|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive316
Sooooo.......I've been dumb[edit]
http://woomyung.com/meditation-method/meditation-method/
It turns out that broward meditation thing that got me down in the dumps is apparently an offshoot of this cult. To be honest the red flags where everywhere. If the $30 consultation and $200/month membership fees weren't enough there were other things. I mean I went to an actual Buddhist center and the people were nice, it was FREE (though they accepted donations, the place was a little hard to find though), and the monk who was visiting and teaching there answered my questions like a human being. This other place felt like a script being read to me when I tried to talk to them and mentioning anything Buddhist or otherwise was just echoed back like a parrot. That and they didn't really answer anything I asked, and wouldn't do so without an appointment.
In hindsight it makes sense, the concept of "selling enlightenment" should have been a dead giveaway.Machina (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Look at it this way- You now have the information to warn others like you about con artists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I do run into problems with the supporters who claim to know what it's all about :https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,120209,page=6 But looking at it now it's pretty clear who knows what it's actually about and who's just blowing smoke. Those who "got out" or were affected by it can give accurate details and procedure that your average joe wouldn't know unless they lived it. I know in my experience some of this matches with the amounts they were asking "per month" and how they wouldn't answer my questions without payment or an appointment. Even the lady I spoke to freely didn't answer anything, it felt like talking to a robot or someone reading off a script. The monk from Tibet at the meditation center I used to go answered my questions clearly and his English was worse than hers.Machina (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- It look like a rather dangerous and cultish method that they're promoting based on their 8-step plan:
ββLevel 1 : Discarding remembered thoughts (The level of knowing the Universe is oneβs self)
Level 2 : Discarding images of self and relationships (The level of knowing there are no [false] minds) |
It's worth writing a page on this group if anyone wants to start one. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I believe they did already, it'sunder Maume meditation. The thing is I briefly tried this method just to see, and it gave me a weird feeling of peace (sort of) but then it was followed by some void. But that was if I believed it to be true, I didn't know if it was. It was similar to how my mind make solipsism and idealism seem true just because I believed it so. In short the effects were my imagination.Machina (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
NuttinessGoatiness[edit]
When goats go bad βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 22:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wipe your tears for Nutty Roux. β Oxyaena Harass 23:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- For our readers and posters in the UK and EU, yes. The phrase "taking the piss" does mean something else here. Especially goat-wise. Kencolt (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Urine therapy is more dangerous than we thought: it has the power to corrupt goats. Bongolian (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- For our readers and posters in the UK and EU, yes. The phrase "taking the piss" does mean something else here. Especially goat-wise. Kencolt (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
On the Fermi Paradox[edit]
So I don't much believe that interstellar aliens have visited earth. But looking into Thorium (non-sequitur, I know), I've noticed something that I'd like to bring up. The Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox doesn't speak to the idea that we might be interesting but have no useful resources for alien life. We are sending our best, most efficient technology to scope out Titan. As for Titan, yes, let's look at it, go humanity, get us away from this doomed-to-fail star. The strange thing is, Titan has a liquid cycle that's incompatible with our life. Methane is a liquid on the surface, it evaporates and forms clouds, it rains down, and it freezes. As a satellite, I think its challenges (time behind Saturn) would inhibit free energy to the end that nothing could use CH4 like we use H20.
But my intent is to add to the Fermi Paradox. I know that "not interesting" can include our planet, our technology, and all that, so I'm not going to do it very well here, but, maybe there's a chemical makeup that includes intelligence, yet does not follow our own chemical makeup allowing for life. Salt, or NaCl, is literally a frozen version of a compound on earth, and of course we need it. In the expanse of the universe, who knows what's frozen and what's liquid. Maybe a reason to not communicate with Earth has no special parameters other than there are not useful compounds here. If life can be based around solid/liquid/gas, like we have with H2O, theoretically it can be based around solid/liquid/gas, like Titan has with CH4. My position is, if it were true that interstellar or intergalactic travelers exist and brush past Earth, the likelihood is high that Earth's inherent compounds are not resources to those travelers. I still don't think we get alien visitation, buuuut, it might take some time to get across empty space if somebody clued their alt-chemical homies into stopping by, if you wanna get spooky. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I understood it was carbon's ability to form complex compounds that was a key factor to life.
- Given that Earth presently has satellites in orbit, cities lit by night and other key markers of 'a species that can be communicated with and which probably would not be too surprised at the visiting aliens (only the particular form that they take). Anna Livia (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Astrobiology mentions this and there's a lot of speculation on Hypothetical types of biochemistry
. But I agree that the Earth might be rather uninteresting for those looking to harvest chemicals or minerals. Its greatest resource is probably its biodiversity, ideal for alien zoos and sideshows. So kill all the animals to prevent alien invasion. --Annanoon (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Astrobiology mentions this and there's a lot of speculation on Hypothetical types of biochemistry
might not they just pop in for a chat? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The argument seems to be framed by a few assumptions:
- There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun, and many of these stars are billions of years older than the Solar system.
- With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets and if the Earth is typical, some may have already developed intelligent life.
- Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now.
- Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years."
- I would criticize the assumptions as follows: 1) and 2) are reasonable assumptions. 3) Has probability x. We have no idea of its value. 4) At a slow rate of speed intelligent beings would be unlikely to spend their lives isolated many thousands of light-years from home, so it is probable only automated systems would contact earth, probably enabled by radio location. As the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the probability y that such an explorer would arrive on earth during the period of radio civilizations is probably no greater than 1 in 45 million. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Space travelling species are far more likely to find planets with 'organic soup (of various kinds); - some of which is useful for recharging the food machines, and 'non-sentient life (whether or not as we know it)' than 'sentients you can discuss the weather, awful TV and useless sports teams with, and exchange overpriced tourist tat with.' And planets that do not have 'lawyers, NIMBYs, teenage computer-re-arrangers, survivalists, Professor Branestrawm inventors and other nuisances' are so much easier to extract minerals from. Anna Livia (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hahaha, so we might also be more trouble than we are worth for the resources, and they could be found somewhere else. I definitely feel that. Things like the Star-Trek principle of non-interference make more sense when you consider we are still arguing about reaching a level 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Space travelling species are far more likely to find planets with 'organic soup (of various kinds); - some of which is useful for recharging the food machines, and 'non-sentient life (whether or not as we know it)' than 'sentients you can discuss the weather, awful TV and useless sports teams with, and exchange overpriced tourist tat with.' And planets that do not have 'lawyers, NIMBYs, teenage computer-re-arrangers, survivalists, Professor Branestrawm inventors and other nuisances' are so much easier to extract minerals from. Anna Livia (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Got a question and I am not trying to be stupid. I just don't know[edit]
If a guy is a transgender woman and said person has a kid, does the kid start addressing their dad as mom after the sex change operation? Again, not trying to sound stupid. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd call it a fair question, but one that will ultimately be between the child and their parent(s), just as one might handle a stepmother or stepfather. TheTallMass (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Does a sex change matter? If a gal says they're a gal, that's it. β Oxyaena Harass 14:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need legislation to deal with this matter. nobsI'm all yea'res 19:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Banned. Nah, I don't think there's a real answer for this, but the sentence structure does fault a little around noun "is" (implied now) qualified noun. As an obfuscation, you've written a really clever question. But since I know you're not trying to sound dumb or be stupid, the idea that every parental transition should end with every member involved using the same titles is you just not getting it. I call Mom and Dad by Oma and Papa now, usually. Papa loves it when I remember to call him Papa, Oma loves it when I accidentally call her Mom. I would not go so far as to wonder how transgenderism works in a family. We couldn't even get the 4th to work in ours, and nobody is confused about gender there. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need legislation to deal with this matter. nobsI'm all yea'res 19:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- The kid does as they want, and their parent parents as they want about it. (Also, it's usually not the "sex change operation" that most trans people use as their turning point for how they talk about their gender) ikanreed πBleat at me 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh really? I wish I knew more, if I could ever work up the curiosity about it. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Suffice it to say I'm not an expert, but usually early transition often centers on behavior, appearance, and dress, no medical intervention at all. And for many, though far far far from all, that's where they start exploring asking some change in address, at least among those they feel safe with. I don't want to end up talking out my ass because I personally know relatively few trans people in real life. So I'll leave it with that "Some people do this". ikanreed πBleat at me 03:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can this be treated with psyche meds? nobsI'm all yea'res 05:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can what be treated, exactly, shithead? ikanreed πBleat at me 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can this be treated with psyche meds? nobsI'm all yea'res 05:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Suffice it to say I'm not an expert, but usually early transition often centers on behavior, appearance, and dress, no medical intervention at all. And for many, though far far far from all, that's where they start exploring asking some change in address, at least among those they feel safe with. I don't want to end up talking out my ass because I personally know relatively few trans people in real life. So I'll leave it with that "Some people do this". ikanreed πBleat at me 03:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh really? I wish I knew more, if I could ever work up the curiosity about it. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Dealing with North Korea (or other dictatorship)[edit]
It seems really difficult to find a good strategy to deal with North Korea, or dictatorships in general. If you go to war, then a lot of innocent people will die, and they are mostly the same people you'd like to protect from the dictator. If you kill (or just bring down) the dictator, then you destabilize the area creating a vacuum of power that it is usually filled by another dictator, maybe even worst than the first. If you try economic sanctions, these hurt the population and make the dictator country even more closed to the world. If you try to reason with the dictator, you can be accused of being a sympathizer or even his accomplice. If you do nothing, you are accused of turning a blind eye... Thinker(unlicensed) 14:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're leaving out many possibilities within a patchwork of diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military responses. Economic marginalization and targeted sanctions for those in such regimes who are responsible for repression, like the Magnitsky Acts, including freezing of assets linked to war criminals and top politicians in "pariah regimes." Banning obvious hostile and destabilizing propaganda outlets (why the hell is Russia Today broadcast in the West)? (Concealed or open) support of indigenous rebel groups that aren't at least as bad as the tyrants they live under. Nobody wants to go to war, but there are things you can do short of that. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- depends very much on the relative strength and stability of a country, who supports it, and what consensus you can get for any action. castro stayed in power for decades, despite us sanctions, andplaces like Saudi are paying customers. things like human rights only seem to matter when the country in question goes with a competitor. not so long ago, after the end of the cold war, tyrants and corrupt governments who one side or the other had installed or propped up, must have been pretty nervous as they saw their usefulness to global politics diminish. just lately I think they may be beginning to breathe a little easier. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the discussion is getting too abstract. My question was really about North Korea. I added "dictatorships in general" but I regret that since, as it has been pointed out, it depends to much on the country stability. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Invading North Korea would simply not be worth it. Lets take the War in Iraq as an example. While Iraq had a nutcase for a dictator and he was monstrous, Iraq was a stable country. When we killed their dictator, things in the Middle East went to shit quick and caused further Anti-American sentiment to rise. North Korea, while it is a dirt poor country with a nutcase leading it- the country is more or less stable. Think of the humanitarian crisis that would begin and hate towards the US would increase. Just not worth it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- its never been about invading nk, its more about what leverage you can apply. we don't want to strangle it so much that collapses completely, it is unknown what kind of humanitarian that would create. and it is not solely about nk. there is south korea and china, neither of whom want to deal the fallout, and china is already propping it enough to prevent that.
- even with chinas support, north korea is still starved. we can still refuse aid to apply pressure, but what for? what is the goal? Regime change is not the goal. it never has been. the current focus is on its nuclear capability. to deal with that you have ask why they need it. and the answer is the us. north and south korea are officially still at war. an incredibly devastating conflict in which the us was pivotal. and while the south rebuilt with us help, the north turned in on itself, its wounds festering, stagnating, growing ever more paranoid. I understand that the general public are lead to believe that the us could invade at any moment. the great enemy. its kept fresh in their minds that us is responsible for much of the devastation of war, with the us military just over the border ready to strike. whatever kim tells his public, he is aware they cannot stand up to us might. we can all remember what happened to Iraq. a nuke might give the us pause though.
- the us is the problem. trump is the problem here. dialogue and the easing of tensions is needed to lessen the paranoia. convince the north that they are not going to be invaded. build mutual trust that they could abandon their nuclear problem and not leave themselves vulnerable to attack, and any incentives would be real.
- Invading North Korea would simply not be worth it. Lets take the War in Iraq as an example. While Iraq had a nutcase for a dictator and he was monstrous, Iraq was a stable country. When we killed their dictator, things in the Middle East went to shit quick and caused further Anti-American sentiment to rise. North Korea, while it is a dirt poor country with a nutcase leading it- the country is more or less stable. Think of the humanitarian crisis that would begin and hate towards the US would increase. Just not worth it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the discussion is getting too abstract. My question was really about North Korea. I added "dictatorships in general" but I regret that since, as it has been pointed out, it depends to much on the country stability. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- depends very much on the relative strength and stability of a country, who supports it, and what consensus you can get for any action. castro stayed in power for decades, despite us sanctions, andplaces like Saudi are paying customers. things like human rights only seem to matter when the country in question goes with a competitor. not so long ago, after the end of the cold war, tyrants and corrupt governments who one side or the other had installed or propped up, must have been pretty nervous as they saw their usefulness to global politics diminish. just lately I think they may be beginning to breathe a little easier. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- trumps hasn't done this. hes insulted kim and hes threatened north korea with destruction. hes been bellicose and reactionary in public statements, and in person kims seen him do nothing but flatter. we in the west mock kim for being overweight and a loon, but hes been sharp enough to avoid a coup. he will have seen trump as transparent. a two faced liar, who cant be trusted. and so the us cannot be trusted. the whole world saw trump wreck the nuclear deal with iran, going back on the its own agreements. hes shown the world the us cant be trusted. that's why north korea will keep its nukes and why iran now seeks them.
- south korea have done much to cool things down to keep open a dialogue, but with trump at the helm of the us, the north will keep its nukes. south korea must hold their breath everytime he tweets. it will be them that bear the brunt if a hasty threat over twitter is mistaken for an imminent threat. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- North Korea is a Chinese proxy. The CCP controls the military, while Kim has complete control over society and politics. It's a working relationship. Kim is not an unrestrained dictator. If Chairman Xi says the nukes have to be removed so Xi can get a better deal with Trump, the nukes will be removed. Then Trump makes trade concessions to both North Korea and China. Just watch. nobsI'm all yea'res 09:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- North Korea is a Chinese proxy. The CCP
- Dictatorships that have been effectively toppled by outside force to be replaced by a stable democracy in history: ... Japan. The end. That's the whole list. ikanreed πBleat at me 13:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Add Germany to that list too, at least West Germany. β Oxyaena Harass 14:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- East germany being an awful tyranical state for years because the outside power that toppled Germany felt like it seemed reason enough to not count it to me. ikanreed πBleat at me 14:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. East Germany, West Germany, modern Germany and/or Japan are not free to pursue nuclear weapons or its own foreign policy independently of the senior members of the alliance any more than North Korea is. Kim is a CCP puppet who only exists because of the will of the Chinese. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- that's all entirely false. kim is no puppet and you vastly overstate the control has over north korea. if it was anything like you suggested, their nuclear program would already have ended. despite being its sole trading partner, the supplier of most aid, this does not provide as much leverage as you think. china could if it wished, cut off its oil supply, and kims would regime collapse. that's why they wont. do think china wants to deal with the fallout from that? Do think they would want the us stepping in to deal with it, leaving their military presence on its door step?
- china has already flexed it muscles to curb nk's nuclear program, halting the oil supply for a few days after a previous missle test and north korea still has a nuke. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Duh, what do you think is the substance of Trump/Xi talks? nobsI'm all yea'res 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- trade mostly. and it doesn't answer exactly what they could do that would rein in kim. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Since 2002 and Chinese MFN (most favored nation status), China has used nuclear blackmail via its proxy North Korea to rape the US in trade deals. Trump tariffs say "game over." If China wants to continue its prosperity, it must de-nuclearize the Korean peninsula. In exchange, both China and North Korea get trade concessions from the U.S. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Chairman Xi has already given Kim instructions. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- that all assumes china will just roll over for trump. they haven't yet. as for the article, it doesn't say anything like what you suggest. more like china will providing nrth korea mre support. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Duh, the article says Chairman Xi put his stamp of approval for Kim to go ahead with his bromance with Trump, which Trump demands de-denuclearization to happen. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- are you fucking dense? the article talks about china saying we should ease up on sanctions on north korea. it talks about china providing aid outside of sanctions or just flat out making a hole in them. it talks about if talks with trump don't pan out, it will give kim 'North Korea to gradually shift from the U.S.-North Korea Plan A to a βnew pathβ Plan B'. no where does say he will have to give nukes and no where does it say china will insist he give nukes. no special instructions. no nothing. you did read the article didn't you? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- even if trump somehow got kim to end his nuclear program (are you going to believe if he says its finished) it will be because trump gave too much into. we all know how he loves a dictator. don't be surprised he leaves the meeting with kims gis on his face. AMassiveGay (talk)
- It's all in the works. President Moon of the ROK will get credit and probably a Nobel Prize, as a face saving jesture to Chairman Xi for bowing to Trump's demands. This will play well both in China and US domestic politics, while Kim and Moon get to share hugs and kisses in an Oslo ceremony. That part of the deal is already worked out. Eric and Don Jr. then get to build a Trump hotel on the beautiful shores of North Korea after Trump leaves office, and the people of North Korea gain from trade with the U.S. like South Korea, Japan, China, and Vietnam has looong before the communist scum of Cuba. China trade with the U.S. is "normalized," meaning it ain't gonna be like it used to be between 2002 MFN and 2017. None of this is rocket science, ya know. nobsI'm all yea'res 23:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- even if trump somehow got kim to end his nuclear program (are you going to believe if he says its finished) it will be because trump gave too much into. we all know how he loves a dictator. don't be surprised he leaves the meeting with kims gis on his face. AMassiveGay (talk)
- are you fucking dense? the article talks about china saying we should ease up on sanctions on north korea. it talks about china providing aid outside of sanctions or just flat out making a hole in them. it talks about if talks with trump don't pan out, it will give kim 'North Korea to gradually shift from the U.S.-North Korea Plan A to a βnew pathβ Plan B'. no where does say he will have to give nukes and no where does it say china will insist he give nukes. no special instructions. no nothing. you did read the article didn't you? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Duh, the article says Chairman Xi put his stamp of approval for Kim to go ahead with his bromance with Trump, which Trump demands de-denuclearization to happen. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- that all assumes china will just roll over for trump. they haven't yet. as for the article, it doesn't say anything like what you suggest. more like china will providing nrth korea mre support. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- trade mostly. and it doesn't answer exactly what they could do that would rein in kim. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Duh, what do you think is the substance of Trump/Xi talks? nobsI'm all yea'res 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly. East Germany, West Germany, modern Germany and/or Japan are not free to pursue nuclear weapons or its own foreign policy independently of the senior members of the alliance any more than North Korea is. Kim is a CCP puppet who only exists because of the will of the Chinese. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- East germany being an awful tyranical state for years because the outside power that toppled Germany felt like it seemed reason enough to not count it to me. ikanreed πBleat at me 14:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Add Germany to that list too, at least West Germany. β Oxyaena Harass 14:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Freeman on the Land bullshit for all[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zHRQn_IShw
I know the video is entitled "Crazy Feminist Gets Arrested" but this is more along the lines of Freeman on the Land BS. Though it is possible this woman in the video is an ultra-extreme variety of Feminist that does not represent moderate Feminists. This woman uses every Freeman on the Land argument there is. Woman was extremely lucky the cop was not one of the ones who use extreme force. Freeman on the Land is total bullshit --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- You can't fool me, that was posted on Admiralty Law YouTube! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- A case of them being all at sea? Anna Livia (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia Freemen on the Water, and barely treading it. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously a fringe position. Kencolt (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Kencolt I'm flagging that comment as funny. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Will it all come out in the Wash? Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Kencolt I'm flagging that comment as funny. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously a fringe position. Kencolt (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia Freemen on the Water, and barely treading it. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- A case of them being all at sea? Anna Livia (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Earth is a Tetrahedron!!!! Made a video that proves it[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YD25MmksCA&feature=youtu.be
My parody video is made and I intentionally made it with poor quality. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- The spelling mistakes are a nice touch. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually the Earth is a Flexagon. Anna Livia (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe the funniest is still #ResearchDonutEarth CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gene Ray would like to have a talk with you.... β Oxyaena Harass 14:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Social Constructs[edit]
I never understood the use of this concept, and thought that it could just be a social construct itself. I found this picture online, 1, and I can say from experience that I've heard this narrative in arguments online before, e.g. people arguing that the heterosexual family to the left is a social construct, but never arguing the same for the transgender woman, more or less. So what I'm wondering is, how did they come to this conclusion and what do you think counts as a social construct? ཨོཾΰΌΰ½ΰΌΰ½ΰ½²ΰΌΰ½ΰ½ΰΎ¨ΰ½ΊΰΌΰ½§ΰ½±ΰ½΄ΰΎ (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- No one needs to argue that relatively new conceptions of complex things are social constructs, because the "default" reactionary(not as in political alignment) position is rejection as "that's made up", as if what came before wasn't. The conceptualization of "Transgender" is 100% a social construct, though there are things that feed into that construct that do transcend history and culture, and we can demonstrate some degree of biological basis for them. Just as there are components of human behavior that feed into the social construct of "democracy" that are present in all societies throughout history, even if a government built "for, of, and by the people" would be considered a ludicrous concept.
- What "counts" as a social construct is naturally subjective. But the criteria isn't hard: they are beliefs about "how things are" that are, in fact, inconsistent across cultures and subcultures. That's a broad-ass category.
- Social constructs aren't any of the following: fake, imaginary, based on nothing at all, unimportant, or useless. If you use the term synonymously with those words, you'll end up confused and wrong about a lot.
- Currency is a social construct, but it dictates a lot about how we live, and you bet your ass the physical dollars are real. But we've seen societies without it.
- Religions are social constructs. God might be imaginary, but the people preaching about him in the streets aren't.
- The scientific fucking method is a social construct. We all love it, it's based on extremely sound philosophy. But that approach would be meaningless to an ancient Greek philosopher, unless you convinced them of its soundness first, because science isn't a fundamental part of all societies.
- Elections are a social construct. They're important as fuck. But the unwritten(and written) rules about how they work, they're something our cultures has pieced together over centuries.
- Nuclear families living in isolation from extended families and clans are a social construct. A fairly recent one in fact, mostly dating only to the 20th century as a common practice. That doens't mean they're useless. They can be a very effective way to take care of children in a capitalist economy that expects 8 hours of work 5 days a week.
- So the problem isn't with it being a vague concept. It's with you trying to take it as answering the question of "is this real?" rather than "is this a fundamental part of society that can't be changed because of human nature?" ikanreed πBleat at me 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Conceptualization of transgender as 100% a social construct? Hmmmm... Controversial statement, that is, to put it mildly. And vague. Dendlai (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Again, socially constructed is not the same as fake. And it's not as controversial as you seem to think. ikanreed πBleat at me 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question: You seem to be arguing that sticking an erect penis in a wet vagina is a social construct. nobsI'm all yea'res 20:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nobs, please shut the fuck up. ikanreed πBleat at me 20:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Conceptualization of transgender as 100% a social construct? Hmmmm... Controversial statement, that is, to put it mildly. And vague. Dendlai (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever heard any liberal use the phrase "artificial social construct" to describe heterosexual relationships, and a Google search reveals little. Someone did make a stir with some "die cis scum" post back in 2012, but it only circulated on some relatively fringe-y blogs from what I see -- again, I personally have not heard that argument. While there is some social construct to be explored in many things as ikanreed points out, that's a question best explored in sociology terms, and not in response to a rather idiotic straw man fallacy meme. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I think, more generally, the term "social construct" can refer to almost any recognizable pattern in a society, and, as has been said, may well vary from culture to culture. Religions, language, traditions of family, gender practices, etc. It is a term of art for persistent social patterns. If one is involved in a cultural tradition, such as Thanksgiving, or a marriage ceremony, one participates in a social construct. The term is commonly used for patterns that are not biological. "Social construct" is sometimes used to imply a nominal fallacy. Since any persistent characteristic of a society may be called a social construct, it doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know when we recognize X as a social construct. As has been suggested, there may be biological factors influencing constructs. That part of the answer is hard.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- An act of coitus is a natural phenomenon; monogamy traditions (which are the result of public health concerns and spread of STDs), cohabitation laws, issuance of marriage licenses, etc. are social constructs. nobsI'm all yea'res 22:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- The arguments I've had can't be found in a google search (I hope), and since the person I was up against did most of the talking, giving me essay after essay about social constructs and the nuclear family, I didn't bother to read all of it. I'm not entirely sure if s/he thought heterosexual families were SC's, or the nuclear family. Either way, I don't understand the goal of it all. What did the one who conceptualized the idea think they could accomplish with it? ཨོཾΰΌΰ½ΰΌΰ½ΰ½²ΰΌΰ½ΰ½ΰΎ¨ΰ½ΊΰΌΰ½§ΰ½±ΰ½΄ΰΎ (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- The institution of slavery, for example, is a social construct. So are sovereign governments and the judicial system. So is marriage and religion. The Free love movement of the 1960s attempted to "liberate" people from "social constructs'" with Women's Liberation, Gay Liberation, Black Liberation, North Vietnamese liberation of the South, etc. nobsI'm all yea'res 23:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- nobs, pulling through. Social constructs inform morals, morals inform social constructs. It is useful to keep the feedback loop between morality and social constructs open and fluid and transparent in order to keep power working towards progress. But, uhh, the balance don't seem so balanced, by your examples. Mosta this shit was and still is considered unacceptable by the powers structures today because the power wasn't balanced, what 60 years ago? That's not a very long time to say "we tried it, socially, and it failed." Society has not collapsed yet, maybe modern society is more resilient to changes in constructs and morality than some people seem to give it credit for. Is this because we've stuck to our old constructs, or because we've shifted our morality to accept a broader construct?
- We get to define both, that is what social construction implies. Our personal morality may defy social constructions, and that is not good or evil, that's just how it works. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Co-inkidinkly, saw video last night where a woman pointed out that nations and borders are social constructs. So obviously, like slavery and religion, they must be torn down. nobsI'm all yea'res 14:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- @RobSmith The world would be a vastly better place without either nations or borders, and i'm entirely serious here. β Dysk (contribs) 01:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- People have posed to me "what. would you rather have open borders" as an alternative to concentration camps, as if that were the illogical and unreasonable extreme of the two. ikanreed πBleat at me 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes of course, the logical answer is open borders. Not the system we had before 45 started metering and saying a bunch of xenophobic bullshit. There is of course nothing wrong with this logic and I am a very serious thinker -Very Serious Conservative ThinKKKer lulzRipCityLiberal (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, wait, if America only prospers on under-the-table labor while anything south of our border is pressured to stay south of our border, who is this big bad that is going to prosper by ripping the borders right off the map? Surely the factories that have shut down have shut down because exporting labor is the correct fiscal decision, but not because fiscal decisions were made without regard to our morals... Why can't Americans work for half a living wage? Surely there has to be some enormous exploit here. Gates, has to be Bill Gates. GAnon, you think the Zelda prophecies were just made up? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tearing down borders works okay until Attila the Hun and the Golden Horde run roughshod over your vegetable garden patch. Now, facing starvation, then what do you do? nobsI'm all yea'res 04:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, wait, if America only prospers on under-the-table labor while anything south of our border is pressured to stay south of our border, who is this big bad that is going to prosper by ripping the borders right off the map? Surely the factories that have shut down have shut down because exporting labor is the correct fiscal decision, but not because fiscal decisions were made without regard to our morals... Why can't Americans work for half a living wage? Surely there has to be some enormous exploit here. Gates, has to be Bill Gates. GAnon, you think the Zelda prophecies were just made up? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes of course, the logical answer is open borders. Not the system we had before 45 started metering and saying a bunch of xenophobic bullshit. There is of course nothing wrong with this logic and I am a very serious thinker -Very Serious Conservative ThinKKKer lulzRipCityLiberal (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- People have posed to me "what. would you rather have open borders" as an alternative to concentration camps, as if that were the illogical and unreasonable extreme of the two. ikanreed πBleat at me 20:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @RobSmith The world would be a vastly better place without either nations or borders, and i'm entirely serious here. β Dysk (contribs) 01:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Co-inkidinkly, saw video last night where a woman pointed out that nations and borders are social constructs. So obviously, like slavery and religion, they must be torn down. nobsI'm all yea'res 14:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- The institution of slavery, for example, is a social construct. So are sovereign governments and the judicial system. So is marriage and religion. The Free love
- The arguments I've had can't be found in a google search (I hope), and since the person I was up against did most of the talking, giving me essay after essay about social constructs and the nuclear family, I didn't bother to read all of it. I'm not entirely sure if s/he thought heterosexual families were SC's, or the nuclear family. Either way, I don't understand the goal of it all. What did the one who conceptualized the idea think they could accomplish with it? ཨོཾΰΌΰ½ΰΌΰ½ΰ½²ΰΌΰ½ΰ½ΰΎ¨ΰ½ΊΰΌΰ½§ΰ½±ΰ½΄ΰΎ (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(reset)Who, in your glorious example, would be Attila the Hun here? Because fear mongering about "the Horde at the gates" breathtakingly xenophobic and also laughably inaccurate.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You are not the body (which sounds like a HUGE stretch)?[edit]
βThe "inevitable" demise is the illusion itself. There limitation of having only those "options" is the illusion - the notion of "utility" is what is samsara/maya. When the man realizes that he is neither the doer of action, nor the enjoyer of the strawberry, has no volition nor efficacy and that he is the tiger himself as well as the strawberry as well as the man - then he has metaphorically climbed up and killed the tiger. You are right in the sense that it is not an "option" - killing the tiger is the reality, the true reality, beyond the "options." It is scary because it is not meant for the faint hearted, However, on a tangible non spiritual level you are correct, however if after reading this you still believe that you exist as an individual conscious being in between birth and death and have to get "the most you can" out of "life" then I have not done a good job with this, and have failed you. Truth is you don't need the strawberry, never did - and yes you can "win" against the tiger. But don't take my word for it, try it yourself.β
Based on the story linked here about the Tiger and the Strawberry: https://anandbhatt.skyrock.mobi/3289760168-The-Most-Misunderstood-Buddhist-Story-The-Tiger-and-the-Strawberry.html?success=1
Because from all the evidence that I see and know, even if you make the argument that there is no "Self" (IE little man riding around inside the head) it's pretty hard to deny the brain is the result of consciousness and that consciousness is the result of biology.Machina (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's hard just to be, but which bird understands the hurt of the bitter fruit? Who dies at the claw of the tiger and gets back up? Resident nihilist here. The important thing to lose in the "self" in this story is the experience. Cast off the uncertainty of choosing the sweet or bitter fruit, and you'll subsist on good vibes. But you've watched all us taste every bitter fruit by now, obviously, because that's just a story and that's how it goes. And there's still no use in it tasting fruit, that it may be bitter? At your most brilliant moments(royally, I mean every reader and myself), you are a foil unto yourself. Lonely people only say what they want to hear. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here or how this has to do with nihilism. I mean I guess the one below understands the hurt of bitterness while the one above seems to be in their own dream world. What I think is that the true reality they speak of seems more like what they convince themselves is the true reality. His answer about the tiger is nonsense, and to me it sounds like the eternal human obsession with immortality. Most societies have a form of it and if the reason you don't fear death is because you believe you are "immortal" then that's more like running from death than anything else. But again, still don't know what you are getting at there.Machina (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- What I'm getting at is agreeing that people die. I think you understand it, it's honestly not meant to antagonize you. But I'm countering the "abstain from sweet/bitter fruit" argument. If somebody had been that golden bird analogue, and they got attacked by a tiger, they wouldn't be chased so much as just contently mauled. Which is a fine outlook for death. I get my response reads as nonsense, it's a hypothetical story, there's no way to not die by tiger. But just because you're out there refusing to eat fruit when you can doesn't mean there is a prescribed way to die peacefully. Being above the dirt means you'll never roll around in the mud, and in a literal sense, basically every animal loves to roll in mud given the chance. I'm not advocating for psychopathic hedonism, but you can face down a potential tiger or two. It's worth it to see what kind of human you really are in the face of a tiger. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- The way I look at it is that if I wanted to be like the golden bird I would commit suicide. To me the pain, suffering, agony, joy, love, etc is all glorious. I mean when I got into a car accident I was happy, because I didn't know what it felt like and now I did. I remember as a kid I used to be like the golden bird and hated it. I felt nothing and wasn't moved by what other people were, and I wanted in on their stuff. I know heartache, sadness (I was both sad and happy when my dog died), fear, to me that is really living. If I wanted eternal peace I'd die.Machina (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- What I'm getting at is agreeing that people die. I think you understand it, it's honestly not meant to antagonize you. But I'm countering the "abstain from sweet/bitter fruit" argument. If somebody had been that golden bird analogue, and they got attacked by a tiger, they wouldn't be chased so much as just contently mauled. Which is a fine outlook for death. I get my response reads as nonsense, it's a hypothetical story, there's no way to not die by tiger. But just because you're out there refusing to eat fruit when you can doesn't mean there is a prescribed way to die peacefully. Being above the dirt means you'll never roll around in the mud, and in a literal sense, basically every animal loves to roll in mud given the chance. I'm not advocating for psychopathic hedonism, but you can face down a potential tiger or two. It's worth it to see what kind of human you really are in the face of a tiger. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here or how this has to do with nihilism. I mean I guess the one below understands the hurt of bitterness while the one above seems to be in their own dream world. What I think is that the true reality they speak of seems more like what they convince themselves is the true reality. His answer about the tiger is nonsense, and to me it sounds like the eternal human obsession with immortality. Most societies have a form of it and if the reason you don't fear death is because you believe you are "immortal" then that's more like running from death than anything else. But again, still don't know what you are getting at there.Machina (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Machina, why does every post you make sound like the fever dreams of someone high on acid? β Oxyaena Harass 08:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's Eastern philosophy, take it up with them.Machina (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- βThe "inevitable" demise is the illusion itself." I thought this thread was about the Mueller Report. nobsI'm all yea'res 23:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's Eastern philosophy, take it up with them.Machina (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Machina, I don't think you really understand the culture these beliefs come from, and unless you intend to make a proper long term study of this philosophy, you will just do your head in trying (assuming you haven't already). The fact you present a "self" as a "little man riding around inside the head" is not promising either. β Dysk (contribs) 02:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do, but the beliefs seem rooted in personal experience which people back then took to be some kind of insight or truth but today we know it's just the brain making it happen, nothing mystical. AS for the "self" there isn't anything hard on that, and trusting people hundreds of years ago who didn't know what we did today seems iffy.Machina (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
What if...[edit]
...Elon Musk would run for US presidency in 2020 and win. Would this be good or bad (I've seen some controversy about this guy, so.)? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The guy who keeps shooting his mouth off on social media and getting into hot water because of it? uh... no thanks. Let him stick to inventing stuff (which, apart from that weird train thing, he's pretty good at). Avida Dollarsher again 12:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- A bad thing. Almost any of these Silicon Valley types in the White House would be a very bad thing. We already know how businessmen tend not to do well in office, but IIRC Silicon Valley CEOs are, for some reason, particularly childish. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Simple solution - create a Virtual White House and Silicon Valley Tech Place. Anna Livia (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Better solution: Fling them into the sun. β Oxyaena Harass 05:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- What has the sun done to deserve that? Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Our article on The Sun should clear that up. ikanreed πBleat at me 16:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- What has the sun done to deserve that? Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Better solution: Fling them into the sun. β Oxyaena Harass 05:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Simple solution - create a Virtual White House and Silicon Valley Tech Place. Anna Livia (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- A bad thing. Almost any of these Silicon Valley types in the White House would be a very bad thing. We already know how businessmen tend not to do well in office, but IIRC Silicon Valley CEOs are, for some reason, particularly childish. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The guy who falsely reported a safety whistleblower at a factory to the FBI as planning a mass shooting? That Elon Musk? ikanreed πBleat at me 13:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I guess that would be the same Elton Musk who falsely and repeatedly called a cave diver a pedophile (after he rejected Musk's crazy idea to use a mini submarine to rescue some kinks) and who is now going to answer for that it court?Hubert (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- What not the Elongated Muskrat that committed blatant securities fraud multiple times? [1] :) β Dysk (contribs) 16:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Watching that happen in real time was weird. I saw the tweet and was like "I, a dumbass, can immediately recognize that '420 joke' is clearly making false or inaccurate statements to sell stock, how did some accountant not call him and say 'delete this now'" ikanreed πBleat at me 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- What not the Elongated Muskrat that committed blatant securities fraud multiple times? [1] :) β Dysk (contribs) 16:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I guess that would be the same Elton Musk who falsely and repeatedly called a cave diver a pedophile (after he rejected Musk's crazy idea to use a mini submarine to rescue some kinks) and who is now going to answer for that it court?Hubert (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Conservapedia Follies Part II: The Illuminati[edit]
https://www.conservapedia.com/Illuminati
Pretty short and NOT written by Nobsie. CP doesn't seem to believe in The Imaginatti
I do have a feeling that there's something missing and that some things aren't correct, like Washington being a Freemason (correct me if I'm wrong) and that Weishaupt formed the Illuminati to oppose Jews... Tinribmancer (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- George Washington was indeed a Freemason, to the extent that the Masons built him their own monument. Smerdis of TlΓΆn, wekΚ·Εm teαΈ±s. 16:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Conservapedia is not too strongly conspiracist from what I've seen, but deep state and Clinton body count are two conspiracies that they do subscribe to, perhaps out of ideological necessity. Both were heavily edited by Nobs. Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I know sweet FA about Conservapedia, but I suspect that stories about secret groups using money to pull the strings behind the scenes don't swing their way. Smerdis of TlΓΆn, wekΚ·Εm teαΈ±s. 13:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just had a quick look. Their global warming article is sort of conspiracy orientated, vaccination is along the same lines. They are against flat earth and for the moon landing though. Somewhat surprisingly their "young earth" article - while short - does not come down in favour of a young earth. (Perhaps I need to look a bit deeper to find the really crazy.)
- So while it's obviously bad, it's not quite as terrible as I would have expected. So well done Conservapedia for only managing to be very bad as opposed to utterly awful.Hubert (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Illuminati as a conspiracy was all about 'rich people pulling strings and running the world', as is anti-Semitism as a conspiracy theory. None of these really break the way I'd imagine Conservapedia would want them to. Smerdis of TlΓΆn, wekΚ·Εm teαΈ±s. 17:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe that's cause you're a bigot. If you'd judge people by the content of their character rather than the hallucinations in your mind, you'd have a clearer picture. nobsI'm all yea'res 04:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe you should enlighten us with your wisdom, nobsie. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- @RobSmith I have always interpreted "deep state" as the clockwork-like persistence of entities of government to follow precedents and proscriptions of the constitution. I have noticed that Men like Putin, Erdogan and Trump like to use this term. They seem somewhat alike don't you think?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- You should read my cp:Civil service system article as a primer on the more controversial topic of deep state. nobsI'm all yea'res 01:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe that's cause you're a bigot. If you'd judge people by the content of their character rather than the hallucinations in your mind, you'd have a clearer picture. nobsI'm all yea'res 04:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Illuminati as a conspiracy was all about 'rich people pulling strings and running the world', as is anti-Semitism as a conspiracy theory. None of these really break the way I'd imagine Conservapedia would want them to. Smerdis of TlΓΆn, wekΚ·Εm teαΈ±s. 17:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I know sweet FA about Conservapedia, but I suspect that stories about secret groups using money to pull the strings behind the scenes don't swing their way. Smerdis of TlΓΆn, wekΚ·Εm teαΈ±s. 13:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Conservapedia is not too strongly conspiracist from what I've seen, but deep state and Clinton body count are two conspiracies that they do subscribe to, perhaps out of ideological necessity. Both were heavily edited by Nobs. Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
What will it take for climate change deniers to understand that the climate is steadily going haywire?[edit]
Hurricanes in Alaska? The Midwestern United States becoming a desert? How about growing oranges in Scotland?
Alright, it would take a while for that to happen. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing will. So long as there is a cold day, rain, or snow somewhere on earth, they'll say its clearly not happening. Revolverman (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Midwest will become a swamp, we're not in danger of becoming a desert. β Oxyaena Harass 20:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Becoming a swamp isn't a bad thing... --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 00:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- What will it take? Slave reparations.That will reduce carbon emissions. It's a scientific fact. nobsI'm all yea'res 00:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- And what does slavery have to do with climate change? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing at all, that's just more of nobs' bullshit. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- My bullshit? It was 84 House Democrats and 11 Senators that claim slave reparations, a guaranteed income, and Medicare for All will save the planet from the climate crisis. And you dare question the science behind it? nobsI'm all yea'res 03:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can you bring up a cite not from some right-wing stooge for once? β Oxyaena Harass 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- (whistle) Yellow card! Red herring! Bonus penalty for linking to Yahoo Answers (really)! Double bonus penalty for evoking a variant of Gore's Law (the variant being an attack on completely unrelated liberal policy in general). The climate don't give a shit about what right-wing blowhards says. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- It ain't right wing blowhards; it's 94 sponsors of H.Res. 109 and 12 sponsors of S.Res.59, to wit:
- It ain't right wing blowhards; it's 94 sponsors of H.Res. 109 and 12 sponsors of S.Res.59, to wit:
- (whistle) Yellow card! Red herring! Bonus penalty for linking to Yahoo Answers (really)! Double bonus penalty for evoking a variant of Gore's Law (the variant being an attack on completely unrelated liberal policy in general). The climate don't give a shit about what right-wing blowhards says. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can you bring up a cite not from some right-wing stooge for once? β Oxyaena Harass 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- My bullshit? It was 84 House Democrats and 11 Senators that claim slave reparations, a guaranteed income, and Medicare for All will save the planet from the climate crisis. And you dare question the science behind it? nobsI'm all yea'res 03:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing at all, that's just more of nobs' bullshit. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- And what does slavery have to do with climate change? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- What will it take? Slave reparations.That will reduce carbon emissions. It's a scientific fact. nobsI'm all yea'res 00:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Becoming a swamp isn't a bad thing... --It's-a me,
- The Midwest will become a swamp, we're not in danger of becoming a desert. β Oxyaena Harass 20:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- (1) human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century;
- (2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;
- (3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will causeβ
- (A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
- Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as βsystemic injusticesβ) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as βfrontline and vulnerable communitiesβ);
- Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United Statesβ
- Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives thatβ
- (1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Dealβ
- (E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as βfrontline and vulnerable communitiesβ);
- (O) providing all people of the United States withβ
- (i) high-quality health care;
- (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
- (iii) economic security;
- Show me the science that proves "by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities" will prevent or reduce "a changing climate causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure; and global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels"? nobsI'm all yea'res 19:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Man, it's almost like it's got both economic and environmental goals. ikanreed πBleat at me 20:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Seems to me, a guaranteed income, reparations, and Medicare for All would increase consumption of resources. How would that reduce rising temperatures and carbon emissions? nobsI'm all yea'res 20:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Consuming "more resources" doesn't matter as much if you're spending a fuck ton of national effort on generating renewable energy so those resources don't represent carbon emissions, but sunlight. It's called a green "new deal" because the idea is we can make the actual work of converting to a more modern, less suicidal economy into something that benefits the working people, not the rich. It's called a "green" new deal because we're not just gonna keep doing what we're doing in terms of resource sourcing. Call it watermelon politics if you want, it's not an unreasonable overarching policy goal. Implementation is easy to screw up.
- It's a fundamental problem you've got nobs, you can't imagine but zero sum games, which leads to hating the poor due to the entirely hypothetical risk they pose to "taking" what's yours.
- Right now, today, we as a society are building new coal and nat-gas fueled power plants, and that's gotta change. And changing it doesn't have to be done in a way where we pay wealthy middlemen to do the work. It requires a very different style of government from what we've been doing for decades now, but that's why people like AOC. ikanreed πBleat at me 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bla bla bla. $1,000 a month from Andrew Yang ain't gonna qualify you for financing on $50,000+ electric car. (b) You can't do the conversion in 10 years. (c) a carbon tax to eliminate gas vehicles by 2040 sparked 9 months of riots in France among the "working poor" you allegedly wanna help, which haven't subsided yet. (d) What makes you think I hate the poor? Get fucked with your Marxist crap. (e) How does Medicare for All reduce the construction of coal and natural gas plants? How will you power facilities for an additional 30,000,000 healthcare clients. let alone educate doctors and healthcare professionals to handle the case load? nobsI'm all yea'res 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Seems to me, a guaranteed income, reparations, and Medicare for All would increase consumption of resources. How would that reduce rising temperatures and carbon emissions? nobsI'm all yea'res 20:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Man, it's almost like it's got both economic and environmental goals. ikanreed πBleat at me 20:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Show me the science that proves "by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities" will prevent or reduce "a changing climate causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure; and global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels"? nobsI'm all yea'res 19:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Even if you give them $1,000 a month as UBI or slave reparations, it'll all end up in the hands of Big Pharma and the Mexican Mafia, where's it's all going now, onlymore. This global warming hoax is complete bullshit, and the "science" behind the Green New Deal proves it. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that, for some changes, what you really need is a new generation for the paradigm change to hit. (The classic example is tectonic plate theory - people who had dedicated their lives to a belief in land bridges never really gave up the idea, they just died.)
So the answer is really "Nothing will convince them, they are too invested in denying it."
Unfortunately we don't really have the time to just let them die off before we actually start doing something. Hubert (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Even if the Antarctic turns into a tropical beach, denialists can still blame sunspots, or cosmic rays, or "natural variation", or God. But I think we've reached the stage where most people accept anthropogenic climate change, but they don't see reversing it to be feasible (or they don't think it's worth losing their job, house, and car to avoid a comparatively uncertain outcome), so they may as well try and ignore it. --Annanoon (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- So what. You still can get nuked in a minute. Get your priorities in life straight. nobsI'm all yea'res 14:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- "We shouldn't act as moral agents because we'll die anyway." Interesting ethical system. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Pretty sure the odds of getting nuked is negligible compared to climate change catastrophes. Actually, environment-wise, nuking human civilization may be granting nature a favor, cough biodiversity around the exclusion zone cough. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Considering the severe heat in
mother fuckingAlaska, that should be a clue that the climate is going haywire. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)- the odds of getting nuked is negligible compared to climate change catastrophes
- Bullshit. I ain't paying anymore nuclear blackmail money to China, North Korea, and Iran. nobsI'm all yea'res 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Considering the severe heat in
- Pretty sure the odds of getting nuked is negligible compared to climate change catastrophes. Actually, environment-wise, nuking human civilization may be granting nature a favor, cough biodiversity around the exclusion zone cough. --It's-a me,
- "We shouldn't act as moral agents because we'll die anyway." Interesting ethical system. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- So what. You still can get nuked in a minute. Get your priorities in life straight. nobsI'm all yea'res 14:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- While I share your overall concern, hurricanes in Alaska are unlikely for reasons unrelated to temperature. The Coriolis effect is a rather dominant force in creating the characteristic(and necessary for stability) shape of hurricanes. I haven't done that math, but I think if you started hitting arctic latitudes the relative acceleration of north side and south side would be a fraction of what was needed to maintain the clear eye that drives hurricane intensity.
- Oh fuck it, I'll do that math. The relative acceleration of the top of a hurricane vs the bottom in the northern edge of "hit zones" is in the range of 2 kilometers per hour, per hour. In Alaska, it'd be about a half of a kilometer per hour per hour, meaning the relative energy needed to maintain the storm is in the neighborhood of 4x. That's a lot of heat energy to stick in the ocean, even with global warming. For context Super irregular Sandy was still 1.5/hourΒ² ikanreed πBleat at me 16:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
is archiver down?[edit]
i can run it if needed oΚΙΚoΤΚΙΟ½Κzznβ² (talk/stalk) 01:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato It is down, and please do so. β Oxyaena Harass 01:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's permanently borked since Kazitor
went nutsleft so yes that would be awesome. β Dysk (contribs) 01:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's permanently borked since Kazitor
rmf 2019 elections[edit]
judging by 2017 and 2016, we're supposed to have rmf elections late july-early august. (we forgot in 2018.) people up for election would usually be @Human and @Spud, but @Bob M recused himself from the board.
why do I care? i wanna run b/c ratwiki still needs a proper bank account and still needs form 1023 for 501c3.
is it election time? Herr FΓΌzzyCΓ€tPΓΆtΓ€tΓΆ (talk/stalk) 01:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds about right. I will organize it shortly. β Dysk (contribs) 01:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @FuzzyCatPotato Ok it's happening, see RationalWiki:2019 board of trustees election. I will probably put a sitenotice up for the last week of nominations, but everyone is welcome to get started immediately. β Dysk (contribs) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Clearer Picture on the "You are the universe" bit I was about[edit]
Soooooo it does seem like it's based on this idea of some kind of super organism:
What it means?
Atoms are not discrete balls floating in space. They are more point-like excitations of a field. (Think of standing waves in a body of water.)
There are no discrete things or objects of solid substance; things as we perceive them are merely changing forms and patterns in nature (the universe) as a whole. You are not a small and lonely being lost in a foreign universe; you are a direct expression of the whole of the universe as it currently is; you (as everything else) is a brief movement in the dance of nature. You do not exist independent of the perceived outside; outside and inside are two sides of the same coin.
The seed is no different from the tree. They are the same thing viewed from different perspectives in time. Birth and death are really no different; waking life is really no different from dreamless sleep.
The nature of the human perspective is experience. This is why we say that we are the universe experiencing itself: A dark cloud is the universe clouding itself; the sun is the universe lighting itself; the rotating planet is the universe spinning itself.
The ocean waves; the planet rotates; the sun shines; the heart beats; the stomach digests; the brain thinks; the body acts. These events are no different in nature. The thinker of thoughts is the waver of oceans, not a little man behind the eyes of the body; the waver of the ocean is spontaneous, as is the thinker of thoughts. Nature is not being moved; nature flows without direction; nature is not concerened with tomorrow, for it is dancing today.
Look at a tree, see how it moves in the wind.
Notice your thoughts arising, even the thought "I am thinking."
Notice that the movement of the tree and the movement of thought are two expressions of the same thing.
Stop labeling the tree and yourself; notice that all separation is a consequence of the labeling process; allow all boundaries to dissolve.
Feel the swaying of the tree as much as you feel the arising thoughts and the other bodily sensations.
Feel intuitively that what you refer to as I is a form in the universe experiencing itself.
The reddit page has similar replies: https://www.reddit.com/r/StonerPhilosophy/comments/2n1qn3/a_question_about_universe_experiencing_itself/
Granted I don't know much about physics or quantum physics thereof so can anyone clarify this for me?Machina (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is pseudo-spiritualism, commonly dreamed up while high on drugs hence why it's on r/StonerPhilosophy. :D β Dysk (contribs) 02:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can you explain why, because the science behind it seems pretty sound to me:
If you understand this and it is not significant, than you have known it for a while now.
I think the aha moments mostly come from people raised to believe in predestination or our bodies being a "temple" kind of thinking. It can often be rather disturbing to those who haven't before thought about the meaning, or lack there of, of sentient life among a universe filled with inanimate matter.
For me it was looking into my friends eyes and realizing that there really isn't that big of a separation between me and him at the atomic level, we are just atoms rearranged to move through space unpredictably, and at our most deconstructed for we are no more than the minerals in the earth.
The shock comes from (for me) the realization that everything you have ever experienced, everything everyone has experienced, all the pain, anguish, love, and efforts we put into our lives is done and experienced by nothing more than a unique collections of particles, nothing more. It can bring about a certain fear, carelessness or comfort to one's live when you understand that all human emotion is but a complex electric signal communication network between cells and that all conscious observers are really all the same being that split into two cells at the beginning of life. We share one consciousness with all other life forms. There is no self. The individual is an illusion. Death of the ego.
— Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs
- What part of this nihilistic view on a universal hive mind is supported by science again? β Dysk (contribs) 03:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- The part about atoms not being discrete and solid units.Machina (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Dysklyver I remember talking with a psychology grad student who was doing work on correlation between prolonged hallucinogen use and propensity to belive in flat earth. I don't know if there was anything published on it. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm more looking for a response about the atoms bit.Machina (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think theoretically yes, but there is so much being taken from that it's hard to tell. An I am not an expert on atomic physics. β Dysk (contribs) 11:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is kinda sorta close to the quantum physics atom and standing waves has been used as an analogy for atomic orbit. The next sentence ("no discrete things or objects of solid substance") isn't really a conclusion I'd derive from that, as it takes an awful lot of energy to change from one atom to another. The rest of that Desiderataish stuff makes me want to reach for my New Age wall of keyboards for proper accompaniment. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think theoretically yes, but there is so much being taken from that it's hard to tell. An I am not an expert on atomic physics. β Dysk (contribs) 11:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm more looking for a response about the atoms bit.Machina (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Iβm not entirely sure what that means, but I knew that atoms where made of smaller particles.Machina (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's important to understand how an atom actually works if you want to be concerned about how parts aren't actually "touching". A bunch of forces mediating the positions and energy levels of probability waves that never actually occupy space in the traditional sense. Everything is held in place by quite literal force fields. ikanreed πBleat at me 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- So how does that apply to the above about being the universe?Machina (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know, I think I imagined the part I replied to. Weird. ikanreed πBleat at me 15:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- So how does that apply to the above about being the universe?Machina (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Attention Ratwikians[edit]
Y'all collectively invited to stick yourselves and your mates on the nomination page of the 2019 RationalMedia Foundation election. Have fun. :) β Dysk (contribs) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Vote for me and get a free Triceratops! (while stocks last) Avida Dollarsher again 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- If I am nominated again I will run on a platform of figuring out how to set up a mobile version of the site. I will not however, nominate myself. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 19:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie We already have the mobile version planned since I outlined the deployment in February, it just takes time to get it actually installed, although Tim Starling will be doing that soon now. It is frustrating it takes so long for sure though. β Dysk (contribs) 19:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Dysklyver I see. In that case I have no platform, and thus no reason to run if nominated. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 19:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well I nominated you, so you can stop saying if. =-) 71.3.195.138 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Of course I would say "if". There was no guarantee of me being nominated (though the odds were high that someone would nominate me, probably because of how active I tend to be.) I honestly don't know what other reason people have for nominating me, given that I had no platform and have expressed little desire to run. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- If elected, I promise to write to Andrew Yang and ask for $1,000 a month for each and every Ratwikians. nobsI'm all yea'res 21:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Of course I would say "if". There was no guarantee of me being nominated (though the odds were high that someone would nominate me, probably because of how active I tend to be.) I honestly don't know what other reason people have for nominating me, given that I had no platform and have expressed little desire to run. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well I nominated you, so you can stop saying if. =-) 71.3.195.138 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Dysklyver I see. In that case I have no platform, and thus no reason to run if nominated. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 19:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie We already have the mobile version planned since I outlined the deployment in February, it just takes time to get it actually installed, although Tim Starling will be doing that soon now. It is frustrating it takes so long for sure though. β Dysk (contribs) 19:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- If I am nominated again I will run on a platform of figuring out how to set up a mobile version of the site. I will not however, nominate myself. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 19:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Who's the BoN that nominated both Nobs & Mona? Also, Mona being a "Sensible Liberal Woman"? She's a Conspiracy nut that believes that the zionists are out to take over the world. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- A troll probably, but since they followed the correct procedure it's allowed so meh. Bongolian dealt with Mona and PB3 already. β Dysk (contribs) 15:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
If intelligent aliens landed on Earth, creationists would be hard pressed to explain it away[edit]
Like life on Earth, alien life would have to obey the laws of physics which disprove creationism. Now, that life would have had to evolve and take the time to engineer technology to travel millions of light years. Unless they claimed some sort of Anti-Christ thing, they would have no other explanation. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- There are already a vast number of facts available here on the earth which easily disprove creationism. If creationists are able to double-think their way around them I'm not sure that an alien visitation would make a lot of difference.Hubert (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, come on! Creationists wouldn't accept that life would have had to have evolved on another planet. They'd just believe that it had been created there. Most would believe it had been created by God and some probably would believe it had been created by the Devil. Then, much like when the Europeans first met the peoples of the Americas, the question would be did the aliens have souls and could they be saved by teaching them the Gospels. I know theologians have already wondered whether Jesus was just the Saviour of the Earth or the Saviour of the Universe and if he would have had to have died over and over again on different planets in order to save the souls of their inhabitants. Spud (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- The creationists I knew (Seventh Day Adventists) were perfectly fine with the idea of life on other planets, and even thought that a particular biblical verse implied it. Avida Dollarsher again 11:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- My casual examination of Christian history suggests that insular culture-centric visions of christianity that rejected the humanity and salvation of "savages" quickly adapted versions that were inclusive because minds are actually fairly flexible and dogma isn't forever. I don't see why "Jesus died for your species too" wouldn't immediately arise, though probably simultaneously contrasted with versions that claimed that aliens have no soul. ikanreed πBleat at me 15:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's always the possibility God gave these aliens their own Jesuses as well. β Oxyaena Harass 16:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- So that was what God was discussing with his sons in the Book of Job. What about the daughters and 'entities of all other genders'?
- Where does this fit into the discussion? Anna Livia (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- If God in his sovereign power chose to create intelligent space aliens (in your idiom) I doubt Creationists would object or deny God's right to do so. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- On the other hand, what if ETs landed on earth and confirmed Genesis as being for realz and said that atheists are stupid? 2607:FB90:6A57:FD63:0:7:C1A9:4901 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- If extraterrestrial aliens landed on earth, Creationists would shout Hallelujah and cite it as proof that God exists. What other explanation could there be? nobsI'm all yea'res 22:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- If genesis was literally correct then aliens would not exist. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 22:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- What part of the bible says that God never created life on any othe planets? 2607:FB90:6A57:FD63:0:7:C1A9:4901 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. That's not how this works. Cite the Bible version, chapter(s), and verse(s) that support your claim. You made it, you back it. Don't even try to shift the burden of proof to me. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 22:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I almost forgot! Since you specifically used Genesis, you are also restricted exclusively to that book. Have fun! βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 01:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Another thing, I read the Book of Genesis myself and it strictly mentions the Heavens and the Earth. That would be a major challenge. Good luck dude. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just Google the phrase "Thou knowest not" and you'll find a treasure trove of answers. For example, Jeremiah 33:3 says Call upon God, and he'll show you space aliens. Or John 13:7, Jesus says he was working on space aliens just then. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- @RobSmith I get the impression from the tone of your last reply that you might view this whole thing humorously. In case you do not, only quotes from Genesis count (Since that was part of the original claim), though you are free to use any version of the Bible that you prefer. PS: I've already beaten all the apologists to the punch, but I will not disclose my answer to the claim until the BoN reveals theirs. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh Jezuz. Let's begin with "God created the heaven(s)" plural. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Heavens", a common poetic rendering of "the sky". Example, "the heavens are beautiful tonight, are they not?" βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 03:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- If we're going to be pedantic, it's the dual case in Ancient Hebrew, not plural. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's all relative.; God is deliberately ambiguous at times cause he knows people are stupid in their pride. Now, where Ikanreed says, "I don't see why "Jesus died for your species too" wouldn't immediately arise" is a more interesting point. We know God created man in his image, so why he created space aliens is anybodies guess. Are we suppose treat them with the same good grace and common courtesy that, say Antifa, treats a fellow human being with a MAGA hat? nobsI'm all yea'res 04:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- In theory, loving thy neighbor is the second most important commandment in Christianity, but we know how things go in practice. On the one hand, Bible woo and alien woo go hand in hand on the History Channel, showing that pseudomystical spiritual babble can appear in many forms and be perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, many human societies seem to have a fair bit of difficulty dealing with foreign humans, let alone presumably a completely different species. I presume that whatever side is taken, fundies will quote mine the Bible to support their opinion as usual.Soundwave106 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "God is deliberately ambiguous at times cause he knows people are stupid in their pride" So are you going to cite the version, chapter, and verse? Or are you going to hide behind "interpretation" and semantics? We know God created man in his image No, we do not. We have no more evidence of that than we have for the events described in the pages of a thousand and one nights. Or the epic of Gilgamesh, or the tales of Monkey, or the events depicted within the Silmarillon, or even the creation story recounted in Butcher Bird. All of these have equal merit, as they are all works of fiction. But that wasn't the claim. The claim was that belief in a biblically literal account of Genesis is compatible with belief in extraterrestrial life. "Are we suppose treat them with the same good grace and common courtesy that, say Antifa, treats a fellow human being with a MAGA hat?" Red herring, not relevant. Cite chapter(s), verse(s), and bible version. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 12:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- This whole debate with Nobs just serves to prove the point. There is absolutely no way that seeing aliens land would persuade dyed-in-the-wool creationists that anything has changed. They did not arrive at the conclusions they hold through logic and evidence. (They were just put there by their parents.) As they did not arrive to these beliefs through logic and evidence it is highly unlikely that logic and evidence (even the most extreme evidence) will cause them to give up these beliefs.Hubert (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Without being denigrating or offensive, let me say, the last two comments do more to betray the posters own shortsightedness and bias than to indict the Christian faithful or Creationists. As to pride, you have to look to what God says on the subject in its entirety (you can begin with Prov. 6:7 or Gen. 3:6; Isa 2:11 ties into what I'm about to say also).
- I'm going to preach on Isaiah chapter 2, but let's focus on verse 8 (the globalist United Nations uses Isaiah 2:4 on their headquarters, and verse 6 speaks of population replacement). Verse 8: "They worship the work of their hands (the first half of the verse, "their land is full of idols" speaks of pride, i.e. replacing God with an idol = a manifestation of pride). They worship the work of their hands. This refers to a owning a BMW. It also refers to the Hubble Space Telescope. And the microchip. It refers to funding an economic stimulus program, slave reparations, and Andrew Yang's promise of $1,000 a month. It refers to Kim jong-un and North Korea's nuclear program. It refers to Huwai and Chinese tariffs. (It refers to healthcare as a human right, but let's not digress right now).
- Back on point. Obviously, space aliens would not be "the work of their own hands. This is simple logic. While I'm a grateful my parents steered me in a certain direction, I didn't learn these details from them. I did learn to study, absorb, digest, and analyze subject material moreless on my own, with their encouragement. I'm grateful to God for revealing, and even inspiring me with what he has revealed to me. Why he did it, I haven't a clue. And I do know it wasn't to feed my own personal vanity and pride. nobsI'm all yea'res 15:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- And we see more of the same. We talk about logic and evidence and the fundie Christian quotes their favourite multiple-interpretation work of fiction. I'm not saying that none of them can be moved by evidence, but it's clear that it's really really difficult for them.Hubert (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "...what if ETs landed on earth and confirmed Genesis as being for realz..." Rob, you have one last chance. Where in Genesis, is the quoted assertion supported. Chapter(s), verse(s), and you are allowed to use whichever version of the bible you think proves the claim. All of your previous comment is off topic conspiracy mongering meant to divert from the initial claim. If you wish to step up to back the BoN's assertion, fine, do so. But I will hold your toes so close to the fire they're scorched off if it means getting a straight answer out of you. This isn't hard. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 15:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- This whole debate with Nobs just serves to prove the point. There is absolutely no way that seeing aliens land would persuade dyed-in-the-wool creationists that anything has changed. They did not arrive at the conclusions they hold through logic and evidence. (They were just put there by their parents.) As they did not arrive to these beliefs through logic and evidence it is highly unlikely that logic and evidence (even the most extreme evidence) will cause them to give up these beliefs.Hubert (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "God is deliberately ambiguous at times cause he knows people are stupid in their pride" So are you going to cite the version, chapter, and verse? Or are you going to hide behind "interpretation" and semantics? We know God created man in his image No, we do not. We have no more evidence of that than we have for the events described in the pages of a thousand and one nights. Or the epic of Gilgamesh, or the tales of Monkey, or the events depicted within the Silmarillon, or even the creation story recounted in Butcher Bird. All of these have equal merit, as they are all works of fiction. But that wasn't the claim. The claim was that belief in a biblically literal account of Genesis is compatible with belief in extraterrestrial life. "Are we suppose treat them with the same good grace and common courtesy that, say Antifa, treats a fellow human being with a MAGA hat?" Red herring, not relevant. Cite chapter(s), verse(s), and bible version. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 12:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- In theory, loving thy neighbor is the second most important commandment in Christianity, but we know how things go in practice. On the one hand, Bible woo and alien woo go hand in hand on the History Channel, showing that pseudomystical spiritual babble can appear in many forms and be perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, many human societies seem to have a fair bit of difficulty dealing with foreign humans, let alone presumably a completely different species. I presume that whatever side is taken, fundies will quote mine the Bible to support their opinion as usual.Soundwave106 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's all relative.; God is deliberately ambiguous at times cause he knows people are stupid in their pride. Now, where Ikanreed says, "I don't see why "Jesus died for your species too" wouldn't immediately arise" is a more interesting point. We know God created man in his image, so why he created space aliens is anybodies guess. Are we suppose treat them with the same good grace and common courtesy that, say Antifa, treats a fellow human being with a MAGA hat? nobsI'm all yea'res 04:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- If we're going to be pedantic, it's the dual case in Ancient Hebrew, not plural. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Heavens", a common poetic rendering of "the sky". Example, "the heavens are beautiful tonight, are they not?" βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 03:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh Jezuz. Let's begin with "God created the heaven(s)" plural. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- @RobSmith I get the impression from the tone of your last reply that you might view this whole thing humorously. In case you do not, only quotes from Genesis count (Since that was part of the original claim), though you are free to use any version of the Bible that you prefer. PS: I've already beaten all the apologists to the punch, but I will not disclose my answer to the claim until the BoN reveals theirs. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just Google the phrase "Thou knowest not" and you'll find a treasure trove of answers. For example, Jeremiah 33:3 says Call upon God, and he'll show you space aliens. Or John 13:7, Jesus says he was working on space aliens just then. nobsI'm all yea'res 03:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Another thing, I read the Book of Genesis myself and it strictly mentions the Heavens and the Earth. That would be a major challenge. Good luck dude. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I almost forgot! Since you specifically used Genesis, you are also restricted exclusively to that book. Have fun! βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 01:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. That's not how this works. Cite the Bible version, chapter(s), and verse(s) that support your claim. You made it, you back it. Don't even try to shift the burden of proof to me. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 22:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- What part of the bible says that God never created life on any othe planets? 2607:FB90:6A57:FD63:0:7:C1A9:4901 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- If genesis was literally correct then aliens would not exist. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 22:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- If extraterrestrial aliens landed on earth, Creationists would shout Hallelujah and cite it as proof that God exists. What other explanation could there be? nobsI'm all yea'res 22:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Nice try. But no ever said, AFAIK, that space aliens don't exist. Genesis says God created all things. Logic makes an assumption that the probability of space aliens is remote. A hypothetical assumption about a remote estimation is hardly proof Creationism or God is bunk. In fact, it's a pretty lame argument the BoN makes for a weak premise to bolster your own biases. nobsI'm all yea'res 15:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The point is more BoN made a shit argument, no less a fundie authority than Billy Graham says the Bible has nothing to say about aliens. Nothing for, nothing against. Just nothing. It's pretty simple. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ding ding ding!! And @Soundwave106 wins the prize! You have won a shiny new goat! (though if one wanted to be technical and more than a little intellectually dishonest, one could point out that since God does not originate on Terra Firma, he is a de facto extraterrestrial. Though again, this argument requires more than a smidge of of intellectual dishonesty since it relies on a Motte and bailey style structure.) βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 15:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking of dishonest argumentation, you seem to demand at once that the devout consolidate biblical literalism with space aliens while also dismissing from the getgo God (and probably all heavenly beings mentioned in the Bible) being labeled an alien as dishonest. If you want religious texts to be analyzed in accordance with naturalism, how would God not be an extraordinary sort of immortal alien lifeform which creates order within the shapeless void by e.g. generating a universe-ranging morphic field? As to the original question, it's obvious that visiting space aliens would be considered either angels or demons. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The intuitive naturalistic perspective on god is "not present" as there are no natural forces and phenomena attributable thereto. ikanreed πBleat at me 19:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're misframing the question. Theists and atheists generally agree on the laws of nature deriving from a centralized absolute (God creating order vs a Big Bang from quantum fluctuations). The disagreeance is the properties and uniqueness ascribed to this centralized absolute. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for your unnecessary elaboration on the laws of physics, then. I'll file it next to "the speed of light is limited by little tiny quark sized police cars" ikanreed πBleat at me 19:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm saying the nature of the difference in perspective you treat as so minimal, in a philosophical sense, is a really profound abuse of science, and really quite unreasonable, at its core. ikanreed πBleat at me 19:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have actually made no claim that the difference between the ways these centralized absolutes are thought about is minimal, as opposed to light years apart. But the focus on whether God 'exists/is present' detracts from discussing and comparing the relevant ascribed qualities in favour of both sides affirming their own positions within their own frameworks. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "God" is an unessary addition to physics, one added by theists so they can feel like their favorite book is still relevant in a modern world that has made it obsolete. I can get just as much wisdom, if not more, from those other books I reeled off earlier, without having to believe them to be true accounts. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 20:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- See? People don't even try to hide it's about affirming "my modern framework is correct" vs "my traditional framework is correct". Meanwhile, nothing of substance is actually discussed. Sigh. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Nothing of substance is discussed, just the pointless underlying epistemology of literally how truth itself is derived." ikanreed πBleat at me 21:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The off-hand dismissal of vague terms without discussion of any underlying qualities is apparently how truth itself is derived? Remarkable. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Almost, the unnecessary and unjustified inclusion into an otherwise evidence-based body of knowledge is super relevant though. ikanreed πBleat at me 22:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- God is usually a vague term, therefore all religious thought should be dismissed out of hand? Seems like a non sequitur. I doubt anyone disagrees that "God" is not a rigorous scientific term, but that doesn't tell us anything about which religious notions may or may not correspond with reality or may be meaningful for scientific inquiry. If scientists can speculate about this universe being a simulation from an alien civilization, why not likewise consider the possibility of an alien entity with the inherent ability to sustain an ordered universe? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, this just comes off as an argumentum ad fastidium based on anti-religious bias. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well for one reason, cosmologists don't speculate about the universe being a simulation from an alien civilization and Elon Musk is not a scientist.. Genesis begins..."[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
- [1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
- [1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.
- [1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so."
- It seems that Genesis would have it that everything was made from water. This is reasonable since that's exactly what Thales of Miletus thought. (620-546 BCE). So, it seems likely that the author of those lines from Genesis was a student of Thales. I suppose it goes without saying that God must have created the universe because either there is not much to do in a void, or He was tired of swimming.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Last I checked Neil deGrasse Tyson was an astrophysicist. Also, you folks should make up your mind if biblical literalists are dumb for interpreting every word in the Bible literally or whether literalism is always appropriate. As for your last bit: pure conjecture. So much for scientific standards, hmm. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Since the traditional date of the first written form of Genesis is circa the 6th century BCE I am indeed serious about the author getting his ideas from Thales, who was the most famous of all Greek Natural philosophers. Also, Tyson was probably just playing. Simulated reality is a philosopher's game.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Last I checked Neil deGrasse Tyson was an astrophysicist. Also, you folks should make up your mind if biblical literalists are dumb for interpreting every word in the Bible literally or whether literalism is always appropriate. As for your last bit: pure conjecture. So much for scientific standards, hmm. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Almost, the unnecessary and unjustified inclusion into an otherwise evidence-based body of knowledge is super relevant though. ikanreed πBleat at me 22:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The off-hand dismissal of vague terms without discussion of any underlying qualities is apparently how truth itself is derived? Remarkable. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Nothing of substance is discussed, just the pointless underlying epistemology of literally how truth itself is derived." ikanreed πBleat at me 21:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- See? People don't even try to hide it's about affirming "my modern framework is correct" vs "my traditional framework is correct". Meanwhile, nothing of substance is actually discussed. Sigh. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "God" is an unessary addition to physics, one added by theists so they can feel like their favorite book is still relevant in a modern world that has made it obsolete. I can get just as much wisdom, if not more, from those other books I reeled off earlier, without having to believe them to be true accounts. βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 20:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have actually made no claim that the difference between the ways these centralized absolutes are thought about is minimal, as opposed to light years apart. But the focus on whether God 'exists/is present' detracts from discussing and comparing the relevant ascribed qualities in favour of both sides affirming their own positions within their own frameworks. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm saying the nature of the difference in perspective you treat as so minimal, in a philosophical sense, is a really profound abuse of science, and really quite unreasonable, at its core. ikanreed πBleat at me 19:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for your unnecessary elaboration on the laws of physics, then. I'll file it next to "the speed of light is limited by little tiny quark sized police cars" ikanreed πBleat at me 19:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're misframing the question. Theists and atheists generally agree on the laws of nature deriving from a centralized absolute (God creating order vs a Big Bang from quantum fluctuations). The disagreeance is the properties and uniqueness ascribed to this centralized absolute. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The intuitive naturalistic perspective on god is "not present" as there are no natural forces and phenomena attributable thereto. ikanreed πBleat at me 19:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking of dishonest argumentation, you seem to demand at once that the devout consolidate biblical literalism with space aliens while also dismissing from the getgo God (and probably all heavenly beings mentioned in the Bible) being labeled an alien as dishonest. If you want religious texts to be analyzed in accordance with naturalism, how would God not be an extraordinary sort of immortal alien lifeform which creates order within the shapeless void by e.g. generating a universe-ranging morphic field? As to the original question, it's obvious that visiting space aliens would be considered either angels or demons. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ding ding ding!! And @Soundwave106 wins the prize! You have won a shiny new goat! (though if one wanted to be technical and more than a little intellectually dishonest, one could point out that since God does not originate on Terra Firma, he is a de facto extraterrestrial. Though again, this argument requires more than a smidge of of intellectual dishonesty since it relies on a Motte and bailey style structure.) βComrade GCβMinistry of Praise 15:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Prometheus[edit]
I'm not a big fan of the later Alien movies, Prometheus and Alien Covenant. These two movies depict an advanced race of "Engineers" who are devoted to their own religion. I found it a revolting supposition. They supposedly seeded the earth with life. Not only this, but according to the insinuations of the plot, the Engineers sent Jesus to earth and were subsequently so outraged by the mistreatment and execution of Jesus that they decided to destroy human life on earth. Not my cup of tea.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- The plot is pretty sketchy in some points. But if humanity is anything to go by, spacefaring species combining religion with terraformation doesn't seem very farfetched, honestly. Remember this? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Johnson vs. Hunt[edit]
Is Hunt less of an asshole than Johnson? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, last month, Victoria Derbyshire called him "Jeremy Cunt" live on BBC TV only one week after Nicky Campbell had also called him "Jeremy Cunt" live on BBC radio. So he must be a bit of a twat. Spud (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- boris is clearly the worse choice. he has literally no plan of his own, saying only what he thinks people want to hear. but its a real sophies choice here. both are cunts offering a fantasy of low taxes and increased public spending. no prizes for guessing which will be abandoned when reality forces their hand. boris is the one committed to a no deal Brexit, and the glimpses we get of his actual opinions have been racist and homophobic. it will be like toad of toad hall as pm. 12:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Does BJ give oral? β Oxyaena Harass 13:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- lol. Tinribmancer (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Does BJ give oral? β Oxyaena Harass 13:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- boris is clearly the worse choice. he has literally no plan of his own, saying only what he thinks people want to hear. but its a real sophies choice here. both are cunts offering a fantasy of low taxes and increased public spending. no prizes for guessing which will be abandoned when reality forces their hand. boris is the one committed to a no deal Brexit, and the glimpses we get of his actual opinions have been racist and homophobic. it will be like toad of toad hall as pm. 12:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Google listening in on your conversations in your home via your computer[edit]
One of our click-bait newspapers claims that Google is doing this. Anyone heard of this today and whether this is true or not? They also claim that their source is one of our news channels. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds like an exaggerated bastardization of the various concerns brought up with voice assistance technology, which usually isn't on PCs but is on phones, and from what I can see does not record continuously. There is a similar concern with home assistance technologies (see this story on Amazon Alexa) but again, this is not a personal computer. Some computer malware that acts as remote access tools (RATs) have this ability. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Gurdjieff tells how "the bell tower-ringer in a small town changed his life by cursing before ringing the bell. The bell-ringer realized that everyone was cursing him every morning, noon and night for disturbing them with the bell and so, by cursing them first, he somehow deflected their negative energy." So, by all means curse at all of your household appliances as part of your daily ritual. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gong by 99% of mobile phone calls one should feel sorry for Alexa and friends - and they and the computers 'behind' them are being given sufficient brain(-equivalent)-rot for the singularity/the basilisk to be put on hold indefinitely. Anna Livia (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Google literally owns my life at this point. I'm not OK with it, but it is a fact. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- theres always bing AMassiveGay (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bing doesn't make phones.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bing's parent company does. 2607:FB90:9141:B2E2:0:3:60A7:AE01 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bing doesn't make phones.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- theres always bing AMassiveGay (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Google literally owns my life at this point. I'm not OK with it, but it is a fact. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
So, these are the articles (both can be translated via GT or whatever translation site). Seems to be about the google speaker & Google assistant app. Both sites claim this to be big news several hours ago. If this is the case, why can't I find anything about it on CNN, NBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC World or abc (I've been checking some international sites)? Not even Wikipedia has it in their current news bulletin. Shouldn't this be seen as something big? Tinribmancer (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- because its old news AMassiveGay (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think the triangulation algorithm is more powerful than we give it credit for, and peoples' aptitude to use their phones/computers to take another look at whatever they are talking about feeds into this. I don't think Google or Facebook or Amazon or Apple needs to listen to your conversations to know who you spend most of your time with and what you and they spend unusual time looking at on the internet. I can say "OK Google" and my android phone doesn't do anything. I don't think I got flooded with pet food adverts because my phone "heard" my friend and I talk about his newly adopted cat. I think it's easier than that to read our data. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Bing bing bong bong bing bang bong. β Oxyaena Harass 07:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
So, they had a Q&A about this subject yesterday (which they would give answers to today) and I asked them the question why they didn't talk about this 3 years ago (adding the link to the article from The Indepentent that AMassiveGay posted), and they ignored it... Tinribmancer (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Learn to bafflegab your 'hearing aid' and/or ask enough diverse questions to confuse it. Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- All this reminds me of this classic. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)