RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive310
Misgendering binary people on the basis of anti-transphobia[edit]
A recent trend I've seen (particularly among LGBTQ people) labels people 'they/them' constantly, including me, even when they've expressly noted that they use fem/masc pronouns. Basically the same suggestion was made by a progressive on NPR's 1A last night, and it really opened my eyes to how frequently this is espoused among queer activists. I absolutely support nonbinary people, but it legitimately gets to the point of intentionally misgendering if someone has identified their pronouns as something other than they/them, and I think we need to consider the fact that binary people also exist (including binary trans people). I get very uncomfortable when someone uses 'they' for me because I feel like it's indicating that I don't fit their standards of feminity, that they don't know me well enough to remember my pronouns, and/or that they don't respect me enough to use my actual pronouns.
Perhaps I'm overstating the frequency of this issue, though. Have any of you experienced this within or outside of LGBTQ spaces? սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 19:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I tend to use generic and specific pronouns interchangeably, mainly due to force of habit. I think in some (though by no means all) instances people just switch from specific pronouns to generic pronouns, and vice versa, without even thinking about it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I particularly don't like being used as a "they" and when people egregiously use "they" on singular users, it starts making my grammar senses tingly and twitchy. I think people call me a "they" despite the odds that I'm more likely a guy just out of habit, but yeah, I don't like being a "they". --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- However, they/them is the default gender neutral pronoun so people will simply use it if they don't know what other pronouns to use for that person. — Dysk (contribs) 22:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Prescriptivism annoys me, but I'm going to skip past that.
- The problem with it is not people referring to someone online with an unknown gender as "they", but people referring to people that they know offline as "they" when they know what your pronouns are. It's incredibly disrespectful to do that, but I consider it courteous when people use "they" for online strangers (as the alternative seems to be "he", which is infinitely more obnoxious). սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 03:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario The usage of the singular "they" goes back to at least the King James Version, if not earlier. — Oxyaena Harass 18:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- As much as it might hurt, if it's defaulting to a they/them it's showing that their brain is breaking because they are trying. There's a conversation between Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro where they want to talk about transgenderism, and Ben Shapiro says he refuses to call anybody by any gender other than what they are born with and then keeps saying "she" in reference to Kaitlin Jenner, then always corrects himself. It's like, dude, relax. You've spent a lot of time thinking about it so you can talk about it and now you're confusing yourself because you already know Kaitlin Jenner's pronoun.
- But, for people who haven't spent time thinking about it, misgendering is plausibly an accident. Closing in on "they/them" is progress, and even my most conservative fledgling adults who like to say "I can identify as a pencil or a helicopter" tread carefully on transgenderism. I have one kid who went through RA training, and guys were upset by his account of it. As an appeal, I said "It's just as much to protect you as anyone in those dorms. Do you want to be the RA who doesn't know what to say to resident under your watch?" The guys relaxed their attack on the training, and then we all ramped up on homophobic jokes until it was too gross for any of us to continue, at which point I explained that the T word is just as bad as the N word, because, basically, it means we don't like that type of person. Since then, it seems like trans issues make more sense to these guys, somehow out of that. They aren't all behind it, but we all got to show our individual limits for it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario The usage of the singular "they" goes back to at least the King James Version, if not earlier. — Oxyaena Harass 18:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I particularly don't like being used as a "they" and when people egregiously use "they" on singular users, it starts making my grammar senses tingly and twitchy. I think people call me a "they" despite the odds that I'm more likely a guy just out of habit, but yeah, I don't like being a "they". --It's-a me,
- Get rid of gendered language completely, just use they for everyone (in the vein of Too Like the Lighting and Left Hand of Darkness)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm going to respond to this seriously. I haven't read either one, but I'll put them on my list of things I was supposed to read. In my limited capacity, to know exactly what you mean, I'll ask a question. Do you think there are problems with making society ambisexual? Specifically, might it limit self-actualization, or is self-actualization limited enough by sexuality to be worth adopting ambisexual language? Anything including/precluding/beyond that specific question, the floor is yours.
- As a less serious aside, in the spirit of pride I watched "The Matrix" for the first time since I was, like, 12 just last night, I can't believe the Red Pill community thinks The Matrix is their metaphor. It's ambiguous and broadly applicable, but white male dominance and conformity are definitely heavy-handed, beat you over the head kinda themes. Furthermore, the guy who looks like Davis Aurini is even the ding-dang traitor? Why would Davis Aurini want to look like the bad guy from The Matrix? Davis Aurini talks about movies critically, man, and claims red pill, and promotes chauvinism and... just... Oh my God, how did it get this bad? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Left Hand of Darkness you should definitely read, Ursula K Le Guinn at the height of her powers. The Terra Ignota series by Ada Palmer is good, but sometimes the concepts can be tricky. But it's also the one that actually examines this in terms of humanity which I think is useful. In Palmer's imagining, individuals have agency to choose the pronouns that describe them.The pronoun "they" is primarily for people that have chosen it based on their occupation or which Hive they have chosen to belong to (The Hives are like social groups that have their own government structures). The narrator makes it clear that when Spanish, French and Japanese are used, that third person pronoun is available. But when they use latin (the language of Romonova, essentially the justice Hive) that language becomes gendered. Also the narrator makes a point of identifying when female characters are referred to as "he" pronouns because of their behavior, clothing or perceived power (like openly carrying a sword), and then male characters are referred to as "she" (primarily applying to members of the caretaker and spiritual Hive).
- I find that the agency portion of this social structure empowers people more effectively, to express themselves in more accurate ways.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Baptists for Israel Institute: Future Article?[edit]
https://www.baptists4israel.com/about-the-program/kibbutz-life
This is an interesting specimen........in my opinion. Okay, I am using the word "specimen" for these type of schools/organizations. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Notice how they offer a "Master of Arts" "Degree" In "Israel Studies." And the founder has a ministry PhD from Pensacola, where he no doubt learned that you don't have to do any sort of accreditation to call a field trip a "Master of Arts." Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- If these people are spending money on Baptists for Israel Institute and they are going to Israel as is, might as well go to an actual school in Israel as an International Student. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- These Jews they support will still go to Hell regardless, so..... — Oxyaena Harass 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hell, there is even a couple schools (that are regionally accredited) that offer degrees in Hebrew studies and you can get overseas study as part of it. Might as well do that and you get an accredited degree. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I suspect that the overwhelming majority of people who go to all the effort of doing the Israel kibbutz thing and getting a "degree" from this place are not really interested in spending all the time and effort to obtain a legitimate academic credential. Cosmikdebris (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Concordia Seminary has an overseas study opportunity with Jerusalem University College.
- I suspect that the overwhelming majority of people who go to all the effort of doing the Israel kibbutz thing and getting a "degree" from this place are not really interested in spending all the time and effort to obtain a legitimate academic credential. Cosmikdebris (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hell, there is even a couple schools (that are regionally accredited) that offer degrees in Hebrew studies and you can get overseas study as part of it. Might as well do that and you get an accredited degree. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- These Jews they support will still go to Hell regardless, so..... — Oxyaena Harass 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- If these people are spending money on Baptists for Israel Institute and they are going to Israel as is, might as well go to an actual school in Israel as an International Student. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.csl.edu/academics/programs/study-abroad/ So there is an accredited school with study options in Israel. Sounds like a better choice because you get an actual MDiv degree along with an overseas study option. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Pride Month[edit]
Hello fellow gays, it is me, corporation. Here to remind you that we support your lifestyle now that it's been legalised federally and we can capitalise on it safely as a mainstream trend.
Why did we have to wait until gay marriage was legalized to support you? No more questions homosexual, just buy the product. — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:4163:ad00:f47a:5cf6:731c:596c / talk / contribs
- Rainbow Capitalism amirite? — Dysk (contribs) 08:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Pride month is gay. (Pun intended) -Coffee Lover — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:90e6:fc78::e775:1d01 / talk / contribs
- Hell yeah. :p — Dysk (contribs) 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I prefer the public sector. They supported gay lifestyle before it was legalized... oh, wait, they didn't by definition. Anyway I'm so old to still remember when the Pride was called Gay Pride... now it's not gay anymore. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- UT, this is one of those times where I question whether you are stupid or willfully ignorant, and I honestly don't see any other option. The public, that is people in general, were not entirely against gay rights. ("gay lifestyle" is one of the stupidest soundbites ever conceived) Why? Because LGBT people are part of the general public by default. So, yes, a large number of people were against giving rights to a minority, Including the corporations that now profit from said minority having rights. They. Did. Jack. Fucking. Shit. Yet they want to act like they helped? Like they cared? Bullshit. Our wonderful captains of industry are no differant than the "old friends" and "lost relatives" that come out of the woodwork after someone wins the lottery or strikes it rich. In, fact, I'd argue they're even worse since they could have chosen to help, but chose not to until after the real work was done. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- "The public, that is people in general,"
- @GrammarCommie By "public sector" I didn't mean the "the people in general" but I meant "the government/the State" (in opposition with the private sector). Probably I made a literal translation that was unclear if not just wrong (I'm not a native English speaker). Of course, "the people in general" were not entirely against gay rights. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @UnlicensedThinker I see. In that case I offer my apologies. (My point about corporate "support" on social issues still stands though) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- UT, this is one of those times where I question whether you are stupid or willfully ignorant, and I honestly don't see any other option. The public, that is people in general, were not entirely against gay rights. ("gay lifestyle" is one of the stupidest soundbites ever conceived) Why? Because LGBT people are part of the general public by default. So, yes, a large number of people were against giving rights to a minority, Including the corporations that now profit from said minority having rights. They. Did. Jack. Fucking. Shit. Yet they want to act like they helped? Like they cared? Bullshit. Our wonderful captains of industry are no differant than the "old friends" and "lost relatives" that come out of the woodwork after someone wins the lottery or strikes it rich. In, fact, I'd argue they're even worse since they could have chosen to help, but chose not to until after the real work was done. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I prefer the public sector. They supported gay lifestyle before it was legalized... oh, wait, they didn't by definition. Anyway I'm so old to still remember when the Pride was called Gay Pride... now it's not gay anymore. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hell yeah. :p — Dysk (contribs) 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Pride month is gay. (Pun intended) -Coffee Lover — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:90e6:fc78::e775:1d01 / talk / contribs
When I first came out I thought that it was going to be this great aspect that would just affirm everything, or at least quite a bit, of things for me. But the reality was that it just showed me how much I am not like the rest of the gays and most the stuff was just so commercialized and insincere. It was a joke.Machina (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- (whole point sparked by "gay pride" versus "pride," feel free to tl;dr). My high school was kinda funny. We changed our mascot from the Indians to the Patriots, which was fine, and good, except the democratic vote for the new mascot, the Trojans was overturned by the administration because somebody had the idea that we could all throw condoms on the football field and that reached them. So, Patriots it was. Then, to be pro-active and engaging, they changed homeroom to "PRIDE time" which stood for "Patriots Building Relationships and Interpersonal something or something" until somebody pointed out that "Pride" was connoted with "Gay pride." Which was a bigger problem than the fact that "Building" didn't get a spot in the acronym, so it was homeroom again. We almost had our newspaper pulled one issue because we had the idea to send a guy and a girl to see "Brokeback Mountain" and give a boy's and a girl's take on it side-by-side. As managing editor, I went ahead and did it (because my journalism teacher didn't care if I looked gay for just seeing it, and none of the other guys were willing to go). Wrote about how, within 20 minutes, you're going to see two fully nude men. If that bothers you, don't see it. Otherwise, it is pretty standard romance movie, and hey, you get to see two full-frontal shots of the leading ladies, too, so if that's all you're in it/out of it for, congrats, you might be seeing anatomy for the first time. The girl's perspective was that women need to be careful because there are gay men out there trying to marry them and ruin their lives. The administration was specifically and solely upset about my reference to the nudity of the women in the movie, so much so that the administration tried to pull the entire issue of the paper. The gay-straight alliance was also always allowed as an extra-curricular group, but never got approval to hold any events or participate as a group in anything else. Like I say, my high school was kinda funny. We had 18 pregnant freshman girls my sophomore year. Turns out, that supposedly meant that sex ed in the 10th grade where you carry around a 2-liter to learn the importance/difficulty of having a baby was effective. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know what "geta geta" is?[edit]
There seems to be some concerted effort by some twitter bot network(all with right wing leaning names) over the past few months to SEO the names of various rationalwiki articles to some site called "getageta" example, though there's literally thousands more. Does anyone know what the hell the game might be? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Getageta.com is a "URL shortening service" of some sort. The only reference I've encountered to this elsewhere is here which also highlights a few other URL redirecting sites (n1o.io, urq.me, nb2.co). When you use this service, apparently the page logs your screen height and width, and a random GUID, before doing the standard window.location.href redirect, and that's it. (I was expecting advertising or a Bitcoin miner or something... hmmph.). Therefore I have no idea for its purpose, my best guess is the URL shortening service (which doesn't appear to monetize on its own) is used to try to hide from Twitter bot checkers or something. (Doesn't work, of course, Botometer score of RightEWatchNow is very much bot-y, 4.6/5)). — Unsigned, by: Soundwave106 / talk / contribs
- (EC)Looking at the site's default page, it appears to be a simple URL shortener like goo.gl. Perhaps a bot network is merely echoing new entries from this site on twitter. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- To what end though? I conceptually get using bot networks to promote your own site. But I don't think RW has the money or interest in doing that, so someone else is linking us through a url shortener on a bot net? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Best guess is it's because our site is trusted, and if their service is linking to a lot of untrusted sites they need to "pad" their activity with legitimate links or they will get blacklisted automatically as a proxy for malware or whatever. — Dysk (contribs) 18:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- To what end though? I conceptually get using bot networks to promote your own site. But I don't think RW has the money or interest in doing that, so someone else is linking us through a url shortener on a bot net? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- (EC)Looking at the site's default page, it appears to be a simple URL shortener like goo.gl. Perhaps a bot network is merely echoing new entries from this site on twitter. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Depressed teenager girl dies after euthanasia request[edit]
The Washington Post: "A Dutch teenager who suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and anorexia after being raped as a child was allowed to die at her home, her sister confirmed on Sunday. [...] Her decision was not “impulsive,” she emphasized. Rather, it was the result of “many conversations and assessments.” Offering her own blunt review of her condition, she observed, “I survive, and not even that. I breathe but no longer live.” [...] Under the law, euthanasia by doctors is permitted only in cases of “hopeless and unbearable” suffering."
Should euthanasia being permitted for depressed teenagers, or should journalists check better their sources? Thinker(unlicensed) 17:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Now, your story doesn't make this clear, but others do: she was denied euthanasia and committed suicide by gradual starvation on her own recognizance. It's been cast as a "Doctors euthanize victim not in her right mind" in certain media circles. The same circles that all of UT's stories come from. Ultimately we(at least in the US) have medical standards for people who are starving themselves to death, and those practices were not followed here. It has little to do with the Euthenasia debate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Now, your story doesn't make this clear, but others do: she was denied euthanasia and committed suicide by gradual starvation on her own recognizance."
- It's written on the link to Snopes I provided: "Noa Pothoven did not die of euthanasia. To stop her suffering, she has stopped eating and drinking."
- "It's been cast as a "Doctors euthanize victim not in her right mind" in certain media circles. The same circles that all of UT's stories come from."
- Come on, not all my stories come from The Washington Post.
- "It has little to do with the Euthenasia debate."
- It has nothing to do with euthanasia, because it was not euthanasia. It has to do with bad journalism. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are wrong. If it was not about euthanasia, then why did you frame your question as about it and cherrypick a quote from the link and ask a loaded question about how "bad" journalism is? The headline may be misleading as it implies she died from euthanasia (though, due to "request" word choice, it can be interpreted that person died after an implied failed request). But the body text does not say she died of euthanasia. You're simply wrong and you chose a bad source (zing) to bolster these lame questions. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario I wanted my question to sound like: "Should be worried of the horrors of the slippery slope of euthanasia (the classic fallacious argument: "now it's for the terminal people, tomorrow they're gonna kill elderly and disables like the Nazis did!"), or it's all just a fake news propagated by journalists without checking their sources because it's controversial and sells? In other words: Have you heard of irony? Thinker(unlicensed) 18:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are wrong. If it was not about euthanasia, then why did you frame your question as about it and cherrypick a quote from the link and ask a loaded question about how "bad" journalism is? The headline may be misleading as it implies she died from euthanasia (though, due to "request" word choice, it can be interpreted that person died after an implied failed request). But the body text does not say she died of euthanasia. You're simply wrong and you chose a bad source (zing) to bolster these lame questions. --It's-a me,
- "The headline may be misleading as it implies she died from euthanasia (though, due to "request" word choice, it can be interpreted that person died after an implied failed request). But the body text does not say she died of euthanasia. You're simply wrong and you chose a bad source (zing) to bolster these lame questions. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄"
- @LeftyGreenMario They may have not literally written "she died of euthanasia" but they wrote the whole article to report that she died from euthanasia, by they own admission: "An earlier version of this story reported that Noa Pothoven’s death came via euthanasia, which she had initially requested. The Dutch Health Ministry said Wednesday that Noa’s family was maintaining that euthanasia — the definition of which is contested — had not occurred while indicating that the circumstances of her death were still being investigated." (click) Am I choosing a bad source again? Thinker(unlicensed) 18:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- That web archive link was broken. All I see is that they corrected a misleading headline, but the story didn't give me false impression. Why didn't you quote the part ikanreed quoted? Why are you still wringing your hands at bad journalism after they corrected the story a bit? I don't see what to take from it aside from you having an axe to grind. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- "That web archive link was broken."
- I have just tried and it works for me.
- "All I see is that they corrected a misleading headline, but the story didn't give me false impression."
- What part of "An earlier version of this story reported that Noa Pothoven’s death came via euthanasia" don't you understand?
- "Why didn't you quote the part ikanreed quoted?"
- Because that part is not from The Washington Post's article. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I must've misread. I did miss the original point about WaPo reporting, but they did correct themselves. I still don't see how this is really new (and this isn't "fake news" again) nor is this the worst example of sensationalized journalism. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I must've misread. I did miss the original point about WaPo reporting, but they did correct themselves. I still don't see how this is really new (and this isn't "fake news" again) nor is this the worst example of sensationalized journalism. --It's-a me,
- That web archive link was broken. All I see is that they corrected a misleading headline, but the story didn't give me false impression. Why didn't you quote the part ikanreed quoted? Why are you still wringing your hands at bad journalism after they corrected the story a bit? I don't see what to take from it aside from you having an axe to grind. --It's-a me,
- "The headline may be misleading as it implies she died from euthanasia (though, due to "request" word choice, it can be interpreted that person died after an implied failed request). But the body text does not say she died of euthanasia. You're simply wrong and you chose a bad source (zing) to bolster these lame questions. --It's-a me,
"Okay, I must've misread."
- If you'd be less concerned about proving me wrong no matter what, prolly this kind you mistakes wouldn't happen.
- "I did miss the original point about WaPo reporting, but they did correct themselves."
- It would be clamorous if they didn't.
- "I still don't see how this is really new (and this isn't "fake news" again) nor is this the worst example of sensationalized journalism."
- I never claimed this is new (I believe it's old as old is journalism) and I never said this is the worst example of sensationalized journalism. And (regarding ikanreed's concerns), in addition, I have no problem to said that, besides WaPo, many right-wing outlets pumped it a lot, because they are against euthanasia. I wanted to point out this example of very bad journalism. This is a site of skeptics. We are skeptics about the media, aren't we? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with this statement. I don't really get what the nose-punching is about. Good ends. However, your question at the origin is suspect. Should teens be allowed to request euthanasia or should journalists be held to higher standards than they currently are? Good fucking luck explaining that train of thought outside of this article. I will say yes, to both, and I will punch your lights out if you come at me. Kidding, I will explain my points if you come at me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- "However, your question at the origin is suspect."
- I have already explained why I wrote that question. See my post of 18:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC). Thinker(unlicensed) 08:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Haha, I really have a tough job here, don't I? If your point is solid because of your post at 18:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)… Well, it's not because of your post at 17:11, 6 June 2019. Do you get that? You're ducking one thing to claim another, we have all seen your timestamps, that's how a wiki works. But you've done this while owning up to what? Ok, we didn't get that you wanted to invoke the euthanasia debate only to talk about bad journalism... Or did everybody kind of get that and respond to what you supposedly weren't asking? You can close it back on any point you want, but that isn't what you wanted either. The statement was made, the criticism is valid, own it young human, the point is not a good point if your premise was you were spitting "fake news" to prove your point that your points only were half-valid, and your real points are the ones that can't be pointed out as invalid. Who raised you? Was it Stephen Crowder? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with this statement. I don't really get what the nose-punching is about. Good ends. However, your question at the origin is suspect. Should teens be allowed to request euthanasia or should journalists be held to higher standards than they currently are? Good fucking luck explaining that train of thought outside of this article. I will say yes, to both, and I will punch your lights out if you come at me. Kidding, I will explain my points if you come at me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a true self?[edit]
It's a common phrase I hear used a lot about some kind of true self/ true nature. Some say it's when you strip everything away that you are influenced by, but I'm not sure about that. Others say what you are born with and what your parents gave you, but why judge an adult based on what is present at birth (especially since they aren't full grown). I know much of spirituality seems to suggest children are some kind of "pure state" that shows the truth, but children aren't full grown so I don't understand why we use them as some model.
I say this because a Zen Koan said something along the lines of: a disciple told his master that he had a bad temper. The master said that's an interesting thing to have as told him to show it to him. The disciple said that he can't that it occurs unexpectedly. The master said that if it was his true nature then he would be able to show it to him. He goes on to say that he wasn't born with it and that his parents didn't give it to him, and to think on that. I don't have an exact response to that but something just feels off about that conclusion.Machina (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- http://www.deepspirits.com/words-of-wisdom/zen/zen-story75.phpMachina (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's me. Anyone else claiming to be myself is false. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I can't speak for all buddhist branches, but at least one of them has a notion that there is no self. It's like extremist spiritual nihilism.
- It's me. Anyone else claiming to be myself is false. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- But beyond that, I'd say this is yet another example of fundamental intrinsicalism that I've seen all over the place in pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism. I don't have a proper word for it, but it's when someone says that some certain biological thing has a fundamental Truth, like they're referring to Plato's forms or something. 2001:56A:71BA:6800:713E:28BA:1AD4:2C5D (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Don't you think the master is implying something about free will? I suppose one cannot be forced to lose ones temper, from the master's point of view. Therefore the student's problem is of his own making.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure that's what this is.Machina (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- See, that's why this is your problem.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- And why you don't have a place putting something up without explaining it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelianism Hegel found a pretty good place, that experience must add to existence, and the more we remove experience from our growth, the more we inhibit our own growth. But it's not like Hegel created an escape hatch. The experience is undefined and the interpretation is subjective. But, your master and slave, within yourself, is probably your biggest and most-worthy obstacle, according to Hegel. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- See, that's why this is your problem.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure that's what this is.Machina (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Don't you think the master is implying something about free will? I suppose one cannot be forced to lose ones temper, from the master's point of view. Therefore the student's problem is of his own making.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- But beyond that, I'd say this is yet another example of fundamental intrinsicalism that I've seen all over the place in pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism. I don't have a proper word for it, but it's when someone says that some certain biological thing has a fundamental Truth, like they're referring to Plato's forms or something. 2001:56A:71BA:6800:713E:28BA:1AD4:2C5D (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
NIFB[edit]
There's an organization called the New Independent Fundamental Baptists out there, that's reputedly even worse than the independent baptists. They even have their own controversy now, pumpkingate. I think RW already covers the main players, but there should probably be redirect pages for NIFB, and new independent fundamental baptists. Tulpa001 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Some videos from Wikimedia Commons now work here[edit]
Being privy to the information that this site has just had a MediaWiki update, I decided to see if videos from Wikimedia Commons worked here again, which I've found that they haven't since we had a major upgrade about a year and a half ago. I've just found that video files ending in .ogv still aren't playing properly here. You get the sound but not the pictures. (So you can listen to the sound of Debbie Does Dallas on RationalWiki, if you really want to.) However, video files ending in .webm, now seem to be working perfectly. Of course, somebody's now probably going to tell me that all video files from Wikimedia Commons work perfectly here, that they always have done without any interruption at all and that it's my computer that's the problem. Spud (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Man, it's amazing the extent to which serious political messages other than "US military good" used to be present in blockbuster films. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- This site had an upgrade? Hmm.... — Oxyaena Harass 16:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Prolly has something to do with the emails I got from the RationalWiki owners and stuff about upgrading to MediaWiki 1.27.6. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, User:David Gerard did that upgrade for us. Bongolian (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- All hail @David Gerard, the lord and savior (and de facto Janitor for Life) of this glorious wiki. — Oxyaena Harass 04:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wasn't in fact me, Tim Starling dived in :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is very nice. Perhaps we can also get nudge MobileFrontend nudge at this rate. :D — Dysk (contribs) 13:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wasn't in fact me, Tim Starling dived in :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- All hail @David Gerard, the lord and savior (and de facto Janitor for Life) of this glorious wiki. — Oxyaena Harass 04:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, User:David Gerard did that upgrade for us. Bongolian (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Prolly has something to do with the emails I got from the RationalWiki owners and stuff about upgrading to MediaWiki 1.27.6. --It's-a me,
- This site had an upgrade? Hmm.... — Oxyaena Harass 16:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nice.ReaperDawn 13:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Archiving in the 'RationalWiki:What is going on with the elections?'[edit]
So, I wondered if someone wanted archive some of the RationalWiki:What is going on with the elections? entries, since they go back to January 2018, and we're going to be getting into the 2020 election race sooner than we'd all like. — Unsigned, by: NavigatorBR / talk / contribs --09:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Cosmikdebris (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi[edit]
Hello. Beemovie (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Uhh...hi. — Oxyaena Harass 02:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly.
- Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground.
- The bee, of course, flies anyway
- because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 22:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- You like jazz? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. — Oxyaena Harass 05:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Jazz is pretty cool. Vocals in jazz are kind of a drag, in my opinion. Kind of like how bees fly, despite what I'd like them to do, which is pollenate, procreate, and stay away from me. In the same way, vocal jazz is shitty to me but it doesn't actually break any jazz laws. Have you guys tried post rock? All ham, no cheese. Gol Sarnitt (talk)
- Yes. — Oxyaena Harass 05:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- You like jazz? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess that you all know the old science says bees can't fly thing is an urban legend, right? Or am I just missing the irony? Hubert (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- The latter. — Oxyaena Harass 16:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, actually, according to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 03:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not exactly, because a bumblebee doesn't fly according to the "laws of aviation." They fly according to the laws of physics. "Most pertinent of these is that bumblebees don’t fly like a plane and they don’t have stiff, rigid wings. With that in mind, the original calculations, which were based mostly on the surface area of the bee’s wings and its weight, aren’t really applicable". Please read a thing. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I love how you're taking a very obvious meme seriously. սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you're having a good time. I'm not relevant, and this argument made a real difference in the Huckabee camp. I'm still having a good time, and yours, for some reason, is still not a real argument. Sometimes beating a dead horse is more about keeping the flies off of the carcass, lest we have to argue about a zombie-horse that shoots physics defying bees. Can you see how I'm choosing to waste my time here? Or are you choosing some better route? Some route that you could show me? Resident nihilist here.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I love how you're taking a very obvious meme seriously. սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not exactly, because a bumblebee doesn't fly according to the "laws of aviation." They fly according to the laws of physics. "Most pertinent of these is that bumblebees don’t fly like a plane and they don’t have stiff, rigid wings. With that in mind, the original calculations, which were based mostly on the surface area of the bee’s wings and its weight, aren’t really applicable". Please read a thing. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Slam[edit]
— Oxyaena Harass 04:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
An idea for a secondary article for Noah's Ark[edit]
"Engineering Problems of Noah's Ark". Have it go into detail relating to the mathematical and engineering issues relating to the ark. God had Noah and his family build the bullshit fairy tail ark. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't some fundies build a real ark specifically to the description in the Bible to prove it could be done? Not that the biblically promised number of animals can fit into it mind you... — Dysk (contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Ark Encounter builders claim to have used the exact biblical dimensions when constructing their amusement park ark, but as a reference in the article states, it is "a boat-shaped building held together with riveted steel brackets." Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well that's disappointing lmao. I guess if they didn't build it properly there was a reason of some sort. — Dysk (contribs) 15:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think a 100% accurate Noah's Ark would be code compliant.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictatormoderator 15:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)- Well, all the safety inspectors would be dead. The article Noah's Ark already discusses many of the engineering problems of building a wooden boat of that size - the lack of structural rigidity, how the wooden planks were held together, and the problem of getting all the trees, as well as questions about how it was steered. There are issues not covered: the time needed for construction, including the time to season the wood; where all the pitch came from to seal the boat; tools; stability; how to bail/pump the water out. In addition there are issues about loading, launching, repairing damage, how it would come to rest without tipping over and crushing the animals or rolling down the mountain... --Annanoon (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- The standard response for people who believe in such things is that Goddidit. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, all the safety inspectors would be dead. The article Noah's Ark already discusses many of the engineering problems of building a wooden boat of that size - the lack of structural rigidity, how the wooden planks were held together, and the problem of getting all the trees, as well as questions about how it was steered. There are issues not covered: the time needed for construction, including the time to season the wood; where all the pitch came from to seal the boat; tools; stability; how to bail/pump the water out. In addition there are issues about loading, launching, repairing damage, how it would come to rest without tipping over and crushing the animals or rolling down the mountain... --Annanoon (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think a 100% accurate Noah's Ark would be code compliant.
- Well that's disappointing lmao. I guess if they didn't build it properly there was a reason of some sort. — Dysk (contribs) 15:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Ark Encounter builders claim to have used the exact biblical dimensions when constructing their amusement park ark, but as a reference in the article states, it is "a boat-shaped building held together with riveted steel brackets." Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
There's an architectural analysis here,[1] "From a technical standpoint, of course, the ark is still more a building than a boat. Besides being up on concrete piers, it wouldn’t fare any better in a flood than a typical museum building." The ship building includes some highly processed materials that would not have been available pre-Industrial Revolution, spray insulation, plywood, flame-inhibiting coatings, Tyvek, specially-treated woods (glulam, acetylated). Bongolian (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, of course the Ark Encounter had to use modern techniques to build its version. A fully Biblical ark would be a goddamn death trap. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 18:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)- The advanced mathematics needed in calculations were not known 2000 years ago. The Greeks and Persians had a little knowledge of it but not enough to engineer a large boat. Noah and his crew would do better staying on a tall mountain which by the way, none are in Israel. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Another interesting question would be, where does all the extra water come from? If all the world's ice melted the sea level would rise about seventy meters. The fact is, if it started to rain, the water would drain into the oceans. Only places like the Maldives and Singapore would completely disappear. Another answer to the question "how does Noah come up with a suitable boat?" is "The same way he comes up with all that rain."Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Noah imported all the wood he needed from elsewhere, he had a free trade deal with the Indus Valley civilization. — Oxyaena Harass 20:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- How come 'everybody else' paid no attention to the Ark being built - NIMBY's, the various unions (boats, woodworking etc) involved (with attendant demarcation disputes), Save the Forests, persons building 'More Bigly More Beautiful Arks', the tax people (why is so much wood being brought to one locality - and has tax been paid on it?) etc, etc.
- Abd then there are the various wood-eating critters, and various forms of mould etc. Anna Livia (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Considering the Israel is mostly desert, there are high winds and sand that would rip the thing apart. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- But wasn't what is now the Middle East/North Africa a greener terrain in the historical past?
- Somewhere in the galaxy is a world which is largely 'swamps, mangroves, and similar' where there is a legend of Noah creating a large aquarium in which the world's creatures waited out a drought (which was very local). Anna Livia (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Considering the Israel is mostly desert, there are high winds and sand that would rip the thing apart. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Yang: UBI, 2020 Election, Trump[edit]
Since there were some discussions about Yang UBI proposal, I think this interview might interest some of you. Especially @BobRoss, who claimed to be willing to vote for Yang. (I haven't watched the entire interview yet.) Thinker(unlicensed) 16:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Money, motherfuckers. — Oxyaena Harass 19:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, Yang it is. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Warren/Yang? Yang/Warren?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Gravel!!! Come on!!! An ordinary human man (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I watched it and have to say he definitely seems like a very level headed person. While I have no ethical objections to anything he said, I was disappointed how he didn't actually say how he plans to pay for his UBI initiative. He only said that it wouldn't be as expensive as you might think. I would still like to know an estimated additional price tag to the government, and estimated increase in taxes necessary to pay for it. He mentioned that he thinks income tax is ineffective, and that payroll tax is not a good thing to do. Does that mean he plans on cutting those income sources? He did cover a lot of stuff in those two hours though, so I can understand if they just didn't have time. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yang is an ideas guy, he'll stick around till March next year, and will be in the discussion for a cabinet position, but he's not a viable candidate. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I watched it and have to say he definitely seems like a very level headed person. While I have no ethical objections to anything he said, I was disappointed how he didn't actually say how he plans to pay for his UBI initiative. He only said that it wouldn't be as expensive as you might think. I would still like to know an estimated additional price tag to the government, and estimated increase in taxes necessary to pay for it. He mentioned that he thinks income tax is ineffective, and that payroll tax is not a good thing to do. Does that mean he plans on cutting those income sources? He did cover a lot of stuff in those two hours though, so I can understand if they just didn't have time. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Gravel!!! Come on!!! An ordinary human man (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Warren/Yang? Yang/Warren?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, Yang it is. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I take back what I said about the Science Channel[edit]
That "Moon hoax JAQoff" I complained about, turns out I was wrong: https://www.space.com/truth-behind-moon-landing-science-channel.html
I guess the advertising was made to get conspiracy morons to watch it rather than dismiss it out of hand. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Good news? Impossible! MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this worth my time?[edit]
A creationist friend showed me this article and said it debunks the chromosome fusion. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Scopie's law. — Oxyaena Harass 05:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, Scopie's Law only applies to referencing the site Whale.to. The Institute for Creation Research can, apparently, add two and two successfully (with an appropriate Biblical reference, at least). Kencolt (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in its formulation on our "internet laws" page. — Oxyaena Harass 10:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- But it does on the page itself-- that page being the page about Scopie's Law itself, not a page pointing to the page on multiple laws. Yeah, I tend towards sinning on minutia... that and simply a bag of alphabet macaroni mixed with three and a quarter cans of Alpo makes more sense than Whale.to does. The ICR page is sometimes comprehensible, albeit wrong. Kencolt (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would propose something like Natural News or Answers in Genesis would be covered by Scopie's Law by analogy as well, because enough of the same conditions apply. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- But it does on the page itself-- that page being the page about Scopie's Law itself, not a page pointing to the page on multiple laws. Yeah, I tend towards sinning on minutia... that and simply a bag of alphabet macaroni mixed with three and a quarter cans of Alpo makes more sense than Whale.to does. The ICR page is sometimes comprehensible, albeit wrong. Kencolt (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in its formulation on our "internet laws" page. — Oxyaena Harass 10:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, Scopie's Law only applies to referencing the site Whale.to. The Institute for Creation Research can, apparently, add two and two successfully (with an appropriate Biblical reference, at least). Kencolt (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
New Internet Law?[edit]
Hours of reading terrible content sections on things I love have given me the idea for a new internet law: Gnome's law. Essentially, anything that portrays right-wing ideologies without denouncing them in a very obvious way will gain a fanbase of right-wingers, even if the intent was to criticize them. Some examples include Sabaton, the Fallout game series, and Warhammer 40,000. Just Another HumanShufflin' Around 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- That happens in every media, not only on the Internet. And it happens to any ideology, not only right-wing ones. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, tell me these satires of liberalism(from the right at least) that have huge liberal followings. Even one example with even a remotely parallel character to any of the examples gnome listed would stagger me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, my claim is (check the original post of 4gnomesinatrenchcoat) that: "Essentially, anything that portrays ideology X without denouncing it in a very obvious way will gain a fanbase of ideology X, even if the intent was to criticize ideology X." So I don't have to provide you "satires of ideology X (coming from an opposite ideology) than have a huge followings from ideology X," with X=liberalism. That's just not my claim. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- He gave examples; you didn't. His were all dystopian parodies of right wing ideologies(traditionalism, cold war conservatism, and fascism respectively) which notably have right wing fanbases who admire the parody unironically. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- "He gave examples; you didn't. His were all dystopian parodies of right wing ideologies(traditionalism, cold war conservatism, and fascism respectively)"
- Let's put it straight: If one claims "all birds lay eggs" and he also provides some example of birds that lay eggs and eat fishes; and if I reply "actually your claim is true for all oviparous", then, I don't have to provide examples of oviparous that lay eggs and eat fishes. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really good general extrapolation there. It's kinda like responding to someone that said "all recent terrorist attacks were right wing" as "terrorist attacks can be fueled by both ideologies". Or responding to the argument that "right wing fake news are successful at proliferating the internet" with "fake news affect both sides", which is true but right wing is more susceptible to falling for them, at least to some research and anecdote from someone who made fake news sites of all colors. It's not unreasonable to be asked for examples. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK, but ikanreed should ask me for examples of my claim ("Essentially, anything that portrays ideology X without denouncing it in a very obvious way will gain a fanbase of ideology X, even if the intent was to criticize ideology X.") not for his (intentionally or not) straw man version ("satires of liberalism(from the right at least) that have huge liberal followings.")
- Regarding my claim, other than ring-wing ideologies, there are examples of people who like playing war/strategy/simulation videogame because they can pick the Soviet Union and build their communist fantasy (just don't ask me about the names of these videogames because I never played them). Also, I knew people playing Bioshock (about fps I know a little) as a way to enjoy their anarcho-capitalism fantasy. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is literally what I did. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ikanreed is correct. The law is meant to describe the phenomenon of right-wingers adopting negative satires of themselves as mascots of sorts. The comparison of war strategy games doesn't hold up as they don't really criticize the far left, in most cases. They simply portray them, as opposed to something like 40K's empire, a satire of fascism with fascist fans. Just Another HumanShufflin' Around 19:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've been a big 40k fan for a long time, and I have to sadly agree with that statement. I used to try to organize games but ended up giving up because every group I found was reprehensible. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ikanreed is correct. The law is meant to describe the phenomenon of right-wingers adopting negative satires of themselves as mascots of sorts. The comparison of war strategy games doesn't hold up as they don't really criticize the far left, in most cases. They simply portray them, as opposed to something like 40K's empire, a satire of fascism with fascist fans. Just Another HumanShufflin' Around 19:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is literally what I did. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really good general extrapolation there. It's kinda like responding to someone that said "all recent terrorist attacks were right wing" as "terrorist attacks can be fueled by both ideologies". Or responding to the argument that "right wing fake news are successful at proliferating the internet" with "fake news affect both sides", which is true but right wing is more susceptible to falling for them, at least to some research and anecdote from someone who made fake news sites of all colors. It's not unreasonable to be asked for examples. --It's-a me,
- He gave examples; you didn't. His were all dystopian parodies of right wing ideologies(traditionalism, cold war conservatism, and fascism respectively) which notably have right wing fanbases who admire the parody unironically. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- This probably doesn't count since the author's also on the left, but I seem to recall when Contrapoints first introduced Tabby the Antifa Catgirl, it was originally meant as, in part, a criticism of some of the issues she sees with the online far-left. Then folks kinda adopted her as a mascot. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's better than a single thing I came up with wracking my brain for a close-to-similar example. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Ikanreed is correct. The law is meant to describe the phenomenon of right-wingers adopting negative satires of themselves as mascots of sorts."
- Well, then you should have include that in the law, not only in the examples. In such a case, I'm not aware of such phenomenon, mostly because my videogames knowledge is quite limited. It is entirely possible that affect mostly right-wind ideologies. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's not just video game stuff though. You can think about other satire that got co-opted by the groups they're criticizing. Fight Club is probably a really famous example, actually. But I really like to see examples contradicting the law. I also predict there are cases where satire of right-wing didn't get appropriated by right-wing, so examples of that should also be considered. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's not just video game stuff though. You can think about other satire that got co-opted by the groups they're criticizing. Fight Club is probably a really famous example, actually. But I really like to see examples contradicting the law. I also predict there are cases where satire of right-wing didn't get appropriated by right-wing, so examples of that should also be considered. --It's-a me,
- It's better than a single thing I came up with wracking my brain for a close-to-similar example. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, my claim is (check the original post of 4gnomesinatrenchcoat) that: "Essentially, anything that portrays ideology X without denouncing it in a very obvious way will gain a fanbase of ideology X, even if the intent was to criticize ideology X." So I don't have to provide you "satires of ideology X (coming from an opposite ideology) than have a huge followings from ideology X," with X=liberalism. That's just not my claim. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, tell me these satires of liberalism(from the right at least) that have huge liberal followings. Even one example with even a remotely parallel character to any of the examples gnome listed would stagger me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
"Fight Club is probably a really famous example, actually."
- What do you mean? Fight Club is a criticism of both consumerism and anarcho-primitivism, but I wouldn't say it has been co-opted but one of those groups. Maybe do you mean because of the Pepsy ads? I always seen that as an inside joke part of the consumerism criticism. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The alt-right love Fight Club. This has been widely discussed in the media.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Annanoon (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- "The alt-right love Fight Club."
- But Fight Club is not a satire of the right, and, a fortiori, it's not a satire of the alt-right neither. So I don't see how this is related to what LeftyGreenMario said, that it: "You can think about other satire that got co-opted by the groups they're criticizing. Fight Club is probably a really famous example, actually." Thinker(unlicensed) 14:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's a satire, by a gay man, of the concept of violent regression to masculinity being a way to resolve the tension between modern consumerist culture and the needs of regular people for community. That's not deep subtext. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The alt-right love Fight Club. This has been widely discussed in the media.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Annanoon (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
i'm not sure this is a particularly useful observation. of the original warhammr 40000 and fallout present world views that would be sympathetic to certain people on the right - why wouldn't they have a following from those people? these things are not critiquing or satirising these people in any real way, nothing is being misunderstand, they just like the things that are presented.
as for fight club, are we talking book or film? because, if like me, you haven't read the book, the film is pretty light on satire critical of the kind things MRAs are for, and considering the alt right have much in common, its not that much of a stretch to see why they'd be fans. the film fight club is very much pro fight club, pro macho, with tyler durden, the ever popular brad pitt, still super cool by the and of the film, while the other guy is still Edward Norton, who just seems really unlikable in everything hes in. the whole fight club thing is left unchallenged in any real way at the end, all the negatives can be pinned on a split personality, while the positives - bros bonding and a sense of purpose - are left intact and triumphant. the book matters little if more are basing their view on the film, where much is absent or at best superficial.
heres the thing with satire - there is a fine line between satirical and on the nose earnestness. whats ridiculous and negative to some is the opposite to others. oftentimes how you read something is down to perspective, unless clearly and unambiguously leading oneway, even then, it still might have some appeal to those it meant be against. often the bad characters have the best lines, or just more interesting. or if satirical elements arnt immediately obvious while lets say a facist imagery or athmosphere overrides any satire. its also easy to ignore what critical of your world view if you like a game, or movie, book or what have you. It may not be critical enough to quash your4 liking of the work, there might be enough left that makes it worth while. it might not actually be a satire, but just have some satirical elements.
the intent of the creator is really not relevant here - it makes no difference if after the fact they tell us we are reading their works wrong when nothing in their works forces to you view them in that way. once its out in public, they lose control of their work. they cannot decide how it is ultimately interpreted, and multiple interpretations is generally considered a mark of quality. I am reminded of alf garnett - a character designed with the intent to be a ridiculous right wing character who became much beloved of the people he was meant to mock, who will tell you hes right though, on whatever nonsense he'd say. if he was unambiguously awful, there wouldnt have been so many series, you'd have no archie bunker.
quality is another issue here. I can think of no satires of liberals or the left, none of any note or lets be generous, broad appeal. the few I can think of are, compared to say fight club, niche affairs preaching to the converted with little impact out side their target audiences. few liberals or on the left would have heard them, or if they had, few would be interested in them, and few would be confused by the message. they seem to lack a lot nuance in favour of one dimensional polemics. so why would there be a following from this side?
this isn't an internet law its just that different people read and weight things differently. this is just banal. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Side effect of chickenpox vaccine[edit]
A the new study on a sample of 6 million children has provided really strong evidences that the chickenpox vaccine has side effects. Who are the conspiracy theorists now? Thinker(unlicensed) 15:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- And I have held off on you, "Thinker", for a while now. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Trying to imagine that you are in some way, some fashion, sincere.
- But when you take an article that reports solid evidence that the chickenpox vaccine reduces the chance of a child getting shingles-- which are agonizing, by the way-- and cast it as proof of a conspiracy akin to the sntivaxx idiocy, I'm drawing a line. You have now lost any and all credibility with me and can only be regarded as a troll-- a sometimes capable troll, but a troll nonetheless. I find myself now of the opinion that you should be regarded less as a contributor to this site and more as the potential subject of an article. And not a nice article. Kencolt (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Kencolt Read my entire post. There's a twist ;-) Thinker(unlicensed) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- To think people learned the first time they wrongly said you were antivax. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- First of all no effective medical intervention - including vaccinations - is risk free. In the case of vaccinations the benefits both to the individual and society far outweigh the risks.
- In this particular case the side effect is that vaccinated individuals don't get shingles. This is the most bizarre anti-vax argument I have ever heard. I doubt the sincerity of the post.Hubert (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is by definition a troll move by UT. Go bother some other platform that isn't already aware of your bullshit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, it is, but principle of charity would say if virtually anyone else made the same joke as badly, it wouldn't come across as disingenuous. I take it as a warning about how bad an idea it is to burn up good faith. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is by definition a troll move by UT. Go bother some other platform that isn't already aware of your bullshit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- To think people learned the first time they wrongly said you were antivax. --It's-a me,
- @Kencolt Read my entire post. There's a twist ;-) Thinker(unlicensed) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- On topic, though, of course Chicken Pox vaccines prevents shingles? I mean that's like saying that a plague vaccine prevents the black death, calling it a side effect is a bit of a stretch. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it is much less surprising once one knows that chickenpox and shingles are caused by the same virus. Before this article, I actually thought they were different viruses. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I guess that's one of those things you assume people know. I remember when I got chicken pox(born too long ago for the vaccine to be out on standard vaccine schedules), my parents said "be happy you got it now, if you got it when you're older you could get shingles and die" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's just a riff on the anti-vax movement but, yeah, it's not news. I had no idea shingles was a thing, but my mom did suffer from it, and she got chickenpox earlier. I fortunately got the vaccine and I'm in a generation where diseases are a thing of story-telling and I hope it stays that way despite anti-vax movement already going too far. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's just a riff on the anti-vax movement but, yeah, it's not news. I had no idea shingles was a thing, but my mom did suffer from it, and she got chickenpox earlier. I fortunately got the vaccine and I'm in a generation where diseases are a thing of story-telling and I hope it stays that way despite anti-vax movement already going too far. --It's-a me,
- I guess that's one of those things you assume people know. I remember when I got chicken pox(born too long ago for the vaccine to be out on standard vaccine schedules), my parents said "be happy you got it now, if you got it when you're older you could get shingles and die" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it is much less surprising once one knows that chickenpox and shingles are caused by the same virus. Before this article, I actually thought they were different viruses. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The measles vaccine actually does prevent other unrelated diseases. That is because the measles virus targets immune cells and manages to erase much of the immune systems' "memory" for fighting diseases. A consequence of this is that the measles vaccine reduces overall death rates.[9] Bongolian (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh no UT being a troll, what a big shocker! — Oxyaena Harass 05:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid somebody still hasn't read the commented line just below my first post, which say: "The anti-vaccination movement people of course! The new discovered side effect is that chickenpox vaccine now only prevents chickenpox, but it also prevents shingles!" Thinker(unlicensed) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Climate Change Denial and Evolution Denial: "Science was wrong before" and "science was wrong before"[edit]
That annoys me when denialists will say "science was wrong before" and "science does not know everything". I don't exactly get their point. Of course science does not know everything! Of course science was wrong before! That is a given. It is true that not everything about evolution is know but that does not mean scientists should stop research. It is also true that not everything is known about climate change and that there are factors not yet known, this does not mean that scientists should stop research.
Here is my counter argument against "science was wrong before" and "science does not know everything"- while these are true, why stop researching and improving lives from said research?
Side note: While I won't truly give up my beliefs (guess I am still holding on to that hope of something bigger), I keep reading about atheism and carefully reading their arguments. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bullshit was wrong before. — Oxyaena Harass 20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- My genuine answer to these people is "yes, and global climate models are wrong today, but in the same way science is wrong about the distance to the moon today, it's might be off by a few micrometers, but that doesn't mean to listen to the people who say it's going to fly off into deep space tomorrow". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- A newspaper search for the term more often used in older climate change articles ("greenhouse gas") shows us EPA predictions originally made in October 1983 (1 2). The predictions are 3.6F by 2040, and 9F by 2100. The current anomaly is 1.4F. Modern predictions under, say, the let's-continue-polluting scenario of RCP 8.5 (reverted to the 1980s references) are about 3.8F by 2050-2060, and about 6.9F by 2100 (under RCP8.5). The 1983 EPA numbers were a little over-aggressive, but so far I'd take something closer to their numbers over, say, Michael Crichton's 2004 "a little under 1 C by 2100" denialist position.
- The sea level rise they mention in that article dovetails pretty closely with this graph and if those temperature changes are looking up the original report the deltas are not the ones you or the article list. They estimate the warming to 2020 at only 1.2 C, not terribly far off given the primitive models used. It was technically wrong, but it was also not a scientific report, but an economic one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- A newspaper search for the term more often used in older climate change articles ("greenhouse gas") shows us EPA predictions originally made in October 1983 (1 2). The predictions are 3.6F by 2040, and 9F by 2100. The current anomaly is 1.4F. Modern predictions under, say, the let's-continue-polluting scenario of RCP 8.5 (reverted to the 1980s references) are about 3.8F by 2050-2060, and about 6.9F by 2100 (under RCP8.5). The 1983 EPA numbers were a little over-aggressive, but so far I'd take something closer to their numbers over, say, Michael Crichton's 2004 "a little under 1 C by 2100" denialist position.
- My genuine answer to these people is "yes, and global climate models are wrong today, but in the same way science is wrong about the distance to the moon today, it's might be off by a few micrometers, but that doesn't mean to listen to the people who say it's going to fly off into deep space tomorrow". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
What is love?[edit]
I asked this question at the Actualized.org forum and they told me attention. Which doesn’t help me and then they closed the thread when I told them it’s not because attention could be anything or a lot of things. They said I was looking for a certain answer when really I jus called them on theirs. I heard warm regard is what it is, which seems close.Machina (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more. — Oxyaena Harass 04:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- A word usually paired with "One", having to do with tennis, in a scoring system which makes no sense. Then again, tennis is a game based on whacking a ball back'n'forth with rug beaters while wearing clothing almost as impractical as that worn playing golf while screaming some of the foulest things imaginable (It used to ve very very polite but those days are long gone-- and missed)-- so making sense is optional at best. Kencolt (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- LOVE is an acronym for "Level Of ViolencE". 2001:BB6:92E5:5C58:7893:56DE:9E91:CFF4 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- What is Love. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A presentation[edit]
What? It's true, stop giving me that look. — Oxyaena Harass 06:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
"This so called "rational" wiki is a joke. A total shame"[edit]
This and other such insults make me wonder, if we're so unimportant, why bother attempting to whitewash our articles? Or insult us? Or engage with us at all? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Our team watches hours of every imaginable kind of sex video every day, and on careful examination leaves disapproving moral comments and low review scores for all of them. Please donate to the cause. —Porn Watchers for Christ" CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I honestly don't get the point of the idiots who publicly attack RW. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes you do. You really do. It's not a terribly complicated thing. The audacity of calling them, the true heirs to rationality, wrong, is extraordinary. Completely unreasonable. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's possible they're trolling or they think their opinion is that important. Being free to express something is stuff people like to do. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @CogitoNotStirred "Furthermore we specifically watch gay porn and make sure to get hard-ons for Jesus when watching it." — Oxyaena Harass 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @OxyaenaIndeed. It's What Jesus Would Have Wanted.™ (citation...um, somewhere in the back of Second Philadelphians) CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's possible they're trolling or they think their opinion is that important. Being free to express something is stuff people like to do. --It's-a me,
- Yes you do. You really do. It's not a terribly complicated thing. The audacity of calling them, the true heirs to rationality, wrong, is extraordinary. Completely unreasonable. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I honestly don't get the point of the idiots who publicly attack RW. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)