|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive311
Bioethics of Mind Uploading[edit]
I have an ethical question about it. Lets say someone was dying of cancer and they make it clear that they want to go in peace but a family member manages to get the dying person's mind uploaded- would it be ethical as it would go against someone's wish of dying in peace? The original mind would be gone but the cloned mind would remember the pain of cancer and still suffer. That does not exactly sound ethical. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Pretty much everyone who believes in the concept of rights also believes self determination is the most fundamental right. Life, being an intuitive prerequisite to freedom is similarly protected. When it comes to life that is not life, the boundary is blurred. It would be justifiable to punish the person who violated the dying person's right to self-determination. But once an unethical choice has been made, and the action has been taken, all you can do is move forward. This scenario would now have a e-person who remembers pain, not a sick person in physical pain. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- This might be an interesting topic for law school programs and philosophy departments at universities. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that mind uploading is no where near an approachably plausible technology right now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 That's some Black Mirror stuff... Anyway, I don't understand when you say: "a family member manages to get the dying person's mind uploaded... the cloned mind would remember the pain of cancer and still suffer." Why the cloned mind would still suffer? Isn't one of the goals of mind-uploading to relief the mind from the pains of its mortal body? I don't want to change you hypothetical scenario, but that doesn't make much sense to me. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's a beautiful question about one of the parameters here. How could the cloned mind "still suffer," if the suffering was determined only by the previous self?There is a really smart moment in Warren Ellis' Transmetroplitan that fleshes out a girl's boyfriend leaving her to become part of the cloud. The people outside of the discussion don't have terms they can agree on, but agree that it's ok only because it's a process full of pomp and circumstance. When it happens, it's described as pretty close to just sex with somebody else. The people within the discussion remember something old, some grand tradition to move from human state to nano-bot cloud, but don't really think its worth their time anymore. On some level, within the comic, it takes less effort to leave an existence to join a cloud than it takes to live in one's own mortal catastrophe, but you are always leaving something, whether you care about it or not. The problem is, later, when a person is cryogenically frozen and then unthawed and cured, nobody is left who cares (besides the hero, of course). The ethics of the application of using some future technology to keep somebody else around is a really great question, one of the best I've ever heard, but at what point does the responsibility of the unwilling ward degrade over time? Futurama kinda explores this. Wake up 1000 years later, young, able, still yourself. What would the future have for you? What would you have for the future? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 That's some Black Mirror stuff... Anyway, I don't understand when you say: "a family member manages to get the dying person's mind uploaded... the cloned mind would remember the pain of cancer and still suffer." Why the cloned mind would still suffer? Isn't one of the goals of mind-uploading to relief the mind from the pains of its mortal body? I don't want to change you hypothetical scenario, but that doesn't make much sense to me. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that mind uploading is no where near an approachably plausible technology right now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- This might be an interesting topic for law school programs and philosophy departments at universities. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The main problem - ever since the first creatures to have an organisational node that can be regarded as the distant ancestor of our brains' emerged the node-to-brain has interacted with the world through the body, rather than 'computer sensors.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Ethics of the Flamethrower[edit]
The flamethrower was an undisputedly terrifying weapon that was used to great extent in the trenches of WW2. The flamethrower is not only a physically dangerous (if short ranged) weapon, but a psychological horror that preys on our most instinctual of fears; the fear of burning alive. It was regarded even at the time as a monstrous weapon. So detested was the weapon that flamethrower soldiers and flamethrower tank operators were often executed when the rest of a captured battle group were taken prisoner (the British even paid their flamethrower soldiers 6 pence a day more because this type of execution was expected). An interesting argument I heard recently, however, is that the weapon actually saved more lives than it took. It is the classic "hiroshima was the ethical choice" argument, battles where one side had flamethrowers were enormously likely to end in the surrender of the other forces instead of continued fighting. This leads to an interesting question: if a weapons psychological damage prevents a prolonged and more deadly fight, is it not more ethical to use such a weapon instead of more conventional (and deadly) weapons?
My personal feeling is that it is not more ethical due to the brutal nature in which the victims of the weapon died, but I am curious to hear every else's opinions.
Edit: Someone changed my post from saying WW2 to WW1. I changed it back. I meant WW2 when I wrote it. (It was also used in WWI of course, but I was thinking of the Churchill Crocodile at the time.) MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The premise that flame throwers, a mechanically ineffective weapon, led to more surrenders is questionable at best. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- "if a weapons psychological damage prevents a prolonged and more deadly fight, is it not more ethical to use such a weapon instead of more conventional (and deadly) weapons?"
- If your ethics is based on minimizing
body count, then yes. But for other ethics it is entirely possible that the answer is no. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ethically, how is it different from napalm? I don't see a difference, except that the flamethrower soldier gets a closer look at his handiwork. Now Hiroshuma was probably the best possible ending of the war for Japan. It gave them a pretest for surrender that allowed them to preserve much of their culture, which would have been devastated if the fighting on the home islands was even half as bloody as the fighting on Okinawa. It also spared them occupation by Soviet troops newly freed from the European front, which would have resulted in two postwar Japans, one a communist dictatorship, that could easily have gone the way of North Korea at worst, East Germany at best. The parts occupied by the USA and Australia would likely have executed Hirohito; if he fell into Soviet hands that would be guaranteed. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The logical part of me gets this argument and agrees that often times, the side willing to use the most brutal and devastating weapons, often has an advantage, but that has deteriorated as conflict overall has become more brutal.
- The animal part of me though wants more flamethrowers everywhere for everything. Oh, you have a handgun, HERE'S MY FLAMETHROWER.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ethically, how is it different from napalm? I don't see a difference, except that the flamethrower soldier gets a closer look at his handiwork. Now Hiroshuma was probably the best possible ending of the war for Japan. It gave them a pretest for surrender that allowed them to preserve much of their culture, which would have been devastated if the fighting on the home islands was even half as bloody as the fighting on Okinawa. It also spared them occupation by Soviet troops newly freed from the European front, which would have resulted in two postwar Japans, one a communist dictatorship, that could easily have gone the way of North Korea at worst, East Germany at best. The parts occupied by the USA and Australia would likely have executed Hirohito; if he fell into Soviet hands that would be guaranteed. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ikanreed If indeed they did not lead to many surrenders, then the question is answered immediately. I cannot actually find a source that said they led to more surrenders than kills, so I may be mistaken. It is often claimed in articles regarding the flamethrower that it led to "many surrenders", but an exact number or ratio is not given as far as I can find. You might be right on this one. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- In WW2 they were generally used against fortified positions - every time a German position surrendered when threatened with a flamethrower is a bonus to he surviving troops. Japanese weren't going to surrender anyway (mainly), and so use of flamethrowers in the Pacific is moot. Perceptions to the contrary, they mostly did NOT burn people - they mostly asphyxiated them by consuming all the oxygen available in a volume-limited underground complex. The expectation of some sort of numerical data is unreasonable - the people who saw the enemy surrender were also those who saw the enemy fight on in other circumstances from similar positions - every single instance of surrender rather than fight is a bonus for all the survivors!! See also Flame tanks. Napalm was originally developed in WW2 and was also used as fuel for flamethrowers, for which is was much "superior" to regular liquid fuel - see [1] - so there are no separate ethics for it as compared to flamethrowers - they are the same thing. Aloysius the Gaul 02:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- So... Is it better to choke on mustard gas, choke on CO2, choke on your own blood after getting shot in the lung, or choke on the ocean having your ship sunk? Fuck me, that can't be sorted into a hierarchy, that's a fucking nightmare list. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- as I understand it, napalm and flame throwers are both limited in use by the Geneva convention. besides which the task of clearing bunkers is done by other means. we've moved on since ww2, where aside from flamethrowers, nothing could touch you in your bunker. now we have depleted uranium and thermobaric weaponry, just as awful in their own way, and now your bunker offers scant protection if we want it gone. flamethrowers will not make people surrender any more, but they will make anyone them using them look like savages. there is little military use for them now. AMassiveGay (talk)
- @AMassiveGay I think flamethrowers are not actually banned, it is just forbidden to use them against civilian targets. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- yeh but as I said, we have different methods for dealing with bunkers now. its pretty much redundant and just has a reputation that makes anyone using it look bad, and I doubt people will surrender like they used supposedly used to because of it. if you not going to give because of thermobaric bombs (a really awful way to go) flamers arnt going to change your mind. 13:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- There must be many ways to die in war. Unless death is instantaneous then I imagine it's going to be a very unpleasant experience. (For that matter, not dying but being crippled for the rest of your life is going to be pretty unpleasant as well.)
- Many of the things which happen war will result in people being burnt to death. Often these will be soldiers but some of them will be civilians.
- I'm not really sure that it makes much sense to say that it is acceptable to burn and maim people in one way but not in another.Hubert (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I guess in war you need to take what morsels of humanity you can. at least with thermobaric weapons, there is a much greater chance of death being instantaneous. flamethrowers give a 100% chance your last moments will be a literal hell.
- and at the very least, we need lines In the sand. lines that we do not cross, even if they seem marginal. without even that moderating force, everything is on the table, and there are already too many people whose only moderator is availability. and there are arguably worse things around than flamethrowers. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I originally posted the question because I heard a memoir read of someone who had to face a flamethrower tank in combat in WW2 while trying to hold a trench, and the description of how utterly horrifying it was. I found myself having nightmare like daydreams (daymares?) of just how frightening such contraptions must have been on a battlefield. The podcast then mentioned that they, strangely enough, could be viewed as ethical because people would surrender to them far more than other weapons. Combined with actually not killing a lot of people compared to other weapons (as AMassiveGay noted, they are not mechanically very effective), the argument seemed interesting enough that I wanted to post it here. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- when I read about this stuff, or happen to watch war film, I sometimes wonder how i'd fair in similar circumstances. turns out its more about when I can safely surrender, or the best time to desert. used to be that being gay was the go to defence against being drafted, but we've ruined that one. luckily, age now serves as that shield. unless things get really bad. then, bone spurs maybe? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I fully agree that flamethrowers are horrible things, and I certainly wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one. But we can say the same thing about nuclear weapons. In fact nuclear weapons are objectively far more horrible in that they are indiscriminate and kill vastly more people. Many of them by burning. Flamethrowers have the advantage that they are (largely) directed at enemy soldiers. Nuclear weapons kill and maim anyone in reach. And it's a long reach.
- But while flamethrowers and nuclear weapons are evidently horrible - neither of them have, in fact, killed and maimed anywhere near the number of soldiers and civilians who have been harmed by bullets fired from guns.
- I understand that the original point of the post was to ask whether the use of flamethrowers was morally justified by the fact that they might have saved more lives than they took; but what I'm saying is that it's very difficult to justify anything in wars. Asking whether x is morally better than Y in a situation which is inherently immoral is difficult to resolve.Hubert (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- when I read about this stuff, or happen to watch war film, I sometimes wonder how i'd fair in similar circumstances. turns out its more about when I can safely surrender, or the best time to desert. used to be that being gay was the go to defence against being drafted, but we've ruined that one. luckily, age now serves as that shield. unless things get really bad. then, bone spurs maybe? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I originally posted the question because I heard a memoir read of someone who had to face a flamethrower tank in combat in WW2 while trying to hold a trench, and the description of how utterly horrifying it was. I found myself having nightmare like daydreams (daymares?) of just how frightening such contraptions must have been on a battlefield. The podcast then mentioned that they, strangely enough, could be viewed as ethical because people would surrender to them far more than other weapons. Combined with actually not killing a lot of people compared to other weapons (as AMassiveGay noted, they are not mechanically very effective), the argument seemed interesting enough that I wanted to post it here. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- yeh but as I said, we have different methods for dealing with bunkers now. its pretty much redundant and just has a reputation that makes anyone using it look bad, and I doubt people will surrender like they used supposedly used to because of it. if you not going to give because of thermobaric bombs (a really awful way to go) flamers arnt going to change your mind. 13:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- @AMassiveGay I think flamethrowers are not actually banned, it is just forbidden to use them against civilian targets. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- as I understand it, napalm and flame throwers are both limited in use by the Geneva convention. besides which the task of clearing bunkers is done by other means. we've moved on since ww2, where aside from flamethrowers, nothing could touch you in your bunker. now we have depleted uranium and thermobaric weaponry, just as awful in their own way, and now your bunker offers scant protection if we want it gone. flamethrowers will not make people surrender any more, but they will make anyone them using them look like savages. there is little military use for them now. AMassiveGay (talk)
- So... Is it better to choke on mustard gas, choke on CO2, choke on your own blood after getting shot in the lung, or choke on the ocean having your ship sunk? Fuck me, that can't be sorted into a hierarchy, that's a fucking nightmare list. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- In WW2 they were generally used against fortified positions - every time a German position surrendered when threatened with a flamethrower is a bonus to he surviving troops. Japanese weren't going to surrender anyway (mainly), and so use of flamethrowers in the Pacific is moot. Perceptions to the contrary, they mostly did NOT burn people - they mostly asphyxiated them by consuming all the oxygen available in a volume-limited underground complex. The expectation of some sort of numerical data is unreasonable - the people who saw the enemy surrender were also those who saw the enemy fight on in other circumstances from similar positions - every single instance of surrender rather than fight is a bonus for all the survivors!! See also Flame tanks. Napalm was originally developed in WW2 and was also used as fuel for flamethrowers, for which is was much "superior" to regular liquid fuel - see [1] - so there are no separate ethics for it as compared to flamethrowers - they are the same thing. Aloysius the Gaul 02:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- if war is a situation that is inherently immoral, then maybe not have war. sadly, we all love ourselves some war it is a situation that will occur regardless of its morality. so we then look at elements of war that are more needlessly dreadful than others. its not just the morality that needs to be considered, its what people can agree they can do without. what is the task of this particular weapon? can this task be done without giving generations to come birth defects? will everyone else agree? we are keeping this weapon, we need it for reasons, but we will agree it serves no military purpose to target nurseries. I think it unlikely that we could agree to settle via a game of slapsies, so we have to go with pragmatism and lesser evils, after all, if something you can do to your foes is really awful, they could do it do it to you too.
- its probably not particularly useful to weigh up the odds of a specific weapon like the flame thrower, whatever its impact or efficacy, but guns are here to stay sadly. they may killed more than nukes, but how many guns over how long a time is required to cause the same level of destruction as 1 nuke? pointy sticks have probably killed more. and we have drones now. and depleted uranium. thermobaric things. new and exciting ways to kill, awful in ways not previously considered.
- I don't think the morality of these things is especially difficult. its applying it that's difficult. you don't need a phd in ethics to think that bombing hospitals is wrong. or that a chemical agent that makes the land unlivable for decades to come might be over kill. the problem is the bitterness and desperation so common in war can shift your moral compass and you want things to be awful to the enemy, or the asymmetric nature of the conflict gives you little choice but execute prisoners or shell that hospital. and super powers can effectively ignore all the rules, have technology that skirt them, with everyone else agreeing to look the other way. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that as well. War is a stupid construct, just because humans came up with it doesn't make it a viable solution to human existence. It's like how hunting in most of the animal kingdom takes down the youngest and the oldest, so the most physically fit can replenish the youngest. Human war sends the most physically fit out to die for concepts bigger than survival so often throughout human history that it's become a natural struggle between the old and the young to make any sense of the hierarchy. I think I just found my scam. I mean book deal. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the morality of these things is especially difficult. its applying it that's difficult. you don't need a phd in ethics to think that bombing hospitals is wrong. or that a chemical agent that makes the land unlivable for decades to come might be over kill. the problem is the bitterness and desperation so common in war can shift your moral compass and you want things to be awful to the enemy, or the asymmetric nature of the conflict gives you little choice but execute prisoners or shell that hospital. and super powers can effectively ignore all the rules, have technology that skirt them, with everyone else agreeing to look the other way. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Something I find sad yet oddly hilarious[edit]
Many racists say that immigrants are the main reason for terrorist attacks yet their ideology is based on terrorism, mostly Nazis and KKK members. Why is it that plenty of racists claim to be against terrorism but their tactics and ideology are terrorist ideas? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Same basic issue with sovereign citizens/freemen on the land types, except they (minus those with guns) are more hilarious than sad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- its only terrorism if you don't like the perpetrator. when you do it, you are a guerrilla or revolutionary AMassiveGay (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- cough the IRA cough — Oxyaena Harass 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Racists generally have political and religious goals plus use violence to obtain their goals- textbook definition of terrorism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Most racists I have met in the UK are pretty indifferent to religion, and the only "political" idea they have is that people who are not like them should "go home". (Notwithstanding the fact that such "immigrants" may have been born in the UK.)
- I think you are being too generous in assuming that the majority actually have any clearly thought-out "goals".Hubert (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- yeh, is more along the lines of their town is looking slighty different than when they grew up, that new shop sells strange food, and they have a strange accent. it makes them feel little out of place, and nostalgic for the past. then someone tells you all your problems are their fault and suddenly they can fuck right off and Brexit means Brexit. we shall see who will be to blame when their problems are compounded. probably still the same people. its a little too much to expect the actual culprits to be blamed.
- I think racism in the uk and racism in the us are not one and the same. commanlities sure, but different. it has different causes, takes different forms, different effects. questions of immigration are different. ideas of multiculturalism are different. the way rights are applied. the uk people have never lived along side a massive population of slaves. there is no history segregation or a divisive war centred around race.
- racism in the uk is largely of xenophobic kind, not so much of the white supremacy- people look different, sound different, different ways, and they are johnny come-latelys. large scale immigration didn't really occur till post war and windrush, from the empire - we invited them, we needed them. then we had some race riots, civil rights milestone, and now our once guests are part of who we are. they helped build us back up from the ruins of ww2.
- thanks to racist dog whistles and scapegoating, we have fucked these people in the most appalling manner. the windrush scandal is a fucking stain on every brexiter, on every racist prick complaining about immigration with nothing but racist lies. its a stain on tories trying placate racists. is a stain on politicians who blamed immigration for problems that they had created. they have delivered Brexit with this shit. its destroying lives. I wish they could be deported. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Racists generally have political and religious goals plus use violence to obtain their goals- textbook definition of terrorism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- cough the IRA cough — Oxyaena Harass 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- its only terrorism if you don't like the perpetrator. when you do it, you are a guerrilla or revolutionary AMassiveGay (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Sad at the state of the world.[edit]
Ever since 2016, I’ve been sad at the state of the world. I wish 2016 never happened. Spacehillbilly (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ever since 1776 I've been sad at the state of the world, I wish 1776 never happened. — Oxyaena Harass 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Abrahamic Sense of Death?[edit]
"You should though, think long and hard, and consider why rebirth is so antithetical to an atheist viewpoint- why do most atheists hold an abrahamic conception of life as ceasing upon the cessation of physical activities? There is no soul, so why the insistence that oblivion is the result of that ego-state passing, and what about when that ego-state passes but the physical form persists? What happens to the matter of that body, etc etc."
The above was written in something explaining Buddhism and I'm not sure I get it. Isn't death technically the end of it all? I mean when the bodily processes cease and brain function drops then how is that not death?
On an unrelated note, I'm not sure what they mean by unmediated processes in Buddhism. Isn't everything mediated by our own senses?
"However, this is still something important to consider. Buddhism is very much so a religion, rather than a simple philosophy. There are many great secular purposes that can be derived from buddhism- Psychology for example has recently found a ton of copacetic values within much of buddhist practise, or is arriving at what buddhism has been doing for centuries. Still, buddhism requires a good bit of practise and study, and it is more than a philosophy because it fulfills a spiritual role, soteriology and supernatural concepts aside buddhism is a praxis by which we arrive at abnegation of ego-differentiated self. It is a vehicle for mystic experiences as any long-term buddhist practioner will assure you. The great trouble here is what has been the biggest weakness of buddhism- It is a monastic faith at it's heart. This means that among the laity a sort of "low" religion has emerged- You do things that make a good buddhist just because that's what you do. You give food to monks and lamas, you say a few prayers, and that's that. But these trappings and material clingings all have a purpose as a means of engaging the mind in certain activities. Take the tibetan prayer wheel for instance: On the surface you turn it and that gives you good merit, which means a better birth. But deeper than that, the wheel is a praxis by which you engage in the mental experience of having prayed without the activity of prayer, it is useful for not only illustrating the divide between participation and agency, but as well encourages that ego-death state by means of a tacit participation in compassion practise.
The faith is built entirely around the idea that all that we percieve, and experience is mediated, often greatly, by language and learned or assumed concepts that have become a deep part of out intellectual processes: Cognition and Emotion. The mystic attainment in buddhism is that which allows one to enter a psychological state of consciousness capable of affording participation in an unmediated world. The mediated world, it is argued, leads to cognitive and emotive processes that are not ultimately desireable reactions to the stimuli of the world. The question of these religious trappings in relation to attaining this psychological ego-death is that many of means we might use to reach this unmediated state are forms and methods that are themselves mediators of the world. The low religious, or lay, application of this high religious pursuit becomes the application of those means which are ding-fur-sich: sometimes linguistic means like koan, sometimes cognitive ablations like mantra recitation, sometimes tactile methods of conditioning such as mala. It is generally acknowledge that the most efficient vehicle for attaining this kind of ego-death in any permanence is still that of meditation- the conditioning of the mind to guide it towards conditioning ego-death as a default measure to ensure a finality in the assumption of that mental-psychological state. However those means which function as ding-fur-sich do so and are done with the understanding that their practise and encouragement conditions the end-goal of nonmediated participation. Often buddhism avoids this kind of deep analytical discourse because it is not usually itself one of those means which encourages those conditions, being a linguistic and conceptual construction of dialectic that is reliant upon the assumption of those learned concepts that lead to mediated, rather than unmediated, participation. The dialectic becomes that which reifies mediative-mind."
Just more reasons why Buddhism is super confusing to me and makes no sense at all.Machina (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- From what I've gathered, the "proof" that life and death is cyclical is that you can somehow "remember" a life previous to your current one, and what you "remember" and "understand" is mostly important to your next life rather than it is to your current one. Buddhism is super confusing, but it generally traps the same way that any promise of an extra life traps. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Personal Dilemma Over Defining School Shooting at my High School[edit]
I was reminiscing a bit, and I can't help noting I am really screwed up about my feelings over a school shooting at my primary alma mater that took place in 2011. I was eating lunch at a Blimpie sub shop about two blocks down the street from the school with some guys who also used to go there, when cops streaked by sirens blaring, and then it busted out on the tvs hanging in the corners, interrupting Judge Joe Brown.
There was a shooting at Millard South. Hold for details.
It was an extremely terrifying moment, nobody finished their lunch, most of us went to Millard South. Siblings, cousins, family, friends went there. But later that night, when the report was the situation was under control and one administrator was killed, I knew exactly who it was. I would never support killing a person, but I knew who got shot if it was exactly one administrator that died.
I had a run in with her, too. My senior year, everyone was required to wear ID badges. I got to school one day, late second semester without mine, said "holy shit, whoops" and went straight to the office to get one of those bright pink I-don't-have-my-ID stickers. I got sent to Kaspar, who I already knew was a hardass. I said I was sorry, that I forgot my ID, that I was sorry again, and that I needed one of those pink stickers us kids get when we don't have our badges. She told me I was breaking the rules, I needed to make putting my ID badge on part of my morning routine, and this was my one. Everybody I knew got two, but nope, she said the second time you showed up without your ID, it was after-school (detention where you had to sit silently in the lecture hall an extra hour before leaving campus, which I already always did out front, but it was a point of pride not to have one required of me). I said, wait, that doesn't make sense, because I came to you. It's not like I got caught in the halls pretending I didn't have my ID, it's not like I did this on purpose. I'm trying to be on time to class, I came to you, isn't that worth something? She said it didn't matter, in a way that really pissed me off like I hadn't ever been pissed off before. And I come from a family whose catch phrase might as well be "Get over it." Then she pulled out the pink stickers and asked for my name. In a real fit of rage, I said you don't know my name? Maybe I'll see you again this afternoon and bolted out of her office. I never set foot in that office again.
I don't know if this counts as a school shooting. I mean, as disgusting as this sounds, really, it's disgusting to me too, and wrong and Kaspar didn't deserve to get shot, no matter what punishment she put down on anybody or how many stories I heard about her turning everything around on whoever she had in her office. But the kid shot Kaspar, and posted "Everybody that used to know me I'm sry but Omaha changed me and (expletive) me up. and the school I attend is even worse ur gonna here about the evil (expletive) I did but that (expletive) school drove me to this. I wont u guys to remember me for who I was b4 this ik. I greatly affected the lives of the families ruined but I'm sorry. goodbye."
I am so upset with this dead kid, and I am so very pissed off at what he did. From what I understand he had a hard time transitioning from a Lincoln school, got bullied by a baseball kid and tore up the baseball field with his car, which led to his interaction with Kaspar, which of course was part of his suspension. I don't think he was so balanced in the first place. I used to hang out with a guy who got suspended, showed up to school during his suspension drunk, and we all watched him get caught by the resource officer. We knew he didn't have anywhere else to really go, but it was funny to see him get grabbed by the resource officer, stop, realize he was grabbed, and THEN try to run. Seemed like my school had a policy of test high or go to the learning center school after a certain number of suspensions or drop out. I think they were all-in on the no-child-left-behind thing. I used to hang out with lots of guys who got suspended until they were sent to the learning center.
I got bullied by a baseball kid too. One day when I got tapped a little less than lightly in the sac, and I punched him as hard as I could in the arm, he got in my face and praise-be he didn't punch me back, while everybody laughed their asses off and shouted for me to kick his ass, ironically, and I just stood there, ready to eat shit.
High school is complicated. Kaspar didn't deserve to get shot. As fucked up as it is, as bad as I feel about saying this, and as for gun control as I am, and as against death penalty as I am, I just don't see this as fitting the standard for a school shooting. But it's counted in the statistics, and yeah, maybe it should be.
I don't know, I'm very unhappy about the whole thing, I don't like it being politicized as a statistic, nor do I disagree with the points by which it is included to say school shootings are abhorrent. I don't know, maybe I'm just mad at the kid, that was my horrible high school too, that was my horrible assistant principal too. But I don't get to tell the kid that. I don't get to tell the kid anything. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank god such days are over. I feel for the kid, I know his pain, but the days of No Child Left Behind are gone (at least here in Ohio). — Oxyaena Harass 09:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- it was a shooting and was in a school, so school shooting? doesn't seem to have been any attempt at randomly killing all he could, so I get that maybe doesn't fit that template. but seems a murder/suicide with the murder victim personifying all that the killer felt was wrong with the situation. maybe if he'd let it fester a while longer he might have had more targets, maybe more random killing. it doesnt seem to much of a leap to get from this to the more classic kill all you can kind of school shooting. its idle speculation on that score, but either way he went in school to kill for a personal grievance of some kind, wasn't gang related or for material gain. i'd say its fits, even it doesn't really feel the same.
- if you know the school and the victim, maybe it makes it more difficult to see it in the same way as when these things occur somewhere you are not familiar with and to people you did not know. maybe that gives you some incite or just clouds your vision? perspective can be tricky at the best of times AMassiveGay (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- A distinction should be made between those people who (to borrow from John Mortimer) kill the one person who really annoys them and those who 'go killing people at random.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- i'm not really sure that we can. without analysing his motivation to any real extent, I don't see a whole of lot different between this and other school shootings beyond body count. at the very least, its still another shooting in a school. its one more reason to apply pressure to nra types. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I ducked this site for a few days because I felt really bad about what I had shared. But it was a targeted attack by a dumbass little kid who had access to a gun, somehow, some way. And understood, for anybody from the constitutional camp, his right to speak did not include lighting up a room so he could kill somebody and then himself, but where are we now? You can't tell me every adult human with guns is so responsible that their kids are invulnerable to bullying, unable to lay hands on their guns, and unable to use a gun for the purpose a gun was made? What is the saying, If you're holding a hammer everything looks like a nail? I'm a little guilty of that, saying this shit is stupid. But if you want to own a gun, keep it out of the hands of your high school kid. And if you think your high school kid is too dumb to crack your gun safe, you're an idiot, keep the gun at the gun club. And don't expect the gun club to be a safe place for adults to have guns either. If it's your gun, it's your fault when it goes off. If you build/buy guns that are explicitly designed to knock down humans, you share a bit of that guilt. The blade itself incites to deeds of violence, the blade doesn't have to be a gun.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- AMG - there is a distinction between one person (even a young adult) deliberately targeting one person (being in a school environment) for personal reasons, and 'some persons going around an educational building shooting randomly'; and even famous people can be murdered as well as assassinated. Anna Livia (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- I ducked this site for a few days because I felt really bad about what I had shared. But it was a targeted attack by a dumbass little kid who had access to a gun, somehow, some way. And understood, for anybody from the constitutional camp, his right to speak did not include lighting up a room so he could kill somebody and then himself, but where are we now? You can't tell me every adult human with guns is so responsible that their kids are invulnerable to bullying, unable to lay hands on their guns, and unable to use a gun for the purpose a gun was made? What is the saying, If you're holding a hammer everything looks like a nail? I'm a little guilty of that, saying this shit is stupid. But if you want to own a gun, keep it out of the hands of your high school kid. And if you think your high school kid is too dumb to crack your gun safe, you're an idiot, keep the gun at the gun club. And don't expect the gun club to be a safe place for adults to have guns either. If it's your gun, it's your fault when it goes off. If you build/buy guns that are explicitly designed to knock down humans, you share a bit of that guilt. The blade itself incites to deeds of violence, the blade doesn't have to be a gun.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- i'm not really sure that we can. without analysing his motivation to any real extent, I don't see a whole of lot different between this and other school shootings beyond body count. at the very least, its still another shooting in a school. its one more reason to apply pressure to nra types. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- A distinction should be made between those people who (to borrow from John Mortimer) kill the one person who really annoys them and those who 'go killing people at random.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- if you know the school and the victim, maybe it makes it more difficult to see it in the same way as when these things occur somewhere you are not familiar with and to people you did not know. maybe that gives you some incite or just clouds your vision? perspective can be tricky at the best of times AMassiveGay (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Milkshake[edit]
|
Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead! |
Recently, I have kept an eye on this thing of throwing milkshake. I have found many on left-wing platforms that are justifying, or even encouraging, this kind of assault. Some examples:
- Tony Dokoupil (CBS This Morning) "These attacks have come to be known as milk shaking. Now, this follows egging. It follows pieing, punching. I don’t know. I’m sure it feels great. I’m sure people love the feeling. Pictures fly around the world. Put some of that energy into campaigning and maybe the people you don’t want to be in office won’t be in office."
- Carlos Maza (Vox) "Milkshake them all. Humiliate them at every turn. Make them dread public organizing."
- Mac Hackett (Vice) "it's reassuring to see that Carl Benjamin can't make it down a high street without being completely drenched in milkshake."
- Tom Peck (The Independent) "Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious"
- Matt Ford (The New Republic) "Why Milkshaking Works"
- Aditya Chakrabortty (The Guardian) "This Milkshake Spring isn’t political violence – it’s political theatre"
Thinker(unlicensed) 18:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, it wasn't really nice for the fish when Carl of Swindon came in contact with it. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 18:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC) - Options for your dumb ass: 1. shut the fuck up, 2. shut the hell up 3. Go to hell you fascist piece of trash. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Cool Story, Bro. Revolverman (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's really just another form of pieing, which has been a form of protest since 1970. I'll start becoming concerned if someone puts a rock in a milkshake cup, or other actual harm occurs. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- This didn't make me angry or cause me to question the left wing, so your troll failed, UT. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Question, how come these concerned people don't ask things like "well someone vandalized a swastika on a house, isn't that bad because it'll prompt a jew to vandalize a star of david on a nazi's house". --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I can't help it, my milkshake has racism-induced seizures and starts shaking uncontrollably. I can't hold on to it! (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 19:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- How about "I'm very concerned for the state of democracy when neonazis mass murder people they disagree with"? No, it's fucking harmless humilation of vile, disgusting people that "worries" UT. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- these people are a group of racists and liars who have done irreparable harm to my country. these are people whose discourse is lie upon lie, rape jokes and racism, and actual physical violence. we are not so long from a sitting mp was shot to death. this is hardly the battle of cable street, its just egging, though less likely to leave a bruise and it isn't punching. its only violence in the most loosest of senses, the way rude words can be violence. It'll likely vanish effectively once the novelty wears out. perhaps we should have started sooner. in the meantime its been soundly condemned by pretty much everyone as a valid course of action. a few commentators who are less than outraged is not some sinister trend in the making. google jo cox to see what actual political violence looks like.
- of course this and a sense of perspective could have been gleaned simply by reading the articles linked above.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
So I can't punch Nazi's, shout down Nazi's, block out Nazi's, tell Nazi's to shut the fuck up, or milkshake Nazi's. But they can continue spewing bullshit about how I'm subhuman and to blame for most crime. Fuck that. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- what I find upsetting about all of this is that the milkshake machine always seems to be out of order in the local macdonalds, yet milkshakes are abundant wherever farage is. its almost like milkshakes are being provided to and thrown by professional milkshake lobbers. enoch was right - only its rivers of strawberry milkshake rather than blood. its really gloopy so that probably makes it worse. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of people seem to think this phase is funny and justifiable, and we have seen some of that on this bar discussion. But I've yet to see justification for the 'milkshaking' of an 81 year old veteran for the abominable crime of wearing a Brexit Party rosette. --RWRW (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- "I’m not anti-migrant. I am one and I never want to leave the UK,” he said. “But we can’t take in everybody. It’s as simple as that." - guy who got milkshaked. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- You see anyone here (except LGM kinda) trying to justify milkshaking random octogenarians who aren't public figures? Also, when I first saw that headline, I was expecting someone who was traumatized by the incident, not someone who seems to be just fine and laughing it off. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't throw milkshakes at Farage probably because I like to drink those things and I'm a crapshoot at throwing and I don't want to risk injury for my small frame and I probably won't get a good angle and I probably won't recognize him or I fear getting the wrong figure.
- Anyway, as a child of immigrants, I'm generally scathing at those "concerned" about migration as those people are just repeating history of xenophobia I had the misfortune and displeasure reading and studying about so yeah, get dunked. Migrationwatch uk probably needs it too. I don't see how supporting Brexit and continuing to support it is doing anyone any good. Milkshake isn't as effective on random old guys but I'm not feeling like I should care that much either way. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Options for your dumb ass: 1. shut the fuck up, 2. shut the hell up 3. Go to hell you fascist piece of trash."
- @Ikanreed Otherwise are you gonna throw a milkshake at me?
- "It's really just another form of pieing, which has been a form of protest since 1970. I'll start becoming concerned if someone puts a rock in a milkshake cup, or other actual harm occurs. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"
- Well, someone has already suggested to use acid battery.
- "This didn't make me angry or cause me to question the left wing, so your troll failed, UT." :@Millennium Scallion In you mind pointing at people calling for physical aggression is being a troll...
- "Question, how come these concerned people don't ask things like "well someone vandalized a swastika on a house, isn't that bad because it'll prompt a jew to vandalize a star of david on a nazi's house"."
- @LeftyGreenMario How come that it is so difficult to say: "nobody should have its property / persona assaulted"?
- "google jo cox to see what actual political violence looks like."
- @AMassiveGay Not as bad as fallacy.
- "So I can't punch Nazi's"
- @RipCityLiberal It's not that you can't punch a Nazi. You can't punch anybody. Unless is an act of immediate self-defense, or you two are at a boxing match or similar sport.
- "shout down Nazi's, block out Nazi's"
- It depends on the context but, again, generally, you can't "shout down" or "block out" anybody.
- "tell Nazi's to shut the fuck up,"
- Of course you can.
- "or milkshake Nazi's."
- @RipCityLiberal Again, you can't milkshake anybody. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Kinda hard to order battery acid at a McDonald's though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Lots of people seem to think this phase is funny and justifiable, and we have seen some of that on this bar discussion. But I've yet to see justification for the 'milkshaking' of an 81 year old veteran for the abominable crime of wearing a Brexit Party rosette."
- @RWRW I wouldn't be surprised to hear here soon justifications also for that. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Who knows, it might be the new MAGA hat. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- No one threw a milkshake an 81 yr old vet simply for wearing a Brexit rosette - typical bullshit quote mining by the whiney troll - “What happened is not going to halt me from doing it. I am just here raising awareness as a volunteer of the Brexit Party. “I help hand out leaflets and today I am helping to make a presence.”.Aloysius the Gaul 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Who knows, it might be the new MAGA hat. --It's-a me,
- I am extremely upset that my point about epileptic milkshakes was not addressed in this half-constructed wall of text. I may well have to deplatform you at your next speech on a college campus. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 21:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- as ever UT you are full of shit, with a wilful ignorance of the argument actually being made, the context that was provided, with a glaring lack of any perspective.
- Kinda hard to order battery acid at a McDonald's though. --It's-a me,
- how is it fallacious to suggest that a handful of incidents, in which no one was physically harmed, is in no way comparable to recent events in the uk, where people were killed, with more violence brewing in some parts. these are not the same. they are not even in the same ball park. it dishonest to suggest they are.
- it is not fallacious to suggest we are not seeing a trend of any kind, that we are not seeing anything even slightly worrying. a handful people were mildly inconvenienced. the acts themselves have been widely denounced. no indication this is likely a long term problem. a handful of commenters does not indicate this. even less so when you factor in your inability at telling bemusement from genuine support. it is dishonest to suggest, on the basis of fuck all, that it is cause for concern.
- it is no different to egging. no different to pieing. we had these things for years. the 'ammunition' has been abundant for years. so have milkshakes been. the handful of incident, were no one harmed, have already died down by the time of this posting. meanwhile, one of the victims, tommy robinson, was just the other day videoed sucker punching someone who had expressed disagreement with him.
- your dishonesty here matters. it devalues the discourse. it generates a false sense of grievance in the far right. we have seen rising racial intolerance in the uk thanks in no small part to those in this small group and their allies and their constant lies. your dishonesty, your exaggeration of the threat posed, reframes these cunts as the victims. your efforts only benefit actual racists, actual violent thugs. this is a well established tactic of the far right.
- so once again we have your dishonesty, and your ignoring and twisting of the salient points. your true colours shine through with every post AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Well, someone has already suggested [battery] acid..." A comedienne. On a comedy panel show. Called "Heresy," where the point is to toe the line of what's acceptable to say, like Frankie Boyle doing a live set for Comic Relief on African poverty. I know people throw around the line "It was a joke!" haphazardly, especially what with the only-doing-it-ironically-and-to-trigger-libs alt-right and their ilk, but in the full context of that statement (including where she emphasized she wasn't serious and it was a joke, like, right after she said that) I don't see how it could've been taken as anything else (Compared to, say, in a text-only format on an anonymous board). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
So far-right chucklefucks who make careers out of stirring up racial hatred are getting hit with milkshakes? God forbid. I cry for them. My heart goes out to them. Christ himself never suffered the way they have. In this time of rising neo-Nazism, it's worth remembering that if you throw milkshakes at racists, you instantly become worse than the people who want to persecute others for their culture or the color of their skin. My God, the Regressive Left has truly gone too far this time. 
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. I feel like this falls into the legal defense of "Talk Shit, Get Hit".-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- "it's worth remembering that if you throw milkshakes at racists, you instantly become worse than the people who want to persecute others for their culture or the color of their skin."
- @DuceMoosolini Straw man: Nobody has made that argument.Thinker(unlicensed) 06:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
What happens if the milk-shaken person is allergic to milk? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The vast majority of them have been white, and as we all know, milk is the lifeblood of white people. None could possibly be lactose-intolerant or allergic. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- this just highlights how non violent and non harmful this all is. dreadful, life threatening or at least make you shit yourself on the bus, milk allergy? never fear, macdonalds has your back. no milk in their milkshakes. we may soil your jacket by our extremist actions, but your pants will not be soiled. your trip to the dry cleaners will be free from shame (they have no shame anyway) AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- AMG - what about the Trade Descriptions Act? Anna Livia (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- this just highlights how non violent and non harmful this all is. dreadful, life threatening or at least make you shit yourself on the bus, milk allergy? never fear, macdonalds has your back. no milk in their milkshakes. we may soil your jacket by our extremist actions, but your pants will not be soiled. your trip to the dry cleaners will be free from shame (they have no shame anyway) AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Summarizing: I have pointed out to many on left-wing platform that justified, minimized, or even encouraged attacking people by throwing at them milkshake. The responses have been:
- You are a troll: "1. shut the fuck up, 2. shut the hell up 3. Go to hell you fascist piece of trash." (ikanreed); "This didn't make me angry or cause me to question the left wing, so your troll failed, UT." (Millennium Scallion); "Don't remove the fucking troll template when it's applied to you, you fucking troll!." (Spud)
- It's not violence: "It's really just another form of pieing, which has been a form of protest since 1970. (Noir_LeSable) "this just highlights how non violent and non harmful this all is" (AMassiveGay)
- Not as bad as, What about...: "how come these concerned people don't ask things like "well someone vandalized a swastika on a house, isn't that bad because it'll prompt a jew to vandalize a star of david on a nazi's house" (LeftyGreenMario); "How about "I'm very concerned for the state of democracy when neonazis mass murder people they disagree with"? No, it's fucking harmless humilation of vile, disgusting people that "worries" UT." (ikanreed); "google jo cox to see what actual political violence looks like." (AMassiveGay)
- They deserved it: "So far-right chucklefucks who make careers out of stirring up racial hatred are getting hit with milkshakes? God forbid. I cry for them." (DuceMoosolini) "I feel like this falls into the legal defense of "Talk Shit, Get Hit"." (RipCityLiberal).
Nobody took the position that: "Assaulting people by throwing milkshake at them is wrong, no matter what those people say or do. If what they say is bad, it should be challenged by better ideas. If what they do is bad, they should be confronted legally." I sincerely don't know how this community can be so blind and do not understand that, having responses like the ones above, people outside of it will never take it seriously when it comes to politics. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- So by your logic, splashing people at a recreational pool counts as violent assault? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oo! Show some decency! Your concern is showing! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- "So by your logic, splashing people at a recreational pool counts as violent assault?"
- @Noir LeSable How, by any logic, can you conflate "Assaulting people by throwing milkshake at them is wrong" with "splashing people at a recreational pool counts as violent assault"? If you are walking down the street and I throw at you a gallon of water, would you think that's fine because people do that at recreational pool all the time? If I punch you, would you think that's fine because boxers do that on the ring all the time? Thinker(unlicensed) 19:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oo! Show some decency! Your concern is showing! --It's-a me,
- Do you have any idea how ridiculous assaulting people by throwing milkshake [sic] sounds? (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 19:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- So ridiculous that if you do it you get arrested and charged with common assault and criminal damage, that silly police... Thinker(unlicensed) 20:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- ”RADICAL LEFTISTS AT ANTIFA IRRATIONALWIKI SUPPORT POLITICAL VIOLENCE AAAAAAAAAAH”
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictatormoderator 20:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And don't forget, it is better for your health to throw a MacDonald's shake than it is to drink one. I would be surprised to discover that anything really bad could be prevented or good accomplished by throwing dairy products. Be advised, don't throw anything at police in the United States. Bringing dairy products to a gun fight can be hazardous to your health. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- UT, do you have any fucking clue what it is you are talking? or the people involved? you are talking as if someone put a glass in farages face, and unleashed a wave of glassing. what do you think the full of the law looks like for lobbing a milkshake at someone? a stern talking too most likely. maybe caution, one were to get arsey. that is the severity of the crime, no physical harm done, and milkshake washes out.
- what more do you want? this terrifying wave was over before it had begun. it was as ridiculous as was brief. its effects on public discourse were zero. of the three or four people 'assaulted', tommy robinson, is a football hooligan. a violent and racist thug, who a few days ago was videoed sucker punching someone expressing his opposition to tommy. he founded a racist organisation responsible for much violence wherever it goes, and tommy and chums are frequently involved in violence at his rallies. his public discourse involves aggressive confrontation, lies, and attempts to subvert the british justice. his discourse helped inspire a terrorist attack, where people died. Nazi is thrown around a lot but it fits this chap.
- the carl fella. the argon person. I know him only here and his aborted election attempt. his discourse involves rape jokes and racist lies.
- and farage, what a cunt he is. he needs no introduction but he does need to be explained. his barely concealed racism, his hypocritical man of the people stick is currently head of a one issue party that's already achieved its aim, was elected to parliament he wants no part of except its money, and involved in a variety of shady expense dealings. his discourse during the time of the milkshake terror involved him refusing to state any policy till he was elected. prior to that, he was instrumental in moving public discourse further to right, prompting the hubris of the tory party giving us Brexit, of which we can only look on in horror as the tory party try out arsehole each other that will result in the death of the nhs, of public services, of the fucking union. the death of my country.
- these were the targets. this is the level of discourse they have contributed. they have all played a part in its destruction. democracy would be stronger if they were milkshaked everytime they opened their mouths. they have played no small part in the rising racism in the uk. have contributed indirectly to the related levels of violence - one directly responsible.
- you wring your hands over something that was limited to these cunts, was a thing for a mere heart beat before its inevitable collapse. it barely broke their stride.
- i'll do you a favour though. i'll denounce it. because it gives these people what they want. they can say how they are victims of the intolerant left. they talk up the damage and the harm done. they want us ignore the damage their intolerance has wrought. the racist assaults. the murders. the policy blunders of the tories in an attempt to placate racist voters. the windrush scandal. the left gave them a trip to the dry cleaners. we all live in the ruins they gave us.
- take a good look at these arseholes. see what they stand for. you do their work. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The crux of UT's argument: If violence is ok against Nazi's, it's ok against everyone. This is a false dichotomy. If people went around milkshaking random people, we would rightly call them assholes. But these aren't random people. These a right wing personalities proposing draconian, racist and elitist policies, that aim to deny the rights of citizens. They represent all that is wrong about democracy. And because they have been allowed to spread their ignorance and lies to the general populace, hiding behind free speech rights, other methods are needed to limit their reach and generally mock them. Because physical violence is frowned upon, drenching the fuckers in a milkshake seems just fine. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- They get to pretend they're victims but is that tactic effective? I don't think it convinces anyone. You must be hella ignorant to see "wow Farage got wet, the other side is really bad" or you already bought into the idea of "the intolerant left". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- they are not interested, they only interested in muddying the waters till only the loudest lies win. its enough to reassure their waiverers. its enough to keep you occupied discussing their 'wounds'. its enough to throw discord and distrust, they thrive in such circumstances while we flounder and waste time unpicking another thread of nonsense while their actual shit is ignored. see above for the reams I inadvertently spewed in response to insincere gnashing of the teeth over something so patently ridiculous and too limited to have had an real effect or harm. and watch as it is ignored in favour of a quote mine or reference to a fallacy that isn't. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- They get to pretend they're victims but is that tactic effective? I don't think it convinces anyone. You must be hella ignorant to see "wow Farage got wet, the other side is really bad" or you already bought into the idea of "the intolerant left". --It's-a me,
- The crux of UT's argument: If violence is ok against Nazi's, it's ok against everyone. This is a false dichotomy. If people went around milkshaking random people, we would rightly call them assholes. But these aren't random people. These a right wing personalities proposing draconian, racist and elitist policies, that aim to deny the rights of citizens. They represent all that is wrong about democracy. And because they have been allowed to spread their ignorance and lies to the general populace, hiding behind free speech rights, other methods are needed to limit their reach and generally mock them. Because physical violence is frowned upon, drenching the fuckers in a milkshake seems just fine. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I did my best to promote my dangerous and extremist idea that: "Assaulting people by throwing milkshake at them is wrong, no matter what those people say or do. If what they say is bad, it should be challenged by better ideas. If what they do is bad, they should be confronted legally."
- Clearly, most of you rejected my idea. My consolation is that if you won't change your mind, then, soon or later, you will find yourself assaulting someone who disagrees with you, and at that point the consequences that you will face will be more effective that any explanation I can write in a post. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Assaulting people by throwing milkshake at them is wrong, no matter what those people say or do. If what they say is bad, it should be challenged by better ideas. If what they do is bad, they should be confronted legally Hey fuck face, if these people had their way they would strip away the rights to speak against them and make it illegal to challenge them. Right wing radicals don't believe in the liberal democracies and human rights standards established after WWII, they seek to eliminate that system instead. I don't plan to assault anyone I disagree with, but I will assault someone who's literal argument is "You do not have rights, you do not exist."-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- You’re being a useful idiot for people who literally think that I’m subhuman due to my race. But yes, clearly I and the people who agree with me are the bad guys here. You are filth. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 23:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)- These guys also think I'm literally subhuman, having my blood "tainted" by my Chinese dad. If these assholes had their way, my parents wouldn't even be legally allowed to marry and I wouldn't have been born. Let the milkshakes rain. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- These guys also think I'm literally subhuman, having my blood "tainted" by my Chinese dad. If these assholes had their way, my parents wouldn't even be legally allowed to marry
- UT is a concern troll parroting right wing talking points. What more do you need to know? Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have made this very point a few times. I have also made the point, several times, that it is a phenomena that is already finished, has been roundly denounced, effected only a handful of people, leaving only milkshake themed puns on few websites as its only mark, as opposed to the targets, whose actions have led to real world harm, real world violence. who have done all they can to make discourse worthless. the hypocrisy here is galling. we are apparently dangerous extremists now because we are not suitably outraged by a literal nothing. all points ignored by ut who, with no sense of perspective, makes an argument so removed from any context of what happened, its little more than a repeated mantra. just fuck off, ut AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Who wants to take bets on when UT will be milkshaked? — Oxyaena Harass 10:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- There will always be people who attract strong responses - which may range from 'a load of verbals/the printed equivalent' to 'making a protest physically' (milkshaking etc)to 'ABH, GBH and beyond.'
- Better eggs, tomatoes, milkshakes and similar inconveniences that actual violence/propaganda of the deed against persons who are deliberately 'controversy magnets'. Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Who wants to take bets on when UT will be milkshaked? — Oxyaena Harass 10:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have made this very point a few times. I have also made the point, several times, that it is a phenomena that is already finished, has been roundly denounced, effected only a handful of people, leaving only milkshake themed puns on few websites as its only mark, as opposed to the targets, whose actions have led to real world harm, real world violence. who have done all they can to make discourse worthless. the hypocrisy here is galling. we are apparently dangerous extremists now because we are not suitably outraged by a literal nothing. all points ignored by ut who, with no sense of perspective, makes an argument so removed from any context of what happened, its little more than a repeated mantra. just fuck off, ut AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Troubled E3 Demo for CD Projekt Red[edit]
According to this post on Rock, Paper, Shotgun Cyberpunk 2077's E3 Demo seems to have exposed several writing flaws in CDPR's upcoming title, namely stereotypes and some rather uncomfortable imagery. Though until the demo is made available to the public it will be difficult to verify the article's claims. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think a much more concerning revelation from E3 is that of Pokémon Sword and Shield disallowing transfers of Pokémon not found in the Galar Pokédex. (ƨɛɪᴙᴛᴎoɔ) (ʞɹᴀᴛ) ɒnippiɿqƧ @ 21:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this article was published when it was, aside to get the GAMERZRISEUP crowd into a frenzy (And judging by the number of comments, it did its job if that's the case). I've been interested in 2077 as well, but I'm a devout practitioner of Yahtzee's wager and have not hyped myself as others have. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hype is dangerous, but if this is anything to go by, this seems really concerning. Isn't writing a strong point for these things? You have to wonder, assuming that whatever was reported is accurate, why they decided to give the writing that direction. It doesn't help that, according to the article, there were previous demos that didn't pay nonwhite cultures enough respect. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Shit, if I can't roll out with three ice cream cones and a dishwasher in the new Poklmanz, my whole meta-strat is blown to shit... Wait, what am I supposed to care about? Better read some video game hype and take the comment section more seriously than the product, which I am going to buy either way. Ice cream cones and dishwashers are gay? I'm not gay, better be some super hetero poklmanz for me to capture, care about, and love or I'm about to have words on Sword and Shield.
- They are selling to an uncritical crowd. Until we stop buying the games at these stupid prices, every game looks worth the price to these publishers, and they will sell out every writer, developer, and coder on the way to making that profit. Skyrim was enough proof that hyping/launching a game was worth more than finishing a game. Maybe Fable did it first, since it saw a Fable 2. Our criticisms hold no weight. I can't believe they have the disposable income to run these ad campaigns, E3 was always kinda stupid but now it's pretty gross. For a ticket price, you can see and try these games that aren't finished yet. For the price of a game, you can play these games that aren't finished yet, and hopefully someday will be finished by means of cheap labor, not dev coders. Motherfucker, I was going to buy the game, why are you spending this extra money selling it to me? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hype is dangerous, but if this is anything to go by, this seems really concerning. Isn't writing a strong point for these things? You have to wonder, assuming that whatever was reported is accurate, why they decided to give the writing that direction. It doesn't help that, according to the article, there were previous demos that didn't pay nonwhite cultures enough respect. --It's-a me,
Biggest government fuck ups ever, other countries besides the US are accepted[edit]
- Iraq War
- Waco
- Trail of Tears
- Britain trying to prevent India from becoming an independent nation
- Vietnam War
- War on Drugs
- Donald Trump (dude really needs some psych meds to even him out) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not paying enough attention to climate change! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Slavery
- Segregation and Jim Crow
- Operation Wetback
- Japanese internment camps
- Guantanamo Bay
- Patriot Act
- ICE
- Overthrowing democratic governments and installing dictatorships (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, etc.)TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Operation Barbarossa. - Aloysius the Gaul 03:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Everything surrounding Brexit for the last few years, which looks to get worse, not better Dendlai (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bolsonaro raping the rainforest.
- Governments shutting down abortion clinics and funding crisis pregnancy centers
- The Electoral College
- Billionaires being a failure of capitalism and being allowed to exist.
- Election fraud, which is pretty terrifying
- Lynching not outlawed.
- Khmer Rouge
- Apple products not outlawed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Centrists. — Oxyaena Harass 09:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
- The Amerindian genocides
- Everything related to modern day China. — Oxyaena Harass 11:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sweden: Olof Palme assassination task force. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Just look up the current status of the reservation of Pine Ridge. Fucking horrible. — Oxyaena Harass 16:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Everything related to the Chagossians. — Oxyaena Harass 16:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ending Reconstruction prematurely. — Oxyaena Harass 10:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
New level of stupidity for the WMF[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Is it? It seemed super vague exactly what happened. Why Fram was banned did not seem clear for one. Discussion seemed to go between 'harassment' or 'legal issues'. It is troubling though because several admins resigned as a result. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Funny enough Fram was the one who banned @D. — Oxyaena Harass 11:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The general gist I am getting is the "powers that be" at minimum got tired of certain behavior. Certainly if I repeatedly went on rants like the one Fram linked to as "the final straw" at work, I probably wouldn't last long. :) No idea of further actual specifics, the WMF's lack of transparency is of course a problem here, but that's not surprising -- I've personally *never* felt like Wikipedia is the most transparent organization in the world, it feels like there is a lot of "editorial tribal knowledge" and a confusing maze of rules to navigate through (some of it is by necessity of course due to the usual Internet stupidity in a user-editable environment, but still). It's also entirely possible that certain legal rules are preventing full disclosure, for all I know. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Funny enough Fram was the one who banned @D. — Oxyaena Harass 11:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Discord[edit]
Okay can I be unbanned? It's been well over a month, I've long since stopped posting Nazi memes. I`m posting this here because, you know, I`m banned from the actual Discord. — Oxyaena Harass 11:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's something the Discord staff decides, not us. I don't know why you keep bringing up your situation here constantly when you should know this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a Discord "talk to the staff" page somewhere on here? Seems like a Catch-22 to me. You should address bans not on the RW but on the Discord server, but you can't talk to Discord server 'cause you're banned. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are DMs banned? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I`m petitioning here because so far I've been stonewalled elsewhere. I had a fucking meltdown over this and my gender dysphoria earlier lol. — Oxyaena Harass 19:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Have you tried contacting Fuzzy?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- There should be a Discord liason to this wiki: someone who's staff there and staff here. I nominate all of the mods but myself. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 21:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- There should be a Discord liason to this wiki: someone who's staff there and staff here. I nominate all of the mods but myself.
- Have you tried contacting Fuzzy?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I`m petitioning here because so far I've been stonewalled elsewhere. I had a fucking meltdown over this and my gender dysphoria earlier lol. — Oxyaena Harass 19:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Are DMs banned? --It's-a me,
- Is there a Discord "talk to the staff" page somewhere on here? Seems like a Catch-22 to me. You should address bans not on the RW but on the Discord server, but you can't talk to Discord server 'cause you're banned. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
ye so the ban was made by the late united, and a poll on April 29, 2019 ended 5-25 against lifting the ban making it a mobocracy action. the last poll to unban oxy was on May 15, 2019 and ended 17-20 against lifting the ban. it was agreed by the staff not to hold any more polls for three months. this time has not ended until August 18, 2019 when the ban may be polled again.
any peep that does want to make an appeal against their ban on the rationalwiki discord may:
- join the irrationalwiki discord server and ask a member of staff
- send a discord direct message to a moderator listed on RW:Discord
- ask on the talk page of RationalWiki Talk:Discord
- contact a moderator on their wiki talk page