|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive312
Capital Punishment for Sleeping in a Drive Thru[edit]
Just saw this article in WIGO world. Seriously though, what the actual fuck? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- ACAB. — Oxyaena Harass 14:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- ive left some incoherent ramblings on wigo talk about that. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Eh, in my experience, in my travels, in the "developed world" (and actually some select non-developed countries as well), its mainly the American police with this problem. Too much unnecessary military-wannabe in too many police officers over here. And it shows -- not just the killings, but the whole "barking" / "respect mah authoritay!" attitude that IMHO is way more common here. Something that I find darkly amusing thanks to "the privilege", but it would not be so amusing if I was a poor minority. Unfortunately you only have to step into a Nextdoor community to figure out that a lot of people want things exactly like that over here, likely for the same reasons that Fox News is so popular and Donald Trump got elected, you know. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- "The police did not try to wake him up or announce that they were officers"
- That's inexcusable and I think it should be the central point to prosecute the police officers who shot. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. — Oxyaena Harass 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I found this, from a defense attorney, the best analysis on the matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The dude was sleeping in a Taco Bell parking lot with a gun in his lap. How are you gonna keep the peace if a dude is passed out with a gun in his lap? I don't like it, but police can't turn around and say "not my deal." Surround the guy and wait till he wakes up, maybe still fucked up, with a pistol in his lap? What the fuck is somebody doing passed out with a gun in their lap if they aren't fixing to die? Get that gun out of the car, and you just have a dude passed out in his car. Do that as a police officer, and you're fucking James Bond. Hold a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)h
- Crap, I didn't read that before I just spouted off. I don't know if it was a Taco Bell. I don't know if he was in or out of the drive thru. Still going to say that just having a gun in your lap is maybe enough for anybody to be scared you might shoot them with a gun. The police proved how effective guns are, in killing a God damned human being. So, if you want to have a point, look at the results, maybe guns are the fucking problem. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't get it: If the guy was sleeping sitting on a rocking chair on his porch, with a shotgun on his lap, would the police had acted in such a way? A car is private property and US citizens have the right to bear arms, so what exactly was legally wrong is unclear to me. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sleeping in a drive-through, in a running car, with a gun in your lap is... not normal behavior. Something was clearly very wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- not normal behaviour, certainly worthy of the police taking a look. he was also asleep, not an immediate threat to anyone. the could have stepped back to consider their options. they could see he was waking, they could have shifted to a position where someone groggy from sleep would not have to be immediately killed. or bring up the cruiser behind the car. wake him and issue instructions via loud speaker. literally anything other than what they did - they moved to a position where they knew they would have to kill him for anything less complete and immediate compliance, ready themselves to take him out, assure each they would take him out. and they did. no crime at this point was known to have been committed, or about to be committed. but there were guns trained the mans head the entire time, acknowledging to each other to be ready to kill. the analysis above stresses what a bizarre situation it was. but was it though? so out there that police training and on there job experience wouldn't have given another option, where they do stand around psyching themselves up to kill him? what fuck is wrong with their training if this was all they could come up with?
- I understand hey do a dangerous job. they need to be ready for anything, to protect themselves, with deadly force if need be. but at no point did they consider the safety of the man they killed. they put themselves in a position where their safety meant his death. with no pressing reason to be that position. that's poor judgement surely. theres a callous disregard for guy they kill. and tney are praised for their restraint in not completely emptying their guns into him.
- this is your police AMassiveGay (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Nothing in the analysis I linked to above contradicts that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- If a person had fallen asleep in a rocking chair with a shotgun in their lap, presumably, it would be on their property and not just like, in a mall. Then you would have to wonder why the police were showing up. If it was like, in a mall, yes, I think the police would act this way. If it was on their property, and police had been called, yes, I think the police would act this way. I'm not happy about this, but are the police going to spend the prerequisite time, money, and energy to load out their SWAT/negotiation team for something that might escalate to a civilian shooting in a matter of seconds? The gun is the fucking threat, it takes less than a second for a gun to kill somebody. The point I'm trying to make is the dude should never been allowed to have a gun in his lap in his car. This ridiculous over-use of lethal force is perpetuated by the ability of people to purchase, own, and exercise self-control over a tool that was created for and specialized in killing humans. Yet gun-owners have no fucking contractual requirement to not kill humans with it or handle it as such, just a hope that they act morally with their killing machine.
- You guys are talking like there is no reason you shouldn't be allowed to be passed out with a gun in your lap in your car in public. I don't think the only solution to this is killing the guy, but fuck, what are you doing passed out in a car (potential killing machine if operated incorrectly) with an explicit killing machine (if operated correctly)? It's not that I don't have sympathy for the guy or frustration with the police in general, but how did we get here? What responsibility did we give to a guy that he, empathetically, blew off at least one time? If you could own a gun, but were required to study up on it, prove proficiency with it, and store it at a highly regulated gun club, rather than being able to just buy one and walk around with it, I think gun ownership would work better, and we'd see a huge drop in civilian gun violence, which would kick police gun violence right in the nuts. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- that's not what we have said at all. what we/I have said it was not necessary to deal with every incident with lethal force. here lethal force was essentially the only option one the table, and the polices own actions removed the possibility of any other option. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- So what is a solution here? I agree, it's definitely not necessary to deal with most situations with lethal force, and the police are generally wont to open fire when there is a civilian with a gun (FULL WARNING, video of a civilian getting shot in crossfire, and it is fucking hard to watch). And yes, I understand the guy robbing the Wendy's didn't have a real gun. Even when a civilian doesn't have a gun, the police are also likely enough to open fire that it causes problems. Mostly, the problem is a justified feedback loop of mistrust between the police and the communities they police, which of course leads to the police using more force, because they are subject to the same increased fears and warped power structures as the communities they are staffed from. I also agree that the police didn't knock on the window or announce that the police were there by other means. But in this specific circumstance, I'm not totally disgusted by the police, I'm frustrated by the circumstances, but you also have to understand that California has a no-open carry law. It is not legal in California to have your gun outside of your home unless it is in your trunk or in a locked container that you are moving from your car to your home. And from a policing standpoint, when somebody is passed out in their car with a firearm in their lap, circumstances are only guaranteed to be on their side while the person is passed out. I do not like it, but this is not the same situation as Philando Castil. It is not the same as Eric Garner or Walter Scott or Michael Brown. It not even close to Trayvon Martin, because Trayvon Martin was unarmed, running away, and shot by a civilian. It is frustrating, this senseless loss of life, that is definitely steeped in racism. I'm glad you guys are suspicious of the police, I think that anarchist on the WIGO world who refuses to testify to his own shooting is a modern-day saint, but the reality is this isn't avoidable until people don't have guns to wave around or pass out on top of. That includes the police. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I will be the first to say on this topic, that WIGO police assault on a family is terrible, sickening. Police shouldn't have guns either, a "good guy" with a gun is still a human with a gun. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- So what is a solution here? I agree, it's definitely not necessary to deal with most situations with lethal force, and the police are generally wont to open fire when there is a civilian with a gun (FULL WARNING, video of a civilian getting shot in crossfire, and it is fucking hard to watch). And yes, I understand the guy robbing the Wendy's didn't have a real gun. Even when a civilian doesn't have a gun, the police are also likely enough to open fire that it causes problems. Mostly, the problem is a justified feedback loop of mistrust between the police and the communities they police, which of course leads to the police using more force, because they are subject to the same increased fears and warped power structures as the communities they are staffed from. I also agree that the police didn't knock on the window or announce that the police were there by other means. But in this specific circumstance, I'm not totally disgusted by the police, I'm frustrated by the circumstances, but you also have to understand that California has a no-open carry law. It is not legal in California to have your gun outside of your home unless it is in your trunk or in a locked container that you are moving from your car to your home. And from a policing standpoint, when somebody is passed out in their car with a firearm in their lap, circumstances are only guaranteed to be on their side while the person is passed out. I do not like it, but this is not the same situation as Philando Castil. It is not the same as Eric Garner or Walter Scott or Michael Brown. It not even close to Trayvon Martin, because Trayvon Martin was unarmed, running away, and shot by a civilian. It is frustrating, this senseless loss of life, that is definitely steeped in racism. I'm glad you guys are suspicious of the police, I think that anarchist on the WIGO world who refuses to testify to his own shooting is a modern-day saint, but the reality is this isn't avoidable until people don't have guns to wave around or pass out on top of. That includes the police. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- that's not what we have said at all. what we/I have said it was not necessary to deal with every incident with lethal force. here lethal force was essentially the only option one the table, and the polices own actions removed the possibility of any other option. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Nothing in the analysis I linked to above contradicts that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sleeping in a drive-through, in a running car, with a gun in your lap is... not normal behavior. Something was clearly very wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't get it: If the guy was sleeping sitting on a rocking chair on his porch, with a shotgun on his lap, would the police had acted in such a way? A car is private property and US citizens have the right to bear arms, so what exactly was legally wrong is unclear to me. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Crap, I didn't read that before I just spouted off. I don't know if it was a Taco Bell. I don't know if he was in or out of the drive thru. Still going to say that just having a gun in your lap is maybe enough for anybody to be scared you might shoot them with a gun. The police proved how effective guns are, in killing a God damned human being. So, if you want to have a point, look at the results, maybe guns are the fucking problem. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- The dude was sleeping in a Taco Bell parking lot with a gun in his lap. How are you gonna keep the peace if a dude is passed out with a gun in his lap? I don't like it, but police can't turn around and say "not my deal." Surround the guy and wait till he wakes up, maybe still fucked up, with a pistol in his lap? What the fuck is somebody doing passed out with a gun in their lap if they aren't fixing to die? Get that gun out of the car, and you just have a dude passed out in his car. Do that as a police officer, and you're fucking James Bond. Hold a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)h
- I found this, from a defense attorney, the best analysis on the matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. — Oxyaena Harass 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Eh, in my experience, in my travels, in the "developed world" (and actually some select non-developed countries as well), its mainly the American police with this problem. Too much unnecessary military-wannabe in too many police officers over here. And it shows -- not just the killings, but the whole "barking" / "respect mah authoritay!" attitude that IMHO is way more common here. Something that I find darkly amusing thanks to "the privilege", but it would not be so amusing if I was a poor minority. Unfortunately you only have to step into a Nextdoor community to figure out that a lot of people want things exactly like that over here, likely for the same reasons that Fox News is so popular and Donald Trump got elected, you know. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- ive left some incoherent ramblings on wigo talk about that. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
What does this mean?[edit]
http://www.deepspirits.com/words-of-wisdom/zen/zen-story89.php
I get that it is a Zen Koan but I figured I'd ask.Machina (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- are not the point of koans is to figure them out for yourself? that's cheating, cheaty pants AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The next story is called "The Last Rap", and I initially thought that meant rap in the musical sense.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictatormoderator 21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- The next story is called "The Last Rap", and I initially thought that meant rap in the musical sense.
- If you meet Bob Ross on the road, kill yourself! 206.53.88.85 (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not cheating. Even then why follow their rules?Machina (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It's more like how these things don't always mean what you think they do, or they have some kind of meaning that isn't obvious from the first glance.Machina (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
a Child is answered with a flowery way of saying no where in particular, or if you like, none of his business, after inquiring where the other was going. because the child is both a nosy little brat and an idiot, he thinks he is entitled to know the others business and believes some great secret of some kind is being denied him. aided and abetted by his teacher who is also an idiot, he tries to outwit the other boy with some pedantic bullshit, over a period of days, before being told hes just off to market, because where the fuck did he think he was going? not everything is meant to have any great meaning, and not everyone has something profound to say. use better judgement.
in earlier versions the boy later meets a man who promises the boy he can come and see his puppies, and the boy was never seen again. he'd actually achieved nirvana, but some folk have dirty minds so they edited that bit.
I feel like there might be pertinent lesson here AMassiveGay (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is, this is a parable. It's really clever, it's fun, and it is a good little fable. But it's nonsense to anyone who hasn't got a basic understanding of Buddhism, so I'll try and catch us all up. Parables follow a formula. Two believers take two approaches to one belief. They meet and disagree. One believer paints his belief, the other reflects that belief, and the winner is always the mirror. There's a joke from Zora Neal Hurston's Mules and Men that goes like this (I can't remember the specifics) two Christians are riding a train, arguing which has the proper way to praise Christ. The train skips the track and throws them into the sky. One looks to the other on their way up and says "Bet I'm thrown higher than you." End of story, it is a really good joke. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking back to 11th grade, I suspect my Biology teacher was trying to convert me to Christianity[edit]
Didn't think about it until today though. He mentioned Christianity in some form to me specifically at a few points. Also he mentioned to the class that he had books on both Evolution and Intelligent Design. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- From just that information, that seems like a pretty hazy basis for claiming that there were attempts at religious indoctrination in a school. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 00:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, the guy was Christian, so what? A few offhand comments does not indoctrination make. — Oxyaena Harass 05:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I mention Christianity from time to time and I have had many books on evolution and I may have had one on ID in the past. Clearly I am trying to convert people to Christianity.
- OK. More seriously - perhaps a little more context would help your point.Hubert (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- It prolly wasn't indoctrination, but maybe it was an attempt at plausible deniability, parents can be pretty... not with it, when it comes to education. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, the guy was Christian, so what? A few offhand comments does not indoctrination make. — Oxyaena Harass 05:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Spud's latest Esperanto translation[edit]
I'd like to announce that I have just moved A Clockwork Orange (Esperanto) (my translation of guess what) out of draft space and into main space. If you're curious about the title, I kept it in English because no authorized Esperanto translation of the novel has ever been published and the film has never been officially released either dubbed into Esperanto or with Esperanto subtitles. As stated in the article, a possible Esperanto translation of the title A Clockwork Orange would be Horloĝ-meĥanika oranĝo. Spud (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
This organization would give fundies a heart attack[edit]
https://www.aasect.org/aasect-requirements-sex-therapist-certification
An association dedicated to training sex educators and therapists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sooner or later they will receive letters from anonymous losers claiming to do the work of God, as if God wants their pathetic asses to do his work. — Oxyaena Harass 07:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(trigger warning) Mum 'beheaded son, 9, after stabbing him 12 times because he wanted to be a girl'[edit]
Daily Mirror: "A mum is accused of beheading her nine-year-old son after stabbing him a dozen times because he told her he wanted to be a girl. Then she reportedly got her lesbian lover to help her remove all the skin from his face before butchering his body. The pair were said to have even used a knife to try to gouge out the boy’s eyeballs to prevent possible recognition. They tried to burn some of him on a barbecue but failed so instead stuffed his remains in a suitcase dumped in a sewer, police said. Other parts were found in two backpacks at their home in Brazil. Mum Rosana Cândido, 27, and Kacyla Pessoa, 28, are said to have confessed all to the police in Samambaia, about 20 miles from capital Brasilia. They face homicide, torture and concealing a corpse charges. They are also accused of tearing off Cândido’s son Rhuan’s penis a year ago during horrifying home-made surgery. The two women are said to have told investigators they committed the gruesome crimes because Rhuan "wanted to become a girl.” He was also apparently the result of a rape. Cândido reportedly claimed the lad was a “burden” and she "felt hatred and no love" for him. Rhuan's dad, who lives in Acre, is said to have told officers that Cândido run away with the boy five years ago when he lost custody."
What horrific story...
When I had first heard of this story, I sincerely hoped it was fake news. Unfortunately, it seems supported by Brazilian media (1), (2), (3), although I have problems understanding the language. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh my god, this is fucking horrifying. Thanks, TERF ideology. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 14:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- channeling terfs You're welcome. — Oxyaena Harass 14:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I want to see if Daily Mirror sourced properly: it is a left-wing tabloid that has, unsurprisingly, failed quite a few factchecks. Sure, it might be supported by Brazilian media, so it might not be literal fake news, but it's still possible to be heavily spun. It's obvious this story is published at least in part to generate knee-jerk outrage from its left-wing audience. You also have to check the reputation of the few sourced Brazilian media (I was unable to find more English sources), and you have to make sure they got the translations correct. But, again, as with tabloids, proceed cautiously. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 16:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- "You also have to check the reputation of the few sourced Brazilian media"
- Correio Braziliense seems legit. According to Português Wikipedia, it won several prizes for journalism. Estado de Minas seems legit too, Português Wikipedia says: "É considerado um dos maiores e mais tradicionais jornais do Brasil. Seu principal concorrente é o jornal O Tempo." which also addresses the journal O Tempo. If you look for English sources, you find mostly InfoWars and summit.news, that's the reason why, when I first saw the news on a Facebook post, I thought it was surely fake news. Then I searched the images with Google and, after some digging, I came across Daily Mirror and the Brazilian journals. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Unless we can find someone who can reliably translate, we have to be skeptical of the story given Mirror's poor reputation. Even if the sources have a better reputation, nothing is stopping Daily Mirror from wildly spinning and misinterpreting the story. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was put off by the misgendering as well, which indicates a lack of finesse or experience in handling topics like this, so I'm not sure that I'd trust their overview even if they were reputable. Regardless, the basic underpinnings are at least true. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't speak Portuguese, but it is not too difficult to translate to my own language. I checked myself some of the main sentences of the article on Estado de Minas, and they are consistent with the Mirror. Here you can read the translation done by Google. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was put off by the misgendering as well, which indicates a lack of finesse or experience in handling topics like this, so I'm not sure that I'd trust their overview even if they were reputable. Regardless, the basic underpinnings are at least true. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Unless we can find someone who can reliably translate, we have to be skeptical of the story given Mirror's poor reputation. Even if the sources have a better reputation, nothing is stopping Daily Mirror from wildly spinning and misinterpreting the story. --It's-a me,
- I want to see if Daily Mirror sourced properly: it is a left-wing tabloid that has, unsurprisingly, failed quite a few factchecks. Sure, it might be supported by Brazilian media, so it might not be literal fake news, but it's still possible to be heavily spun. It's obvious this story is published at least in part to generate knee-jerk outrage from its left-wing audience. You also have to check the reputation of the few sourced Brazilian media (I was unable to find more English sources), and you have to make sure they got the translations correct. But, again, as with tabloids, proceed cautiously. --It's-a me,
- channeling terfs You're welcome. — Oxyaena Harass 14:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- i'm not sure what it I am looking at here. why am I looking at this? I don't doubt the story. children are tortured and murdered by their parents/guardians all the time, the abuse is often brutal and extreme, can endured for months and years. when incidents are discovered there is always shock and disbelief - who could this to their own child? why wasn't something done? headlines will catalogue the barbaric injuries, and the failings of perpetrators - one or both parents, a parents partner, are examined. they are never model citizens. there is always a history of violence, of substance abuse, mental illness. text book examples of who should never have kids. they are always known to the authorities - its one of the reason for the outrage it inspires - why didn't they do anything?
- for anyone with an axe to grind the take away from a story like this is 'this is what those kinds people are like' but it only takes a second of googling to find these kind of things everywhere, in all cultures, all walks of life. perpetrators angered by the child for some trivial irritation, or fantastical like the child was possessed. the reasons are irrelevant - there can be no justification, when a christian is the perpetrator, or muslim, or a sikh it is not the religion that caused this. if it were a gay, or lesbian - its irrelevant. no Nazi, liberal, feminist, misogynist, they don't do these things. ideology does not inspire these actions to their own kids. this is not terrorism done with a cold reasoning, these are simply damaged people and these children were sadly the focus of their rage or delusions. it tragic, is horrible, its all too common.
- the headlines area always lurid, there will be some aspect which may pique our interest or speak to our prejudices, but look again and it is nothing new or unique at root. I saw the story posted here, I didn't become suspicious, or suspect bad faith. the story makes me sad, but we, as a site, can do nothing with this. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"perpetrators angered by the child for some trivial irritation, or fantastical like the child was possessed. the reasons are irrelevant - there can be no justification, when a christian is the perpetrator, or muslim, or a sikh it is not the religion that caused this. if it were a gay, or lesbian - its irrelevant. no Nazi, liberal, feminist, misogynist, they don't do these things. ideology does not inspire these actions to their own kids."
- I'm not sure if I'm following you (I think you missed some negations when writing you post). There are certainly cases in which ideologies are the causes of child abuse (you mentioned the case of children whose parents believe to be possessed, another one is female genital mutilation.) In this case, the perpetrators said they committed the abuses because the boy wanted to be a girl. That's seems based on some homophobic ideology, which is odd since the perpetrators are lesbians. Mostly, the act of cutting the boy's penis is too precise to be considered a generic abuse, and I cannot think it's not driven by some crazy ideology about sex. Thinker(unlicensed) 21:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you think transphobia is the same thing as homophobia, I really doubt that you're qualified at all to speak to the motivations of the murderers. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 22:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- @UT - I am sure there are specific exceptions to my point. it is usually always anger management issues, mental health issues, substance abuse issues that come together as the primary factor here. ideology or religion - that's just how they rationalise their behaviour to themselves. I read of a case of lady who beat her daughter and stubbed out cigrettes on her because she thought her daughter was possessed. it was no different to other domestic violence cases except her church that had possession as thing. so when she lost control, flew into a rage, her daughter got the brunt because she was 'wicked nd possessed.' that's what abusers do, they blame their victim for the abuse.
- If you think transphobia is the same thing as homophobia, I really doubt that you're qualified at all to speak to the motivations of the murderers. Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 22:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- for the specific case above we just have nothing to go on right now. with a lurid headline and some lurid details. its not enough. the description of the 'surgery' told to police a year after the fact, does not sound a precise thing. it sounds like a brutal act of violence. a mutilation done in a rage - 'well, lets see you like being a girl then'. what ideology tells you can do surgery? the murder was a brutal act of violence. there was a suggestion that the child was a product of rape. the authorities had already known the child was at risk, and the couple to the child and were in hiding. so the boy, a reminder of a rape, a source of upheaval, of their isolation. who knows what misogyny and homophobia would have in that mix. we don't have much to go on here, what we have looks to me like this couples anger and frustrations heaped up on the child.
- lets not do the 'he said/she said' with this please. its awful enough. we should wait for a proper investigation by trained professionals if we want to comment on this with any degree of accuracy. I doubt it would give us anything we would want to argue over AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- "I am sure there are specific exceptions to my point. it is usually always anger management issues, mental health issues, substance abuse issues that come together as the primary factor here. ideology or religion - that's just how they rationalise their behaviour to themselves."
- Well, I agree that sometime ideologies just come as rationalizations. But there are many cases in which the ideologies are the cause of abuse, and I wouldn't call these case exceptions. Female genital mutilation, going to the exorcist instead of the doctor if the son is sick, not vaccinating the children exposing them to dangerous diseases, forced fasting because of the Ramadan, ... these are all cases in which the parental abuse is a direct consequence of ideologies. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- that's not really the kind of abuse we are discussing though is it ie. brutal beatings/torture, eventual murder. rage induced. its not even similar. its not the remotest bit helpful to lump all these things together. the things you list are far from alike with each other either. they shouldn't be lumed together either AMassiveGay (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- "that's not really the kind of abuse we are discussing though is it ie. brutal beatings/torture, eventual murder. rage induced."
- OK, so did you mean that ideologies come into violent beating, torture and/or rage induced child abuse just as rationalizations? In such a case, I disagree again. I think sometimes they come as rationalization, but sometime they are the causes. Think for example of the parent who's angry with his son and beats him because he is gay. That's ideology that causes rage that causes violence, not just ideology as rationalization. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeh, I've already said there are exceptions. What's your point here beyond arguing the toss on everything?AMassiveGay (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think any of us are qualified to speak on the reasons someone would do something like this so let's just wait for the investigation. Commie Lib (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, that's literally the argument ive been making. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think any of us are qualified to speak on the reasons someone would do something like this so let's just wait for the investigation. Commie Lib (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeh, I've already said there are exceptions. What's your point here beyond arguing the toss on everything?AMassiveGay (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- that's not really the kind of abuse we are discussing though is it ie. brutal beatings/torture, eventual murder. rage induced. its not even similar. its not the remotest bit helpful to lump all these things together. the things you list are far from alike with each other either. they shouldn't be lumed together either AMassiveGay (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- lets not do the 'he said/she said' with this please. its awful enough. we should wait for a proper investigation by trained professionals if we want to comment on this with any degree of accuracy. I doubt it would give us anything we would want to argue over AMassiveGay (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Urban renewal: Problems facing the big cities[edit]
What are some big problems facing cities today? I`m not able㔠to 땦ind뤠mucꝨ in✭dep扴h i孮for⍭ation on this topic. What of affordable housing for instance, or the state of infrastructure? I'd be glad to hear some comments below. — Oxyaena Harass 16:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would say: Transportation. Especially traffic. Because is related to health (both because losing hours to get to work makes people unhappy and stressed, and because of pollution) and environment (noise and again pollution). However, I think you question depends a lot on the city. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- housing and transport seem to be issues that are common to all major cities across the globe, all with a local take on dealing with problems.
- compare londons traffic issues to Amsterdam and its bike friendliness. or compare to the hellish snarl ups in lagos, or in Beijing. look at the mass transit systems like the underground in London compared to whatever LA has, buses I guess. how does it change the nature of these cities?
- compare a cramped flat in London, to what is effectively a shoebox in hongkong. look at poor building reg, leading to catastrophic fire in a London block of flats, compared to whole blocks simply collapsing in Dhaka.
- you are not really comparing like for like with any of this, all effected by population size, strength of economy, governance, location, rate of growth, changing demographics etc, and there wont be a one size fits all solution for anything.
- what is it you are hoping to achieve or discover? look at the issues of where you live, then it might give some perspective or sense of proportion when you look further afield. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Spriggina Nice. — Oxyaena Harass 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- ???? Сприггина (яриа) (хувь нэмэр) @ 22:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Most horrible story in the Bible: Book of Job vs. the 10 Plagues[edit]
The 10 Plagues has got to be worse than the Book of Job. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I like pie. — Oxyaena Harass 22:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Dinah and Shechem. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Great Flood. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 00:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)- King David. God actually liked that guy, knowing full well his future? Like, leave God as a moral arbiter out of it, and the whole OT would make for a kick ass comic book. New Testament is bunk, just a bunch of retcons of the same stories about one guy, says you do and you don't have to follow the old testament, fuck the apostles, they ruined the whole series. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Job hands down. — Oxyaena Harass 11:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- The victims of the 10 plagues kinda deserved it, being slaveowners and all that (depending of course on your interpretation of "hardening pharoah's heart"). God fucked up Job and killed his entire family, friends, and community just to settle a bet. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
God and "science".org[edit]
Thanks to a BoN on the Talk:Firmament page, I have discovered a cheap budget blog that wants to be AiG. Their page for non-christians is particularly amusing, complete with special pleading, circular reasoning, no true Scotsman, and more! Have a look (and a laugh) through the website. And don't forget your Bingo cards. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- That guy on the banner is buff! Look's like he went to God's Gym. Oh wait, he is God. Bongolian (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- This webshite is a spectacular display of fail (emphasis mine):
In some instances, God ordered the killing of entire populations, presumably including the killing of babies and children. Isn't God unrighteous in killing these innocent little ones? First of all, the Bible indicates that all people are sinners, including babies, and worthy of judgment. However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven. So, in having babies killed, God is actually doing them a favor, since, if they had grown up opposed to God, they would have gone to hell. If God were to have spared some of the children, it would have been difficult to determine the cutoff age. A one-year old is probably still relatively uncorrupted by his parents, but what about a two-year old? I have personally seen a number of spoiled two-year olds who had already been corrupted by their parents.
- Doing them a favor? Are you fucking serious? This is possibly the worst possible argument you can make in trying to refute someone who questions your belief. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Could be worse. One apologist I know of defends these massacress on the ground of them being demons who opposed God's chosen people.
- Perhaps the assholes in charge of that page could explain why in the OT an afterlife, especially in NT fashion, is hardly featured at all. One expects God's punishment to Adam and Eve would have included mentioning they became wicked, sinful, creatures doomed to Hell and not just they'd die and go back to dust Panzerfaust (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Doing them a favor? Are you fucking serious? This is possibly the worst possible argument you can make in trying to refute someone who questions your belief. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
When I was a kid, I thought Benny Hinn was Benny Hill[edit]
Until a saw a little of Benny Hinn and realized that it was on a church channel. I saw Benny Hill and laughed because he was funny; sad I mixed up a funny man with a con artist. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Benny Hinn would be more amusing if he were to chase buxom women with jazz playing in the background as part of his faith healing. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- pendantic point of fact - benny hill did not chase buxom women. the buxom women chased him. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Touché. I stand (or sit in a wheelchair) corrected. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- pendantic point of fact - benny hill did not chase buxom women. the buxom women chased him. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Brass Goggles[edit]
— Oxyaena Harass 03:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- it's hard to watch tasteful use of feedback die like it's supposed to be pop. Pop dies, exercise on the amp, finding a killswitch which I guess also makes that noise die is cool, no complaints. I'm a big fan of the noise, big fan of the process that gets us there. The noise is what I want to hear. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Is research pointless?[edit]
http://www.deepspirits.com/words-of-wisdom/zen/zen-story20.php
Because that seems to be what this is getting at and in a sense I can see why they think so. My life has not been that dramatically changed by new data appearing to me.Machina (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Machina My life most definitely has. Learning about the human mind and its operation has shaped my perception of people and my understanding of self. An example: I used to wonder if every time we sleep if it is the same as dying. Essentially, is what wakes up the next morning actually you, or a copy of you with your memories? Philosophers could argue about this endlessly, but researchers and scientists were able to uncover that you keep electrical processes running while you sleep so none of the mind is lost. Even if you completely lose all electrical signal and "reboot", your brain is not just an electrical device; it is also a chemical device. As long as the chemicals are still there, it is a stretch to say it is a different person entirely because continuity wasn't ever broken. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is a lot of bullshit information out there. Research is one of the better ends, at least the more rational, scientific oriented research. Even here, one cannot get overexcited by a single study alone. But at least over time nuggets of true knowledge emerge, knowledge that is repeatable and testable. Most of the true bullshit exists more in the social media, rumor mill, "gut feeling" scope. This is the vast majority of information available in the information age; luckily it can safely be completely ignored. (Incidentally, if you go to some remote mountain temples for your zen or whatever, you better be prepared. There are some fellow zensters who probably romanticize the Chris McCandless type of folks, but I personally put the unprepared folks of this sort in the "what a dumbshit" category.) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Everything in the modern world is the result of research of some kind. Everything you eat, wear, see, and do. Medicines, technology, everything. We are communicating right now is the result of research. It effects us all even if we don't consciously associate what have and do with the years of study and research that makes it possible. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It just seems like the site is saying that it is pointless because there is no end to it all so you are better off achieving "True realization", whatever that is.Machina (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure where you are getting the 'research is pointless' vibe from the linked story. It reads very much more a long the lines of if it means so much to you get on with it, don't just keep talking about all the time and boring the Shit out of people AMassiveGay (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- "There is no end to information and commentation, glory and honor. I wish you would stop this lecture business. Shut yourself up in a little temple in a remote part of the mountain. Devote your time to meditation and in this way attain true realization." I don't know how you could NOT arrive at the same conclusion.Machina (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- stil not seeing it. she is complaining about her son lecturing people al the time. she calls him a walking dictionary. she may as well him a know-it-all. hes constantly lecturing people about what they should do to find enlightenment, but not doing doing it himself. hwo you are getting the research is pointless thing, ive no idea.
- why the fuck do you keep looking for these things? why keep posting them here? at what point, after deciding buddhism isn't for you, do you actually leave it behind? as research goes, this is pointless. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Shut yourself up in a little temple in a remote part of the mountain. Devote your time to meditation and in this way attain true realization." Does that sound like a mother's advice? Does the story imply the mother has special knowledge? Do you believe everything your mother tells you? That should keep you busy. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- "There is no end to information and commentation, glory and honor. I wish you would stop this lecture business. Shut yourself up in a little temple in a remote part of the mountain. Devote your time to meditation and in this way attain true realization." I don't know how you could NOT arrive at the same conclusion.Machina (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It's more like I get the sense that since Buddhism is "different" and their adherents claim how they have changed that what they say must be true. That to really make art you must not conceptualize it and that trying to seeking anything outside enlightenment is pointless.Machina (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- It is absurd to say that anything the unenlightened person does is pointless. They must take nourishment of all kinds. Some teachers say all paths lead to enlightenment. Some are longer and more difficult than others. You are playing a game with words. Why not do something practical? Have a cup of tea!.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Ariel31459 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Central Park Five[edit]
We should have an article on them to dispel some of the bullshit that's surrounded the case over the years. I would do it but, well, I have this appointment on Friday.... — Oxyaena Harass 09:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, a friend of mine decided he'll "crank out the rough draft." Will definitely need some patching up after the rough is produced lol. — Oxyaena Harass 09:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
When creationists use catastrophic events in Earth's past as evidence for creationism[edit]
I find that to be annoying. Catastrophic events happen from time to time but that does not prove creationism. Example- the Great Dying 250 million years ago. It was a catastrophic event but the Great Dying was one of many over millions of years. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Wandal wave?[edit]
I've noticed a recent uptick in wandalists, inserters of random unfunny comments, keyboard warriors of woo, and section deleters. Do these come in bursts, kind of like punctuated equilibrium [insert Ray Comfort banana joke here] or does it just seem that way? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- They usually come in bursts. — Oxyaena Harass 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'd rather not joke about inserting Ray Comfort's banana if you don't mind. Aloysius the Gaul 23:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ah yes, one shudders to think where else that banana has been. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I suspect the vandal bursts are due to external behavior patterns, such as people citing us, article subjects remembering that they have articles and/or trying to drum up drama, and other miscellaneous behavior patterns. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Trolls are a social antisocial animal. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I suspect the vandal bursts are due to external behavior patterns, such as people citing us, article subjects remembering that they have articles and/or trying to drum up drama, and other miscellaneous behavior patterns. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Kyle Kashuv, Harvard, and Social Media[edit]
Didn't think it was newsworthy enough to be posted in WIGO, but I thought this was an interesting point of discussion.
Recently, Kyle Kashuv, the pro-gun Parkland survivor, had his Harvard admission abruptly rescinded over racist comments and use of the n-word when he was 16. When I first heard this story, it immediately reminded me of the "Report: Every Potential 2040 President Already Unelectable Due To Facebook" video headline from The Onion, where they lampooned the permanence of stupidity (from high school/college students) on social media and its possible impacts on oppo research.
Now, at least in Kyle's case, I think Harvard did have cause for concern -- even if we take his apology and explanation of edgelord one-upmanship he gave for granted, that explanation doesn't fit with the texts in which he was pretty directly racist, and expressed disgust towards one of his fellow students because of their race. That's not to say I don't think Kyle has changed over the last two years or that those messages should define him for the rest of his life (and I'm not exactly fully comfortable with spreading a teen's text messages across the nation either), but I do think Harvard -- being as selective and competitive as it is -- was pretty justified in reconsidering.
It still brings up the question which I'm curious about y'all's opinion on -- with the relative permanence of the Internet, and in light of other similar situations (such as that of VA Governor Ralph Northam) what would y'all think is the proper balance between acknowledging a person's capacity to change or mature with the passage of time, and possibly holding them accountable for past actions or statements? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- If they have shown signs of changing, let it be. People need to learn to live and let live. — Oxyaena Harass 22:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- People need to learn to live and let live.Fuck that. This kid is a fucking racist, edgelord, Ben Shapiro in the making. Two arguments he made show he's full of shit and has not changed at all. First he used the "I was 16", motherfucker you're 18 now. Looking back I was pretty much the same person from 16 to 21. Second their seems to be some assertion that teenagers can't possibly not say the n-word. That's absolute bullshit, plenty of teenagers (especially white teenagers) can go without saying the n-word. Also he said it with the hard R, no one who who can dehumanize his own classmates like this, doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. No white person has the "right" to go to Harvard. The audacity. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in this particular instance, but sometimes people will legitimately change for the better, like that Klansman dude who later wanted nothing to do with them. — Oxyaena Harass 23:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was speaking in general, sorry for the confusion, @RipCityLiberal. — Oxyaena Harass 00:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Apologizing is insufficient: those are just words. Actions make the difference. When one shows change, gives compensation, makes amends, and the injured party(ies) accepts these things. Then that becomes sufficient. Bongolian (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bongolian I think the timing is what is important. If you come out and apologize for something hardly anyone knows you did instead of pretending it never happened or trying to deny it, I think the apology can be considered far more sincere. Waiting until after people call you on your racist bullshit could be sincere, but is indistinguishable from just being racist. (Although I will admit, if this gave you a free pass, then unscrupulous people might insincerely apologize ahead of the curve just to prevent losing face in the future.) MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Bongolian That's also another point. It's simpler if there is an accessible actual injured party -- then matters would be primarily between the injurer and the injured. But what about those that aren't directed at someone(s) specific? Is it just left to the court of public opinion in those cases? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Apologizing is insufficient: those are just words. Actions make the difference. When one shows change, gives compensation, makes amends, and the injured party(ies) accepts these things. Then that becomes sufficient. Bongolian (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was speaking in general, sorry for the confusion, @RipCityLiberal. — Oxyaena Harass 00:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not in this particular instance, but sometimes people will legitimately change for the better, like that Klansman dude who later wanted nothing to do with them. — Oxyaena Harass 23:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- People need to learn to live and let live.Fuck that. This kid is a fucking racist, edgelord, Ben Shapiro in the making. Two arguments he made show he's full of shit and has not changed at all. First he used the "I was 16", motherfucker you're 18 now. Looking back I was pretty much the same person from 16 to 21. Second their seems to be some assertion that teenagers can't possibly not say the n-word. That's absolute bullshit, plenty of teenagers (especially white teenagers) can go without saying the n-word. Also he said it with the hard R, no one who who can dehumanize his own classmates like this, doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. No white person has the "right" to go to Harvard. The audacity. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I am thankful there was no internet in my formative years that any of my past fuck ups cannot come back to haunt me. the 'I was 16' is a valid excuse in my opinion. the whole 16 - 21 not being that long a time to change is shite - it might as well be a generations difference. after all, there are things you are not allowed to do when 16 that can you when you are 18 or 21, depending on your locale.
Are people not allowed to make mistakes? Are kids not allowed to make mistakes? should indiscretions at 16, when still a child, really have to ruin your life? its a needlessly and self righteously harsh line. its not a helpful one either. if you are forever damned, why change at all? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- So@AMassiveGay in a vacuum, I agree. I did stupid shit when I was 16. Also it is tricky to hold children accountable for their actions, when their brains are still developing. But, this kid is 18. So two years ago he was referring to his own classmates as niggerjocks. Repeatedly. Not only is this incredibly fucking racist, but it was literally 2017. And children who face no consequences for their racism, grow up to be racist. Second, he was not denied from every college in the United States, he was denied from Harvard University. Not only has Harvard does this exact same thing recently, but not every person who is accepted to Harvard deserves it. This kid likely could go to any other number of universities, maybe even take some time off and get some work experience at the many, many, many conservative organizations he has featured on. Also he tried the "Harvard owned slaves" as an excuse which is weird in two ways because; if this was a problem why did he apply to go there and also Harvard, as well as many other institutions have been struggling with their legacy of slave ownership. Lastly, fuck this racist kid, he's full of shit, and just because he's white doesn't mean he deserves to go to Harvard. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is somewhat... different, even for Jones.[edit]
Apparently, Sandy Hook families are getting kiddy porn from Alex Jones. Said Mr. Jones claims no knowledge of how it got there, accusations are made about "malware" (which doesn't magically appear on a computer-- except perhaps on Planet Jones), and whatever the facts turn out to be, it seems a remarkably pointless act, serving only to antagonize the families of the dead ever more than already-- if that's possible. Thing is, if not the Jones group-- and honestly, even I can't figure out why they would do something like this--Jones may be crazy, but he's not (conventionally) stupid-- then who? It's a strange one, to be sure. Anyone have an idea why this apparently random thing is a thing? Kencolt (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Smart money says Jones is full of shit as usual. — Oxyaena Harass 13:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Two possibilities strike me: A) This was a poison pill meant to discredit the families' attorneys via an "anonymous" tip to the feds, or B) Loathe as I am to side with him, sneaking that crap onto his servers is a feasible tactic for some of the folks he's pissed off over the years. A full investigation would be able to confirm his claim that the files were never accessed/viewed by his side. 2600:1700:F371:2CB0:B184:E51D:44A0:BC17 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're all ignoring the obvious. What does Jones do? Stir up shit for profit. What's his target demographic? Emotionally and mentally unstable individuals with a loose grip on reality and morality. Are these individuals willing to be "proactive" and harass Jones' victims on their own? Yes. Do we have proof that they're willing to break the law to do so? Fuck yeah. Could one of his employees also be one of his audience? Possibly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently the CP was sent to Jones via the InfoWars email address. During discovery, they just dumped all the emails, without any curation, and the families identified the CP, then alerted the FBI. It would be perfect if Jones was indeed a consumer, but it seems more like his defense attorneys are fucking idiots. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're all ignoring the obvious. What does Jones do? Stir up shit for profit. What's his target demographic? Emotionally and mentally unstable individuals with a loose grip on reality and morality. Are these individuals willing to be "proactive" and harass Jones' victims on their own? Yes. Do we have proof that they're willing to break the law to do so? Fuck yeah. Could one of his employees also be one of his audience? Possibly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Two possibilities strike me: A) This was a poison pill meant to discredit the families' attorneys via an "anonymous" tip to the feds, or B) Loathe as I am to side with him, sneaking that crap onto his servers is a feasible tactic for some of the folks he's pissed off over the years. A full investigation would be able to confirm his claim that the files were never accessed/viewed by his side. 2600:1700:F371:2CB0:B184:E51D:44A0:BC17 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Incel Court House Shooting Photographed at Close Proximity[edit]
A shooting in Dallas was caught on camera at extremely close range today. The reporter, Tom Fox, is effing brave. Luckily no innocents were harmed in the shooting. The shooter was apparently an incel. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Poor shooting with two weapons? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Were they shooting them "gangsta" style? — Oxyaena Harass 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Referring to the [1] comment above. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Were they shooting them "gangsta" style? — Oxyaena Harass 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- This may be the first time in my life when I feel comfortable with the media publicizing the name of a shooter. Because Brian Isaack Clyde was a walking "mass shooter" stereotype who, in his quest for infamy, failed to hurt anybody except himself. Let him serve as the example for all the rest to follow. KevinR1990 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is an interesting idea. Refuse to name successful shooters, but make sure to name the failures. Punish the act of seeking fame through violence. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:UK_traffic_sign_508.1.svg){kind=link}
The Holocaust Denial argument "Why didn't the Jews fight back"?[edit]
Let's see here- the Jewish people were outnumbered, had no real weapons, no medical care and were malnourished. Most revolts would be doomed to failure. The Nazis on the other hand had- high numbers of soldiers, had plenty of weapons both conventional and heavy weaponry, were highly organized, they had plenty of doctors and plenty of food. Of course most revolts failed! With these facts, it is hard to see how the Jews could have fought back. But then again, most deniers were racists and supported Nazism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of the bad and incredibly tone-deaf 2A argument, "It never would've happened if the Jewish people had guns." ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Some extreme "2A activists" simultaneously use this line, while claiming that any attempt to regulate guns is a precursor to a Holocaust aimed at...er...white college dropout rural Southern men. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- One thing I forgot to add- the Jews in the ghettos had no real training with weapons. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- And iirc, there were revolts, right? And why would these deniers underestimate the Nazis, all Holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic. You'd think the deniers have a simple explanation: they were too stupid. Either way, even if Jews revolted everywhere with 1%-100% success rates, that would also be evidence for conspiracy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- It bears worth mentioning that despite the failure rates, even the ones that failed the Jews revolting were extremely tenacious, costing the Nazis heavily, and people often forget that the escape from Sobibor was successful. — Oxyaena Harass 17:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- And as I said, those success rates would be either ignored, denied, or attributed to the Global Jewish Conspiracy somehow. They already dive bombed into the hole of the crazy ass idea of Holocaust denial, and they're not coming out again. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. There were revolts. The premise is false. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- And as I said, those success rates would be either ignored, denied, or attributed to the Global Jewish Conspiracy somehow. They already dive bombed into the hole of the crazy ass idea of Holocaust denial, and they're not coming out again. --It's-a me,
- It bears worth mentioning that despite the failure rates, even the ones that failed the Jews revolting were extremely tenacious, costing the Nazis heavily, and people often forget that the escape from Sobibor was successful. — Oxyaena Harass 17:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- And iirc, there were revolts, right? And why would these deniers underestimate the Nazis, all Holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic. You'd think the deniers have a simple explanation: they were too stupid. Either way, even if Jews revolted everywhere with 1%-100% success rates, that would also be evidence for conspiracy. --It's-a me,
- One thing I forgot to add- the Jews in the ghettos had no real training with weapons. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Some extreme "2A activists" simultaneously use this line, while claiming that any attempt to regulate guns is a precursor to a Holocaust aimed at...er...white college dropout rural Southern men. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is covered (briefly) on our page: Holocaust denial#"Why didn't the Jews fight back?". Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- The idea that the Jews laid down and just took it is wrong, and dangerously wrong too, the Jews weren't cowards. — Oxyaena Harass 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
its not even a question of being armed or having the necessary training to fight, its more of a question of when you would fight. the final solution - the death camps and gas chambers were all kept secret. to fight back in the ghettos would have and did mean certain death. why risk you own death, and the death of your family and friends when you did not know it was necessary? the rule was you killed one of them, they killed 20 of yours. they were constantly told that the trains taking them to the gas chambers were just taking them east, to better conditions than in the ghetto. they did not know when they arrived at the gas chambers they were minutes from death, and conditions on the trains, after the ghetto, were in no condition to do much about it any way.
and as others have already stated, they did fight back, when the true horror was evident, in the ghettos and in the camps. they were slaughtered as they knew they would be.
many fled into the countryside and joined the various partisans group, but this was only good for so many - the countryside can support so many living of the land, and most partisans only took those who could fight - your mother, your kids - they got to stay with the Nazis.
I seem to remember arguing with someone about this here in the saloon bar not too long ago. a few minutes googling will turn up wealth of information as to why this is just complete bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC) @Rationalzombie94 Also they did fight back search the Warsaw uprising. Then rose up then the nazis used a mobile artillery tank to bomb the shit out of them.
If that had been a sort of "Nazi Germany VS Israel (had it existed back in WWII)", the argument could hold some water. Otherwise, it's bollocks (you'd need more than "guns" to fight back a fully-fledged army). Panzerfaust (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think it necessary here to not get confused with the warsaw ghetto uprising and the warsaw uprising. they are distinct events. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- this is not to mention how fucking idiotic the claim is to begin with. the claim is not so much about jewish people not putting up much of armed resistance, its more insidious than that. its that they were complicit in their own deaths, that they meekly walked knowingly in the gas chambers. look at the shite these fucknuts say about it, that if it were them, they wouldn't just meekly comply, they would take a Nazi with them. its self aggrandising bullshit that they believe they would have physical strength and the will and determination to make some kind of heroic last. it ignores the months of a starvation diet, months of being brutalised into submission, the hellish death trains. it ignores of all of that, ignores that they were herded into gas chambers as soon as the got of those deaths trains, and ignores the fact that they simply did not know what is in store for them, ignoring all that they would have chosen that moment to fuck shit up for Nazis.
- I don't know if thats straight up holocaust denial or an ignorance of just how fucking awful the reality of it was AMassiveGay (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was not supporting Holocaust Denial if that's what some thought. I did bring up other factors against the Holocaust Denial argument. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hard work...[edit]
...and no play make Jack a dull boy. — Oxyaena Harass 18:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Make sure you don't overlook anything. Avida Dollarsher again 19:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Darwinist Reincarnation[edit]
How could this work exactly? Can you think of any material mechanism that could allow reincarnation to happen? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- See here — Oxyaena Harass 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- That article is interesting. Would not be possible to prove though.....at least not by known methods. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm more so looking for an article that explores natural ways in which reincarnation could occur, without dualism or woo involved. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Buddhist ideas about what reincarnation actually means are incredibly vague (or at least deeply disputed): for many, reincarnation doesn't involve the reconstitution of mind, soul, personal self, personality, memories, brain, body, or anything that would be considered "self" in western philosophical traditions (Buddhism holds most of this to be illusory, anyhow). It's more in the line of a passing of the baton, so (moving away from Buddhism) you could say a reincarnation is whatever is born in the same place, with the same DNA, or constituted from the same atoms. If you're looking for actual continuation/reconstitution of memories or body, there are conceivable mechanisms for this, but they're completely different. --Annanoon (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Rebirth (Buddhism) § Modern naturalistic interpretations
may also be relevant: it discusses non-personal reincarnation as things repeat through generations. --Annanoon (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Rebirth (Buddhism) § Modern naturalistic interpretations
- I see you've linked above what I was going to add here on subjectivity and oblivion. Each self would be absolutely independent of the former, and there's no way to prove what one would have been on his/her past life, especially knowing the new one could pop up in the other side of the Universe millions of years from now. Panzerfaust (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Annanoon what mechanisms would these be? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Somewhere in the between-lives-place (think The Magician's Nephew's Wood between the Worlds) various 'souls' meet. 'For some reason I keep on getting reincarnated as a dinosaur-like.'; 'Don't complain - once you get reincarnated as a midge it is very difficult to find the time to do enough good deeds to improve...' Anna Livia (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Annanoon what mechanisms would these be? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Buddhist ideas about what reincarnation actually means are incredibly vague (or at least deeply disputed): for many, reincarnation doesn't involve the reconstitution of mind, soul, personal self, personality, memories, brain, body, or anything that would be considered "self" in western philosophical traditions (Buddhism holds most of this to be illusory, anyhow). It's more in the line of a passing of the baton, so (moving away from Buddhism) you could say a reincarnation is whatever is born in the same place, with the same DNA, or constituted from the same atoms. If you're looking for actual continuation/reconstitution of memories or body, there are conceivable mechanisms for this, but they're completely different. --Annanoon (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm more so looking for an article that explores natural ways in which reincarnation could occur, without dualism or woo involved. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- That article is interesting. Would not be possible to prove though.....at least not by known methods. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Self-Induced Astral Projection[edit]
Do you guys know any techniques for achieving the perception of astral projection? All the guides online seem to be deeply spiritual and, well, bullshit; I don't believe there is such a thing per se, but I believe people can have experiences where they "think" they're astral projecting but are not (I myself am a monist). I'm curious about inducing that feeling in myself for analytical purposes. For example, I've explored lucid dreaming, the Ganzfeld effect, and other meditative states such as various dissociative trance effects. These can be explored pretty easily, and now I'm curious about astral projection. No psychedelic substances please - that's just cheating. Dark Fire (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose you are not wishing to try hypoxia either, which is associated with out-of-body experiences? Sensory deprivation might produce similar feelings of flying etc, but I've never tried it myself. --Annanoon (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I remember seeing a video where the method was basically "really imagine yourself climbing a rope out of your body until you feel funny", something along those lines. Don't quote me though. CTB33391 (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I tried AP in my early twenties using the sensory deprivation method mentioned above. I felt something, but whether it was just my senses becoming disoriented by lack of input I can't really say. What I felt was a sense of myself floating out of where my body was supposed to be, and drifting off a couple of metres. I didn't experience anything else at the time and in all it only lasted a few seconds. I didn't feel anything that couldn't be explained by science, that was for certain. Avida Dollarsher again 14:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Legal team of Alex Jones sent child pornography to lawyers of Sandy Hook victims[edit]
That's the weirdest defense strategy in law history. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- CNN reports that Jones has been sanctioned by the judge in the case after ranting on his show about this issue. It appears that Jones' legal team did no review of the material they supplied to the defense team. This is turning into a farce. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wait. The CNN article you provided seems to describe a different situation: "it appeared a person or persons sent the images of child pornography to InfoWars email addresses and then, as part of the discovery process, those emails with the images were turned over to the plaintiffs. It did not appear that Jones or anyone on his team solicited or even had knowledge of those images. Jones' attorney, Norman Pattis, said on an InfoWars broadcast that the FBI was treating Jones as a victim in the case, describing the emails that included the images of child pornography as "very hostile" toward him." Thinker(unlicensed) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not question that assertion. I was referring to the following statement from the article: "In the Monday court filing, the plaintiffs added that it did not appear Jones' team had 'engaged in even minimal due diligence' and 'actually reviewed the materials before production.'" Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- And, unlike everything else that has ever come from Jones' mouth, this one actually sounds believable. Of course Jones would hire his legal defense team on the basis of their ideology and conspiracy-theory-friendliness, rather than actual competence. And then, following his own script, has to turn some random internet trolling into a grand conspiracy and threaten the life of the attorney representing the families, getting himself into yet more legal trouble. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not question that assertion. I was referring to the following statement from the article: "In the Monday court filing, the plaintiffs added that it did not appear Jones' team had 'engaged in even minimal due diligence' and 'actually reviewed the materials before production.'" Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wait. The CNN article you provided seems to describe a different situation: "it appeared a person or persons sent the images of child pornography to InfoWars email addresses and then, as part of the discovery process, those emails with the images were turned over to the plaintiffs. It did not appear that Jones or anyone on his team solicited or even had knowledge of those images. Jones' attorney, Norman Pattis, said on an InfoWars broadcast that the FBI was treating Jones as a victim in the case, describing the emails that included the images of child pornography as "very hostile" toward him." Thinker(unlicensed) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Voodoo Economics[edit]
This imbecile is getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom. You'd think that the Supply Side assholes would be laughed out of DC, but instead they get considered for Fed chairs and invited to help write tax policy. This is the equivalent of letting wolves write the policies that govern chickens. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)