RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive309

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 June 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>, <307>, <308>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>
, (new)(back)

The internet is gradually getting very worked up about aliens[edit]

I see more and more people talking about the stupid Navy UFO videos thing. Does anyone know what an article on the subject would be called so that we can get on top of google results? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideally something like US Navy UFO sightings, with repeated reference to US Navy UFO sightings and US Navy UFO encounters throughout the article, and dates of the main sightings. — Dysk (contribs) 15:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it like 'the clown' a while ago?
Was this involved - see this for a link. Anna Livia (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess this New York Times article started it all from what I can tell. The problem is "UFO" in military terminology doesn't necessarily mean "aliens" (as it does in human storytelling mythos). I buy the Slate response that drones, even garden variety drones (let alone commercial ones or even experimental military quadcopter type craft that the bureaucrats forgot to coordinate), are one of the most likely explanations for these sightings. It is noteworthy that quadcopters really started only being offered to the public around the early 2010s, and my sense is the "stupid drone operator" stories (detailing just how careless some folks were in flying those things) peaked in the mid-2010s. — Unsigned, by: Soundwave106 / talk / contribs
Oh, no, the sensible interpretation of UFO sightings has always been "there's something in the air and we don't know what". The Navy moving to destigamtizing UFO reports makes sense, they want to track risks to their airspace. But the internet is unable to be sensible about that concept, and can't help but conflate. I'm not even sure exactly what to write. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Most of the conspiracy junk on the Internet I've found so far seems to be nothing new, just the usual Black Helicopter conspiracy, X-Files-style fantasies, and standard boilerplate grays, from the sources you are expecting this sort of thing. I can't think of anything to add. The Navy Times explanation for the updated more open policy might be worth adding to the current UFO article. The only other noteworthy thing I saw (on Fox News' web site of course, what I suspect is actually a History Channel advertorial) is a few months ago Tom DeLonge announced some "Unidentified" oogy-boogy UFO show on The History Channel that's coming out soon. So maybe getting him off the "most wanted" to-do list would be helpful soon. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Some will be 'self-propelled flying vehicles and constructs not being of naval origin', unexpected upper atmosphere 'things/optical illusions' (planets in the wrong place, lightning sprites, meteorological balloons etc, etc).
Try this: https://www.metabunk.org/explained-the-navys-new-ufo-reporting-guidelines.t10669/ Aloysius the Gaul 23:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Do the pilots ever encounter a flying [1], possibly involved in blues and twos? Anna Livia (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

When UFOs get some attention, the grifters come out. Sad the NYT has gotten caught up with Blumenthal and Kean, who have longstanding connections to UFOs and woo in general and regularly promote Tom Delonge and his To The Stars Academy scam. [2]. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a "troll fallacy"?[edit]

I see a lot of people here making (what I think are) reasonable points. And yet, rather than being discussed, they are shut down as "trolls." Of course I assume that sometimes they legitimately do have malicious intent. I'm not trying to stir trouble. Please have mercy on me.— Unsigned, by: Supurb / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
UT, Nobs, and RWRW still aren't banned, are all sysops, and one is even a moderator, @Supurb. The genuine trolls we ban are just that, trolls. Oxyaena Harass 17:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Not every incorrect statement is a fallacy. It harms the concept of fallacy to use it equivalently to "incorrect." If you're looking for the formal way to describe dismissing someone as a troll rather than responding to them, that is called poisoning the well. You should note if everyone responded to every shitty comment made in bad faith on the internet, you'd end up with more youtube comments and less meaningful discussion. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
You're right. Thank you. If possible, should this topic be removed from the Saloon bar? Supurb (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it gets autoarchived. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, bummer. I guess that embarrassment is what I get for making a strong statement :/ Supurb (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
If the worst thing you've ever done on the internet is ask a question, you're a golden innocent baby. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Calling someone a troll isn't "you are a troll, therefore your argument is wrong". Rather, calling someone a troll is "you are a troll, we aren't even wasting our time and energy on explaining things to you". We don't have infinite time on Earth, and if we stopped to carefully explain things to people who in all likelihood don't actually want to listen, we'd never get anything done. CoryUsar (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There are 'smart alecs and others' whose aim is to stir things up/get a discussion going, the newbies who are slightly over-enthusiastic about playing by RW rules and a few others and then there are the overt trolls, many of whom have limited writing skills (mostly 'words they think others will find annoying and 'school playground type taunts and insults' etc: the problem is the area where the several groups overlap, so much time and cyber-trees have to be wasted in identifying who is being dealt with. Anna Livia (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And there goes the "Science" Channel[edit]

They're advertising a moon landing JAQoff which includes Mike Bara of all people. Cable TV looks less and less attractive these days... Towards-the Unknown (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Any chance we can get buzz aldrin on set with some boxing gloves? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not just cable television. My state's public broadcasting service, Maryland Public Broadcasting, is now 90 minute commercials for fake Dr. Axe's keto diet woo, thereby flushing their network's credibility down the toilet. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The general public eating this shit up is really upsetting. No one ever questions this shit and whenever you correct them they get super defensive.Spoony (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
And people are wondering why others prefer to cut the cord and the antenna.ReaperDawn 15:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I miss the Sci-Fi channel. ??? (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

West of Zanzibar[edit]

Some absolutely fantastic music, I wish I had found out about the Zippers sooner. Oxyaena Harass 16:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The 90's swing revival was probably partially responsible for me becoming a determined ska fan until I decided looking for music based solely on genre was a good way to find a bunch of bad bands. But the swing revival didn't have as much teeth as I wanted, being a punk-ass little kid. Zippers's 'Hell' was a smash hit on the radio for a while. I don't even like Reel Big Fish post Turn the Radio Off anymore (seen them live 3 times and it was always good), but I always liked everything I heard from the Zippers. I saw The Reverend Horton Heat one time, it was tiny underground show and they still shut the lights off twice to do two wardrobe changes, the bassist literally rode on his upright bass like it was some kind of stationary unicycle, and then they traded off fretting on each others' instruments while strumming their own. Between that The Reverend Horton Heat show, and the first Man Man show I went to, I realized there's a huge difference between recording and a live performance. I would never want to sit down and listen to an album of TRHH or Man Man, but the shows were 10x worth the cover. I guess I'm circling around to saying The Squirrel Nut Zippers write good songs, never felt like they were doing it with the intention of making a smash hit. I haven't listened to them in over a decade, but I could still write down most of the lyrics to about three of their songs, could probably sing along with most of them. Good music is one of my favorite parts of the human experience. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to remember this, I knew the thing sounded familiar. This sounds like the Moxy Fruvous cover of Tom Waits "Jockey Full of Bourbon."
WAIT, NO, this is the Santana riff that I heard more recently with a Rihanna track. Sorry, when she goes "wild wild wild," I used to shout "it's Waluigi time!" and a few of us went "Wa wa wa waaa" until it didn't get played anymore. Not like we pressured it off of the radio, just, it's not a hit track anymore so it doesn't play. Believe me, within the parameters, this was a healthy way to interact with music some people didn't want to listen to. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:55, June 2019 (UTC)

A hypothetical example of climate change denialist quote mining[edit]

This will be a little thought experiment here. To be clear I am not pretending to be a scientist.

Hypothetical Research Paper

After examining the chemical contents far below the permafrost and the level of Carbon Dioxide in the ocean. This model my research team put together indicates that the worst effects of climate change will not happen for another 120 years. However, this does not void the fact that the climate is changing and more research needs to be done before this model is deemed conclusive. It is possible that this model is wrong

The hypothetical quote mine and anti-climate change argument

After examining the chemical contents far below the permafrost and the level of Carbon Dioxide in the ocean. This model my research team put together indicates that the worst effects of climate change will not happen.

This study confirms that the climate is not shifting. The climate change conspiracy is wrong

Just a possible example. Feel free to edit. This could be used for new users --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea to put yourself into the shoes of denialists and see if you could do what they do. A few things, though
  1. Quote miners, in general, love the ability to claim they're "not taking things out of context" but using full sentences in a way that doesn't change that sentence's meaning. Some are that unscrupulous, but most, given your example sentence, would go "This research says 'the worst effects of climate change will not happen for another 120 years.' and yet alarmists want you to think we only have 10 years to act"
  2. If you're really trying to do this exercise, try reading real journal articles, and thinking like a liar, instead of making one up. You could for example grab this Nature article and use the quote "Recent studies assessing historic changes in observed precipitation have shown that natural variability plays a major role in parts of Africa." And just quietly ignore the next sentence that says "although recent increases in rainfall over the Sahel have been linked to increased greenhouse gases". It's terrifyingly easy to do if you set your mind to it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Lemme try: "Nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria should also thrive in a changing ocean, as their growth and fixation rates often benefit from increased carbon dioxide levels and rising temperatures. [...] The use of microalgae and cyanobacteria to generate biofuel and for carbon dioxide sequestration has been demonstrated and can be effective for removing atmospheric carbon dioxide."
"CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOOD. CHECKMATE, WARMISTS." --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on this Video defending Joe Arpaio[edit]

I need a "Rationalist's view on this video. I'm related to the guy who made it and it did show me some very insightful information, but again i want some thoughts on it. I think it will effect your page on Joe Arpaio. (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
"effect". Nice edit history you have there. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, I think this kind of psycho political lionizing did functionally effect our page, by making him the emblem of right wing authoritarianism that needed coverage on the wiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure I haven't lived in Arizona, so a whole "I've lived there" argument is fine, I would like to hear from somebody who really has lived it, and so far I'm not upset that he wants to feed kids. At 5:50, not an exaggeration to say "we've paid millions of dollars to feed one district" is already exaggerating, because that's spread out since, when, some day in the 90's? Ok, let's continue, must be millions lost everywhere for feeding children, and there's a problem with this. Wait, no, the problem isn't about feeding children, it's about whether or not it's legal to detain people on the suspicion of illegal immigration. Wait, no, it's about dirty politics, which is fine, there's no real way to support or defend secrecy in politics, conspiracy theories are worth considering. However, at about 10:00 when he claims all the states are "flat-out overrun" by immigrants, he does express his bias in a pretty distasteful way. Let's continue. Joe Arpaio was voted as sheriff by Arizona voters. Good enough, democracy at work, shifting from national to state polling only bothers me because of the sample size, I really can't complain there. However, we've taken a pretty stark turn at 12:50, this has been libertarian foolishness the whole time, hasn't it? Democracy is no longer worth it, because the new sheriff doesn't piss everybody, excluding the author, off. Starting at 16:50, it discounts the "anti-Arpaio narrative" as having been started by The Phoenix New Times despite every God-damned stupid thing Arpaio has ever done/said as an elected official. But let's continue. From 17:50 on, the author is wildly incapable of equating misdemeanors, undocumented citizens, the letter of the law, democracy, and judicial oversight. This, while actively trying to invoke/equate every single one of those factors into his point? Booooooooo. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't watch the video but I will say as somebody familiar with Maricopa county, Arpaio was a piece of shit who let pedophiles run loose so he could harasss migrant families.[3]"Shut up, Brx." 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
But what if the crimes against humanity had a deterrent effect?!?! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
But how do you all address the fact that nuumerous people, (Like yourself) use a fucking parody newspaper as a source. of which hired a pedophile and was justifiably arrested and investigated by Joe Arpaio. You think maybe said newspaper. might, I don't know. be A little biased against Joe Arpaio, and therefore shouldn't be used as a source? Or how about that bill. Also sorry I made an easy spelling mistake LeftyGreenMario. Personally I consider a person's arguments more important than their grammer. (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
And which newspaper would that be? I ask because I'm noticing a bunch of vague shitposting, but no real substance. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That's "numerous". "Like" shouldn't be capitalized. That period is bad. The sentence beginning with "of" is a fragment. Another bad period. And another. They should be commas. "A" shouldn't be capitalized. Next period should be a question mark. Comma should be after "also" and before "LeftyGreenMario". Comma after "personally". And that's "grammar". That's a grammar lesson to you, DarkMaster2 wheeze. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, leave him alone. You know he has that brain thing, or whatever. What parody newspaper? Oh, the Phoenix New Times, copy, argument there rescinded, it didn't land with anybody. [4] [5] New conspiracy theory here. Lotta money and effort being thrown around to kill a guy specifically and explicitly for harsh jail conditions, nobody succeeds? In a world where you can just own a gun and shoot whoever you want to shoot, nobody has killed Sherriff Joe Arpaio on the grounds that they just want to, even though that's what they are all trying to do? Probably nobody is really trying to do that, probably he is just not the sheriff anybody wants anymore, probably he is guilty of crimes involving unlawful detention. But, some dare call it... "conspiracy" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
You mean like Gamergate? (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Not relevant to the discussion, ignored. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Some commie magazine has finally put it into words[edit]

This article describes a recent, incredibly annoying phenomenon so damn well

[...] about how mere invocation of the word “logic” is used as proof that one is being logical. “Reason” becomes a brand rather than a description of an actual process by which the other side’s arguments are carefully analyzed and responded to fairly.

The rest of the article breaking down Steven Pinker's career is alright, but the part about logic and reason being brands is exactly the phrasing I've been looking for. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I had never heard of currentaffairs before you posted this topic.
This may be an irrelevant aside, but the part of the article about Pinker where it talks about the Vietnam War and the Hiroshima bomb led me to read currentaffairs' articles on those. I think those articles may have been somewhat life changing for me, and so I wanted to thank you for sharing that link. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Websites made by crazy people[edit]

I made this[edit]

It's related to our mission here at this wiki: https://i.imgur.com/vPf1Vd7.png Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make a good meme, brevity is your ally. I say it's a little bit on the lengthy side and the text placement is a little kitschy design-wise. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, brevity seems to be a running weak point in my jokes. *sadness* Towards-the Unknown (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
"Non-European cultures were successful only because aliens helped them". <- is that better?
--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I know a guy at my work who says the industrial revolution only happened because "the Europeans had extraterrestrial help". So belief in the inverse does exist. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So aliens gave us the Industrial Revolution, but they didn't have the courtesy to stick around and make sure we didn't use that knowledge to wage genocidal wars on a previously unheard-of scale? What bastards. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 03:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Aliens. Oxyaena Harass 09:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess those romans weren't worthy of an Industrial Revolution, so those aliens had to wait around. Just Another HumanShufflin' Around 14:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


Because there are too many idiots out there, I think some things need to be made clear about the Mueller Report.

  1. This document (especially part II) is a summary of facts similar to an indictment. There is no assumption of innocence, there is no presentation of defense, it is only a statement of facts, the would be used in the writing of a potential indictment.
  2. Mr. Mueller in his public statement was clear that the evidence for conspiracy was not enough to charge a crime or could they prove Trump campaign officials "knowingly or wittingly" conspired with agents of the Russian government. This is not exoneration. Especially because many of the Russian government officials were not available to interview, Trump himself provided "insufficient accounts" of his knowledge of the conspiracy. This also does not include unwitting members possible assistance.
  3. Obstruction of justice does not require there to be an underlying crime. Obstructing an investigation in anyway is a crime, especially one as important as an investigation of the integrity of American elections.
  4. Attorney General Barr fundamentally misled the public both with his initial memo, and his public statements the day the report was released. While Mr. Barr gave the impression Mr. Mueller could not reach a judgement on obstruction because of the evidence, Mr. Mueller made clear his team was never going to make that judgement because of a memo from DOJ Office of Legal Council regarding indicting a sitting President.This is despite Mr. Barr being asked this explicitly in Congressional testimony. His current statements are also lacking in legal understanding.
  5. Because of this memorandum, Mr. Mueller stated the remedy to a problem such as this is not in the criminal justice system, the Constitution requires a different system. The only other branch with the power to challenge the Executive branch is the Legislative branch, and the only power entrusted to that branch is impeachment.

There is a whole host of bollocks out there from people saying "Trump wants to be impeached", which is wild considering; 1) he's doing more criminal things, 2) Clinton's impeachment let the GOP take the House and the Senate in 2000 and may have cost Gore the election.We don't hear people saying not to arrest murderers because they want to be arrested while they continue to murder more people. Also an impeachment inquiry is different than voting to impeach an executive. The inquiry introduces additional investigative powers, and was the reason the majority of Americans went from supporting Nixon in 1973, to supporting his removal from office 17 months later. So start the process now, let the revelations of criminality stack up, hopefully adding extra pressure to his 2020 campaign. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The strange narrative from Trump, that this would open up the possibility for impeachment from either side for any cause endlessly in the future, is, well... strange. The reluctance/talking down from impeachment by either power party on the topic is also strange, considering impeachment is a tool granted to the power structure and has been used in the past. Both parties fear impeachment now, to the point of impotence. That, to me, is strange. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
(Piss tape is real though) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This whole investigation is the red scare (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
BON has a fundamental misunderstanding of red scare of this is their opinion.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


Who would find a project to destroy pseudo-science groups funny? (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Me. Oxyaena Harass 14:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I am making a website for this purpose. If interested, we can talk elsewhwere. (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Me. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Movies about diseases and plagues[edit]

I noticed that in movies about disease outbreaks, the government is evil and conspiracy theorists are right. Plus, the government tries to cover the outbreak up by nuking a town. Pretty sure nuking a diseased town would be noticed and there would be public backlash. How did it where science fiction films of this nature become where conspiracy theorists are heroes? At least with the 2011 movie "Contagion", it was realistic and the conspiracy theorists were villains. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the movie directors who make such movies are borderline CTers themselfs? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a lot easier to make an exciting movie about a lone hero battling both disease and evil human forces, than a film about a government acting ethically throughout. Films need human conflict as well as scenes of people putting stuff into test tubes and sticking needles into monkeys. And the film Outbreak although it includes evil military figures also has heroic government workers from the CDC, so it's hardly at the extreme end of science=bad and government=bad conspiracy theory. --Annanoon (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
There's also plenty of disease films about evil biotech companies rather than evil governments, such as Rise of the Planet of the ApesWikipedia. --Annanoon (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories and paranoid thinking have been ubiquitous in US pupular culture since the 1980s. People with power are always corrupt; businesses have mad schemes, the government is either corrupt or incompetent. This has been a turnoff for me since the days of the X-Files; the fact that X-Files was an extended Grandpa Simpson story that never got to a point was just the icing on the cake. Now I remember Close Encounters of the 3d Kind, where the worst thing the aliens wanted to do was to play us a song and give us a light show. That film couldn't be made today. In small doses, fine, but a steady diet of this material gets tedious. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 13:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly never heard of Operation Mindfuck and the glorious works of Robert Anton Wilson. I wonder of Wilson has a page here Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah conspiracy shit gets off-turning after a while, it strikes me as lazy writing tbh. Oxyaena Harass 14:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Since the 1980s? The paranoid style has famously been popular here for *way* longer. Result being such makes for an effective trope in entertainment. Actual science is boring and dry to many people (hence the network decay of all educational channels to mystical paranoid shit). If the movie you are referring to here is Outbreak as noted above, I will note, a decent portion of the critic reviews I see for Outbreak criticized the "goverment=evil m'kay" trope as being overly cheesy rote Hollywood shit and detracting to what could have been a more interesting disease-horror premises. Lazy writing indeed. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Most contain various obvious plotholes (the Belgian TV series Cordon - container lorries blocking 'a virus' from escaping, while there would be large numbers of annoyed relatives, diamond-industry-persons and transportation-by-rail-persons creating a fuss.)
And there is at least one case of 'the bugs being on our side (albeit accidentally). Anna Livia (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Heroic Individual Against The System is a tried and true plotline. Heroic System Against The Individual...not so much. Millennium Scallion (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The Andromeda Strain (film)Wikipedia from 1971 shows heroic scientists working as a team to defeat an alien pathogen. There is a nuclear bomb threat, but one triggered by automatic systems not one dropped by evil soldiers. (There was a later mini-series but I don't know the plot of that.) --Annanoon (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

John Cleese a racist[edit]


Why so many are accusing Cleese of being a racist for innocuous tweets like the following?

Some years ago I opined that London was not really an English city any more Since then, virtually all my friends from abroad have confirmed my observation So there must be some truth in it... I note also that London was the UK city that voted most strongly to remain in the EU

I think it's legitimate to prefer one culture to another For example, I prefer cultures that do not tolerate female genital mutilation. Will this will be considered racist by all those who hover, eagerly hoping that someone will offend them - on someone else's behalf, naturally

Aren't too many people getting mad and calling everybody a racist?— Unsigned, by: 2620:7:6001::102 / talk

The equivalent in America would be those who moan about the "real American" stuff. Race factors into this populist trope (only whites are "real Americans"), so the racist accusations are not out of line. However, it's obviously more than that: culture and educational background (college educated people aren't "real Americans" in this trope), location (urban is not "real America"), and religion (non-Christians aren't "real America") also factor in the US version. These tropes tend to ignore history. Despite definite demographic changes, big cities have tended to be ethnically diverse since forever. Oh goodie, London was 20% non-white back in 1990 and now the number is 30%, aw yeah, London is (sarc) *so* non-English now. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call John Cleese a racist, but he's certainly racially biased, like most octogenarians. Something I've had to recognize after re-watching Monty Pythons Flying Circus, they use blackface and peddle in some mild racist stereotypes.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
"Some years ago I opined that London was not really an English city any more"
That's why people call him a racist. A lot of actual racists confuse nationality with race just like what this dude just did. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
"A lot of actual racists confuse nationality with race just like what this dude just did."
How did Cleese confused race with nationality? He never mentioned race, neither he made arguments about skin color or whatever. According to the University of Oxford: "Between 2004 and 2017 the foreign-born population in the UK nearly doubled", "London is the region with the largest number of migrants", and "Foreign-born people constituted 41% of Inner London’s population in 2017 (the highest share among all regions with comparable data)". Thinker(unlicensed) 08:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You tell me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I just love how that Joseph Watson guy in that Twitter thread said scarily the same thing as you just did. You have good company! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
"You tell me."
@LeftyGreenMario/sig You made the claim that Cleese confused nationality with race, you have the burden to prove it. I don't have to tell you nothing about it.
"I just love how that Joseph Watson guy in that Twitter thread said scarily the same thing as you just did. You have good company!"
Guilty by association fallacy... Pathetic. When will you learn to make a valid argument? Thinker(unlicensed) 16:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You win. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
"Something I've had to recognize after re-watching Monty Pythons Flying Circus, they use blackface and peddle in some mild racist stereotypes."
@RipCityLiberal Well, they made a lot of fun of prejudice. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Still used blackface, which is racist. RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal It depends what they did in blackface. I don't think blackface is racist per se. If a white actor has to play a black character, blackface is just makeup. It is the way in which the black character is played that could be racist. The alternatives would be: whites can never play black characters (which would be problematic for a show with five actors playing thousands of characters), whites can play black characters but without blackface (making the scene incomprehensible), a black actor must be hired for the role (but then why not the same when playing elderly people, disable people, minors...) Thinker(unlicensed) 07:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Because elderly people, disabled people, and minors were never slaves. The reason blackface is racist is because the group wearing the blackface is also the group which oppressed the other. You will find similar outrage for dressing as a Native American (or First Nation as Canadians put it). During the civil rights movement a lot of stuff was written by groups championing for change about subjects like these. I recommend reading them. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This is UT, don't be surprised he says stuff like this. Oxyaena Harass 09:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Blackface is racist. Redface (dressing and talking "like" a Native American, which MPFC also did) is racist. White people don't get to decide whats racist. As a person of color, I'm telling you, this shit is racist. Now was it common? Less so in the '70s but not uncommon. Was it meant to explicitly dehumanize POC? Not necessarily. But is was racist.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
is this really a conversation that is happening? really? blackface IS racist. clearly. black people, of colour, of any non white persuasion were all but absent from tv and movies, and when there are characters depicting such folk, they suffer the further indignity of a white person blacking up. i would hope we have come a long way since 'a birth of a nation'. i would hope we have come long way since the 60s, the 70, the 80s etc. what was acceptable back then is not now. but there are still issues, around depictions of ethnicity and not just blacking up, issues of stock characters being racial stereotypes, ethnicity of the lead actors, and so on
its not true that these are no issues from the elderly and disabled people (minors is bunk though - there are limits to what minors are legally allowed to do what with being minors) - look at how many roles older women get to play while tom cruise is still playing viral young men while pushing sixty. there has been recent effort to getting more disable actors playing disabled character - the stephen hawking received some criticism for this. we dont make progress on thses thing until people act up about them and we starting to see that now. it matters because as with all this black face, red face, disabled - its the same problem. if you are not white, disabled, in the autumn of life, and people like you are invisible or sidelined, are stereotyped, depicted by someone distinctly not you - what does that tell you about the society you live in and how it values people like you?
as john cleese original comment, yes it is racist. london is a multicultural city. the UK is a multicultural country. pakistani/indian, chinese, afro carribean communities and dozens of others have been here for years. they are not fresh of the boat. they are londoners, englanders - the midlands, the north -everywhere, british, born and bred. to deny that these people are not or can not be english is inherently racist. you were born here, your dad was born here, your grandad - when do get to be english? his idea of england comes from a middle english upbringing, an oxbridge education, that revered the empire just as it was crumbling, that was on its way out even as he was born to it.
its not and england that i have ever lived and is not an england that many people of his age have lived. its a fantasy england, that if it ever was is frozen in aspic, and now hes upset that he can longer pretend that is england is the only one that matters. so now he can complain about immigrants as an immigrant in the bahamas. good riddance, he can keep his england, and the multi-ethnic english can strive to mend the only england that counts - the one they helped create.AMassiveGay (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I could argue all this, about racist lamenting about "London not being English", most of the immigrants know how to speak English anyway, and saying how this guy echoes xenophobic racist dogwhistles, but UnlicensedThinker is a fuckhead. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
i live in london, so i guess its personal thing. manchester, brum, liverpool, leeds, southall, any built up area has sizable ethnic wouldnt be england according to cleese. its depressing bcause he could have expressed the sentiment that the world as moved on in such way as to not sound like a massive racist. its no different to nick griffin of the bnp saying there are no black welsh people. sadly its a sentiment thats fuelling brexit, but we cant turn back time and the attempts to do so brings us ever closer to disaster. it occurs to me no ones talked too much about the on going windrush scandal on this . thats the context of this thing, thats a fucking appalling example of what happens when you pander to racists. lives destroyed in a quest for votes from racists. we cant let people hand wave away and excuse this racist shit, or any kind prejudice. there are real consequences for real people beyond this point scoring of people with less empathy than a sponge.
ive been trying not to respond but here we are. heres a suggestion beyond the obvious dont feed the troll. dont let them control the debate. dont accept unduly narrow definitions or bizarre interpretations - bring it back to the salient points or you end up arguing the toss about pointless bullshit. see the discussion below on the ok sign - its relevance here is only just occurring to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
How is using salient points going to work against the intellectually dishonest? I feel they're just going to quibble about pedantry ("how is he a racist for saying that London is no longer English when he didn't mention race?") or minor issues (like how Thinker just went straight to lazily pointing how fallacies when I said his points closely echo a xenophobe Paul Joseph Watson) I'm past the point UnlicensedThinker is just really frustratingly bad at grasping language. I guess I could be posting for the sake of more competent users, but is it also important to explain again how obtuse UnlicensedThinker is, how this repeated pattern of obtuseness is a red flag for intellectual dishonesty? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm with you @LeftyGreenMario, UT and others intellectual dishonesty feigning as "open discussion" isn't cute, only irritating.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"Because elderly people, disabled people, and minors were never slaves. The reason blackface is racist is because the group wearing the blackface is also the group which oppressed the other."
@MirrorIrorriM what's the "the group which oppressed the other"? White people? Ignoring the fact that historically most of the white people never had black slaves neither oppressed black people... according to your argument blackface would be fine if done by latinos, asian... which I doubt it's something you would agree with. Anyway, notice that I proposed a condition for blackface being racist based on actions ("It is the way in which the black character is played that could be racist...") and you proposed one based on groups... MLK, where are you?
"As a person of color, I'm telling you, this shit is racist."
@RipCityLiberal Worst argument ever. Try to make one that does not appeal to you being of a particular race.
"you were born here, your dad was born here, your grandad - when do get to be english? "
@AMassiveGay LOL I just posted: "According to the University of Oxford: "Between 2004 and 2017 the foreign-born population in the UK nearly doubled", "London is the region with the largest number of migrants", and "Foreign-born people constituted 41% of Inner London’s population in 2017 (the highest share among all regions with comparable data)"." Thinker(unlicensed) 20:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Motherfucker you are the LAST person that can talk shit about anyone's logical arguments. And my experiences do not diminish with this subject. As a black person, in white spaces I have experienced racial prejudice. I have witnessed racial prejudice against family members, including my mother. Also motherfuckers like you ignore evidence of racial prejudice all the time, so excuse me for using my experience as a substitute.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Using something like blackface for a comedy bit is... pretty much always racist. Just because you would never ask a black person to play that stereotype themselves is a pretty old and stupid way of looking at it. The point is the part was written that way, worked/edited to be that way, and performed come racism or high water. Like dumbass old white guys tend to do, even with the best intentions. To argue that racism hasn't played a role in where we are at, currently, is fucking stupid, your heroes putting on blackface or tweeting cryptically about what London was like some 60-70 years ago doesn't invalidate fucking racism, and sheltering it doesn't help the current reality. He's old as fuck, he's allowed to have this thought, and we're allowed to tell him what he wonders in this tweet is based on a false premise.
Oh no, John Cleese did not solve racism with single a fucking tweet!?! But clearly he meant to do that!!!! Fuck off. On the other side of the Atlantic, to be an American and say "Jim Crow is dead, that's that," is also fucking stupid and impotent (see @UnlicensedThinker and "worst argument ever"). John Cleese is a funny guy, I don't think anybody is trying to burn him at the stake here, but what he said was something I categorize as "old white person racism." I don't think he meant it that way, but it definitely is nostalgia of a certain racist slant. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Twitter's tagline should be "have stupid thoughts, win stupid retweets" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"As a black person, in white spaces I have experienced racial prejudice. I have witnessed racial prejudice against family members, including my mother."
Template:RipCityLiberal That's bad but it has nothing to do with the question "Is blackface inherently racist?" My answer is: No, it is the way in which the black character is played that could be racist. Thinker(unlicensed) 10:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
except it has everything to do with it. things do not happen in a vacuum and racism in the wider society is why blackface is racist, and is one the the ways racism was manifested in and perpetuated by media. it is and always will be racist until that racism is long dead, and counter examples do not cut it because they exist in and are produced in a society where racism is very much a thing, and how ever well intentioned or innocent you think is its still part of and adds to that racism and to the racism in media thats existed since the birth of cinema and tv (and on stage for that matter), expunging all those who are not white from record, preventing them telling their own stories.
as for the percentage of foreign born londoners - what of it? London has always been a centre or immigration and what those immigrates bring with them becames part of the ever changing thing that is english. that is very much point - what is 'english' is in constant flux. it is not unchanging fantasy that never actually existed, to exclude or blame communities in england because they don't fit that fantasy, because they have roots elsewhere is racist. the do fit. they are english. now more than ever it is sentiment all in england should actively resist. most of us in London do. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

An example[edit]

Since we are arguing if blackface is inherently racist, and since my position is that "it is not inherently racist, it is the way in which the black character is played that could be racist," I provide an example of blackface that I do not believe to be racist. In this old sketch of the Benny Hill show, a parody of Ironside was made. Benny Hill played Ironside, and Bob Todd, who double acted with Benny Hill for almost all his career, played Ironside's assistant Mark Sanger. Bob Todd played in blackface, because he was white but Sanger was black, but he didn't do anything racially prejudiced or stereotypical against black people, so I don't think this is a case of racist blackface. Thinker(unlicensed) 10:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

see above. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Blackface is associated with racism today, and as such it should not be used. Is it inherently racist? I am not certain what it means to be inherently racist. It probably was not always used with racist sentiments in the past. Minstrel shows were sometimes promoted by anti-slavery activists. Consider it a form of communication. What are you trying to say by putting on blackface? There is no good reason for it today. Some people are freaked out by it. But as a black intellectual once said. "I wear a blackface every day." Ariel31459 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"I am not certain what it means to be inherently racist."
It means that it is racist no matter what. For example, promoting KKK ideology is inherently racist, because KKK ideology support the idea that blacks are inferiors, and consequently it is racist by the definition of racism itself. On the other hand, wearing a KKK costume is not inherently racist: if you do it in support of KKK it is racist, but if you are an actor playing a KKK member in a documentary about US history then it is not racist. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are always exceptions I suppose. It is also true that displaying the twisted cross emblem is not always in support of Nazism. For example, one might see them displayed in a museum with a department dedicated to the artifacts of WWII. Still, you would never put a Nazi flag on display in your yard, I hope. I think you are overly concerned with the idea of inherent meaning. We have the meanings current today and, for the most part, those meanings with the most currency form our understanding.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"Yes, there are always exceptions I suppose."
@Ariel31459 Technically, those are not exceptions to the statement "blackface is inherently racist." Because "inherently" excludes exceptions by definition. Maybe you will think that I'm too pedantic ("I think you are overly concerned...") but as you can see many users refuse to accept the existence of what you called exceptions, and believe that blackface is inherently racist. This is bad because dilutes the concept of racism (prejudices against particular races believed to be inferior to others) to just a list of things that are labelled "racist", no matter the context... with the consequence that the dialogue stops to be rational and becomes just a matter of who controls the list ("As a person of race X, I says Y is racist..." an similar) Thinker(unlicensed) 16:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Meanings exist in our minds. The way we feel about them is unique to living beings. You can point out auxiliary or obsolete meanings and historical contexts, but people may not recognize them as significant to their understanding. You cannot expect others to adjust their understanding for the sake of a version of semantic completeness. I agree that the descriptor 'racist' could theoretically be used too often, resulting in a weakening of the word's effectiveness as a moral distinction. In the above case, 'blackface' is a theatrical affect currently associated with racism. Someone could write a book about the possible exceptions. Would anyone read it?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinkerTechnically, your argument doesn't exonerate racist versions of blackface from being racist either, so your point seems glib. Functionally, your argument has made a fumbling attempt to grasp how racism works, so I'm going to focus on that. So, if the argument here is that speaking about and against racist discretions (specifically fom a different generation and value set) should feel harmless and if it is not treated as such, it dilutes the current problem and weakens the solution to racism, by somehow making other people, clearly not you, more upset about racism, what are you arguing for? This is not an error in structure, I really mean to ask you if the act of speaking out and against racist discretions dilutes some argument against some pure form of racism that is a bigger problem? What are you arguing for? A continuation of casual racism just so that it's easier for the people in power to decide what they kind of accept or die off? You look like you're arguing for a continuation of a gentler form of racism when you say complaints about casual, old person racisms are overblown by the people still living with the effects because it's not as bad as it used to be. In a hyperbolic comparison, this is like Stephen Crowder saying men should have a say in the abortion argument, since men gave women the right to vote. Men did not give women the right to vote. Men stopped denying women the right to vote. Do you get what I'm saying, please? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gol Sarnitt "your argument doesn't exonerate racist versions of blackface from being racist either"
Of course it doesn't. My argument is compatible with the existence of racist versions of blackface. I never negated that blackface can be racist. Sincerely, have you read my argument? It is at the beginning of this sub-thread. I wrote: (*)"my position is that [blackface] is not inherently racist, it is the way in which the black character is played that could be racist."
"So, if the argument here is that speaking about and against racist discretions (specifically fom a different generation and value set) should feel harmless..."
No, that's not my argument Read again (*).
"What are you arguing for? A continuation of casual racism just so that it's easier for the people in power to decide what they kind of accept or die off?"
No, that's not my argument either. Read again (*).
"You look like you're arguing for a continuation of a gentler form of racism..."
No, that's not my argument either. Read again (*).
"when you say complaints about casual, old person racisms are overblown by the people still living with the effects because it's not as bad as it used to be.""
I never said so. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
heres the thing, you talk about context and you say it is how the character is played that makes blackface racist, but you ignore the context completely. the context of the history of racism o stage and screen, and the context of the history of racism in the wider society. I have already explained why that matters above, and you cannot begin to talk about context or somehow 'innocent' depictions of blackface without addressing those things. you have not done this. as I have already said these things do not happen in a vacuum. explain to me how any innocent examples can ignore all that, or ignore all the years where black people were absent from screens, or all the years that black people were limited to stock servile characters or more savage stereotypes? tell me how it can ignore all the years of real world racist abuse, of all the varying degrees of segregation, or the racial bias in the legal in the system? tell me why in this innocent depiction of blackface, why it was so necessary to have some guy blacked up, why a real black person couldn't be found, that a visual reminder of decades of racist abuse was the way to go? tell me why black people wouldn't be repulsed by it? the wounds are to fresh, too deep, and new wounds are still being made. when racism is a distant memory, maybe then you can depict blackface in way that doesn't spit in the face of black people, but we are a long way from that. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
"tell me why in this innocent depiction of blackface, why it was so necessary to have some guy blacked up, why a real black person couldn't be found"
@AMassiveGay In most of the cases, I would find idiotic using a white actor to play the role of a black character (or vice versa), because of course we can find an actor of the appropriate skin color for the character. In the example I provided, I see Bob Todd necessary because he and Benny Hill double acted in every sketch, with thousands of different makeups, for thousands of different characters. The real question would be: why, for this particular sketch, Benny Hill should have acted with a black actor he never worked with before?
"tell me why black people wouldn't be repulsed by it?"
I sincerely don't care about what people are repulsed by (think for example of how many religious people are repulsed by gays. Should we care? Of course not.) The argument is about if something is inherently racist. Not if something causes repulsion. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
and you haven't addressed my points at all, once again ignoring years and years of racism. the benny hill example doesn't address why, in an era with so few black people on television, one of the few examples of a black person on screen is actually a white guy blacked up, why is that acceptable? why is that not just pouring salt on a wound? and its not like benny hill never had any guest stars. why is this not just an example of the eras racial insensitivity?
as for not caring about people being repulsed, that is just fucking despicable. the comparison to religious folk being repulsed by gays is pure fucking dog shit. those religious people who are repulsed are repulsed by people who are different to themselves. black people being repulsed by blackface are being repulsed by a visual indication of years of racist oppression.
have you not even an ounce of basic human empathy? any at all? it would explain why you having so much difficulty with a basic thing. but not caring what black people think about depictions of them by others, ignoring the racism produced these depictions, reinforced by these depictions, in favour of weakly made argument, a feeble argument, a bare assertion that there is nothing wrong them - that says something a little more.
you are a fucking disgrace.AMassiveGay (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinkerThe point I made about fumbling to grasp how racism works was a deeper dig at what you yourself are missing about functional racism, and blackface is an example of functional racism. You've done a very good job of connecting my over-long criticism to your single statement that you and I disagree on. So, I'll condense my end, since you get what I'm talking about, and we can see where we get from here.
What do you think was the importance of blacking a white face (and for continuity's sake, throwing on an afro wig) on the Benny Hill show for entertainment purposes in 1971? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


"why is this not just an example of the eras racial insensitivity?"
@AMassiveGay You are confusing "insensitivity" with "racism." I think almost all of our disagreement is based on that.
"What do you think was the importance of blacking a white face (and for continuity's sake, throwing on an afro wig) on the Benny Hill show for entertainment purposes in 1971?"
@Gol Sarnitt The same importance of putting Benny Hill on a wheelchair and dressing him as Ironside. The cast was Hill, Todd, Wright and McGee. The parody to be made was "Ironside." Thinker(unlicensed) 07:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
still not answering the question. still not addressing the racism endemic in the past and the present that makes all blackface racist - it only exists because of racism. Racial insensitivity IS racism of the unconscious kind - entirely my point. ignoring it and handwaving it away to he extent you have and in the manner you have makes you look more and more racist with every post. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
"still not addressing the racism endemic in the past and the present that makes all blackface racist"
@AMassiveGay I'm not addressing it because I don't think it makes blackface inherently racism. By definition racism is prejudice and/or discrimination against people of a certain race based on the idea that such race is somehow inferior. If blackface (or anything else) is done without such prejudice, then it is not racism (by definition), no matter all the history of blackface. It can be insensitive, it can be in bad taste, it can be repulsive, it can be stupid, but -in the absence of such prejudice- it's not racist. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
and here we have the twisting of definitions to avoid calling a spade a spade. your 'definition' would make the institutional racism that harms so many not racism at all, make policy where racist intent is not explicit but in practice completely. blackface is a product of explicit, institutional, and unconscious racism. any 'innocent' examples helps normalise all of that. address this and drop the racist equivocations. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Why are we still engaging here. UT cannot for some reason grasp complex concepts, like institutional racism. And their own racism won't allow them to understand surface level examples from experience. Just let this fuck fester in their own little shitty world. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Thinker So we could justify "Seperate but Equal"! It isn't, by titular definition, prejudice based upon the idea of one side being inferior; it says right on the tin that they are equal, after all. It is just people being seperate! No racism at all!
If it results in mistreatment, if it results in callous misrepresentation, if it results in inequality, if it has the same effects as racism, it is for all intents and purposes racism. But this is even worse than that. If you, knowing that something is deeply offensive to people who are already at a disadvantage in life for no fault of their own, choose to do an action anyway (for no reason other than convenience of not hiring a black actor), you are indirectly saying that your convenience is more important than how that group of people feels. You are saying your convenience is more important than their history. Being knowingly insensitive is no different than saying that those people's opinions don't matter because they don't matter as a people. If you think your convenience and humor is more important than respecting years of oppression, you are racist. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
"So we could justify "Seperate but Equal"! It isn't, by titular definition, prejudice based upon the idea of one side being inferior; it says right on the tin that they are equal, after all. It is just people being seperate! No racism at all!"
@MirrorIrorriM First, if one says that X is not racist, then it doesn't mean that he is justifying X. I bet that you agree that drunk driving is not racist. This doesn't mean that you are justifying drunk driving. Hence, your "So we could justify" is already wrong. Second, the "equal" in the doctrine of "separated but equal" was never implemented: Blacks and whites were separated; blacks had shitty jobs, houses, schools, services... whites had good ones. And of course that was based on the prejudice that blacks deserved less because they were inferior. So of course "separated but equal" was racist.
"If you, knowing that something is deeply offensive to people..."
Even assuming all the rest you wrote is correct, how do you know that Bob Todd knew that? Your argument still makes possible that Bob Todd's blackface was not racist, just ignorant.
"Being knowingly insensitive is no different than saying that those people's opinions don't matter because they don't matter as a people."
Nope. One can disagree or not care about other people opinions without thinking that those people don't matter as people. This is something many users here do not understand, and that's why they fight opinions with personal attacks, since they are unable to distinguish between opinions and people. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Why on earth would you need to separate two equal establishments? To look back at the Benny Hill argument, your argument boils down to it wasn't racist, but it needed more than one depiction of a race to work. Why do you think it needed more than one depiction of a race to work? And why does your cast list not include any of the women who were in the skit? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Jenny Lee Wright is a woman, sorry. But there are bit part actors in this skit. I wouldn't ask you to chase their names down. So again, with this correction, why do you think it needed more than one depiction of a race to work as a skit? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
"Why on earth would you need to separate two equal establishments?"
@Gol Sarnitt I have no idea. Indeed, I never said (neither I think) that two equal establishments should be separated. I have just written in my last post that "separated but equal" was racist. You keep attributing to me things I never said and arguments I never made. We can't have a conversation in this way. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
still not answering the question. still not addressing the racism endemic in the past and the present that makes all blackface racist. the intent or the opinions of those doing it are irrelevant. the effect is the same. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
"still not addressing the racism endemic in the past and the present that makes all blackface racist."
@AMassiveGay GOTO 2081252. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I already responded to that piece of shit response. you are still ducking the question. still not addressing the racism endemic in the past and the present that makes all blackface racist. still offering nothing but empty assertions and twisting definitions. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Clearly, you reject my definition of the word "racism", since in your response your wrote "here we have the twisting of definitions to avoid calling a spade a spade. your 'definition' would make the institutional racism that harms so many not racism at all..." referring to the definition of racism I gave in my previous post, that is, "prejudice and/or discrimination against people of a certain race based on the idea that such race is somehow inferior." The problem is that such definition is not my definition, but the commonly accepted definition of racism (Oxford dictionary and Merriam-Webster dictionary). Thus, I'm not the one who's twisting definitions. I'm using the standard definition. It's you that intend "racism" in some non-standard way. I can't help with that. Of course if you redefine the word "racism" in order to make your argument works then you are right, but I stick to English. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
still ducking the issue. still not addressing the history of racism, past and present, In society and in media that makes blackface racist.
throwing dictionary definitions does not help you, it does not show how racism works or is used, nor does it show blackface isn't racist. it does not show the forms It takes and it does not show the harm. it makes no mention of institutional racism, no mention of casual racism. its a dictionary definition - a concise explanation, not a working or functional examination. only a fucking imbecile would base their argument on that alone.
nor does my invalidate my argument. the form that blackface takes or the intent of those doing it are irrelevant when taken in the context of past and present racism make even the most innocuous renditions racist - you still refuse to address that. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinker And this is where we see it. As much as I'd like to sit upon your definition of "racism" we really can't. You can't define the word "racism" by some dictionary term and be done with it. Define hurt. Define power. Define accident. Applying a word is wildly different from defining it. I think you "performed" an "accident" and I'm straight up here for you when you figure that out. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Thinker If someone literally did not know anything about blackface being racist then if they wore blackface they would have been ignorant, but what they depicted is still racist. It is like if someone takes something they didn't know wasn't theirs (say a child stole candy from a store). It is still theft, it just shouldn't be punished because they were unaware of society's restrictions at large and had no malice behind it. So yes, if you could find a person who had no idea that black people were ever oppressed, a person who had no idea that black face is considered offensive, then I can say they shouldn't be looked down on for being racist (they should be looked down on for living under a rock, maybe). But good luck finding your strawman. Also your counter argument against my "seperate but equal" argument is that it was racist in practice but not definition. The irony is thicker than a hurricane levee. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


Something that's so interesting about linguistics is what it can reveal about people who spoke the languages of the past, providing a window into prehistory that archaeology alone could never provide us. For example, no one would've known the Proto-Indo-European name for their chief deity, Dyḗus Pḥatḗr, from archaeology alone, it reveals elements of prehistoric mythologies such as the fact that the Proto-Indo-Europeans possessed three goddesses who wove the webs of fate, their descendant goddesses include the Fates of Classical mythology and the Norns of Norse mythology, or that the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew of silver but not of any way to actually smelt silver itself, suggesting they got it from trade. A Native American example is of the NavajoWikipedia word for "corn", nà:-dą, which comes from two AthabaskanWikipedia roots meaning "enemy" and "food, so nà:-dą ultimately means "food of the enemy." This is intriguing, and telling, because the Navajo speak an Apachean languageWikipedia closely related to Western ApacheWikipedia, meaning they are an Apachean people (albeit heavily influenced by Puebloan culture, they've diverged so heavily over the last few centuries they are now arguably completely separate from the Apache peoples), whom migrated south from Canada to the Southwestern US some seven centuries ago. Remember the Apaches were nomadic predatory raiders, while the Puebloans were settled agricultural peoples, and they would've made a prime target for Navajo and Apache raiders (and they indeed did, the Apache and Navajo have a long history of raiding the Pueblos), and the staple of the Puebloan diet was corn, aka maize. The Navajos would eventually differ from their Apache cousins in that they'd ultimately adopt agriculture, and with the coming of the Spaniards, animal husbandry, themselves, hence the Navajo word for corn is ultimately a linguistic artifact. Oxyaena Harass 16:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Linguistics has always been my favorite. "[self Edit]Asstalking on heresay." English is pretty ubiquitous today, necessary, and finds ways to say things as efficiently as possible. I don't mean to deny that some things can only be described ineffeciently. What is the feeling of enjoying somebody else's' failure when you felt justified in expecting their failure? Schadenfreude, but that's pretty easy to parse out in English. What is Karma? Getting what you deserve without control over the circumstances, also easy to parse out in English, but totally not what Karma implies. I read a book back in 201therabouts, Through the Language Glass that pointed out the feedback loop between language and worldview. I'm pretty long-gone from my time reading books like this, and I wouldn't necessarily treat it as canon, but there are some interesting points about interpreting/settling on language within a culture, in that what is most vital becomes most recognized. In my own opinion, being unable to keep up with the language of memes might contribute to a feeling of being unnecessary. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Historical linguistics is probably the easiest way to access the mindset of pre-literate peoples. Another example is in the Sanskrit article: we know that the speakers of Sanskrit migrated ito India, partially because they didn't have words for palm trees, elephants, rice paddies, or monkeys. The Sanskrit words are all fairly transparently borrowed from neighbor languages. By contrast, the Dravidian languages had all of those words. Languages also contain frozen metaphors and images, and are our go to for describing things we could understand in no other way. When you say 'atom', it for me conjures up an image of a mass of differently colored billiard balls around which a group of smaller ping pong balls are swiftly orbiting. This image is likely inaccurate in a number of ways. But we have no other way of envisioning an atom either, so it will persist. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 13:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I really like that point. The concept of a matter wave is described by the phrase, which uses two words that we have a pretty solid grasp of to describe something that exhibits wave-like and matter-like traits, while kind of flying in the face of both of those words. The language of math seems to be the best way to communicate with the universe. I wish I had spent more time learning it when I had the time, I have all sorts of questions I don't even know how to ask. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, but you couldn't hold an actual conversation in math. Extraterrestrials beaming out their signals in math, like repeating sequences of prime numbers, are sending out a message, but that message says little beyond "hello, we're here." Oxyaena Harass 14:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with that a little bit. A "Hello world!" interpretation of the intention of signals may be something we are limited to, currently, which blows my whole argument to shit. But what I meant is more about communicating with the rules of the universe all persons inhabit via maths, less about communicating between two entities that exist under the same mathematical laws. Both are important.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictures are a better conveyor of information than math is, so an ideal approach would be to broadcast all three forms of communication, language, pictures, and math. Oxyaena Harass 17:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Like the hologram recorded onto the R2-D2 in "A New Hope"? I have neve been a Star Wars fan, but hell, why not give it a shot? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
We launched a phonograph record into space. I wonder if any alien culture that ever finds it will figure out the general idea of how such an artifact could be played, much less what the correct speed is. And figure it out before they spoil it by cutting into it or trying to take it apart. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 06:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hahaha, I agree. At least Andy Warhol took the futility of a hieroglyph seriously. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Quora Crackpots[edit]

I personally think Quora is one of the better things to happen to the Internet. In terms of quality, it's much better than Yahoo! Answers, even after the demographics have been muddied down with less-than-qualified people.

And some people do tend to have views you might disagree with. The lot of them still construct cogent arguments and conduct themselves civilly with commenters, but there's always that ONE user you come across...I have to say my long-term memory is fuzzy, but I think I found one that takes the cake out of all my experiences.

A self-proclaimed student of the last REAL scientist (Isaac Newton!), Turner uses his/her powers of...observation? to put forth a very...interesting take on even the most fundamental laws of physics. Disagree with them? They won't even defend their data, because that's for pussies. Shouting and insults is the way Newton did it!

Some of their highlights:

Well, I thought I might share that with you guys. Does it even resemble any kind of already established pseudoscience, or is it homegrown? Has anyone had a similar experience? --ThesaurusRex (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've not had the time or interest to independently verify this, but I've read in several places the claim that there are people on Quora who are paid to act like crazies in order to generate hate-clicks. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 08:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like my kind of people, considering what I used to do, @DuceMoosolini. Oxyaena Harass 08:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm amazed that anyone would need to pay trolls to troll Quora. But apparently Quora rewards people for asking questions that attract lots of views via their invite-only partner program. --Annanoon (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait, questions are monetized on Quora based on their responses? This seems... advertiser-friendly. Let me ask Jeeves about this one, Jeeves is old and wise. Jeeves, can a product advertise on a question/answer site using questions loaded for a response and a hundred fake answer accounts to thumbs up their ideal answers? ...Je...Jeeves? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


...is the next bout of anal rules lawyering going to occur, I wonder.... Oxyaena Harass 09:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Shall we have a discussion about whether it should be policy to always use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD? Spud (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I always thought changing the acronym was pointless, because year zero still refers to the same time. Changing the acronym is more expensive than just changing the meaning of the acronym (more people use AD and BC than spell out the original words). I would have proposed the new meaning to have been Backwards Counting and Ascending Dates. However, the textbooks have already been rewritten so I suppose changing it now would just incur additional editing costs. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Because year zero still remains the same the Christian influence on the term is still there. Oxyaena Harass 15:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure I've seen people get told off for using BC/AD in the past. I thought BCE/CE were policy? But maybe we could use the French Republican calendarWikipedia or Brave New WorldWikipedia's After Ford? --Annanoon (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Although the best solution would be to use Unix timestamps have some fancy template and allow people to choose their date system. Before PresentWikipedia has some good alternatives (and some bad). --Annanoon (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anal date extraordinaire @Spud has told me off before for using BC/AD. Oxyaena Harass 09:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"Told you off? You mean that in the edit summary I wrote, "Fucking AD? Fucking AD? It's fucking CE, for fuck's sake!" I wasn't really telling you off. I was taking out some of the frustration after a hard day at work. Spud (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

Speaking truth to power:

"As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals. on the basis of their sexual orientation. My Administration has launched a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality and invite all nations to join us in this effort" — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:4163:AD00:589E:DF29:751A:CA56 / talk

Cute pandering. Must have taken his speechwriter(s) more than a few hours to cook that up, and to keep him away from his account while they typed it out. And no, Trump didn't write that, the linguistic pattern is different than his confirmed tweets. It's too polite, too formal, more in line with his PR people's pattern than his own. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a nice sentiment from a president who isn't, for instance, banning trans people from the military, trying to ban trans people from homeless shelters and trying to make it harder for LGBT people to get medical care. Wake up and smell the shit! Stop focusing on the man's lies and examine his actions instead. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
"trying to ban trans people from homeless shelters"
@DuceMoosolini I don't understand this thing of homeless shelters. How can be trans people banned from them? I mean, in my country the homeless people who want to sleep in a shelter wait outside and a guy let them in until all the beds are filled. There's no ID check and even if there was "being trans" is not written on the ID... Thinker(unlicensed) 16:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This like the fable of a cat killing mice and then tries to play dead to coax surviving mice out to scavenge, and the mice aren't fooled. Do not be fooled by the innocent airs of those you found dangerous. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, this Tweet isn't even by Trump. It's his PR people trying to mop up his mess so they can go back to pretending that all this garbage is normal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thinkprogress and Vox are not reliable sources. But The Daily Wire is. — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:4163:AD00:C551:3196:A34D:BCFD / talk
No It isn't You might as well get your news from Breitbart, or Worldnetdaily, or Fox News, or Infowars, or just pick up the local tabloid rag and read it instead of using it for toilet paper (oh wait...) for all the accuracy you'll get. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
"But the Daily Wire is". Holy shit, I needed to laugh today, thank you. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Serious.gif --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust anything said about LGBT rights coming from a homophobic prick.— Unsigned, by: Rationalzombie94 / talk / contribs

Some Fundy ignorance for your perusal[edit]

We begin with a pastor, an old man who despite recognizing to be ignorant of science mixes in the very first verses of John and Jesus' claims of faith allowing pretty much everything with quantum mechanics, followed more or less with Genesis and God transforming "the substance of light into light", continuing with, in Genesis, how is "elohim" after separating heavens and earth (ignoring as usual that it's likely it refers to a plurality of deities rather than the Trinity or the Heavenly Host) is better translated there as "flying like a bird over the waters" than "moving".

We continue with another pastor fellow guest of the latter being amazed at the Book of Job describing both Orion and the Pleiades, and mixing it with the Bible predicting that way gravity (read: the existence of stellar clusters), this man obviously being so ignorant that he does not know both were known since ancient times being visible with the naked eye (maybe they could explain why the Bible does not mention all those clusters that can be seen just with telescope, or those seen with the naked eye that resolve into stars with binoculars or telescopes (Praesepe, Omega Centauri), the Orion Nebula that can be spotted with the naked eye being a star-forming region, not to mention the Milky Way's actual nature). Still in the Book of Job, the Bible predicts both the hydrological cycle -water vapour forming clouds, then raining down- and atmospheric circulation, as well as Earth being spherical. Said pastor is also so ignorant of claiming "the Solar System is in a constellation" (as seen from Earth, I guess) and "Orion is a star cluster".

As an end, we've that atheism (materialism) is not supported by science (quantum mechanics, to be more exact) citing as sources -probably out of context, cherry-picking, or simply lying as that old man has done before (does not he know the Lake of Fire has a place reserved for liars?) several scientists-. Of course, as usual, this end with us being sinners, the infinite God becoming flesh to die in a cross (then why He gives his only son?), blah, blah.

It's a pity not to be able to upload this to FSTDT, giving it's heard on radio. The density of ignorance above is amazing, and from the record it comes from a man who has claimed both the Flood took place 200 million years ago. Either that or it was in Biblical times and preceded by another in the Miocene.

If they cannot get even the most basic science right, how we can be sure they're right about salvation coming in the way they say?.Panzerfaust (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

He might as well claim the sky is green and grass is blue. Oxyaena Harass 04:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Switching to e-cigs[edit]

Going to attempt at quitting smoking again. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the failure rate with e-cigs to be pretty high in my community. Try dark chocolate instead. Not every time you have a craving, just the times it's unbearable. (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Try caffeine. Oxyaena Harass 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
neither of the above suggestions should be considered good advice. if caffeine or dark chocolate works for you, go for those. neither will take the edge off when you trying to quit, so you'll be relying on will power alone and whatever coping mechanisms you can work out.
if you've already tried all that or similar, vape. it wont be such a massive step phasing out cigs for the vape than it is for going cold turkey. you either then start to phase the vape out, or reduce the strength of the liquid till there is zero nicotine. by that stage the physical act of vaping alone can be enough to trick yourself into thinking your getting a hit of nicotine, and eventually you can find yourself vaping less and less. if all else fails, you will be replacing smoking with vaping. still be ingesting poison, but a fraction of what you would still smoking.
so basically, it can be a useful way to quit completely, but at the very least you should see it as harm reduction. and while i dunno what fag prices are like in the us, but in the uk its so so so much cheaper - currently at the 10 pound mark for a packet of 20, lasts a day. vape? a quid and it can last a little under a week. its a no brainer. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
My brand, American Spirits, goes for just under 8 dollars a pack. Since I switched to vaping, I still keep a pack in my car and I don't take my vape pen with me wherever I go. Instead of the pack lasting two, three days tops, I'm smoking only when I drive, which is making a pack last a week and a half. I have bought my second bottle of juice at about 25 dollars, and my third pack of cigarettes. So if I total that out, 80 dollar vape pen included, I have spent around 130 dollars on vaping (and have just passed the halfway mark on my second bottle of juice), and 25 dollars on cigarettes, for a total of about $155 dollars, as opposed to about $120 that I normally spent in that time. But again, I am not even close to being out of juice and I have just started my third pack, and I won't have that introduction cost again until I get enough of a bug up my ass to buy a different vaporizer. (Forgive the generous rounding, I always like to over-tax up when I'm considering my budget). Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
how the fuck does a bottle of juice for a vape cost 25 dollars? do buy by the gallon over there? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, I just started. I'm pretty sure it was 25 dollars. I kinda grey out in unfamiliar social situations and get thing over with, maybe I was oversold, but I'm pretty sure it was 25 dollars. Also, you can't buy vapes online in the US. My first bottle of juice was less expensive but it sucked. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
they all taste foul - like sucking on an air freshener, but smoking tasted pretty foul at first, as does smokes of a brand, or booze to begin with.
here in the uk, I get my juice from Iceland - almost on par with a dollar store. they cost a pound for 10ml. they saw you coming. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I would say, my discount vape juice did taste foul. My current blue slushie juice tastes like the color blue. I don't know if you've ever had Kool-Aid, but purple, blue, and red all have a flavor. Variations seem to require very careful dye work to prove they are not classic blue, purple, or red. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You aren’t happy because you don’t want to be?[edit]


It’s just a weird thing to say. I mean I can understand when people are hurting and they don’t know what to do about all of it. That sometimes it doesn’t seem like the pain will go away no matter what. Even people pretending like things are fine to not worry others. But I have never heard of people saying that you aren’t happy because you don’t want to be. Sounds rather insulting to me.Machina (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I kinda get it, I guess. You keep linking to this guy, maybe it would be worth your time to take a break from it. I once used to say to myself, people only say what they want to hear. It helped me with listening. I was at the gas station today (buying way too much alcohol), I got in my car while a couple kids rolled in on bikes. They rolled in like real dicks, my old man senses were going off. I looked at the way in and saw a little girl on a scooter speed in and eat shit. I witnessed a little kid eat shit on a scooter. I said out loud "I wish I hadn't seen that" I sat in my car, wondering if I had to go make sure this crying child was ok, but then more little kids showed up and picked her up off the ground. I felt better and remembered every time I ate shit out there on my own as a kid. I rarely had friends that would pick me up, little girl was fine, if not lucky. There's no way I'm going to go deal with a scraped knee that is better than having your friends show up. There is also no better way than dealing with it alone. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like the polar opposite of blaming everything else for one's unhappiness. Instead of pointing fingers at outside forces, you get to bear the entire burden, which may actually worsen the emotional pain. Whatever would he say to an unhappy, working class citizen with terrible living conditions, grinding onwards paycheck to paycheck? The whole thing seems to be a small part of the larger solipsistic, dare I say selfish philosophy where external forces don't matter and all focus is directed inwards. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Also I think he's confusing laziness and lack of determination with a lack of a desire to be happy. One may want to be happy, but not be willing to invest time in achieving the desired state. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I wish I could ignore this guy, I gave his videos more chances than they deserve and found faults in so many. Yet I never put stock in my analysis of his stuff because I always assumed there was something I didn’t see. And when I joined the forum on his site and failed to convince anyone else I thought I was the one wrong and they were right.Machina (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I knew from the title that it was going to be idiotic before I began. It’s like someone hasn’t been in the outside world and doesn’t know that myriad of circumstances that affect people. They aren’t happy because they don’t have the means or ability to change things, not because they don’t want to be. Only a brainless idiot would say that. The thing is that not everything is within our control and it’s that part that gets people. People seem to think we are entirely responsible for our lives but that’s half right.Machina (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the exact opposite of an advice video. Jesus. Oxyaena Harass 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay so I bothered to watch the video. He assumes that unconditional happiness exists, but that begs the question. Can you be happy in any situation? He can't say yes because he's never been in every possible situation. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Even then you can’t say that unconditional happiness exists because that feeling of it can be dependent on something that you don’t know or understand.Machina (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to comment on the video but it is no longer is available. I can say that I don't know what "Unconditional" anything might be. We live in a world as the subjects of many conditions. Being happy is not unlike feeling comfortable. It is an affect of animal being. Not only that, but most of the ideas about the world we believe we understand through experience are also affects that comfort, worry, annoy or in some way stimulate an emotional response. Perhaps people are unhappy because they refuse to desist doing what is making them unhappy. In this way are they avoiding happiness? I hope asking these questions is contributing to your sense of well being.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The video should still be available, I know that I was able to click it. But I guess on some level I worry that I am making the wrong choice when I don't wish to seek eternal happiness (although to be honest I am SUPER skeptical about any such claims). It's like if I say no to him then he is right and I am wrong and I am choosing to suffer.Machina (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
An interesting factoid to add, perhaps as just a bit of humor to put together with the ideas of "choosing to be happy" and "unconditional happiness," is that the origins of the word "happy" lie in older words for chance or luck, such that being happy was akin to being lucky or fortunate. -Mabian (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
To quote mine Dostoevsky, "It is better to be unhappy and know the worst, than to be happy in a fool's paradise." and "Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth." I mean, the more we know about everything, the more we know shit is tough all over. If the claim is that happiness requires you to ignore yourself and the things you know in favor of said happiness, the workaround is to accept some unhappiness into your life. Constant unhappiness is a drag and a pain. I get that. Do your best to find your own way up and out of unhappiness, there's no exact formula that can work for everybody. If you work at it, you have a chance. If you fail before you die, well, very few creatures on this earth get a dignified end, you'll never be in poor company. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It's more like he's positing some sort of perma-happiness that is achievable. But again I don't think it's true without telling yourself so kind of story based on whatever "spiritual experience" you might have. Even then it's not unconditional because it comes as the result of whatever he tells you to do. But I'd have to agree with what someone said before, you can't call it that unless you have been in all situations, which they certainly have not.Machina (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Knowing that Naturopathic Medicine is not going away and is gaining traction in many states, the AMA needs to rethink their strategy[edit]

The American Medical Association has failed in stopping Chiropractic medicine and Osteopathic medicine plus they are on the verge of failing to stop acupuncture. Clearly their strategy of using general scientific fact and in some cases, slander (see Wilk vs. AMA) has failed. Not saying science is evil but what I am saying is that alternative medicine groups know how to appeal to people. The AMA really needs to change their strategy or not only do they look bad but they also get less people seeing Medical Doctors. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A good amount of low cost health insurance covers acupuncture and chiropracting, while not covering dental. Note "Dental Coverage isn't an essential health benefit for adults." One of these things is not like the others. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I should say "High deductible health insurance" rather than "low cost." It doesn't cost much until you're sick, but you better not be sick in the mouth. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Quebec pharmacies now label shelves with homeopathic candy to indicate their ineffectiveness. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars[edit]

You know it pisses me off how so many war criminals from that clusterfuck in the Balkans are still out and about today, having gotten away scot free or getting little more than a slap on the wrist? It's sickening. Oxyaena Harass 03:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently if you are on the winning side there are no consequences for your actions. Good to know the UN does nothing. Fuck everything. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There was no winning side, there was a peace settlement brokered by the UN, after three years of utter hell. All three sides were as guilty as the other, @MirrorIrroriM. The Balkan War was something straight out of Hobbes, no joke. Oxyaena Harass 10:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

have i missed something in the news? why bring this up all of sudden? and with such empty bluster? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Tensions are rising in Bosnia again, given this is the Balkans, that is bad. Oxyaena Harass 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
well, sure its 'bad', but thats a banal statement. it doesnt really add to our understanding of why its bad. why are tensions rising? why now? who are the players? what can be done and who by? what is likely to happen? i dislike intensely polemics so oversimplified that they bear no functional resemblance to their target. where are you going with it? loudly proclaiming war is hell is empty bluster. it tells us nothing, with nothing to hang any kind of conversation on. the balkans conflict were incredibly complex and multifaceted, and things are little better now. a more useful overview is required considering how it effects and effected by global events. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The OK-sign[edit]

Are you automatically an alt-righter if you do this (it's in the Alt-Right Glossary, so) or is it something that got pervertized (I probably misspelled that) by far-righters and shitsites like 4Chan? Because I've seen chefs on TV doing this and a picture with Shia LaBeouf doing it aswell. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Oxyaena Harass 11:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I had to use the OK sign instead of giving the thumbs up when I was teaching in Turkey (back in 1997/1998) because the thumbs up sign had been taken up by a far-right Turkish party. And I've never seen it happen myself, but apparently Taiwanese children sometimes make a sign very similar to to the OK one to indicate that they want to go to the toilet. The shapes their fingers make are supposed to represent the letters W and C. Spud (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I care, it's all about context. If you're clearly using it to mean "OK", you're probably good, but if you're somebody who's already affiliated with the alt-right, or if you're flashing it performatively, then you're probably doing it to signal to the worst of the internet that you're "one of them". Right now, the OK sign is about where Pepe the Frog was in 2014-15, not yet wholly co-opted by the alt-right but definitely getting there, especially now that alt-right mass shooters are flashing it in courtrooms. Like Spud said with regards to the thumbs-up in Turkey, seemingly harmless and everyday symbols definitely can be co-opted by political extremists, leading people to seek out alternatives because they don't want to be associated with them. KevinR1990 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
its something they keep doing and we keep letting them do. a word or phrase or symbol, formerly neutral, is grabbed by some fucknut group, and we right away confirm it as their thing now. its how they control the conversation, makes them feel they are having an impact. stop validating them. stop using their slang. stop accepting their definitions. they'll soon move on to something else if no one but them were using words their way and everyone just kept using the former neutral usage. no publicity, no debates with them as the topic of conversation, and they'd soon get bored if they have to keep explaining how they using it differently to everyone else. glossaries are great for seeing what these people are actually saying, but dont use them to speak like the do if you must converse with them. they are making you do all the work, fueling their sense of importance, giving their slang more weight than it deserves, spreadsing it further than just them. you know who the alt right or mens right or whoever are by how they talk. if everyone starts talking like them, even if not of their persuasion, they look stronger, and their targets feel more and more outnumbered or surrounded. whether by accident or design, they have us spreading their influence for them. stop it AMassiveGay (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
About that, I'm reminded of when Stephen Fry tweeted a photo of himself doing the OK sign a few weeks back to promote the A.O.K. Kitchen in London (which uses it as their logo) as part of a Mental Health Awareness week charity fundraiser. I don't think anyone explicitly accused him of being alt-right (except for one guy who said he was joking after he got quoted a dozen times in the press) but the tabloids and PJ Media and Breitbart all leapt onto the story. He subsequently tweeted:
PS: I really will not allow the simple 👌 gesture to belong to the moronic dogwhistling catfishing foghorning frogmarching pigsticking dickwaving few who attempt to appropriate it for their own fatuous fantasies. T @StephenFry, 13 May 2019
Love that guy. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it's stupid, and dumb, but it can be a pretty fucking good clue of such given ✨✨meaningful context✨✨. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 on the strong importance of context. Even the ADL says (emphasis mine):
The ‘OK’ gesture is a nearly universal hand gesture and most usage of it is completely innocuous. Even when used as described here, the fact that white supremacists, the alt lite and many Trump supporters all use the symbol means that one cannot assume that anyone who poses with such a gesture is intending or exhibiting an association with white supremacy. "How the “OK” Symbol Became a Popular Trolling Gesture, ADL
It's the same thing for milk or well done steak with ketchup or clowns with frens or whatever they're using now. The whole point of the protean use of ordinarily innocuous dogwhistles is to make those against the alt-right paranoid, and to make them appear oversensitive and unreasonable to the bystander or uninformed. They should be treated as merely red flags — to automatically leap to the worst interpretation of any usage of such symbols is to fall for the intent behind them. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Just don't flash it in photos like it's a gang sign and you're good. That's the only context where it's tainted. Hannasanarion (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Does it matter which hand? It seems like it's common on the left hand. I would also not line up your fingers while flashing it with your right hand, as it may be misinterpretedRipCityLiberal (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It is also part of "The Circle Game," mainstreamed by Malcolm in the Middle but also played with my cousin who swore up and down that his baseball team invented it before that episode aired. The problem is, if you're doing the "Circle" it should be below your waist. I vaguely remember some clip of some lady recently, there it is, on camera, getting a text and then making a circle game play. She didn't quite get it right. At the same time, "The Circle Game" cropped back up in my warehouse, and a few guys who are definitely not 4channers or white supremacists, but do follow meme culture started playing it. Do I think she was clued into 4chan's move to make the OK symbol white power instead? No, I don't, but I can't substantiate this hunch. Do I think she would have doubled down and just flat out OK'd the next day with the same exact intent to prove she is a white supremacist? Again, best I have is a hunch. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't "the OK hand-sign is white supremacist" a fake news intentionally spread by 4chan to make fun of the media? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Depends, do you count actual nazis doing it at nazi rallies as "4chan"? The whole nazis hiding under irony cover is not overblown, and frankly I know you know that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinker Originally. Then people started using it unironically.
There were a bunch of symbols they tried to pull that with (and in some cases, subsequently fell into their own traps), but the OK sign is one of the few that stuck. IIRC the milk glass emoji was another, but that hasn't seen as much use. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
We already know 4chan loves memes like mostly everybody, but also converses almost solely in the language of memes and negative criticism. When a meme pops up, the users co-opt it as a way to be heard in their forum, the more shocking and unpleasant the better to that end for 4chan. And if it is popular enough on 4chan, it will be seen by white supremacists cruising 4chan. The nice thing about memes is you can be over them in a minute. The unfortunate thing is if memes are built well, they look like melty legitimate thought wrapped in an ironic candy coating. But if you look at white supremacist meme attempts on the whole, they more often than not make no sense, are visually incoherent, and are just really piss-poor attempts at OC. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This whole argument annoys me. I think Chris Ray Gun said it best; "When you give up these symbols to Neo-Nazis you imply that their positions are intelligent and un-debatable. Why would you do that unless you agree with them?" (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
That is a facile statement and the logic does not follow. At all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Just as long as they don't appropriate the V sign or the thumbs up sign and everyone else doesn't follow along, we'll be good. Though Spud in Turkey was far less fortunate. I myself don't use the OK sign too often, not in person anyway, but I use the emoji in the internet to denote I'm cool with something. I recall that the OK sign is already a vulgarity in some countries, lol. Maybe we should flash the OK sign back with the middle finger aimed at them, if you really are that gutsy type, knowing those other cultural contexts at those people. But anyway, is the OK sign being appropriated in other cultural contexts, or is this largely a U.S. (and maybe Western Europe?) phenomenon? I wonder what other countries' takes on this, particularly those that see it as a vulgarity. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think distortion of language is something the branch of conservatism excels at, so just adding on to what AMassiveGay said, this is an extension of conservatism, not a bug. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if it's also about the willingness of progressives to leave something unimportant behind, rather than fight for control over a word or a symbol or anything like that. In a new world of echo chambers, it might be worth holding onto the innocuous symbols, just so people can't get a photo of it and prove their own echo chamber points. If the 'Thumbs up' is ever threatened, I will do anything I can to keep it outside of political interpretation, including never using it again. But do you know how much I love using the thumbs up signal? Nobody should take "you're good, I'm good, we're on the same page and there's no question that hasn't been answered" away from me. That is madness. That is cruelty. That is something I would argue against. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Burning Heretics: Apologists Justifying Murder 'cause Jesus[edit]

Just found this article. It is an old one from 2002, but I still found myself pretty disgusted at the justification for such horrid acts in the past. I noticed we do not have an article on the site. Do people think the site is page worthy? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty worth it to me. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I am at a loss for words for the shit in this article. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be the sort of wacky culty stuff my family believes in. —Sophie (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
you can justify some truly awful shit if no matter how long and agonising the torture and execution are, its is but mere moments compared to an eternity in gods presence after after the fire has cleansed your soul. remember to thank the nice man lighting the pyre if ever find yourself upon one - its for your own good. of course, its even easier to justify when its people you dislike and from whose deaths you gain are the very people who always need a good soul cleansing barbeque.
you see stuff like this, we probably all do from time to, thinking out loud sometimes, wishing for dreadful things on those who earned your ire,that they would die in a fire. its a cathartic release of frustration and even slight harm is not seriously considered. probably harmless if you dont do it too often. these people though, still just thinking out loud - i dont see any genuine urge to enact this stuff - but i get the feeling if someone else did, they would be front row roasting marshmellows on burning heretics. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This was about abortion the whole time!?! It is for that reason I really enjoy the idea, in context, that Jesus had a couple of really bad days, but that is nothing special. Nothing to be so in awe of or worked up about. Nothing out of the ordinary for the time, why would the crucifixion of one man alongside every other crucified be so abhorrent? Full disclosure, I don't think Jesus, of the Bible, was a real person or the story is literal, but I do think the torture and execution of people based on popular notions of who was/is heretical and who was/is guilty of crimes is, for a lack of a better word, wrong. But this doesn't even attempt to equate aborting a pregnancy to execution or the inquisition. It stands in a polar opposite, that ending a life can be justified ONLY if it is a better way for that life to accept/believe in the New Testament God. But that's what the crucifixion of Jesus story was all about, and if God is omnipotent not a single person dies without God's fucking blessing! Life always ends at some point, this whole "before a heartbeat" argument is trash and was always intended to be trash, it's pandering to people as ignorant as this fella, who says burning at the stake is justified to prove that hell is a bad place to go, since you're now dying by a believer's hand. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
*cough* I would tread very carefully here, because it's pretty clear that the source of this information, Michael Scheifler, per the home page, is a Seventh Day Adventist with a *big* anti-Catholic chip on his shoulder (as some fundies tend to go). Warren H. Carroll seems to be a respected Catholic historian but is such in a *very* conservative Orthodox Catholic slant, with some nasty apologies of the sins of that tribe as you might expect (my initial impression is that he is known mainly in Catholic circles, and less mainstream academia, perhaps as a result). Initial impression of his historical books is that in this collection, you will get intellectually hefty arguments that are probably well researched, but nonetheless still brush off the sins of Franco, colonialism, the French Catholic royalty, and the Spanish Inquisition. Basically an apologetic. Nonetheless the accusation is not coming from a source I trust... Soundwave106 (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
So the careful treading, I'd agree to it at your suggestion since you seem pretty keyed in, but that's all a pretty cryptic warning. Are you saying the arguments are too heavy for the site, or that you know better? If it's the former, give the site a chance and then help out. If it's the latter, if you know better, why not apply some of that to the site's benefit? As it stands, I'll knock this article on the Saloon Bar, you can pump its standards as well, but I'd ask what you mean by treading carefully. If it's your territory, please, continue. If the careful treading means "not all Christians," well, I'm always happy to spout off, and I'm sorry if you took exception. If I have wound up in your territory, I'm always willing to hear it out. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry... unfortunately I'm not sure what article we are trying to write here. The site in question, BibleLight (Michael Scheifler's Seventh Day Adventist and rather anti-Catholic site), is quoting Catholic apologetic style Q&A from Catholic television channel EWTN forums, with answers by Warren H. Carroll as well as Matthew Bunson who is a EWTN bigwig. Michael is using these quotes to put Catholicism a bad light. So it's like two sources of crazy at once! :) My only caution was on the accuracy of Michael Scheifler's EWTN quotes given the bias. Fortunately a Google search confirmed these EWTN quotes as accurate.
Is the article proposal about Biblelight itself? It does seem like a source of fun on its own but is more typical fundie hogwash with a touch of conspiracy and heavy anti-Catholicism to boot; I'm also not getting the impression it's terribly notable (Alexa rank #638,014). As far the EWTN nuggets, I see these as quite notable, however, I wouldn't know what to do with these (sarc) fine answers. Maybe add a note to the Roman Catholic page or the Apologetic page concerning the depths that some apologetics, even well respected, well studied apologetics, will go? It seems worthy to put somewhere, but not sure a whole article is needed unless we find a lot more of similar nastiness in EWTN, its leaders (Mr. Carroll or Mr. Bunson) or the rest of the Catholic apologetic community. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for getting snarled, thanks for clarifying. The apologetics page does a weird thing with Presuppositionalism. It would be a full-on endeavor to change all the Branches to more explicit points, not that I would argue against the redundancy. But the weirdness of the Presuppositional point could maybe be condensed. Problem is, the apologetics page is bent on linking away so you can't just slide something like this in without breaking the whole cohesion of the page, aaaaand now I'm not talking about Biblelight anymore. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Babylon 5[edit]

Anyone else watch it? I just saw the episode "Believers," thought it was interesting. Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy, you're only on season 1. Good show coming your way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I loved it, and watched every episode at least twice. There are a bunch of movies too.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw it first run. It was pretty damn good, even with some of the problems they had in production. Spoilers: Losing Michael O'Hare for medical reasons; swapping out telepaths; executive dicking around resulting in a rushed conclusion at the end of season 4 and a non-sequitur season 5. Among others. Nowhere Man (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The spoo eating episode was… interesting. Bongolian (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Alltime favorite show. Dr. Stephen Franklin may be my favorite fictional character of all time_"Shut up, Brx." 05:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy. Wait till Sheridan takes over and things step up a notch. From the end of season 2 reveal through to the wonderful 3 episode run (no spoilers, but a white star in Jupiter woohoo.) Kosh saying "Jump" and the fight back against fascism (the interrogation sandwich scene is still fantastic.) It's a shame season 5 fizzled out due to uncertainty over a 5th season getting made, so the main plot was finished in season 4. Crusade has it's moments though.Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
On Season 2 now. I need a while to get used to Sheridan, but I've actually come to like G'Kar a lot more than I thought I would. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Let me know when the inevitable happens and you come around on Bester. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't get it. Isn't Bester a constant antagonist?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. He never does a face turn, but if you don't end up liking the character by the end, I don't understand you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I like Bester as an antagonist. To think that Chekov would be an unnerving psychic fascist space cop... RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Chekov (Walter Koenig) does a great job with the role. But (@ikr) I was hoping Garibaldi would shoot him. There is a series of 3 novels that includes a history of Bester's life after the Telepath War (Psi Corps Trilogy). If you don't mind spoilers, look here Let's just say Garibaldi does not let go of the past.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
G'Quan wrote: 'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future, or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain." Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm about halfway through Season 2, I think I prefer Sinclair. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
So did Garibaldi. (and every time I think Garibaldi, I hear in my head Londo's weird accent saying, "Mr Garibaldi."
This will probably not be seen, looks like the saloonbar has archived the topic, but anyway, the SFF site Tor just published this yesterday. https://www.tor.com/2019/06/13/babylon-5-is-the-greatest-most-terrible-sf-series/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If I was a smooth talker without a moral compass, these would be the 3 things that I would exploit for financial gain[edit]

  • Religion (largely Christianity)
  • Doomsday Prophecies
  • Alternative Medicine (likely claiming a bullshit cure for a disease)

Those 3 have got to be the easiest to exploit for financial gain. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Basically you'd be a Jehovah's Witness. — Dysk (contribs) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be the greatest black Republican if I didn't have a moral compass. I'd put Herman Cain, Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas to fucking shame.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Given the amount of watchers and subscribers alt-right content creators make (and I doubt all of the alt-right content creators are honest; some of the content they show is so easily debunked like simply zooming out from a graph or just reading a few more sentences from their sources that they're either supremely lazy or dishonest), exploiting the alt-right base by saying things they want to hear while misrepresenting your sources is also a good way to make quick money. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
You could always be an unsmooth talker without a moral compass, if you work hard enough. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I've always thought there was a good market for talismans which protect you against magical attacks. You could honestly guarantee that you would not suffer from a magical attack if you were carrying one. But, order to avoid one-off sales, people would need to periodically send them back for "recharging" to ensure they continued to be effective. Hubert (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hubert Once somebody buys one of your talismans, you periodically send them mail about the other talismans you have for sale and claim that each one offers a different kind of protection. You bought a golden four-leaf clover? How about getting a rabbit's foot as well, just to be on the safe side? Spud (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. good idea.
But I'm sure there must be a market offering protection against other non-existent risks supported by one pseudoscience or another. Something to stop alien abduction? Protection from bigfoot? Something to confuse Roko's basilisk?Hubert (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sell em a gem or two and then throw in a salt lamp. Don't get cocky, kid. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
"Those 3 have got to be the easiest to exploit for financial gain."
@Rationalzombie94 I'm not so sure. Take into account that the market is quite saturated. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
That's the biggest problem, if it's easy to do, it's tough to stand out. These days I think you have to have a certain charisma and marketing skills to make it, as well as (in the case of religion and doomsday prophecies) the right networks and really good showmanship (megachurches productions are not much different than Broadway or big pop productions -- it takes some capital investment here). For doomsday and alternative medicine stuff on the Internet you have to work the SEO and "influencer" market hard (bonus if your coding and NLP type skills are good enough to gear up the bots), *and* (for the conspiracy stuff) be aware that Big Social Media takes a dim view on what you do these days. Alternative medicine is probably the easiest, as you don't really need to step into sketchy "woo areas" -- the bullshit supplement market for bodybuilders and others in fitness for instance is pretty huge -- and you can outsource the capital intensive stuff to China. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Inverse stopped clock...[edit]

So earlier today in an online argument, I had this person who thinks they have sexuality all figured out (go figure) cite this "scientific" article as a source. After visiting it, I found that it was heavily biased and relied too much on huge assumptions and vague statements. What do you think of it? [8] --Goatspeed. How's my editingCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 05:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this your way of getting out of your responsibilities, is this the way you act?! Oxyaena Harass 09:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We're heading to Venus....[edit]

...and still we stand tall... Oxyaena Harass 06:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A tune that's going to be played a lot in the British media again in October. Spud (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
But seriously though. I want to see us try and place a low density balloon in Venus' atmosphere to experiment with having a permanent in-atmosphere staging platform. Also, high temperature circuits have recently been developed that could allow a lander to be permanently on Venus without being destroyed. Exploration of Venus is becoming possible with new technologies. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone come up with a suitable 'venerated' joke?
It is likely to be a long time yet before Venus' atmosphere is penetrated by probes - much new technology has to be developed, whereas (for a non-technical person) it is likely to be much easier to develop 'gizmos that can work high up a mountain on Earth' (low atmospheric pressure, radiation etc) into 'gizmos that can work on Mars.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Venus' atmosphere has been penetrated before though; many times. The Venera missions in the 70s were able to land on Venus. Of course they only lasted several minutes to an hour, but that is because their circuitry couldn't withstand the heat. We have new technology now that could very well solve that problem. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles going live[edit]

A notification that I moved some articles I've been working on for a while from my sandbox to mainspace, as otherwise they don't show up on the new article list. The articles are: History of black people in Britain, Herod, Dating. Improvements, comments, retitling, and other interventions are inevitable welcome. --Annanoon (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are these articles relevant again? It all seems to be about, "OOOH We got them racists" (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Why are you terminally unable to stop shitposting? Is your YouTube channel suffering? Are you looking for some outrage culture fodder to drum up viewers? Or are you just some irrelevant troll that desperately seeks attention in order to overcompensate for your frail ego? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And let's answer the stupid question asked in bad faith. Pseudohistory is definitely umbrella missional. The perception of Europe as a purely white place in history(as part of pro-ethnic cleansing narratives today) is not factual. It's based on an idealized and inaccurate perception of technology-induced isolation. That misconception is attached to the "full range of crank ideas" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Good work, @Annanoon! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Good work & thank you, Annanoon! Bongolian (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

ikanreed call out post[edit]

Look at him ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. But I love a non-sequitur, and I love you. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)