Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election has started!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive315

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 July 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, (new)(back)


On the Stoics[edit]

https://dailystoic.com/the-question-to-ask-yourself-with-everything-you-read/

I kind of take issue with this site, mostly because from what they make of the Stoics is seems like there has to be a purpose and reason for everything. But when it comes to reading, can't you just read for it's own sake? I mean why does it seem like they think life is some optimization game? Is there some definition of "better" that they are striving for? For a philosophy about letting go they sure have a lot of strict rules.Machina (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Stoicism as seen in Epictetus is not so much about "letting go" as about self-improvement and synchronizing your will to the will of the universe. You may instead be thinking of the Disney movie Frozen. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
And how do they know the will of the universe?Machina (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

23[edit]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/23

Seriously, are Twoofers literally seeing everything as a conspiracy or are they just a bunch of attention whores? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Humans place importance in numbers that mythos deems for whatever reason is important. Western culture has unlucky 13 and lucky 7, but in Asian culture it is 4 that is the unlucky number. Christianity has its 666. At least a fair bit of "23" shit is irreverent satire, eg Principia Discordia or The Illuminatus trilogy. See the fnords, man! See the fnords! Soundwave106 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised it doesn't mention that 23 is the number of human haploid chromosomes: clear numerological evidence we were bioengineered by a goat kid. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Second Referendums: Can democracy change its mind?[edit]

Let me start off by saying I am not British, but I have been thinking about Brexit lately. Specifically, whether a second referendum is pro or anti democracy. I have come to the conclusion that having multiple referendums, or re-votes on a topic is democratic and rule by the people. I am not saying that the EU's version of forcing repeated referendums on people until they "get it right" is democratic, however.

I argue that people have the ability to change their mind, and that having the ability to re-vote on a topic is important. If you make a decision not knowing the full repercussions of it, or how difficult it will be to implement, then it is important to be able to change course if things start to go sour. This is what actual people do in many situations throughout their life (Example: "I wanted a career in computer programming, but I really don't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. I'm going to go back to school and get my engineering degree."). The problem with the EU's multiple referendums is that they are repeatedly started not by the people, but by individuals who are not direct representatives of those people. If people put a re-vote forward as with a proposition or ballot measure, in other words the people vote to have it put in, then I fail to see how it is undemocratic to allow people to change their mind.

There is an obvious problem, however. The problem is that very passionate people could constantly propose changing direction every time they don't get their way. If the re-vote happens constantly, only the passionate people would show up to the poll at all. For this reason I propose that re-votes can only be done during general elections (I think these are MP elections in Britain?). This means that most of the people would be there anyways to vote in the election, and you won't just get a small sample of the population. After all, you can vote a new party into power with every election, changing the course of the country, why not a specific referendum? Now my argument isn't so much specifically about Brexit, it is more a general idea of how democracies should work in general. Thoughts? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that your considerations are quite right. I point out that "re-votes only during general elections" can be unfair in countries were general elections do not happens regularly. Hence, something like "re-votes only after at least X months after the vote" would make more sense. Also, I mention that there would be still problems in all topics where the population is split about 50-50. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me, bUt In IReLAnD, voting in general is organised to get the most 'bang for your buck' e.g. EU elections, Local Elections, and a referendum amending the constitution to remove time limits on divorce all and to recognise divorces issued abroad within a single voting day so that's something they could do or could have done. As for changing one's mind, governments may change every 4-5 years in most countries, it would not be unreasonable that opinions on particular issues change in a similar time frame. In Ireland abortion was both banned in an amendment, and unbanned in a later amendment, both requiring referendums, and plenty of other laws and constitutional laws have been created and destroyed in the same way.
To say a democracy cannot change it's mind is a form of brain worms tbh. There was referendum to stay in the EU in 1975 in the UK, was it undemocratic to override that with a new vote? And for the last fuckin time the EU does not repeatedly force voting on the same issue, it is entirely the fault of the individual nations if this is the case. Ireland got concessions to pass the second vote on the Lisbon treaty, including an exemption from the EU army. Féinléiriú (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that once we vote to elect a government or president we should never vote again. Having any further elections would be clearly undemocratic.Hubert (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Holding a second vote isnt bad per se, particularly when there were various problems with the political campaigns. In the case of Brexit, I'd be fine with a final referendum on it, but I'd prefer more specific questions to be added as well, i.e. give people the option to specify support for a no-deal Brexit/whether Ireland could be exempted from trade barriers etc. That way you can still have a result of "the majority support Remain/Leave" but you don't get endless bickering/speculating about what specific options are more acceptable/what the public 'meant' with their vote etc. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C93E:519:E1F1:948D (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
referendums aren't even a thng in the UK anyways. they ae not constitutionally binding - an act of parliament can easily overturn the result - sweet irony if they do with Brexit, parliamentary sovereignty fucking them over (they wont though). we've ony had 3 referendums and two of those were recent and under the same government inflicted with hubris. you don't call for referendums unless you think you will win. that's why Cameron allowed the original Brexit referendum, and why brexiters dont want another referendum confirming the first. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
and Ireland cannot be exempted from a hard border and trade barriers - its one of the reasons there is no good deal available, and another reason why the uk will be no more soon AMassiveGay (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Taking a larger view of Brexit, in an important sense, the first vote was not democratic. Yes, everyone had a chance to vote, but democracy is more than just voting. While the majority should generally rule in democracies, the minority should still have rights.[1] Brexit, if it happens, will take away fundamental rights (EU Charter of Fundamental RightsWikipedia's W.svg) of UK citizens without any plan for replacing them with equivalent rights — indeed that was the intent of some Brexiteers. As if that weren't bad enough, the Tories will likely be selecting the new Brexiteer PM based solely on a majority of its membership (160,000). Apparently, this is unprecedented, wherein a PM is selected without a general election immediately preceding the selection. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

look at every brexiter in parliament. they hate us having any rights. as for the tory leadership contest producing the next prime minister without a general election - it puts the lie to the vague 'eu is undemocratic' argument to why they don't like the eu. its always been bullshit, was always an after thought to rationalise why they didn't like the eu. they don't know why they hate the eu. it was just feeling because they did not know what the eu was, how it worked, or even cared, while tabloids feed a drip drip drip of bullshit negative stories (straight bananas the shining exmple) made the mistrust pervasive. if they understood it or cared what the eu did in any way, they'd have some idea what they wanted instead. they have no clue. and MPS have no clue either. they have no plan. no way forward. instead the arguments are on how we leave - hard Brexit or something else undefined and unworkable.
when boris or hunt take over, we will see the nhs starved, of cash and man power, essential services starved, rights eroded. everything blamed on immigration or the eu will get worse, and it will be apparent to all that the it was not the eu or immigration putting pressure services or making it tough to make ends met. that the true causes were closer to home. the tory party. austerity. those pushing Brexit the hardest were the architects of that. Brexit makes their dreams come true, gives them the excuse ramp all that up and we all lose. sickenly, try remainers were/are just as implicated so could say nothing. Corbyn could have but instead did nothing, as he is doing now.
another referendum should happen. it should be run honestly. it should give us real choices - not the lies and fantasy we got and are still getting. its not about whats 'democratic' its about turning back from destruction.
but we wont. we will crash out with a hard Brexit because there is nothing else really nothing on the table and my country will break up.
and we will know who to blame. we already do. it isn't the eu. it never was AMassiveGay (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it's funny that people believe in democracy, or that they live in one. If you did there would be no need to be constantly reminded that you do. Ajuran (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's amusing that some people are against democracy, and just sort of assume that the alternatives are superior (Newsflash: most of them are poorly thought out shit). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ajuran Is that why authoritarian governments so often put massive portraits of their leaders on the side of buildings and make monuments of themselves? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Voter ID[edit]

Recently I heard some discussions about voters ID in the next 2020 US elections. I do not live in US and I have no idea how US citizens vote.

In my country, everyone has to go to the poll with a photo identity card (everybody over 12 years old must have it by law, and it must be reprinted every 10 years if I remember well) and a special poll ID card, which contains information about the elections you already voted. Then, an officer checks if your identify card and you poll card are OK, she keep them while you are voting, and she gives them back to you when you have done.

Isn't the same in US? Thinker(unlicensed) 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No, because (1) there is no European-style national ID card (many Americans would think this is a NWO/UN conspiracy), and (2), individual states issue ID and can therefore use various means to prevent would-be voters from exercising their rights. In North Dakota, for example, the state government attempted to deny indigenous people voting rights because many don't have a physical address. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"individual states issue ID"
OK, this wouldn't be much of a difference (voters have to vote in their own state, right?) if these state issued ID are given to all state citizens. Are they? Maybe it's easier if you tell me how do you vote in your own state. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
don't know were you live, but what happens there is kinda irrelevant when discussing us politics which are a horror show, where gerrymandering is a ok, with regular attempts to disenfranchise whole swathes the voting public.. while voter id in an ideal worlds not inherently awful, us politics IS inherently awful and I wouldn't trust us politicians to not place restrictions or obstacles on acquiring voter id based on who votes for who AMassiveGay (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"if these state issued ID are given to all state citizens. Are they?" No, they are not. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@CogitoNotStirred I read the article you linked, and it talks multiple times about these "voter ID laws," but it does not give any example (I did not followed the links in the articles though.) Could you please (I'm assuming you live in US) tell me, for example, what IDs and legal steps to get them are required to vote in your state? Thinker(unlicensed) 15:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Cogito's not American. Oxyaena Harass 15:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, but I bet that there should be some US citizen user that can ask the question. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Correct, @Oxyaena. Thinker, if someone who is a US citizen wants to shed more light, they should, though I don't believe I've been inaccurate or incomplete in pointing out racism in ND voting law. Incidentally, there is a name for continued attempts to elicit examples of things in an online forum when ample examples have already been given. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Isn't Oxy American? Tinribmancer (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Thinker It depends. If you live in Alabama for example, you need an "accepted" photo ID to vote. Essentially you need a driver's license or a state issued ID. To get a driver's license you have to bring your own car to the test (and have insurance!), and be able to sit in classes for a week or two. In order to get the driver's license you also need a social security card and one other form of primary identification (including a different driver's license). To get the state issued ID you need a primary identification (passport, driver's license, social security card, birth certificate, current high-school or university ID, health insurance card, military ID, life insurance policy card, proof of marriage, or employee card). To get the birth certificate or social security card your parents needed to have filed for it (it is not automatic, and they may opt out if they don't trust the government). If your parents didn't apply (say you were separated at a young age or were abandoned) you have to apply for it. The application for social security requires a primary identification showing U.S. citizenship, proof of age, and identity. The forms showing this information cannot be photocopies, they must be the originals or certified copies from the originating agency. You then have to be able to go to an interview with the social security administration. To get the employee card you have to have a job. To get the job you have to have a social security number (even for minimum wage jobs). A business can sponsor you however. Most companies won't do that for any random bloke on the street, you have to be related to someone who likes you or you have some rare skill; which is not most people in poverty. To get life insurance or health care you need to have a social security number or proof of address. Notice a pattern? A lot of these requirements require other things which require themselves unless your parents applied (must be before you reach the age of 12). It is very difficult to gain an identification if your parents didn't know to register you when you were young, or you just lost your information. This means that homeless people lose almost all ability to prove their citizenship. Also, you must have a computer to learn about any of this, it is not taught in schools. Basically, it is really tedious to actually get your identification if your parents didn't do it for you or you don't have a work sponsor. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the Wiki on this subject is a good start. One thing that the United States has that is very different from other parts of the world is, as mentioned, that there is no national identity card (bipartisan resistance on this one). There isn't even a common state identification card. In effect, two things have become defacto national identity pieces: your Social Security Number (a frankly easily forgeable card and an easily copied number that is meant to be tied into the national pension here) and your driver's license (which of course a significant portion of people will not have). (Not coincidentally, identity theft occurs at a fairly higher rate over here.) As far as ID and voting laws, some Republicans haven't been to shy about why they advocate these type of laws. Such bias also shows by how the laws are not targeting ballot-by-mail schemes which, if any fraud were to occur, would be the vehicle of choice (as happened in the one actual voter fraud case I can think of recently). Of course, reality is more complex than politicians often understand, and voter ID laws have hurt some Republican voting groups, like the photo-phobic Amish and Mennonites, in the past. So it goes. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
in the uk, you need no id at all to vote. just your polling card. and we have no state id either - opposed mainly on grounds of cost. to state and to the individual. even then, registering to vote in the first place disenfranchises the homeless. my own living arrangements have disenfranchised me AMassiveGay (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "To get a driver's license you have..."

@MirrorIrorriM OK. Of course, a driver's license cannot be a requirement to vote, since citizens cannot be compelled to drive. Let's focus on the state issued ID.

"The application for social security requires a primary identification showing U.S. citizenship, proof of age, and identity."
Doesn't U.S. citizenship require a birth certificate? Said in this way it seems that without a birth certificate you cannot get U.S. citizenship, which in turn is needed to get a birth certificate is your parents didn't apply.
"To get the employee card you have to have a job."
I'm lost what is and why you need a employee card?
"It is very difficult to gain an identification if your parents didn't know to register you when you were young, or you just lost your information."
OK, I got it. Details aside, that doesn't sound different from my country: If your parents do not register you after you were born, for the State you don't exist, and of course you cannot vote. You cannot even prove how old are you. The difference is that in my country parents are compelled to register their children. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You actually can vote without any identification in some states. California for instance has fairly loose requirements -- you can use "proof of residency" such as a utility bill in lieu of ID cards to establish yourself the first time. After you are registered, future votes do not check ID. Other states ranging from Wyoming to Minnesota to most of the Northeast US are the same. (I don't know about California, but in my state, Florida, registration gives you a handy voter card that has your voter registration number on it, that you can use to vote. I vote by mail. Florida has voter ID laws, meaning if I actually went to the polls, I would have to show photo ID *with* the card to vote. But nobody checks ID when you vote by mail.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini How is this concern trolling? Thinker(unlicensed) 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@ut, concerning drivers license. its not so much a requirement but one of the documents commonly accepted as id in a lot of areas. in the uk you don't need to know how to drive for a provisional license and if you cant get hold of passport or birth certificate, its a handy alternativeAMassiveGay (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Soundwave106: I'm registered to vote in California. I don't remember quite the rules for it, but it was pretty straightforward as I believe I just used a birth certificate and filled out my social security number. I didn't have a driver's license but I did have a California ID card, and after that, no, I don't have to do anything else, except show up at a polling place (which is right in a middle school that takes me like 20 minutes to walk there and less than 5 minutes to drive there) and present my ID and place of residence. My sister, who didn't have appropriate registering credentials, could just use a provisionary ballot. It's all well. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm disappointed no one has mentioned that voter ID is a bullshit talking point, about voter fraud, which never fucking happens and all of this is about disenfranchising people of color, poor people and old people. Whenever these proposals come up, there is never any discussion on how it will be paid for, and it will effectively be a new poll tax. Unless the federal government is going to put forward the resources for a Wi-Fi enabled ID, with a national automatic voter registry and an effort similar to the census to get people ID's everywhere (and I mean every where) then this entire exercise is more fucking bullshit.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I kind of alluded to it with a link to some choice politician quotes. Yes, voter disenfranchisement is absolutely the intent. But all the data I've seen so far suggests that the actual effect is relatively minimal. Politicians (and people in general) luckily are often pretty stupid when it comes to data-driven decisions. So this is more great for showing what type of personality a person has. Typically a person or politician who harps on voter ID is someone who is either racist / nativist, a right-wing talking-point regurgitator, ignorant about what the data says, or some combination of all three. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do so many 'white' people think black people do not have, or cannot obtain an ID? I have an ID. Everyone I know has an ID. I think it's weird that we do not have to use ID to vote. Most countries require proof of citizenship to vote. I was trying to rig the Canadian elections one year, but, nope - ID/Proof of citizenship was required to cast a ballot... Honestly if you, as a citizen, cannot figure out how to get something as simple as a birth certificate/identification card... you probably should not be casting a ballot. Ajuran (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
"iF YOu cAn'T Get An iD yOU SHouLdN'T BE abLe tO vOTe" If citizens need to pay for these documents out of pocket, it is a poll tax. If the federal government wants to provide ID's for free, including paying to get these records (which in the case of many black Americans, may be incorrect or destroyed), then by all means, I'm for it. But it's not about election integrity, it's about voter disenfranchisement. Troll harder.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

While doing research to expand the Conservapedia article- I think I killed some brain cells[edit]

Actually went to the website and my brain may have suffered damage from the bullshit written. Plenty of blaming the victim" mentality. RIP brain cells. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Psst, @RobSmith can help you here. Oxyaena Harass 12:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
it doesnt need expanding AMassiveGay (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Oxyaena, possibly, but I don't want to run afoul of a COI. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Haven't you done that already by joining RW in the first place? Oxyaena Harass 19:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Knowing nobs, probably not. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

#KAG[edit]

So, I just found out that MAGA (Make America Great Again), will become KAG (Keep America Great). What has he done, besides almost staring WO III, calling Kim-Jung-Un a "Rocket Man" on Twitter & nagging about his "GREAT" wall, in the past 4 years?

Also, which Democrat is actually able to kick Twatty McTwatface out of the White House? I'm not american, but I want Trump out of there. He's insane. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He empowered the poor oppressed white people, cut taxes (for rich fucktards), brokered peace (yeah right), showed those women their place and otherwise epicly pwned the Libs. Clearly he has done much for our country. (Can we chuck him and his idiot cheer squad on a deserted island now? Please?) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
And build a great wall around it and sometimes drop food (The only thing his wall idea will be good for). Tinribmancer (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Whatever happened to Mexico paying for the wall, @RobSmith, wasn't Trump gonna go to war with them? Oxyaena Harass 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Trump and his supporters are absolutely insane. Don't think there is enough psychiatric medicine in the world to help them. Uncle Sam wants Trump out --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Trump is also sucking on coal dandruff from Andrew Wheeler as speak while letting climate change run the course (except in the golf course, that's more important). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
You're expecting a Global Warming Denialist to care about climate change? Tinribmancer (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't we all? #NeverTrump2020. Oxyaena Harass 07:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Trump has made America great (apparently) so now he will keep america great (supposedly). The reason for this is in my opinion that he needs a "new" campaign message and consequentially a new campaign slogan. Plus, it makes it sound like he succeeded in his first term in office in making America great. That is a good message to push, however dubious it's basis in reality. NekoDysk 11:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not as catchy as the old one tho. Oxyaena Harass 12:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The alternative was "Make American Great Again, Again." But it was even less catchy. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Oxyaena, Whatever happened to Mexico paying for the wall
Duh yah, it's called tariffs. Mexico is paying for more border enforcement now than the u.S. Congress. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@RobSmith Source? Thinker(unlicensed) 20:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Fundamental misunderstanding of who pays tariffs (Americans) and who pays for border protections (Americans). Classic.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think he's done well with the economy. I also like the idea of tariffs. Yes, they are hard at first - but - eventually make American goods more attractive precisely because foreign exports become more costly at retail. I also think he did a good job with reminding the members of NATO to pick up their fair share of the costs. --- The wall was always a dumb idea though. People who think it's a good idea must not realize how large that border is, that we're not landlocked and the cost would be astronomical with no returns on the investment. Just make an actual border, jeez. Ajuran (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Second Democratic Debate: Who won?[edit]

Who do you think won the second Democratic Debate? Vote below by increasing the number next to the candidate you think won, and eventually by adding a comment below the candidate name. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Bennet 0
  • Biden 0
  • Buttigieg 0
  • Gillibrand 0
  • Harris 0
  • Hickenlooper 0
  • Sanders 0
  • Swalwell 0
  • Williamson 0
  • Yang 0
  • Did not watch 2
  • Not Biden. Oxyaena Harass 09:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how this is supposed to work, maybe I'm expecting a click to vote interface. We don't get the full footage on this side of the Atlantic, usually a condensed version on whatever rolling news channel deems it newsworthy.

Do these candidates do call-in shows? Trying to get in Chumbawamba's Never Mind the Ballots (Here's the rest of your life) Welcome to Never Mind The Ballots.

Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
"Not sure how this is supposed to work, maybe I'm expecting a click to vote interface."
@Cardinal Chang I added an explanation about how to vote. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

you've another full year of this shite. barring glaringly awful or stunningly brilliant displays from candidates its kinda irrelevant who wins specific debates, and its far too early to make any kind prediction that isn't just a pure guess. theres plenty of time to make or lose ground, and one wrong word, or skeleton uncovered can throw it all a way in an instant. the cumulative effect over the course of campaign will highlight the clear favourites, and how they deal with the issues it will eventually be fought on. it is said a week is a long time in politics and there is a year to go. a year of campaign coverage obfuscating and distorting actual work in government or the legislature, a year of mud slinging and building acrimony, with obscene amounts of cash accrued and spent, with the associated shadiness. and this isn't even for president, but who get to run as president. us politics seems to be in perpetual campaign mode, a perpetual war of sorts. its no wonder everything is polarised AMassiveGay (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

and chumbawumba are a crime against humanity. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I added the "did not watch" alternative.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Harris won hands down. Although Buttigieg may have taken himself out of the running for VP with his fumbling attempt at a Sister Souljah momentWikipedia's W.svg. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
t wasn't just at the DNC debates: "Firefighters are battling a major wildfire that probably started after a heap of manure self-ignited". nobsI'm all yea'res 23:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
You can't just fill a car full of people and expect it to be funny. The Republican clown car was hilarious and worth watching because there were no stakes, watching dorks talking about their dicks was funny, had something for everybody. The Democrats don't have that luxury, yet here they go again, mimicking the Republicans, assuming that their base thinks the same as the conservative base. We know that the democrats pick their own candidates from the top down, nobody who votes Dem cares about broad Democratic party sport anymore. That shit is rigged, give us some fucking policy specifics. Gol Sarnitt (talk)
Did not watch. Do not like democracy and the two main parties are awful. Ajuran (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Moar[edit]

The good old days of Pre-Shitty Interface Youtube. Oxyaena Harass 10:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Learned an important lesson last night: Be careful when editing videos[edit]

Last night when I premiered my new scenario, I realized I messed up the editing in the video. Forgot to add text in some spots and put the wrong dates for when the video took place. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What does this mean?[edit]

http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/903

"It amazes me how often I’ve seen the word “is” throughtout this site. Nothing “is”. Things resemble, apeear, or have some qualities of other things, but no thing “IS” another thing. Most grown adults know what “is” means, so most grown adults lie incessantly everyday. “The sky IS blue. The air IS cold. That man IS ugly.” Lies.

Not mistakes, not semantic differences, but mere lies."

It was one of the comments on the above site and it's been bugging me for a while. I mean it's like saying that a knife isn't sharp or it isn't cold outside.Machina (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If nothing "is," then that comment "isn't," so it should be easy to ignore. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Whomever posted that comment on Dailybuddism IS a moron. Tinribmancer (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if they're actually a moron, but they're definitely trying way too hard to be deep, and failing at it. Pyro (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Water IS wet, Oxygen IS an element...... a picture is NOT the same as the person it IS a picture of... pretty simple distinction IMO. Aloysius the Gaul 10:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back from a 2 week trip in Beijing[edit]

And I bring excellent news. Rationalwiki is indeed blocked by the great firewall. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Given what we have to say about China's Regime(s) I'm not surprised. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
And here I thought RW's anti-Trump, communist, atheist, pro-abortion agenda would be seen as friendly to China! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
We could be added to Websites blocked in mainland ChinaWikipedia's W.svg if anyone so desired. Bongolian (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
We could also add the Pissed at us category to the China article. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, this site disagrees with me. Was my internet just shoddy? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(Edit) I actually can get to Rationalwiki from a work server in China I can RDP into... the usual suspects (Google, Facebook, etc.) are blocked. Doesn't even appear to be page level blocks at Rationalwiki yet. I was surprised, frankly. Of course, I would not be surprised to see some regional blocks though, and IMHO it's only a matter of time before the BANHAMMER strikes. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
According to the Wiki article of above, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is (or was) blocked. How odd considering NASA's main page is not included at least there. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed, a new user (刺杀习近平‎)[2] says that s/he's from the PRC (might have had VPN software I guess) and found us through Baidu. Baidu does indeed link to us.[3] Bongolian (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I was wrong. We're somehow less offensive to the PRC than wikipedia. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe RationalWiki just hasn't been discovered by Chinese officials like Wikipedia. 2607:FB90:6A57:FD63:0:7:C1A9:4901 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Independence Day: That day of the year where America is supposed to celebrate it's independence.................[edit]

But somewhere along the line it became a day where people get drunk and set off loud fireworks. It drives me nuts when people set off fireworks at 3 AM when people are trying to sleep. These nuts are the ones who might cause a military veteran to go into an episode of PTSD. This video demonstrates my point- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twjqViOBjXI I hate fireworks --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

whats the correct way to celebrate your national expression of jingoism? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
According to my neighbors, shoot off fireworks and sometimes shoot off guns. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
At least not be a loud annoying ass about it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I wait until the 14th of July, the real way to celebrate things in July. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
black country day? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking Bastille Day, but sure, more to the party! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
the proper way to celebrate the signing of a complaint letter is to write a complaint letter to your boy/girlfriend БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 01:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The "tourist city" of Edinburgh has investigated silent fireworks which are doubtless a good idea for pet-owners and PTSD sufferers but still inherently comic for everyone else. --Annanoon (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fireworks going bang is part of the enjoyment of fireworksAMassiveGay (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
people setting off firecrackers at 12:00am deserve a special place in hell БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 17:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Even on New year's Eve, where fireworks at midnight is the point?AMassiveGay (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The best way to celebrate America, is getting blindingly drunk and being thankful you don't live in authoritarian country (yet) RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Go watch the fireworks. Oxyaena Harass 19:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Independence Day: That day of the year where America is supposed to celebrate it's independence................. and aliens able to travel across interstellar space after curb-stomping the armies of the world are defeated by a geek using a computer virus. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Grin and bear it. It's not exactly a holy holiday, but I have two 4th stories that are near and dear. When I was in high school, I got caught with some friends who's dad was a lawyer, his girlfriend, and another friend who's dad was a sheriff around 2 am, intending to set off what we had left. We were all pretty drunk. We got caught right away. The other guys ran, and I waved the girl off from running. She lived in that neighborhood, so I said we were hanging out on her porch and saw some fireworks going off, so we wanted the check it out. Really bunk high school lie. Cop asked her for her address, she gave it, then smashed all our fountains and shell-tubes, told us to go home. We went out in my car to try and pick these guys up. Saw them handcuffed, kept driving, was dumb but not stupid. Turns out, they got breathalyzed, the lawyer's kid got taken home, the sheriff's kid also got taken home a county over and was told he blew a 0.
Second story, I was living at a duplex. My best friend roommate and I had the day off, so we got drunk on the stoop. A pair of guys were walking down the street, one wearing a Bob Marley shirt, and this dude was shouting his head off. My roommate was a little further into his 12 pack than I was into mine, so he just started hooting at this guy. I mean, there were fireworks going off everywhere, there was no way to hear this guy, and my buddy wasn't actually saying anything, he was just ironically rooting for this guy. About 15 minutes later, this guy came out of nowhere and punched my buddy in the face. This guy got grabbed, but I ran in and we both threw him off the stoop on his ass. I am not joking when I say this guy walked backwards screaming and shouting, pulled his belt off, slapped the ground with it, and then his pants fell down. We blew it off. My buddy was like "I think I shouted Biggie lyrics at him, is that racist?" and I was like "Probably."
Act 2, we had some friends show up, and we were all having a good time, we had bought more beer since my roommate and I had both finished our collective 24 beers at this point. I'm spacing, and I see on the other side of the duplex a 40 of Sol rise up and set down, then I see this guy peek over the edge of it. I'm like "guys, guys" and then this same guy comes marching out into the street with a brick in one hand and a screwdriver in the other, screaming for a fight. I start shouting "What the fuck are you doing!?!" and this guy's friend darts over to my roommate and whispers something. I keep shouting "What is this, weapon of choice!?! He's got a brick and a screwdriver! Put that shit down, get out of the street!" and he actually did all of those things. And then my roommate says to this guy's friend "No, no, sorry, I have to call the cops. I have to call the cops." This guy's friend ran over to this guy and told him what was up, this guy backed off shouting "oh, big man, big man," but his pants stayed on this time. (Some people still reference me as the "weapon of choice" guy)
Epilogue: same duplex is where I tried to launch firecrackers out of a slingshot, had them rebound on me. Had a neighbor yell out the window "my kids are trying to sleep!" and I shouted to all my friends "You guys gotta shut up, this lady's kids are trying to sleep!" as if it wasn't me. Nah, I tried to slingshot the black cats. It was me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

ATTENTION[edit]

After complaints from the BoN army and their glorious leader 142․124․55․236 regarding blocking practice. I have made some changes to the block reason list and would suggest that everyone reads the Blocking policy. Anyone found blocking accounts for excessively long time periods may be temporarily blocked and desysoped by the BoNs glorious leader and their cronies. You have been warned. NekoDysk 12:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What about the blockchain policy (X blocks Y and is blocked by Z, or they engage in mutual blocking etc)? Anna Livia (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
[Insert necessary joke about cryptocurrencies] Unjust blocks are undone and unjust blockers get a proportionate penalty? If neither of the blocks are unjust or they're joke blocks then all is fine and swell. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Heh, my BoN army. Yes, relinquish your wealth all you non-number peasants! x_x 142․124․55․236 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the rearrangement of the block reasons, but the ALL CAPS stuff is very annoying. There's no need to have the wiki software shout at us. Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
CD - the wiki has 'gone live' on its own account?
And how soon will the wikis interact on their own accord?Anna Livia (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I refuse to adhere to these guidelines when I see good reason to deviate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ikanread - to whom are you responding? Anna Livia (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone who'd get tiffy over a 3 month ban with the reason "spam" when I felt it was warranted. Which seems to be an implied policy of the edits to "short term block reasons". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is all so fucking unnecessary, just permaban clear troll accounts, what more needs to be said? Oxyaena Harass 20:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You have taken my piss. BoN army, as real and important as you are, please, have my piss. There is no need to take it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A clear spambot account gets banned for no more than 3.6 days? No! That's never right. A BoN who spams only gets banned for 3.6 days, obviously. But any spambot with a registered user name that manages to make it past the edit filter and starts spamming has to be banned forever.
And isn't it time we retired the "unfunny vandalism" block reason? The thinking behind that was that some vandalism was funny and deserved to stay on the page. In my almost eight years here, I haven't seen one instance of a bit of wandalism being kept because it was funny. "Mindless generic vandalism" says the same thing as "unfunny vandalism" only much better. Spud (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── pick n mix bans

only month of june checked EK (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of those do seem excessive. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 11:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Take a look through some of those again @EK. Check the deleted user contributions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
on the few occasions ive been bothered to block anyone, ive found the block reasons not really adequate - too general or just not really describing the situation, while durations were a confusing mixture of maths jokes and of the clear lengths it was immediately apparent what the best option was. that should be cleaned up with guidelines on display - not on another a page but where do you the actual blocking.
even then, excessive or unwarranted blocks, or inconsistent blocking is still going to happen. regulars of the blocks probably needs to happen to see trends or problems - like nix used produce for user edits. or just checking whos being blocked and for what reason as they appear on recent changes. probs something moderators should take a lead on as habit. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Some people enjoy weak jokes and similar, and there can be funny vandalism (eg replacing the MGTOW logo with a No Through Road sign), and some people are RW/wikiverse newbies/have poor language skills - so should be tolerated/have their ignorance enlightened/otherwise turned into useful contributors.
The passing-through RW graffiti artists and 'My caps are bigger than your caps you (insert insults of choice)' lot will probably need more than a token block to say 'We know you were here and have gone elsewhere.'
'Repeat nuisances of various kinds' need banning for slightly longer than their patience (or be made to use the CAPTCHA option and similar).
Then there are those who are 'real problems' for whom other actions are necessary. Anna Livia (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I always thought unfunny vandalism reason was never supposed to be taken seriously. I remember "boring repetitive edits" being in its place for a while. Funny vandalism would probably still be marked as "unfunny", and it might cause inconvenient for the lack of a drop down. Most wandalism is unfunny and made in bad faith. Good faith users usually try to explain what they're doing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Yeah, a lot of those bans are from you. Can you please go easy on the banhammer? I feel I've said this already before. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

These are not the bans you are looking for. Oxyaena Harass 06:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

MIC vs NWO thought experiment[edit]

So, a thought occurred to me when I was arguing with a conspiracy nutjob. The Military Industrial Complex disproves the existence of the New World Order/Illuminati/Shadow Councils. How? Well, simplicity.

Consider a large company, similar to a government. The company is made up of many different factions and departments, all ostensibly working together but run by sociopathic executives who are willing to stab each other in the back for their own benefit. Consider the NWO to be the owners (it's a privately held company). Consider the MID like a group of several executives working together as a team. They convince the first company to purchase overpriced equipment from another organization they happen to own, causing the first company to spend $1 Billion so they can earn a $100m profit for themselves. Now, if these executives happened to be the owners themselves? Why would they ever waste $1 Billion of company money to give themselves $100m, when as the Board/Owners they could simply give themselves the entire $1 Billion as a dividend? Likewise, why would the NWO ever use the MID to enrich themselves by screwing over the rest of the country/world when they themselves own the entire country and could just embezzle the money directly? Using a war as a coverup is idiotic, not when they ostensibly control the media and could cover it all up anyway.

Thoughts? Mind if I add it into one of our articles somewhere? CoryUsar (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Think I'll add it in in one of the illuminati/NWO whatever articles. Any objections? CoryUsar (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
is not the whole thing with nwo conspiracies that they everything is all in the shadows and hidden? would not the above situation be a method of deflecting attention and hiding how much they actually control? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Is beauty imaginary?[edit]

It just popped in my mind, and kind of ruined things for me, but is the meaning and grandeur and majesty of life really just us projecting things onto the world that aren't there? Like am I not really "connecting" to anything but just imagining I am? I mean it would make sense since not everyone reacts in the same manner to the same image or experience. It just makes me sad that the beauty and majesty I see in nature is really just me imagining things. Makes it feel cheap.Machina (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Beauty is subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not real. Oxyaena Harass 06:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
As the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." And saying that used to be a bannable offence on Conservapedia because Andy Schlafly saw it as denying the beauty-making skills of God. Spud (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Is the beholder in the eye of the beauty? Irregardless, there are certain things that a vast average of people will consider "attractive," such as a slim figure with a symmetrical appearance, and for things to be regarded as "cute" they typically tend to have small heads and oversized eyes, a lot like infantile humans actually, kicking in our parental instinct. Oxyaena Harass 07:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
There are several types of 'beauty' - with finding certain other members of the same species 'attractive' (the definition of which does tend to change over time) being only one component.
Why do we find sunsets, peacock tails, 'majestic' landscapes, music, some scents, a particularly well executed sporting manoeuvre etc (taking a random selection) beautiful? Anna Livia (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Anna Livia For music, there is research that suggests that beats we like are linked to our heartbeats and pitches we like are linked to our vocal frequency ranges. Changing between these different frequencies and rates causes a flux of emotion, which music composers effectively control to cause a sense of beauty, even if they didn't know they were doing that. The human nose is very adept at smelling plants, a good evolutionary advantage for a fruit eating species. A sunset causing a calming effect is useful for helping people go to sleep and maintain a regular sleeping pattern. Peacock tails are a riot of colors, and again we are a fruit eating species that likes the bright colors of plants; the peacock's tail is surprising when one first sees it and is a source of intrigue. The spots within a peacock's tail also look similar to eyes, and we are especially adept at recognizing the eyes of other humans as an evolved social tool. Notice how we find the female peacock to be barely interesting at all. It has a little bit of color around the neck, but it is mostly brown. But a male peacock thinks that is just fab and goes to great lengths to impress them! A well executed sporting manoeuvre is effective at showing physical health of an individual. It is a good sign of someone being an effective mate because of good genetics, similar to why secondary sexual characteristics evolved in the first place. We find large landscapes beautiful because it makes us want to explore them. We are a migratory race that evolved to be nomadic before it developed effective agriculture. Finding a landscape to be beautiful also makes it more memorable, allowing landmarks to be more easily recognizable. All of these things are advantageous and have clear reason to have evolved in our species. Why do we find it beautiful specifically? Give evolution a hammer and the world becomes a nail. The ability to perceive anything as beautiful would only have to evolve independently once before being applicable in a wide range of cognitive environments; once the tool is in place you use it for as many things as is advantageous instead of making more tools (an expensive process for evolution). MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

beauty is imaginary. its not an innate quality of anything but something we apply ourselves, and what we apply it to and why varies from person to person, culture to culture. its both nature and nurture, with some things we are attracted to throwbacks to a time when your partner needed to fit and healthy to ensure healthy kids, being repulsed by foods looking like poison or rotting preventing getting ill, are probably instinctual. others, like the way light skin is seen as beautiful in some cultures because it meant wealth - you didn't have to work in the fields. in other cultures a tan became seen as beautiful for the same reason of wealth - you could afford expensive holidays. this seems like it must be a social construct of some sort. the great outdoors is the epitome of beauty to some, a wasteland to others - what you value tells you which. in other cases its familiarity and convention that's the decider, or its the more exotic that's draws your eye. ultimately, a rose is a rose whether you think its a thing of beauty, it repulses you, or simply indifferent to it. why should it sadden you that it be like this? why should it cheapen it? the alternative would be dreadful - consider if beauty were innate or objective then so too would the grotesque. if you thought yourself ugly, or someone said you were, then that would not be low self esteem or just one opinion - it would be a fact that you were ugly, and all would agree. look around at the infinite variety of the world, with every facet its admirers. there is truly something for everyone. the subjectivity of beauty is a good thing because all that matters is that something is beautiful to you, something is of value to you, not to someone else, who cares if people don't like what you like? you get racism, misogyny, bigotry and ostracization when ideals of beauty are too narrow and dictated by too few. take a look at the history of Hollywood and the homogenous looks of its stars over the years to that in effectAMassiveGay (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Some aspects of 'beauty' are subjective/cultural/change over time etc - what William Morris and associates would find useful or beautiful is not the same as present tastes.
There is more to 'beauty' than the purely scientific aspects/recognition of skill and 'actual or potential benefits' - and the term covers a composite of responses (and not just 'pleasurable responses.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Can Machina be replaced with a bot?[edit]

==Is [abstract concept] [synonym of fictional]?== I was just [thinking/browsing obscure new age pages/realizing] that [abstract concept] isn't based on anything real and has no transcendental meaning that escapes human analysis. This [way to say "troubles me greatly"] because I always viewed [abstract concept] as central to [part of the human condition]. Does this mean [abstract concept] is totally made up? How do I deal with this? User:Machina(talk) [datestamp]

Really though, I haven't felt like you've asked an actually new question in a year now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 11:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's more like I'm extremelt susceptible to anything that contradicts my current understanding of the world.Machina (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
But as I've said before, I feel like that's because you don't construct a view of your world that's cohesive. You don't give yourself the epistemological underpinnings to give satisfying answers to your questions. It's not that I don't think "what is real" is uninteresting as a question, nor that your answer should be the same as mine, just that you don't give yourself any definition of "real" you can stick to and apply to each of these questions.
For me, the old skeptic standby of "reality is what, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" forms a solid, if incomplete basis to answering that question. This leaves some edge cases like hallucinations, where your false perception isn't tied to belief, but neurobiology, but even then the hallucination is a real phenomenon, with a basis in what exists(your brain). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Functionally, Machina certainly hasn't worked towards answering any of their own questions, which is frustrating. At some point, tourism looks like zoo visitation. How many more answers does Machina need before they share a single insight? A single thing that has been directly gleaned? I appreciate an approach that is only questions, but the approach is that the answers to Machina's questions don't answer Machina's problems, so the answers don't count. Is that important to Machina? I think they've said yes.
Sorry, Machina, but you've been looking for answers for a while. If you don't like the answers you've got, it's down to two probabilities. Either the answers are always wrong, or your search methods suck. But take heart, it's more likely your search methods could suck so bad that the answers you've discovered might have always been wrong! The answers to life don't work like a Venn Diagram, we can agree on that, no? I'm not mad at you, Machina, I want to talk about these things with you. But not at you solely for your judgement. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Suicide[edit]

I have a friend in Argentina who's thinking of committing suicide, they have a rifle and are considering going into the mountains. What do I do? Oxyaena Harass 07:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There is some useful information on our suicide page. There is also a suicide hotline in Argentina: +5402234930430, according to this page.[4] Bongolian (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
When I've been in a really bad place depression wise, I was always avoiding something. One thing I learned is that I never wanted to die, I didn't want to be here; where I was. I wouldn't ask them "what are you running from", because then it would imply they are weak: a big contribution to thoughts of suicide is feelings of helplessness! They are your friend, so no doubt you know of some things that they like. I try to remind them of good times you have had in the past, or good events in their life. Suicidal thoughts are filled with confusion and hopelessness, often making one feel as if there is nothing good at all. If you can remind them of a good time in the past, it can remind them of what they enjoy; which is what you want to target. Ask them how they can make their life have more of that good thing, what changes do they have to make? Make sure you let them know that you are there for them and willing to help along the way. Suicidal thoughts also come in waves, it comes in swells. If you can overcome this swell, you can buy more time to help them improve their life before the next big swell. Over time the swells lessen and become insignificant, but they have to have something they are working to achieve that is obtainable otherwise it will just keep happening. For me, I got 2 room mates so I had someone to talk to. I also started making games which gave me something to stay interested in. Remember though that the swells can come back in force even if things have improved a little bit. It is like taking medicine, you can't stop when you are 90% though a disease because you just create a strand resistant to that medicine.
Now if they are considering going into the mountains, that means they probably aren't trying to get attention. They might feel like a burden and just want to remove themselves for the benefit of others, or they feel no one would care anyways. I would recommend giving daily text messages. I know when I was very depressed I clung to every text message like a life raft. Even if they are just some little news story about a new breed of cat, it shows them you care. If you can find stories that are tailored to their interests, even better. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
if you know anyone else in argentina who could look in them, or maybe the local police. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Probably need to emphasize that they still have much to lose, have the possibility for everything to very, very wrong if suicide fails but even if suicide succeeds, it'll cause life lasting damage to everyone around the victim. The person needs attention and since the person cares enough to talk to you, you have to remind this person that you value this person staying alive. I told one of my depressed friends to do me a favor and focus getting help. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Do anything possible to help your friend. Even if it means sending a funny text message, laughter is helpful. It can be life or death. That little gesture can save a life. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I have one attempt. So I just got off the phone with a good old friend of mine. I called him. I need to go to a doctor for physical health reasons. I once tore my esophagus, like, real bad, was in the hospital for 3 days, had to get the tear clipped closed. They told me to avoid vomiting forever. Yesterday, I felt sick all day and threw up a whole toilet bowl full of bright blood. Today I felt better, but honestly, I'm still scared I might be bleeding again. I'm supposed to go to a doctor in this scenario. Last time, when I threw up a lot more blood, I was in the hospital for 3 days on the sly, my parents didn't know until a couple weeks later when I needed help filing the paperwork between an HSA account and an insurance bill. We talked for a while, and I confessed I'm probably a little mentally ill if my anxiety is keeping me from going to a doctor when I'm throwing up more than one toilet-bowl full of blood in a lifetime and going to the doctor to ask for help seems like the hardest part of life. He told me he was going to call me in the morning and tell me to go to the doctor again. He's a good friend, I am LUCKY LUCK LUCKY. Also, the tear is right in the junction, I could still eat dick like a pro, if that was on the making fun of me table. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Any updates on this? As someone who personally has suicidal tendencies and has even attempted it once, my advice would be to be careful, let your friend know that you are there for him/her, and whatever you do, make sure you don't come across as lecturing him/her. Also, consider your friend's worldview when talking to him/her. An argument that may convince someone with a humanistic worldview not to kill himself/herself may be ineffective for someone with a religious or nihilistic worldview, while religious arguments are likely to be ineffective for someone who is a solid atheist. You may also encourage him/her to seek professional help, but do so carefully as he or she may not be receptive to it and that may shut down conversation altogether. 71.3.195.138 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Argentina's been going to shit lately, and they don't want to end up homeless again... Oxyaena Harass 06:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Michio Kaku[edit]

Is there any reliable source showing that Michio Kaku is really co-founder of string field theory ? I searched on google "Michio Kaku string field theory" and found only some kind of self declaration or exact citation probably derivated of such self declaration because using exactly same words. I particularly did not found declaration of scientific saying same. Xavier Combelle (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's on the Wikipedia article. (See the section on light cone string theory.) I think it's fair to say he was one of the early contributors of string field theory, the 1974 paper is one of the earliest examples out there and is widely cited. I'm not sure if "co-founder" is too strong of a word but it's not too far off IMHO. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Very mature...[edit]

https://images.vrt.be/width1280/2019/07/02/37003599-9ca8-11e9-abcc-02b7b76bf47f.jpg

Just how old are UKIP members? 3? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop dissing on toddlers, they act better than this. Oxyaena Harass 20:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I like how you call the Brexit Party MEPs immature for turning their backs on the EU anthem, and completely ignore the Lib Dem MEPs who went to EU Parliament wearing "Bollocks to Brexit T-Shirts on the very same day. --RWRW (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to humour RWRW’s whataboutism for a moment, I personally think both their antics were rather childish. Pointing out the poor form of one does not automatically mean you agree with the other, but, conversely, neither does one form of childish behaviour excuse another. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Whereas I see childish behavior as fundamentally necessary to effectively make points in both directions, however, the point that UKIP consistently makes so effectively is "we're stupid racist fuckwits" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 11:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
There's obviously some racism among UKIP ranks, but I'm not sure how turning around for a protest-media moment is particularly related to that? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Lol, "some". Anyways, this particular incident is more on the fuckwit end of the spectrum. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
its probably worth mentioning that the brexit party and ukip are not the same thing. ukip do not even have any seats in this current euro parliament, having been wiped out earlier AMassiveGay (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah yep, it's the Brexit Party. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
When you are desperate for headlines but have no purpose, nothing to say, no relevance and nothing to do except milk expenses for a brief window, pantomine is all they have. The Brexit party members come mostly too late to be remembered and won't profit from any renown so far away from the limelight. Those will be remembered are spent force. Farage was a spoiler, his work has been done. It wasn't argument or leadership he ever provided anyhow. All hes ever been was ego fuelled by pomposity and bluster, a useful figurehead for weasel like MPs and shady beaureaucrats to manipulate. A bad joke obsolete by its own victory. Poor farage. He's killed the only thing that gave him life. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Mature displays do not win political games. All of the best politicians in history (remembered as good or evil) made great use of exaggeration. Ajuran (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The Brexit party was founded on one thing and one thing only, Brexit. After they succeeded, the party became obsolete. They aren't great, they're idiots. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
the brexit party were founded after the referendum. the were founded to keep farage in the lime light. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Flat Earthers get their own football team: Flat Earth FC[edit]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/recently-promoted-spanish-soccer-club-renamed-flat-earth-fc/ar-AADEvx4

Are Flat Earthers already being seen as a meme? Tinribmancer (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering flat earthery is almost 100% reliant on memes to propagate, it would be fitting. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Should I created a conspiracy that claims that the Earth is a Tetrahedron? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
As long as you create a few memes and YouTube videos to go with it, and some conspiracy about why this "truth" is being withheld, you should be okay. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Do it! Then post the video here! Tinribmancer (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Where are the vertexes and edges? How do you explain the horizon moving? Madness! --Annanoon (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not just any tetrahedron, a Time Tetrahedron with 4 2 sides in a day. 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:F9D4:3828:85B9:547D (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As 42 is the answer to the ultimate question this must be true. Anna Livia (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading an excellent study on conspiracy theories now[edit]

For those of you who read a Scandinavian language. For those of you who don't, lots of other great and recent books in English (and some in Russian and other languages) are referenced in the sources, such as Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them and Enchanted America. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

At first I was like "Oh boy, I have a barely functional understanding of Swedish, I'll click that link". Then I saw an "ø". Fucking Norway and their mystery hell vowels. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 11:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hæ hæ! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Repressed homosexual desires and anorexia- Found this from American Addiction Centers website (this is not homophobic)[edit]

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/male-eating-disorders/anorexia

According to this article, a huge trigger for anorexia in males is repressing their sexual identity. Bad thing about fundies is that they think gays are evil and this mentality prevents men from getting treatment for anorexia. Also primarily in the fundie sector and just as bad, the "Men's Rights Activists". MRA nuts claim they are for men's rights yet when a male is struggling with self-esteem issues, they get laughed at. Obviously "Men's Rights Activists" are certainly not for men's rights.

These men who need help should get it before their eating disorder kills them. To be clear, I am not downplaying problems women have; I really am not but anybody with a mental health issue should get help. Cue the right wing nuts who think anorexia is not a serious problem. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Men using anorexia as a method to deny homosexual feelings might need therapy that’s specifically designed to help them accept their thoughts and resolve whatever conflicts those thoughts might bring up."
I hope "whatever conflicts those thoughts might bring up" includes dealing with homophobic families and/or environment. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
True that. RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"According to this article, a huge trigger for anorexia in males is repressing their sexual identity"
@Rationalzombie94 I gave a quick read to the article but I did not find such claim. The only claims about repressing sexual identity that I found are the one I already quoted and "Some men with feelings for other men use their diets as a way to keep their feelings from rising to the surface." They are not saying repressing sexual identity is a huge trigger of anorexia in males. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem with male anorexia nervosa is that the studies on such are relatively fewer, despite occurrence being 25% of patients (tribal paradigms even influence scientific study, of course). I have not found a link directly advocating homophobic behavior as a possible motivator, but I haven't found the converse either. And I have found a link suggesting sexual abuse and assault is a significant factor in female anorexia nervosa. It would not surprise me if the same is true for males. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"It would not surprise me if the same is true for males."
@Soundwave106 Indeed, the article linked by Rationalzombie94 says that's the case: "For example, some men face severe abuse early in life. [...] they may have been targets of sexual abuse or sexual harassment early in life. [...] Anorexia can spring from those root."Thinker(unlicensed) 20:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
the take home of this article is that anyone can be effected by eating disorders and the many associated comorbidities, that the traumas and pressures contributing to these things are legion, all influenced by, amongst other things, gender and sexuality, with the approach to treatment similarly informed. issues arising from homophobia or repression of sexuality is more likely to suggest an approach that would be of more benefit and relevance to a gay male than it would a straight male.
indeed, stigma and perceptions of eating disorders as being feminine or gay problems, and ignorance of what an eating disorder can look like, can lead to a reluctance for straight males to seek help, with treatment options inappropriately tailored.
the message here, as with all mental health issues, is we cannot let our own ignorance nor the ignorance of others prevent or hamper anyone seeking the necessary help they might require. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Scientology ads on TV[edit]

Anyone else here have DirecTV and want to puke every time those commercials for the Scientology chanel comes on? I think we ought to write to DirecTV and complain about them cramming that garbage down our throats. 2607:FB90:6A8B:9E2:0:7:7B84:7401 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Tanks are rolling in[edit]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/pictures-emerge-d-c-residents-abrams-tanks-entering-city-mall-trump-fourth-of-july.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/03/4th-july-donald-trump-military-parade-tanks-seen-washington-dc/1637384001/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/07/02/pentagon-grapples-with-how-move-tanks-washington-rail-yard-national-mall/ Very normal. Nothing to see here, move along.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sick of how aware I am of where we are in history and how little I'm doing about it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel like someone has had this conversation with Trump before... I also feel like they explained to him that military parades are what insecure dictators do... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, he's asked for it every year. This year he gets it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
He tried this shit with veterans day last year. But he wants it so badly, especially since he visited Macron in 2017. But he's a senile old man who focuses on little things he wants, then throws a fit until he gets it. RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
'but putin and kim both have tanks and guns in their parades and their mothers let them stay up late and watch 18 certificate films. trumps not allowed to do anything. its so unfair and i'd close my eyes if there was any boobies in the film, for realsies. i'm not even allowed a wall but at kims house they've got xbox and he doesn't have to do chores and hes got cool fireworks that are well illegal and probably not even allowed in mexico. he says I'm well cool its just you are lame and dont understand. he says putin would probably let me stay at his place ad i'm def his favourite, his parents don't care, if it weren't for you all so mean to him. your ruining my life. hes soo dreamy, sigh' - says trump, paraphrasing, maybe. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure who he's putting this on for. Himself, I guess, and the pro-fascist segment of this country that is his biggest fanboy group. Even the Fox News commentary section on this is filled with a lot of anti-Trump comments in the usual caustic Internet style. Sure, the fascists at r/The_Donald likes it, but it's just jingoistic noise alongside that group's primary purpose (which is to whine about The Decline of Western (White Male) Civilization, minorities, and liberals... share the usual incorrect alt-right memes as usual... violate Reddit TOS... then whine about their quarantine.) Trump could've done just as well catering to these fanboys doing something like, say, whine at the NFL for the nth time. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay: I'm laughing my ass off with that comment. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Soundwave106: But r/The_Donald likes everything that he does. They'd probably also like it if he gave himself a BJ. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't this make Trump a Tankie? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
He pretends to oppose some tankie-like regimes like Venezuela but then doesn't do anything about them. Maybe a pseudo-tankie, or alt-tankie? Tankie-lite? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't he need to go full dictator to be a tankie? Like uniform with a bunch of bullshit on it, and a garish sash?RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Just look at them totalitarian fascists. nobsI'm all yea'res 19:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Trump isn't a Tankie till he goes full communist. NekoDysk 02:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Be at peace: Baby Trump is there for you. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)