say hi and have a good sense of humor. And you'd be ignorant if you thought segregation was about anything other than class. And you'd be ignorant if you thought class wasn't constructed from the top down. A major confounding factor in class in America is the fact that non-whites were considered second-class citizens for years, and effectively still are, because the people in power never actually gave them the space they were/still are confined to. Out gays still are second class. Out athiests still are second class. People perceived as Mexican or Muslim or Chinese still are second class, regardless of what their history actually is. You can't just expect saying "this is reverse racism" to afford you anything, because everybody else is gonna be like "Oh, Boo-Hoo for you." If you disagree with a person, you gotta figure out what the complaint is first. And even if you have a million correct things to say, stop for a second and listen, cause you might be jocking yourself and not answering to the complaint. I'm saying this because I have heard the things you have to say about black people who talk about wanting some space being literally against all white people (not a quote, emphasis mine) a million times. It's bumming me out, get some perspective. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"You can't just be like "you're racist too, haHA! Racism is par, discussion is moot!" and dance away like nothing happened."

@Gol Sarnitt Indeed that's not my main argument, that's just my reply to the late AMassiveGay's posts. I already made my main argument against the article linked at the beginning of this thread.

"Ever been to a gay club? You don't have to be gay, but they'll take you in as one of their own and not sexually harass you if you're not a dick about it"

Of course, but that's not what the author of the article propose. In the analogy, she would ban non-gay people at the entrance, she said: "In integrated spaces, patterns of white dominance are inevitable. These patterns include things like being legitimized for using academic language, an expectation of “getting it right” (i.e., perfectionism), fear of open conflict, scapegoating those who cause discomfort, and a sense of urgency that takes precedence over inclusion. These patterns happen even when white people are doing the work of examining their privilege. They can happen even when facilitators design and model more inclusive ways of being together." Thinker^(unlicensed) 06:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

you misrepresent every comment and everything you respond to. why craft a long and detailed for you to further misrepresent? why even pretend you are not a dishonest sack of shit? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is in response to me, but it might as well be. I dunno, I feel a certain way, and I see others as having the capacity to feel a certain way. It is dumb, in my opinion, to equate value as truth, and I see a lot of that going on here. I'm not upset with you championing your truth, but it is a little dumb to get swept up in the argument instead of championing your truth. I am just as guilty of crafting a long and detailed argument as anybody, while also disagreeing with you to a point. The fight is tiresome, complicated, and maybe pointless. But it doesn't help anybody to give up and shrug your own point off. The ability to see other peoples' points is new. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I now have a point to answer to, fuck me, way to go me. Alright, first off, racism is weird and confusing and hard. It is difficult. I successfully made the most racist joke I could think of about a week ago. "I can't be racist, I don't even see skin color. I don't even have to see the person, I can judge race based off a person's actions alone." If it doesn't land with you, you're fine, it shouldn't land with anybody. It's a deconstruction of two arguments, that a person's value is based on their actions, and that there is a racial tendency towards behavior, placed in a lens of the ignorant statement "Well, I'm not racist." It is none of these things, but when you mash them up and say "I can tell a person's race based on their actions" you get the worst of all worlds. Which is why it's a joke, which is why it hurts when people say "hell yeah, that's real right there!" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

More details on the illusion of consciousness

https://www.susanblackmore.uk/articles/is-the-richness-of-our-visual-world-an-illusion-trans-saccadic-memory-for-complex-scenes/

This is more information about her view on the “illusion” of consciousness. I wanted to start a new thread since the old one seemed to get rather long and didn’t want people to get lost. For what I saw she seems to have similar points to Daniel DennetMachina (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The question then is - if consciousness is an illusion, what 'thing or collection of misfiring neurons etc' exactly is having the illusion.

How does the illusion of consciousness interact with the concept of the false consciousness? Or copyright for that matter? Anna Livia (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I was giving philosophy the benefit of a doubt, but the more I read about this consciousness illusion confusion here, the more I agree with Stephen Hawking that Philosophy is dead as it can't keep up with modern science --Imaginative username (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking took that comment back (to some degree) and for good reason. Philosophy and science barely overlap in many sub-fields. Quite a lot of academic research/criticism into religion in support of atheism is done in philosophy departments. One of the most sought after graduates from universities are those who studied bioethics and ethics of artificial intelligence. AI itself is an important sub-field in philosophy along with consciousness. It is a highly interdisciplinary topic and philosophers who have also studied biology/psychology/etc aren't just pontificating about the brain. Their theories are consulted by non-philosophers studying consciousness. Other topics I find pretty important are criticism of postmodernism, logic (still very relevant), critical thinking skills (think the fallacies a topic rational wiki has tons of articles about) philosophy on the open society and for me the most important of all is the philosophy of verifiable knowledge. Philosophers who are still quoted a few decades later in multiple fields outside of philosophy include Dennett and Sam Harris (consciousness/free-will) but also Karl Popper (verifiable knowledge), John Rawls (society), Ryamond Tallis (neurosurgeon/philosoper), Paul Boghossian (anti-post-modernism) and Julian Savescu (bioethics) to name but a few of the more recognizable ones. Yes, continental philosophy is an experiment gone very wrong, but most philosophy in the Anglo-Saxon world (though not all) is of the useful analytical tradition. It is extremely sad reading this philosophy is dead mantra. ShabiDOO 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is always for the sake of drama that we speak of illusions. The misapprehension that we are simultaneously aware of activity around ourselves as it is happening in real time could be called an impression rather than an illusion. That impression is inaccurate as some discrepancies can be demonstrated. But the brain produces a very good approximation of the world in real time. What can I say, it's great hardware. The discrepancies are hardly an inconvenience. This is a case of making something very obvious seem more significant than it actually is. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sam Harris doesn’t count as a philosopher and I was mostly referring to what the article was saying to be honest.Machina (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And, in one sentence, what do you think the article is saying?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sam Harris has a philosophy degree from Stanford. His most read book (The end of Faith) is an extension of his philosophy thesis. His works about religion/atheism are totally rooted in the philosophy of religion. His works on scientific knowledge and morality are firmly in the language of the philosophy of science and modern ethics. His books are available and read in philosophy libraries, he calls himself a philosopher, he is invited to and participates in philosophy seminars and his work on free will, atheism and modern morality are discussed or even the very topic of philosophy courses. The fact that he has a PhD in neuroscience is celebrated as philosophy departments are starving for researchers who have strong interdisciplinary skills. It's utterly hilarious how many people love the highly philosophical books Breaking the Spell and The End of Faith and Harris's Free Will or books by Hitchens and Dawkins which liberally borrow philosophical analysis on religion... and then in the same breath say Philosophy is Dead. Consider not callously using a phrase like "Philsophy is dead" if you don't mean it because all it does is spread even more ignorance about philosophy mostly by people seriously ignorant about philosophy. 00:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

He's actually the butt of most remarks about being a philosopher since his books have been known for being bad. He is also a self proclaimed neurologist, not a real one.Machina (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A seminar on his philosophy of religion is offered at several highly respected philosophy institutes including where I studied and Harris has a PhD in Neuroscience. He is called a philosopher by multiple respected philosophers. How are you coming up with this stuff? I'm not even sure what you are trying to defend anymore. ShabiDOO 06:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything Sam Harris has to say, but I still respect him. When he started monetizing his rational Islamaphobia I started to like him less. That doesn't mean all his ideas are bad or his credentials are worth nothing. That's confirmation bias. I would love to talk to Sam Harris about anything but Islam. Problem is, the exact opposite was true for media for a long time. His problem/solution with Noam Chomsky not wanting to debate him was also embarrassing. Sam Harris is a good thinker, but he steps outside of his study frequently like he is the boss of whatever he is talking about. It's like when creationists cite an engineer as a credible source against evolution. In the end, Sam Harris is pigeon-holed into propagandizing himself. It's like Joe Rogan. If Joe Rogan is talking about MMA or smoking pot, I trust him. Any time he's getting into neuroscience or quantum physics, or more broadly sociology, he's full blast confirmation biasing, and that's when you know it's time to put your own critical thinking hat on. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Dumbest thing someone's said?

The other day I was at school, and I mentioned the "night water" meme. This one guy didn't get it, and asked if I was talking about tap water. When I responded yes, he said, in this snarky tone, that he ONLY drinks Fiji brand water. I wanted to punch him. What's the most staggeringly dumb thing you've heard? An ordinary human man (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Everything happens for a reason" ties with "God doesn't give you more than you can handle". Semipenultimate (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Use night water on your night soil to grow deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna) for a peaceful night's sleep. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Sea salt is more healthy that ionized salt because the protons in the ocean are more pure." MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts, but I went to school with a highly eccentric mathematician. We were walking in a cobblestoned area of a certain English university town at night, and he said, "This reminds me of the time of Jack the Ripper." CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) 01:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Turning a blind eye to crimes

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

Caution: SEALION ahead!

New York Times: Was I Right to Call the Cops on a Black Man Breaking Into a Car?

"Break-ins are fairly common in my neighborhood, and this isn’t the first time that I’ve witnessed what appeared to be a theft and called the police. It was, however, the first time I was certain the suspicious person was a black man. I immediately felt a pang of guilt for calling the police and haven’t been able to stop thinking about it, given the tragic way things too often end between police and people of color. I feel an obligation to my family and my neighbors to report crimes. But I’d rather have my car broken into than have a person’s life ruined by my 911 call. And honestly, I don’t even know if it’s a crime to open someone’s unlocked vehicle."

Of course entering a vehicle with the intent to steal constitutes a crime, whether the door is unlocked or not, and reporting such behavior is an act of civic responsibility. That being a black man makes more likely that interactions with the police will turn unpleasant doesn't mean that interactions between the police and black men are always mishandled. The right response is not to turn a blind eye to crimes, but to get involved in campaigns to reform policing and prosecution. Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

God fucking dammit. How about instead of calling the police you ask the person if they need help. If they get spooked, they'll probably run away. If they explain the situation, it's probably benign. Stop calling the cops on black people. The police are shit at interacting with the general public, and don't handle interactions with people of color especially. No one else post anything, there is no need to further discuss this. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I was one of the few people supporting you when you were first here. You have lost that good will, concern troll. Commie Lib (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"How about instead of calling the police you ask the person if they need help."

@RipCityLiberal Getting involved in a possible crime is a really bad idea...

"If they get spooked, they'll probably run away."

Or they attack you, who knows. And a thief running away is not a good thing anyway.

"If they explain the situation, it's probably benign."

They can explain the situation to the police too.

"Stop calling the cops on black people."

They lady called the police because she witnessed a possible theft, not because the suspect was black.

"The police are shit at interacting with the general public,"

The police are better at interacting with the general public than random citizen. Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What is UT's point

@UnlicensedThinkerWHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO HERE? What is the point of these posts? Commie Lib (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't say for certain about everything else, but this one seemed to be a sort of "gotcha" attempt to try to prove that Saloon members are reacting irrationally against him. That's my best guess, anyway, based on the information here. -Mabian (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Is he now directly bitching about hesitation in calling the police on black criminals. Zheesh he isn't even trying anymore with the pretense or concern trolling...I guess he's just graduated to white victimhood and black privelage. Sick. ShabiDOO 02:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ignore him. He does this all the time. The concern trolling and shit is getting old. Don’t feed his ego or whatever LurkingGnome (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual, UT is saying, "Look at these stupid liberals! Aren't they stupid?" Or as we Brits would more usually say, "IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!" UT, if you think you're going to get us to tie ourselves up in ridiculous knots trying to defend any statement just because it was made by a woman, an LGBTQ person, a member of an ethnic minority or someone on the political left, then I've got news for you. That ain't gonna happen. Maybe you think you can get us to fight among ourselves by getting some of us to say, "Yes, that is political correctness gone mad", and others to say, "No, it isn't, you fascist!" Well, that's not gonna happen either.

You know what UT, far from being the biggest threat this wiki's ever faced, I don't even think you're the most irritating user here at the moment. Hell, in my opinion, you're not even the most irritating person to have edited this page in the past 24 hours. Spud (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"What is the point of these posts?"

@Tabula Rasa Many of the posts in the Saloon Bar are about commenting on people irrational behaviors. In my opinion, being so worry that every cop is a racist to the point of not calling the police when witnessing a crime, because the suspect is black, is irrational and dangerous. And why are some people so worry? Because the watch the news, where cases of racist police are reported, and they make the erroneous generalization that all cops are racist. Completely similar to how other people watch the news, where cases of black criminality are reported, and they make the erroneous generalization that all blacks are criminals. I read that article on the NYT and I agreed with the given response, so that I reported it almost literally.

"As usual, UT is saying, "Look at these stupid liberals! Aren't they stupid?""

@Spud I never said something about liberals. The lady who asked the question did not say if she is liberal, and she is from Missouri, not exactly a liberal state... Also, I agree with the response of the NYT, which is quite liberal (I mean, both the response and the journal), so what you are saying doens't make any sense.

"if you think you're going to get us to tie ourselves up in ridiculous knots trying to defend any statement just because it was made by a woman, an LGBTQ person, a member of an ethnic minority or someone on the political left, then I've got news for you. That ain't gonna happen."

It's not my intention, but it has happened already uncountable times, so I don't know what kind of Saloon Bar are you reading.Thinker^(unlicensed) 08:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

So your objective is "commenting on people(s) irrational behaviors". I get it, this is Rationalwiki. But all the people you've called attention to so far are women, LGBTQ, minorities, liberals, leftists, progressives, socialists, etc. - basically anybody but white conservative men. Millennium Scallion (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Millennium Scallion Are there some quotas about groups of people to comment on? Many RW users contribute daily by spotting white conservative men irrationality (indeed I could answer back: "why they are not commenting on other people?"). Sincerely I find quite boring busting the religious right, conservapedians, etc... religions are irrational, I got that since I was a child, move on... Similarly for crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists. Since I'm not from US, I'm not particularly entangled in the current conservative topics (mostly immigration and gun laws) so it's natural I don't have much to say about them. I don't even see my post as about the group you mentioned: women? Yes the lady who was worried if calling the police is a woman, so what? It doesn't change a thing if she was a man. LGBT? I commented on Jussie Smollett also because what happened damaged the LGBT community. Minorities? I commented on a failure of the justice system when a young black man was jailed for rape under the most questionable circumstances, but apparently that's bad too... Liberals, leftists, progressives, socialists? I never made political arguments. Thinker^(unlicensed) 15:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker "I never made political arguments."

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool lol lol lol lol lmao lmao lmao lulz lulz hehehehehehehehehehe ROFL ROFL haw haw haw OMG OMG OMG so helarious. ShabiDOO 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

not a word of what ut just posted bears any resemblance to what their commentary has comprised of. ignoring the lines they actually took, how they responded to the lines taken by others, to some of the topics posted. ignored in favour of a summary that is so far from anything near accurate that its a bare faced lie. their every post follows this formula. why keep responding to the prick? DFTT AMassiveGay (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)ping|

To exorcise one's inner masochist/remind oneself of why RW exists? Anna Livia (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up everyone. I was holding out to see if people finally wouldn't respond this time as we had a thousand conversations going nowhere. I'm disappointed in every one of you that engaged beyond warning to ignore and move. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!

The main lesson for people to learn here is that UT will never, ever, ever let someone else have the last word, so there really is no point in continuing to respond. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spud "Hell, in my opinion, you're not even the most irritating person to have edited this page in the past 24 hours." It's me, isn't it? ;) DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Fear not. It most definitely is not you. You're one of my all time favourite users. And it's not any of the other mods either. Although funnily enough, the person I was thinking of has gone on to edit this very sub-section in the past 24 hours. Spud (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I fucking told ya'll not to engage. RipCityLiberal (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So let's look this in its face and decide what it means. In the winter, I have a special device called a "Wintershield Pro" so that I don't have to scrape my windshield or mirrors. It was a gift from my parents. I live in an apartment. During the winter, my parents constantly ask me if my wintershield has been stolen yet. No. It has not, it is a tarp and some elastic. It is so great and so easy to steal. And what if it was stolen? And furthermore, what if my car was stolen? I drive a beater, I have insurance on it, I have enough money to get an Uber or Lyft, I can deal with the loss of a car. There is a mantra I've had since I was a little kid. "If somebody steals something from me, they probably need it more than I do." Property is theft in its own right. This is not to be conflated with my opinion on somebody coercing something out of another person. I do not think this article is written by somebody who wants to say anything about theft or parse out crime and criminality. If that's what you'd like to do, start there. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Liberty University has a doctoral level biology program

https://www.liberty.edu/residential/health-sciences/doctoral/anatomy-and-cell-biology/

I know it is more of an applied Biology PhD but I do wonder how fundie schools are getting graduate level science programs certified? As for medical programs, that is strictly professional and not research based. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ve talked with some people who go there. They told me that some of those classes are strictly that and lack or have extremely little and religious points in them. Though the degrees require religious studies. LurkingGnome (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There's literally a fundie rubber stamp accreditation agency. The spare room in the back of the Billy Graham library is officially a college. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Discord confusion

At this point the discord drama is so spread out on like 7 different talk pages. I would like to gather the entire story together. From what I can gather some toxic people got let in the server. But what I don't get is why we can't just get rid of them? Commie Lib (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I check in there most days and I think I can sum it up quite briefly. Tensions were slowing simmering for a few months with one of the Mods there so a snap election was organised to try and bring about some stability. 7 days after the election results were announced one of the newly elected Co-Owners was accused of transphobia. This triggered a debate that lasted a few hours and the Co-Owner quit whilst there was a poll to oust him. There’s also smaller-scale drama like Oxy getting banned for stuff that took place on a different server. Also the server is largely independent from the Wiki so there’s not really anything that can be done here. —RWRW (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Some Encyclopedia Dramatica person was readded to the discord or something Tinribmancer (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, I wasn’t paying too much attention to that. —RWRW (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Some incredibly toxic people are still allowed on the server, and the reasons to permaban me were a bit suspect. It doesn't help that there are still people libeling me in that server. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 01:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The stated reason for your ban was "racist memes". Is this fabricated or a misunderstanding? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 04:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini There's more nuance here than meets the eye. While on the face of it, it would be true. The truth is that people had been yearning for me to be banned many times, and while I did post those racist memes, they were on a private server. I acknowledge I fucked in in regards to posting them in the first place, but there is a lot more to it than simply "posting racist memes." People ignore that I had been steadily improving my behavior since first joining, they allow other shitposters and toxic assholes to continue to run roughshod all over the place, some of whom have done worse things than what I have ever done, they ignore everything good about me and choose to focus on the mistakes I've made to the point that they're openly libeling me as a "fascist" even though they know that not to be the case. I agree that banning me was the correct choice, but permabanning me is simply unfair given the severity of my offenses, all the other things that need to be taken into account, and the fact that toxic assholes are still allowed to run around doing the same exact shit I did and not get any comeuppance. This whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and double standards tbh. I would delve into specifics but they are willing to post screenshots of some questionable things I have said and posted taken out of context, in short they're willing to obfuscate and exaggerate for their agenda. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 04:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dysklyver is willing to explain more. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 04:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest, I haven't always exercised the best judgement myself. (I spent a big chunk of 2017 floating around in the Ben Shapiro—National Review circles.) Hopefully I didn't come off as sounding accusing. I was just wondering what was going on. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 04:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to start from scratch. The old one can be unofficial. We really don't need such a toxic place bearing the mark of officiality from the RationalMedia Foundation, @DuceMoosolini. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 05:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You do know that most people from the old one will flock over to the new one, right? Tinribmancer (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Could have it more of a closed-invitation sort of thing. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hilariously the drama in the main Discord has ceased entirely at this point and everybody is getting on swimmingly. — Dysk (contribs) 20:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Eh, "Main Discord"? Did Oxy already make that new discord channel, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Another YouTuber falls

ProJared of NormalBoots (the organization that gave us JonTron) has recently been outed as a pedophile (soliciting nude pics from 16 year old fans) and has cheated on his wife. Yeah, yeah, this is YouTube drama, but I figured it's worth sharing. I'm dismayed ProJared is capable of such terrible crap and I won't be watching his videos. He's dead to me, as with JonTron and Channel awesome (somewhat). I'm hoping other YouTubers I like like Jim Sterling, Angry Joe, PeanutButterGamer, BadComedian, and AVGN don't turn out horrible in the future. Geez. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, I really hope the AVGN doesn't turn out to be an asshole. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 05:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nor Linkara. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 05:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've felt for a long time that this past decade's boom of YouTubers, streamers, Instagram influencers, and SoundCloud rappers, and the entire economy and ecosystem of media that's grown up around it, is heading for a nasty crash, with every scandal feeling like one step closer to that moment. And as far as I see it, the problem runs to the heart of what it means to be an internet celebrity, for three reasons. First, virtually all of them are independent contractors without publicists, agents, lawyers, or other handlers to keep bad behavior under control or at least out of the headlines. Second, the nature of social media means that they are in constant interaction with their fans, which allows those fans to feel that they have a personal connection to their idols in a way that fans of regular celebrities rarely do. Third, and related to both of the aforementioned, the myth of internet stardom is that you got there by yourself without any help from a talent agency, a record company, a publisher, or a film studio pushing your work; no, you're famous because you put yourself out there and then people clicked on your content and liked what you saw. (This may have been true ten years ago, back in the heyday of AVGN and the Channel Awesome crew, but nowadays, I'd venture to guess that algorithms, and the exploitation of such, have more to do with who gets famous than talent.)

Put it all together, and you have a recipe for raging narcissism. You get stars who bask in the adoration of legions of young fans who constantly gush about how "real" and "authentic" they are, and feel that their idols truly care about them because they responded to one of their comments. The resulting cults of personality, combined with the lack of handlers, allow these stars to behave in ways that would end their careers if they were employed in television, film, or pro sports, often doing so because they know they'll get away with it, and their fans will always stand by their side and dismiss all criticism as coming from "the haters" — because for these fans, attacking their idols is like attacking a facet of their own personality. Eventually, of course, the stars' luck runs out and they do something their fans can't just dismiss, like when Austin Jones and ProJared got exposed as sexual predators, when Logan Paul uploaded his infamous Japan videos, when 6ix9ine destroyed all his performative street cred by testifying against his fellow gang members, or when Olivia Jade turned out to have gotten into college on a fraudulent scholarship. KevinR1990 (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"ProJared ... JonTron ... ProJared ... Jim Sterling, Angry Joe, PeanutButterGamer, BadComedian, and AVGN"

I can proudly say that I never heard any of those people. Thinker^(unlicensed) 08:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I know that "everything is a niche" now, but for whatever reason, Youtube stars really haven't seem to broken out of that ecosystem into something that is "general knowledge entertainment" (the kind of thing that most people seem to at least be aware of its existence, like say a Marvel comic film or some of the most popular scripted shows on cable/Netflix). In reference to KevinR1990's comment, I also kind of feel that the career span and volatility of the average "Internet star" career feels a little bit lower than even the typical entertainment worker average (which itself is not too high). Apart from actual signed bands and whatnot, I can think of very few "Internet famous" people from the Myspace days (remember them?) who actually are still "Internet famous" (Jeffree Star and... ??) Soundwave106 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sterling used to work for The Escapist that supported GamerGate, unlike Sterling who was targetted by GG. AVGN has suffered from a depression in the past, which resulted in him trying to commit suicide a few years ago. We have a page about JonTron. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it worse to be a fascist or a pedophile? 184.181.12.187 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

To be frank, it's far worse to be fascist. Pedophilia is a disgusting crime that represents a personal amorality gratifying the self at the expense of those you wield power over. We intuit its incredible amorality because, at a personal level it requires a sociopathic or narcissistic self interest completely outside the bounds of even the most basic human decency. We can't imagine being that person. It reeks of wrongness. Fascism, on the other hand, is a considered and active malevolence for other people. Every bit of its evil is chosen, not just with disregard to others, but active antagonism. In vacuum it's harmless, because fascists are cowards. But the more power and credibility it's fed, the most disgusting and barbaric the reality of it becomes. Mass murder, systemic genocide, complete suppression of human rights(except for the in group). And it makes these choices not just disregarding the harm it causes, but seeking it as a way of cementing its own position. The difference is you can imagine a pedophile as a broken human being. Someone who merely lacks a conscience. But a fascist's evil is elective, not merely rationalized. Put one in jail, and the other in the ground. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I think the former needs psychological help not jail. Commie Lib (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

why would we even have to decide in the first place? does one preclude the other or can we only deal with one? i've got plenty of contempt to go around. i doubt that either would suffer a crushing blow if a no mark like me rated one worse than the other. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Fascist or a pedophile" Why not both? In all seriousness, it's somewhat interesting that several fascists and reactionaries are libertarians in that one, very specific case. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems he lost alot of subs in two days already: https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/dmjared Tinribmancer (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't he liable to legal penalties? I can't imagine YouTube wanting to keep an underage sex offender on their platforms. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Wait... This guy was here expressing those views for months? Was everyone here eating lead paint? Commie Lib (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa What guy? — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 23:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think ProJared was expressing those views... he just came out as an asshole. On the other hand, I want JonTron to just have symptoms of lead paint poisoning rather than be influenced by Cargon of Sakkad (worse than lead paint), but... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Being a twat, a cunt or just being annoying on youtube, gains you subscribers. JonTron is gaining subs, instead of losing them. Kjellberg has 95,5 Mil now(even though his account has an algorhythm problem). Shitcon of Asshat has almost 1 mil subs (he did lose 58 subscribers on the 5th for some reason). Tinribmancer (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

KevinR1990: to be fair, I don't see how scandals surrounding celebrities are entirely new? I think this seeming amount of YouTube stars falling victim to scandals is just confirmation bias; scandals generate clicks after all. DuceMoosolini: AVGN has been married for many years now and no scandals. He seems fine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tabula Rasa I didn't actually know Tisane, but I know about him. So far as I can tell, this was back when RW was more fanatically committed to allowing almost any ideology free rein on the site. After he was banned, his essays got deleted for obvious reasons, and I think there was a WIGO about how he ran for a Congressional seat. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Here, under May 2018. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

When I told my oldest brother about this, which by the way, he was a subscriber I could tell he was pissed before he said anything. After that he unsubscribed. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Another request for help on that biogeography draft

Can someone please find a non-copyrighted photograph or two of Parasitaxus usta and inform me about it so I can use it to illustrate the biogeography draft? I looked on Wikimedia Commons, couldn't find any, and haven't been able to find any anywhere else either. Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Summa Atheologica I really don't think that the draft needs any more images that it has at this point. It arguably has too many for the amount of text that is there. I do think that it is ready for mainspace though. Also, consider using a gallery at the bottom of the page such is done on the Eye page Gallery for the more peripheral images. Bongolian (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Doxing drama?

Say @Spud, what's happening here? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer Just look in the fossil record for this page. The earlier version, complete with the external link, is still there.Spud (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It's Mikemikev. He's been spamming a link to a VDARE article on dozens of IPs/accounts in last week. I opened up his talk page on his article so he could have a sensible discussion for 24 hours. Instead he declined and creates more troll socks. He's literally insane and I won't be giving him another chance. He's back to being blocked on sight again.Tobias (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Who are the Smith Brothers? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory promoted by the troll Abd Lomax whose written thousands of words about it on his crazy blog and its now copied by white nationalists/alt-righters on VDARE without fact-checking e.g. Abd claims User:John66 is a Smith brother despite that individual isn't who Lomax claims he is. No evidence is ever presented yet Lomax has managed to spread all this nonsense on multiple websites, albeit fringe sites only far-right nutjobs visit. Mikemikev is also a proponent of the Smith brother conspiracy theory. When I confront these people and ask them to provide evidence they never do and just hurl abuse at me. There's not one piece of evidence on Abd's blog.Tobias (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can these people be given a RW mirror site of their very own to 'play around with'? Anna Livia (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia That was tried and ended very badly. — Dysk (contribs) 19:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

UDUMASS

George Clooney's Climate Change PSA:

Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

DB Cooper: new insights

Citizen Sleuths - this is a band of citizen scientists whom using advanced spectroscopic techniques were able to identify titanium particles in Cooper's tie, titanium was very rare at the time and is only used in select industries, this suggests that Cooper worked at a metal manufacturing plant, and this narrows down the potential suspect range from millions to hundreds. The clue to Cooper's identity could be with one specific person found somewhere in the Pacific Northwest, anyone with potential leads is advised to contact Citizen Sleuths. That being said, I think the detective work done here is remarkable, and shows what a fresh perspective can bring in cracking old mysteries. Simply amazing. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 21:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It's great how new tech and crowdsourcing are being applied to cold cases. This one's not as successful but still showed some progress, from Norway: https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/do-you-remember-this-woman_-1.13215629 Also interesting is the use of genealogical DNA databases for forensic purposes, such as how they caught the man alleged to be the Golden State Killer. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) 04:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@CogitoNotStirred It is indeed, they're even expecting results for the Zodiac Killer soon. This is revolutionary. Also sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end of your messages so it links to your talk and user pages. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 09:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. OxGoat got it, Doc! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The woman who invented Mother's Day came to hate it

* dons Mod Hat * 

UnlicensedThinker : That collapsed section stays collapsed, understand? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism and Loneliness

I'm not really sure how Buddhism helps deal with feelings like this. The responses I get range from:

"The cause are mental fabrications that fabricate loneliness. Stop fabricating mental fabrications that fabricate loneliness. In your case, if you're using social media to ease loneliness, it's like postponing the resolution of suffering to a latter date. Instead of focusing on the cause of your loneliness, you're focusing on social media. You think you need social media to ease loneliness. In reality you most probably don't need social media ... you just need to get rid of loneliness. Once you'll get rid of loneliness, you'll probably stop spending time on social media.

What you're experiencing is normal suffering due to loneliness. Psychologists will tell you it's normal as long as it does not interfere negatively on your physical or mental health. Most people do something to ease feelings of loneliness (make new friends, read, do sports, watch TV, ..). But that's not curing loneliness. It's like having a disease and alleviating its symptoms. This is no different than being depressive and drinking alcohol to ease the depression. Off course it's not dysfunctional as drinking alcohol, but the mechanism is the same: you suffer, and instead of resolving your main problems which are the cause of your suffering, you're postponing their resolution to a later date."

To this: https://tricycle.org/magazine/at-home-with-yourself/

Or this: https://www.lionsroar.com/six-kinds-of-loneliness/

It's like it's either a disease or some aspect of our being. The tricycle one is the only one with a bit of kindness that offers some aid.Machina (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to wrap my head around what is being said. If you are looking for answer why you feel lonely that is a tough one. From my personal experience loneliness comes differently for everyone (along with depression and anxiety). Some people find it easy to overcome by making friends (extroverts fall in this easily) and some people have to dig to find a way to overcome (introverts). Chatting over social media,games, and other indirect means aren’t a healthy connection and usually fail to stimulate the part of your brain as having a personal connection. Hobbies outside away from your comfort zone (fishing, exersising, sitting at a park and reading) will help (albeit will feel uncomfortable) with some of depression/anxiety (bonus with someone you know). I personally am terrible making friends but I love animals so I started volunteering at an animal shelter. Dogs are nature’s antidepressants for me and it acts as a substitute for “lots of friends” as well as I met new people who are interested in animals. (Empathetic people generally get along regardless how akward they are).

- sorry for the rambling though LurkingGnome (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Well I meant how Buddhism oscillates from what I see from blaming you for it to offering a solution.Machina (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder: How do faith healers sleep at night knowing that they take advantage of those with terminal illness?

If somebody had say, cancer and all types of treatment failed but a faith healer comes along to give false hope. The faith healer says some church words and charges the victim several thousand dollars. The victim gets false hope and the faith healer gets loads of cash.

Seriously, how the Hell does a faith healer sleep at night? It just pisses me off that they get away with con artistry. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is assuming faith healers have something called a conscience. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 01:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have the charisma for it, it's probably way easier to be a bullshit-peddler than it is to get a real job. And I bet they sleep just as happily as Trump Republicans, Big Pharma price-gougers, and CCP officials do. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There could be some out there who are out there who are actually empathic and want to help and most assuredly there are those out there pretending to care, lacking empathy who are out for themselves. Either way they’re getting a false hope. I can understand an I’ll persons desperation to try to understand something beyond their own knowledge but ya it’s still a con LurkingGnome (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"There could be some out there who are out there who are" out there who are out there who are— *Brain explodes* DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If Hell exists, then there must be a special place for faith healers. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently people tell me I`m charismatic, and I know I can preach the word of Jesus with the best of em.... — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 02:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Money. Having fuck tons of money goes long way toward soothing one's conscience. I can actually go into how a normally decent person can internally justify immoral deeds via wealth, it's not pretty. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Do it. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 03:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

First they get a taste of wealth, the things they can purchase, etc. Then they start justifying their actions to themselves, "I'm helping them" "It's for the greater good" "What's the harm?" Then once they've begun the first cycle of justification they continue, spiraling further and further until they begin to fear for all they've gained, until that fear is what they focus on when guilt hits. Then they simply distract themselves until the guilt goes away. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

is it not possible that faith healers actually believe they are doing good? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Here in Totnes (a town that deserves an article here) there are lots of them, and a large proportion genuinely believe that they are helping people. Avida Dollars^{her again} 13:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"On a giant pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful women." -Mcbain. An ordinary human man (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Motivated reasoning is very powerful. Some of them have fooled themselves into thinking that they actually have special abilities. Some of them think they maybe have some sort of healing ability, but it's not entirely reliable or particularly showy, so they add a showy element, because that's what people want and expect. Some of them think that the "healing" part of "faith healing" is less important than the "faith" part - your immortal soul is infinitely more important than the transient concerns of the flesh. Some of them think that regardless of whether the physical healing literally happens, they are at least giving hope and comfort to people in desperate need of it. Most faith healers probably justify their actions through some combination of the above. And, of course, some are just terrible people.66.57.238.234 (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

news coverage of rationalwiki

are any peeps here aware of news coverage focused on rationalwiki? substantial coverage would be better EK (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

News articles often use RW as a source, but other than that, and American Thinker of course, I can't find anything, @EK. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 10:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ye EK (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting how the media finds RW a credible source, but when it comes to actually reporting on the wiki itself it's a fucking desert. Conservapedia has long since stopped being relevant, and RW is far more notable now than it was back then, and yet the media has articles on Conservapedia but not RW. Weird — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 10:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that the Wikipedia article about RationalWiki has been nominated for deletion again for not being notable. Apparently, all of he references that aren't links to RationalWiki just contain very brief references to this site. Spud (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ye and everyone knows about it so peeps like WWW and Mikemikev are voting there already. it is easier to keep an article than remake it tho so any coverage to help keep it r good EK (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

rEdiRECt To coNSerVaPeDia. — Dysk (contribs) 11:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Does David know? He has a moderator position there (and iirc his position is currently being questioned...), I believe. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is not coverage per se, but mentions of us in both scholarly and popular sources: RationalWiki:Mentions. Bongolian (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

[4] I left a message on Morris' talk page. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 19:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh god, he's from CP... Tinribmancer (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

He's the one who reported us to the dreaded Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services a while ago. Avida Dollars^{her again} 13:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Note that the result was "keep." — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

To be precise, the result was "no consensus". But the outcome is the same. It's not going to be deleted this time. It's safe again. For now. Spud (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Adam and Eve

We all know, despite an (of course Fundy) asshole I now of who claims Eve being formed from a rib of Adam is far more believable than evolution, how the Adam & Eve and the Cain & Abel stories mean something very different to what literalists think and were taken from earlier myths -I leave aside theology fiction that considers the Garden of Eden history an allegory of something that happened before the Big Bang and tainted the entire Universe, that is good fodder for a story and shows to be more elaboration than the average Fundy bullshit-.

That said, I've noted if the first story (and better the two) was true we'd see it in a lot of cultures around, especially in those more isolated that have experienced little contact with others (Amazon tribes). Does someone know if AiG-like organizations have done research in that regard, even if them as usual would cherry-pick the cases most suitables for them?. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll just say that God did too...

File:Adam West as Batman.jpg

make Adam...

and Steve. Spud (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Tofu

How accurate is this article on tofu? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:f1a6:119b:c11c:2ee7:6180:4dd5 / talk / contribs}

It is, like everything associated with Dr. Axe, clickbait pseudoscience. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

But can you debunk the claims? Also, what is this guy's agenda? He has something against tofu? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:f1a6:119b:c11c:2ee7:6180:4dd5 / talk / contribs}

You can start by reading the article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If not that, the wiki has articles on GMOs, the soy debate actually is over whether it *decreases* cancer in general (but rule #1 of any food study: take all "food does x" claims based on one scientific study with a grain of salt, as inevitably an opposing study will emerge), same with thyroid studies which seem to go both ways, there is some concern on the cognitive function angle apparently (but see rule #1 -- wouldn't that show up in a much worse statistical rate for dementia for Asia for instance? (Page 20)), I find no sources for the "body can't use soy B12" claim, and most sources lean towards soy being heart healthy. Generally speaking, trust foods that have 2,000 year human consumption history over the opinions of one quack. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Point by point

1. Genetic modification being inherently bad is bullshit and should be treated as bullshit on the face. You can discuss particular gene modifications all day and maybe come to some meaningful conclusion, but if someone says "much of the crops are modified", it's a pre-marker that this person is full of shit. As others have noted, Dr. Axe is broadly full of shit.
2. Phytoestrogens do not cause breast cancer. His source for the entire paragraph was the web MD page on breast cancer. And it mentions soy in the context of women eating it to help address one side effect of the cancer. Your article's author clearly just google searched "soy breast cancer" and took the first link as a citation, even though it says nothing of the sort.
3. His citation for the thyroid thing had a sample size of 8. eight. It found a slightly longer time for infants on vegan formula to recover from a condition vs infants on a dairy-based formula. The sample and control groups had different rates of complications at the start, the amount that can be inferred is almost nothing. The study summary says "no significant different in pre-treatement LSH", but then table 3 shows the experimental set had almost double the average pre-treatment LSH, but it lacked statistical significance, because, again, sample size of fucking 8. It's a useless goddamn study, and if taken as not useless, the clinical guidelines it would generate are something in the neighborhood of "a slightly longer treatment for infants with thyroid disorders on vegan formula please". Trash.
4. There's no such thing as anti-nutrients. That's not a thing.
5. The alzheimers one had a real study attached. this one. It looked specifically at Hawaiians of Japanese descent. And specifically at midlife. And controlled for no other factors. That could be fine, except as this follow up study notes: Tofu consumption is indicative of "traditional japanese diet", correlates negatively with SES, and when tofu consumption is examined in the broader population, no trend whatsoever is detectable with respect to Alzheimer's. (Drink your milk though, that's a strong correlate)
6. This is fairly benign advice that vegetarians and vegans have to work slightly harder to avoid nutritional deficits. I rate this one accidentally true. It's recast to be a magical flaw with eating tofu, which is dumb and stupid. I eat tofu and meat.
7. You can fucking digest tofu. This is dumb. And uncited, so nothing to take apart there.
8. He has one mouse study, that he didn't even correctly fucking cite, he cited a review of the paper not the paper itself, an asinine feat considering the review is behind a paywall, and the paper is public(suggesting that maybe he doesn't even read his sources). Either way, it doesn't really stand up against broad meta-analysis of the effects of typical soy diet in humans.

In short, fuck this guy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw my statement that there's no such thing as an antinutrient. Further investigation shows that it's a real medical descriptor an uptake inhibitor(but specifically for nutrients). I do not wish to mislead anyone. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The Side Effects of Vaccines - How High is the Risk?

I already added it on the page on vaccination the other day, but since it is really well done, and since @Rationalzombie94 has raised the topic, here it is too:

Thinker^(unlicensed) 07:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

so UT, in the past week has-

• Suggested black people shouldn't be entitled to a few exclusive spaces
• Suggested calling the police on black people whenever they look suspicious
• Hated on one of the only holidays dedicated to praising women
• Engaged in pro-plague politics

For his next trick, perhaps Rep. Talib is actually a plant for the Zionist movement. Maybe that scientists have detected a new chemical may correlate with people being gay.

How long are ya'll gonna tolerate this fuck. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

When I first saw this video I almost unsubbed from Kurzgesagt but I was pleasantly surprised. Commie Lib (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"*Engaged in pro-plague politics"

LOL. Maybe watching the video before commenting could be a good idea. Anyway, Kurzgesagt has one of the best material. Probably, it can lead the "in a nutshell" sections of RW pages. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Goat buddy

Met this guy at the Topeka Zoo. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This goat must be mine Bonesquad11 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I ate the goat. It was delicious. LurkingGnome (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I prefer 'cute baby goat' videos myself (at least for this thread). Anna Livia (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

just wanna say thanks/sorry

i used this website all the time when i was 13-14, and it helped shape my views way more then it probably should have, but i stopped really using it in late 2016. honestly i forget most of what i did, but i'm sure that some of it was stupid so i apologize for my dumbassery. might make a few edits a year in the future, idk. thanks KOMF 22:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, everybody who ever lived did stupid stuff before they were grown. It's why young people can't vote or have important jobs. I'm just glad there was no internet when I was that age... Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As if being a "grown up" is a real thing. I lurked for years before I made my first couple hundred mistakes posting. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You were a young person, and learning how things worked, and the wikiverse can accommodate such activity (and most people's early edits will include some that are not up to standard). Anna Livia (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Should Anti-vaxxers be charged with mass murder?

How many people might die because of becoming infected due to medical problems? Those with AIDS or cancer are screwed. Pregnant women and their unborn children are at risk. Many of these anti-vaxxers happen to be Libertarian and Pro-Life. Not very Pro-Life if you ask me. Oh the humanity! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In a legal sense and as far as I know, unless they intentionally release a disease onto a population (smallpox blankets) or have any intent on killing a population I don’t think they could. The farthest I could see them getting charged with in general is manslaughter and spreading false information resulting in harm of another. There’s a large degree in types of anti-vaxxers. Some aren’t the rabid loonies you see. Some are just misinformed and concerned parents. LurkingGnome (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Reckless endangerment is not murder, it is, however, a crime. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 I understand that the question is provocative but, obviously, no, they can't. However, I think that in some countries (and in some US states if new laws were introduced) they could be charged of neglected their children, if they don't vaccinate them and they get sick. But it's not so easy from the legal standpoint. Thinker^(unlicensed) 06:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Thinker and RationalZombie94 are socks of each other, aren't they?Summa Atheologica (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

no they are not. that is ridiculous. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

When did this happen? I am a sock now? Oh well. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

UT and RZ94 are both socks of Bongolian, it's obvious. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 15:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Everyone in this conversation so far is a sock of trent. Problem solved. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought we all were socks of that Lomax guy's secret lover. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Or John66. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 10:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Russional Wiki

I think we should give a shout-out to @FritzFinkel for helping to keep RussionalWiki when most other people had lost interest in the wiki. Bravo. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 15:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Last time we had a dedicated editor to a foreign language version of RW who didn't interact with the rest of us, they were actually writing mindless hitpiece articles almost contrary to our mission. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that it's very hard to check what people are saying, I think we should stop this whole thing of having articles, and even whole wikis, in other languages, unless we can properly supervise what's happening. ie, do it properly or don't do it at all. Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Never do anything hard isn't a good takeaway. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "never do it", I said "do it properly or not at all." ie, do the hard stuff. Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I had a look, and there didn't seem to be anything odd going on. FritzFinkels article on Jesus was especially neat. I do struggle to read articles about brain chemistry written in Russian, but they seemed okay too. — Dysk (contribs) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe only allow translations of existing articles in English? Even with machine translation as bad as it is, it should be possible, combined with the same references, to verify the articles has the kind of message the wiki would want. Féinléiriú (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Machine translation is a big no-no. At least relying on it heavily or exclusively is. That is as opposed to using it thoughtfully to check how a few phrases could best be translated, as I have always used it. I had to delete eight Italian translations last autumn because they were all just machine translations that had barely even been proofread. Now, I really must start my latest Esperanto translation this weekend. And I'm looking forward to when we have a new Irish language category created. Spud (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The best idea is to just start paddling people until they speak English with exact intent. Proper English, mind you, none of this too many commas shit that I'm prone to. Am I asking for a paddling? Yes, in the worst way. Even if we translate it, how can we be sure this Russian translation is grammatically sound? I demand a paddling. I will not rest until I get my paddling! Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)04:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As Dysk said, FritzFinkel is doing good work. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 07:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Conservative says homophobic comments

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/don-t-vote-our-homophobic-racist-dad-missouri-candidate-s-n929486

"While most political candidates can count on the unwavering support of their family members, two of the three children of Missouri Republican Steve West have a message for voters in the state’s 15th House District: Don’t vote for our dad.

“I can’t imagine him being in any level of government,” Steve West’s daughter Emily told The Kansas City Star. “He’s made multiple comments that are racist and homophobic and how he doesn’t like the Jews.”

Steve West is a republican running for a seat in the Missouri state legislature. Isn't this interesting? What do you think? Are republicans all bigots? Commie Lib (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC) (Sarcasm noticeable?)

I don't find this all too interesting. It's more indicative of the trend of several Republican candidates attempting extreme rhetoric to win the voters that elected and support Trump, who isn't shy pushing that Overton window. Of course it deserves condemnation, but I'm afraid this isn't news and is just natural development of a party that has recently become only more visible with hatred rather than hiding a little better (only a little) behind the tax cut mantra or whatever. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. "Conservative says homophobic statement" is not news. That's why they had to go for the "Don't vote for our dad" angle. Spud (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk about jaw dropping news!! Oh my God!!! I cannot keep up this charade, this is not new. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this like the fourth or fifth time family members have said don't vote for other family members. I recall at least one other parent having their kids make statements and some siblings not wanting their brother in office.

-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"“The homosexual world, they are by much greater percent predators — especially when it comes to boys,” he said. When asked for evidence to back these claims, he said to look up the work of Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative gay provocateur who was fired from Breitbart after video was uncovered of him making sympathetic comments about child-adult sexual relationships."

So he made a claim about a "greater percent" and when asked about evidences he provided one single case, what a statistician! Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Milo loves Trump, why don't those conservatives therefore hail gays as paramount to the conservative cause? All gays are like Milo! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario UT's comment here might count as a stopped clock considering he's mocking Milo. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 10:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

oh yes. the old 'stopped clock' analogy. i wish that would die AMassiveGay (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Actually, I was mocking Steve West, pointing out to the fact that he gave one example as evidence of "greater percent", showing to know nothing of how statistics (or just percentages) works. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I WANT AN AWARD!!!!

Is it ethical to reward myself with an awesome editor award? I think so. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 10:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethical? Perhaps. Deserved? Well... have to think on that one... Kencolt (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Most definitely deserved, Colt. The reflection in the mirror tells me so. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 10:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And Trump's reflection in his mirror tells him that he's a perfectly sane genius. Hmm... Kencolt (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's reflection, along with the thousands of echoing voices that bounce about in his head his every waking second. I guess that's what decades of abusing cocaine does to ya. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"The multiverse revolves around me," said every narcissist ever. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 22:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Any man who must say "I am a King Awesome Editor" is no true King Awesome Editor. --RWRW (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I've given Oxyaena one. Spud (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Try Wikia and switch on badges. Anna Livia (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Voodoo

Do we have a page for this already? And with voodoo I don't mean he religion, but the woo crap such as voodoo dolls. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We have a page about the religion Vodou. Funnily enough, it doesn't seem to say anything about the voodoo/hoodoo folk magic. I think it should. And that should probably have its own page as well. Spud (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a page on Santería, I think beefing up all of these up would be worth the effort. You never know who might need a quick dose of rationality. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is more scientifically accurate, Marvel or DC?

I have heard this question elsewhere but I want a definitive answer. I feel Marvel is more scientifically accurate, but what do you think? Tossoff (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

you want a definitive answer for which comic books/films/tv about space aliens and people with magic and/or super powers is more scientifically accurate? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's batman. Rich, violent assholes dressing up like a bat is real science. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither. They're both fantasy worlds, they just happen to use sciencey-sounding words and themes rather than magicky-sounding ones. You might as well ask which is more scientifically accurate out of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Just enjoy them for what they are instead of fretting about accuracy. Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

How dare you suggest the will to dominate all life isn't a universal force that can be placed in an object akin to gravity and electromagnetism. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you mention it... Avida Dollars^{her again} 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There are always more hyperealistic comics, such as Maus, College Buddies, Persepolis, A Contract With God, Dog Liker, March, etc. But those aren't by DC or Marvel. Tossoff (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Watchmen was pretty realistic save for Dr Manhattan. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 00:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Except Ozymandias. Ozymandias was every bit as much bullshit as Dr. Manhattan, just more realistic sounding. Kencolt (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I always loved Transmetropolitan. It was grim sci-fi future-shock, critical of the ruling class and overly-dismissive of the major population, but it was like how people want to say Idiocracy is poignant. It was published from 97 - 02 and gives (dead internal link, but good sport) a very early take on "Nobody will ever give a shit about people who get unfrozen" (Futurama). It is surprisingly on-point in its caricature of American politics compared to our last election, much more than Idiocracy. Takes a couple volumes to find its stride, but definitely looks forward at issues that we are now all scrambling to sort out today before it finds its main storyline. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kencolt Definitely, what makes the others more badass is that their feats, while amazing, are realistic and capable of being achieved by real life humans. Rorschach's fight with the cops was definitely badass, even tho he ultimately lost due to superior numbers. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist}

Watchmen is for little babies who think that superheroes that are more realistic make for good comics. I suggest a less depressing comic, such as Abraham Lincoln, Racist Killer. It's not all that realistic, but it's also an alternate history deal and talks about the balances of power as does Watchmen. Nobody talks about Abe Lincoln: Racist Killer as much as they do Watchmen. I wonder why. Tossoff (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

probably because no one has heard of it? as for the relative realism of a comic (keyword: relative) - who actually cares? its irrelevant if its a well written story and there is nothing wrong with varietyAMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not denying that. Escapism is the end-goal of all fiction, I'll add those to my list of things I probably should but definitely won't read. I do like to feel that twitch of connection between my heart and a work of art. If I don't, I think there's a wigobloggo on why I avoid talking about it. In the past year, I have fallen in love with the entire story of Dr McNinja. It is stupid and goofy, but you can see the creator get better and better at both his art and his story writing, and nothing from his early work is left out or retconned. It is a completely closed and always relevant-to-itself universe. There is an unsatisfying chapter down the line titled "Why a Gorilla?" to explain his gorilla assistant, but it's honestly not the worst I've seen.

Also, Sandman by Neil Gaiman was great. Kinda poked its head into DC. Fear Agent sucked, Sweet Tooth sucked (even Essex County kinda sucked) , Saga sucks. Ask me how I really feel. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

ALSO, I loaned a hardback copy of both books of Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind to a friend and he dog-eared like seven pages in the first book, instead of using literally anything that isn't part of the book as a bookmark. I had to breathe deep and remind myself that all property is theft. I doubt he's read the second book, I never asked for them back. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's Ramadan! Do the opposite of rejoice!

So we're in Ramadan. I didn't know until yesterday when a UPS driver showed up looking ragged and desperate to pick up 70 some boxes at the end of the day. He flat out complained to one of the guys about what was going on, and I eavesdropped. Ramadan isn't always in the winter, but it's better in the winter, the day is shorter. One year I worked with a guy who was Muslim. He got accepted at another job, brought all this great homemade northern Indian food into work, fed all of us. We asked him where he wanted to go to eat lunch for his last day. He said "No, I can't, it's Ramadan." He had given us his leftovers from his family's huge dinner the day before Ramadan. I've tried fasting before, it's difficult, it's tiring. To fast and do your damned job isn't fun. I'm not pro-Islam or pro-fasting by any stretch, but what a miserable few weeks to be a Muslim. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a Fatwa that muslims that live far north, and Ramadan is in summer, they can observe the sunrise/sunset in Mecca for fasting. Otherwise they'd, well, die (midnight sun). Of course, if Ramadan falls in winter, there may be weeks where the sun never rises, so they can eat as much as they like all day... Dendlai (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sciencing out of a tradition is pretty cool. The problem is we're not that far north. But if the rise and fall of the sun was based on Mecca's latitude, it could also be based on the longitude (i.e. a timezone and sunrise/sunset times as something he could clearly smartphone up), that might work, at least for a cup of water. What do you think? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I still remember that one day, when I was in high school, a friend of mine was complaining of being very hungry. I thought he skipped breakfast and I offered him a chocolate bar, but he replied that his mother was very religious and wanted him to follow Ramadan. I replied in turn that he could have simply disobey his mother (I was a cool guy) and she would had never know... but then he told me that she checked if his tongue isn't white to see if he had eaten (apparently, fasting can makes tongue white, but even if that is false, probably the idea that it is true is a sufficient deterrent). Anyway, that made me think that forcing this kind of religious practices on children is a form of abusive parenting. Thinker^(unlicensed) 08:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I AM THE LORD

I AM THAT I AM. I AM THE ONE WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT OF THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE AND INTO THE PROMISED LAND. I AM THE LORD. BEFORE JESUS WAS, I AM. — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 19:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

IN THE BEGINNING, I CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. I SEPARATED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS, AND CALLED THE LIGHT "DAY," AND THE DARKNESS "NIGHT." — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 19:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I always wondered why he couldn't call the dark "dark" and the light "light". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

In the imaginary Satanist Bible which some Christians think atheists read in atheist churches, God (or Satan, I can't even keep track any more) probably called the light "night," and the dark "day." The sounds go better together. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No you aren't, and no you didn'tAloysius the Gaul 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

BLASPHEMY!!! — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 01:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh praise the great Oxyaena, who banneth the vandals,who moderateth this great wiki, who maketh pages into beateous works, for ever and ever. Praise ye his name from the hills and valleys, and remember ye his name!Summa Atheologica (talk)

Get your irony meters ready and maybe some pepto bismol too. Get ready for some bullshit

https://youtu.be/cjEK7qQKRDY

For those of you who cannot stand the first few seconds, it is "chemical free" shampoo with fear mongering and outlandish claims. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean water? — Dr. Ox ^{quack specialist} 19:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, that contains dangerous levels of dihydrogen monoxide! (I still insist that hydrogen hydroxide is a more appropriate chemical nomenclature emphasizing its volatile nature to act as both an acid and a base) ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

+1, known it as hydrogen hydroxide since highschool, my teacher thought the nomenclature more in line with other similar chemical naming standards at the time, but the industry standards seem to change fairly often. 206.53.88.85 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I found the ad to be stupid and creepy. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Womens' Sports and Testosterone

So there is a push to protect womens' sports from humans who have too much testosterone to play fair in womens' sports. There is a focus on transgender atheletes, one or two of which have dominated a sport in the womens' niche. Now, I don't really like this idea that gender is hard-line binary, and I don't really like the idea of exclusion. But I also get that women athletes might live on their athletics, just like a male athlete. So, the idea that there needs to be a fair playing field for womens' athletics is reasonable, even if it's distasteful that it doesn't play 1 to 1 with the requirements of men's athletics. These athletes are trying to live on athletic terms. I want to support them, with all my heart, and this testosterone rule keeps the playing field a little more level on a field that can't consistently compete outside of its parameters, because physiologically it's unreasonable. And testosterone is a factor in that. But when have sports ever been a physically fair contest? There are women born as females with high testosterone output. There are men born as males who are born with high testosterone output. There are people who are born with all kinds of physical features that might put them at an advantage to a specific athletic endeavor. This is a tough one, athletic livelihoods are being threatened and possibly exploited by athletes that are naturally bigger and stronger than the average player in the field, but also isn't that always a threat that an athletic livelihood entails? I support womens' sports. I do question sports like billiards or poker as being a little unnecessarily gender divided. But what do we do when a woman has so much testosterone she can lift a truck? Should we run the math, and cut out a competitor from men's sports who has too much testosterone? The highest level of athletics has always been the realm of physical freaks (in a good way, like Lesnar or Phelps). If you're physically average, I'm sorry, you probably can't be an Olympic athlete in a straight power-output-over-time competition. You can be competitive and strong, but being the strongest or fastest in the world, I don't know what to tell you, you need a couple born-in advantages. I do take competitive athletes' opinions on this more seriously than anybody else's. It's not my livelihood. It's a tough question. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I get what the arguments are coming from in this subject. In my opinion though the transgender athletes add a large x-factor in the traditional male and female divisions. So for example a genetic male now transgender competed in let’s just say weightlifting. This athlete may have a larger build and natural testosterone production than the genetic female counterpart which gives the athlete an advantage. I don’t think trans can participate in certain sports without testosterone regulated within certain limits. I guess. LurkingGnome (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@LurkingGnome What if they're taking hormones? — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose as long as the body frame/weight falls into what’s allowed in said league LurkingGnome (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Transphobic bigots, check your privilege. 82.132.213.110 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that doping rules should be thrown out altogether, since everybody is breaking them all the time anyway, and just let sports be a contest of who can make the best human body by natural and artificial means. This would have the side effect of letting trans people take the hormones they want to. Hannasanarion (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The downside to this, at the extreme end, is that many of the most effective performance enhancing drugs can completely destroy the human body with excessive use. I guess some of the sports we expect people to play also do that, though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Caster Semenya is a biological woman. She has a condition where her body creates more testosterone. This entire fucking controversy can be chalked up to the difference between sex and gender. If we are saying athlete compete with people of the same sex, than Caster Semenya has every right to compete, and making her take drugs to maintain her regular body function is bullshit. If we are saying athletes need to compete with people of the same gender, which definition are we using? Western European definition of women? South East Asian definition of women? The gender definition of regions they are representing? Caster meets all the definitions of female gender in South Africa.

All of this is bullshit, and racist, and an excuse for people uncomfortable with changing definitions of gender to try and use their influence to enforce their definition. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with that, 90 some percent. But that's a little dismissive of the idea of womens' sports. If we integrate everything on athletic fields, we lose female competition. I think female competition is misrepresented as an amateur class, because these women are at the top of their game, and generally genetic freaks as opposed to other women competing in the same athletic field. But Olympic class athletes are invested in their sport, bust ass to reach the top, and achieve their peak physical performance. And they don't want to blur the lines of male and female competition. Again, it is majorly genetic freaks that make it to the top. I once had a guy say "a girl could never play in the NFL." I said "I could never play in the NFL. Could you play in the NFL? Gender is not the point, you have to be fucking huge to play in the NFL." Ideally we could integrate 100%, but that in turn discourages girls from trying to compete in the first place. The designation of womens' sports isn't without merit, even though I personally don't like these designations, which makes them vulnerable in a way that I'm not necessarily against. But what do we do, do we create two integrated amateur and professional classes? I guarantee this won't work out like you want it to, high performing women will be relegated to the bottom of the pro, high performing men will dominate the amateur. I don't quite see how it's racist, but it is sexist, which I really dislike. Creating rules like "Testosterone levels have to be under a certain amount" is antithetical to athletic competition. So is a womens' league, kinda. I remember seeing this around 2003 and being outraged. Golf and billiards don't need to be divided by sex. I consider them sports. I wish this was as simple as the gay cake. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

there'd be no women if we did away with the womens leagues in a lot of sports. men have such an advantage in building muscle over women they would not be present in events where that matters and be able to compete. its testosterone that does this. men naturally have significantly higher levels than women and it is testosterone that we generally want to mimic when looking for performance enhancing drugs.

how common are athletes with dsd and how many of those produce enough testosterone to exceed this threshold? if i were born with four legs and was then able to do 100 meters in 3 seconds, they probably amend the rules to say 4 legs is too much of an unfair advantage. if there enough of similar 4 legged people, it would probably get its own category and we'd compete against each other like differents belts in boxing.

dsd rare seems rare enough there are not enough people to split out for their own event categories, but more than enough people that it doesnt sit well with when we exclude them.

i guess it comes down to just if the advntages of being over the new threshold are insurmountable its no longer a fair contest and it crowds out those who are not dsd. do they really crowd out the competitors? are all podium position always filled with dsd athletes and theres no sponsorship money for anyone else.

sadly i fear that is less concern of a natural but unfair advantage and more that its an advantage gained from something with so much in built stigma and prejudice. we dont make micheal phelps reduce his freakish proportions for the advantages they give him or create height restrictions. if it were produced by pills or surgery - you'd restrict that. not the natural effect of biology AMassiveGay (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Point sincerely appreciated. Michael Phelps has a torso the length of Rhode Island and normal sized legs to push it wherever it wants in the water. Something else in his biology lets him store oxygen and eat like an eldritch horror. But on my own topic I really don't know, that's why I don't have much of a choice but to defer to women's athletes. Maybe it's not my place to even have an opinion on it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt@AMassiveGay No one is arguing that sports can still be split between men and women and it's usually a bad faith argument when people bring in transgender athletes. This specific ruling is wrong. Targeting this specific athlete is wrong. As a biological woman she has the right to compete with women. Are we going to create new standards for what needs to be required to make it fair? Are we going to require Usain Bolt wear heavier shoes to make up for his longer tendons? Are we going to make Michael Phelps wear a mask to keep him from using his larger lung capacity? What about making Giannis Antetokounmpo play basketball wearing a weight vest? These athletes have been blessed with genetic gifts, that push the limits of sport. We should be celebrating them, not trying to make things "more fair" for everyone else. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

it should be noted that this has no bearing on transgender athletes AMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

as far as the testosterone ruling goes at any rate. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and also agreed. I don't want anyone to handicap the top levels of athletic performance, I hope I haven't come across that way. Hannasanarion's idea that doping rules should be cast out altogether since most of our heroes dope anyway used to be kind of appealing to me, to be honest. But I first heard it from a guy who didn't make it out of amateur baseball. Baseball has a long history of letting the players get as screwed up as they want before they play.

Problem is, cutting out doping rules doesn't do much to protect aspiring athletes from the pressure to perform at the expense of their bodies, even if that's basically what sports are already about. I worry that would open up a new generation of kids trying to break out by means/for reasons they don't really understand at the expense of kids who don't want to alter their bodies forever with steroids (which act as hormones) to be competitive. (I'm imagining a Venn Diagram here, of kids who are willing to do whatever it takes to win and kids who think doping is OK. I am not referencing any specific athlete or pointing any accusation towards any athlete, trans or no with this statement, I am speaking only to the idea of allowing doping and the potential consequences it might have on aspiring athletes). It's weird, I've just started my 30s, and all these athletes I spent most of my life seeing as big, smart, powerful adults look like big, powerful, dumbass little kids to me now. I have more respect for the amount of work it takes to get to where they are at, but less respect for the world they are competing in, and even less respect for the fans who won't support a loss out of these kids. I'd like to consider trans athletes as not having taken part in doping in their transition process, but I do have to respect the fight against doping in sports, and how complicated it has recently become. This is a brain-buster as much as it is a heat-wrencher, to be sure.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The whole idea that someone with Swyer syndrome is "a biological woman" without any qualifications, especially in sports, is disingenuous beyond belief, and the media coverage has been atrocious at acknowledging it. A lot of the same things came up with Oscar Pistorius and the running on blades, which at the time (even before his rapid fall from grace) I thought was wrongheaded, amplified many times over. Sometimes life just sucks, and putting 49.9% of the population at an impossible disadvantage to make .01% satisfied is unfair on its face. Creating separate events is fine, but don't allow a tiny minority of people with chromosomal disorders to completely hijack women's sports. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"and putting 49.9% of the population at an impossible disadvantage to make .01% satisfied is unfair on its face."@The Blade of the Northern Lights Mother fucker these athletes are not 49.9 %. The athletes that compete at the Olympic level are among the 1% of athletes on the planet. And she is a biological woman, there is no fucking qualifications. Does she have to X chromosomes? Does she have female sex organs? She's a woman. Fuck outta here. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and shutting out everyone with XX chromosomes, which comprises the overwhelming majority of women, is fair to women how? Life's a bitch, I wish I was able to compete but, as I have ASD, I lack the fine and gross motor coordination to do so. Shrug. No need to jump down to the bottom of Graham's hierarchy that fast, certainly it's not so important to me that I'll be lobbying in the streets or something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This has argument makes no sense. Caster Semenya is a woman competing against other women. Olympic athletes are among the best athletes on the planet, often benefiting from rare genetic advantages. That's all this discussion is about, is it fair that the governing body will require her to chemically suppress her bodies natural testosterone production to compete in the 400m (but for some reason not the 1,600m, go figure). Athletics has had a difficult time creating opportunities for people with conditions that create barriers to competition, but Special Olympics Paralympic Games Paralympic association football Paralympic sports there are still options out there. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And there should be events for people with intersex conditions, I could get behind that. I cannot get behind de facto shutting XX women out of competitions because a few people with a fundamental abnormality (which for reasons I don't get people seem to think is an insult or something, just like any other condition it's "not normal") have a clear advantage. And yes, barring some explanation I'm not aware of I think it's totally PIDOOMA to only enforce a ruling on this for certain events and not others. Regardless of my personal view, the inconsistency is ridiculous.. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So... Do we have to come to a chromosomal agreement, over a hormonal one? In regards only to competitive sports at the highest level, mind. But... If there is going to be a solution that fulfills all parameters so far, I hate it, but it has to be limiting eligibility based on chromosomes. Bleh, I don't like this for a million reasons, but it works better than the hormone limit ruling. Just for competitive athletic sports at their highest levels. I won't abide this as a slippery slope. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is a course in miracles?

Can someone explain it to me. I read the wiki title here but still don't get it. Does it say that reality isn't real or this world is an illusion? How do they know?Machina (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have never taken a course in miracles, but you may want to look at the articles on Metaphysics and Knowledge for the last two questions. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean A Course in Miracles/A Course in Miracles? Seems to be some kind of phoney syncretic/New Age religious text people are supposed to discuss and meditate upon, presumably in an effort to decide if it has any meaning at all. Much like Buddhism it seems to claim that everything is an illusion, so it's not a real thing and you can go ahead and steal it. --Annanoon (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I was referring to the book by that title.Machina (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)