RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive317

This is an archive page, last updated 27 July 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Jeffery Epstein: missional or tangentially relevant passing news

Should we have an article on the billionaire rape island extraordinaire whose actual behaviors is not unlike certain common conspiracy theories in some characteristics? Gross evil fucker with numerous connections to academic, political, and economic levers of power, masterminding a mass systemic pedophile rape island? Becoming rich mysteriously and without any notable merit or entrepreneurship? It's a news cycle item that's already dying down, but does the kind of similarity to the form of conspiracy theories while also being true merit an article? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We do cover the anti authoritarian aspect of the wiki. Guess this means people with a disgusting amount of political power is missional to the wiki. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Scumbag though he is, and powerful though he may have been, I don't know that anything about the case was authoritarian in terms of ideology. There wasn't(at least not until the very recent hot takes started coming) any allegation that raping children was ideologically valid because the strong deserve power over the weak. It was something the conspirators did in secret knowing full damn well it was both illegal and wrong. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Epstein though does seem to be an excellent example of the mechanisms that protect those with political connections. RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Epstein case may not have been authoritarian, but it was strongly anti-democratic. The rule of law is an important aspect of democracy. Epstein evaded the rule of law in the Florida case by manipulating powerful people as well as victims through threats, bribery and corruption. It is not much different than organized crime, for which we already have a page. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Tangentially passing news. Unless it's written as a historical article, then it would likely be relevant only until he finally goes to prison or the extent of the fallout is clear, whichever is first. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Epstein case should find its way into numerous articles, but as an individual, he is just another pervert.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I mean, really, this is a turning point in challenging perverts with power, and Epstein is now at the center of it. Just another pervert doesn't quite describe his power and influence over the past few decades. I agree it would be a stub today, but look to the future. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

They'll find him dead in his jail cell before he ever stands trial. The whole case is about him naming names and child sex trafficking conspiracy. You could wait a few months and write it as an afterthought. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised Nobs wasn't already all over thisRipCityLiberal (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Welp, Jack Ruby'd. Missionality confirmed, because there's no way this doesn't spin into a huge part of the grand unified conspiracy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I was misinterpreted; I had no prior knowledge of the attempt to suicide Epstein. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll do it! So Nicholas Tartaglione, who is an ex cop, is in federal jail for a quadruple murder of drug dealers. He is also in a bodybuilding trio with Gerard Benderoth, a security guard who was pulled over by feds and decided suicide was the best option, and Joseph Biggs, another ex-cop whose involvement in said quadruple homicide hasn't been disclosed. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but when I heard on NPR that Epstein's cellmate claimed he didn't see anything, and that he was an ex-cop charged for killing 4 latino drug dealers and burying them on his farm, I said "No, that's not a thing, that's spook shit," so I looked into it. And now he saved Epstein's life? Pretty hard contrast between "I didn't see shit" and "I saved the guy's life." Maybe has something to do with the AG reinstituting the death penalty? Either we've got a psychopath who wrecked his brain on steroids and cocaine on our hands, or we've got a deep state winner. Or we've got both, I really don't know what to do with this one. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting how Epstein was supposedly in protective solitary confinement a few weeks ago. Tartaglione probably was offered a plea deal before they stuck him Epstein's cell to give him time to think about it. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I will JAQ off, but I will not pretend to know something that can't be corroborated by a reliable source. I'm sorry, nobs, but we just don't fit that parameter. I know this is fun, but we need either legitimate sources or we need to BE legitimate sources. Calling everything fake news does not lend legitimacy to the things we say. Actually, we kind of blew our load calling everthing fake news. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be the last person to be surprised that nobody cared he was being caged with a potentially violent cell mate. The indifference Americans tend to show towards prisoners being beaten, raped and even murdered is shocking. It's utterly savage. All along with a general thirst for blood which I find really scary. Having said that...God Sarnitt is right. Speculating about the police making a plea deal with a murderous ex-cop is like three steps beyond speculation. It's more like "what if + what if + what if + what if". ShabiDOO 08:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"Destroy Western civilization"

Perhaps someone could take a look at that? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's there because someone(well, two someones) put it there? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's annoying. Can we get rid of it, @Tinribmancer & @Oxyaena? Bongolian (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian Dysk and I put it up, Tinrib had nothing to do with it. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I see that Western Civilization has been saved. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Destroyed again. Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I did as instructed by this legal incitement and launched the nukes. Thank you for the guidance on where to direct my self-radicalized internet anger. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

is there time to beat one out before the bombs hit? it doesn't look like the ghouls or super mutant have much in the of a sex life and I might not get another chance. im not even sure ghouls have genitalia. I can deal with having no nose, but an eternity without even a hand shandy? the horror, the horror AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay I'm pretty sure that Ghouls have genitalia, as there are a few Ghoulette prostitutes in New Vegas. Likewise, I'm fairly certain the super mutants either have no genitalia or are just sterile, per Fallout 1. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Supermutants retain their genitalia, but lose all secondary sex characteristics, and are also rendered sterile as a result of the procedure. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

ive never seen ferals with their bits flapping as they rampaging toward you, and they'd be pretty obvious as it would be glowing like a light saber. fuck that shit. no wonder they are feral. id be furious AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian I'm not a commie nor a kool-aid drinker. I even tried to undo it, since it annoyed me. But I had no idea how to do it. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena STOP IT!! Tinribmancer (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I found it funny too, but I'm probably going to avoid editing RW in public or citing it in discussions until the joke passes. I'm already paranoid enough of shoulder surfers seeing pages that look from a distance like a wall of text with a red box and a swastika, and automatically leaping to the worst interpretation. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay y'all can quit your whining it's fixed. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Bongolian You should see it now, it's definitely been improved. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Okaaaay. Bongolian (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The "Anyone but Trump" Strategy is Not Going to Work

We're hard pressed to find a capable president, and I think we'd all agree we want one. The democratic party has put forward its own clown car to rival the 2016 Republican runoff. I can't believe they think this will work. If it's anyone but Trump, V2.0, there should be at most 4 candidates like there were in 2016, otherwise we're just stepping on toes and fucking our cousins. Either Democrats can't do the politics, or it's like it was in 2008 when Obama was up against McCain and Palin, when Republicans couldn't do the politics, or 20012, when Obama was up against Romney and Paul Ryan. Yeah, that Paul Ryan. I mean, this has always been a joke, right? Please, I'd rather think they are all up to some grander scheme than to look at them and say "Holy Hell, the amount of money they put into campaigning could change the world, these guys are idiots." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You're trying to think like a party with political goals. Think instead like a crowd of self-interested assholes who view the historic unpopularity of trump as their chance at greatness. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Holy Hell. The amount of money they put into campaigning could change the world. These guys are idiots. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I got shut down by a friend who was working on a local Gubernatorial race, I asked "Why not take some of that money, contract with some local businesses and fill some potholes?" He shut me down in a really frustrating way "Oh, you think going out and just patting out some concrete is going to work?" "No, but it might work better than a sign, cause at least it's gonna be there later." Dude laughed me off. I don't think sponsored works are a stupid way to go about campaigning. Especially since we lost to a "business man" and our city has mismanaged snow removal and road repair for 5 years straight. Nobody is happy about it, but we keep voting for those people who don't care and don't fight for local business. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Will it require foreign influence to force the US to do the right thing for once? Or will some smart Americans be able to figure out what the colossal problem is and force the status quo to change? I'll bet China or Russia would want to do the former, albeit for their own interests. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt20012? Are you from the future where Obama's cyborg version/clone is in charge of the US Government? Tinribmancer (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@TinribmancerOf course not, that's silly. It was much easier to kidnap him, Doc style. "Barack! You gotta come with me to the future! Nobody knows how to drone strike, it's babies killing babies out there, and they're all the same color now, we gotta go!" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So you think that whatever any democrat has been saying on TV (reactions to the refugees, trump's racist tweets), has been just one big show for publicity and that they really don't care at all? Tinribmancer (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I find myself sadly somewhat in agreement with Gol Sarnitt and ikanreed: The Democratic field of POTUS wannabes is ludicrously large and it smells of opportunism - at least when it comes to some of the entrants. Now, this doesn’t mean, as Tinribmancer seems to interpret, that they all only run or present their messages from a desire for publicity, but it is at least a contributing factor (more for some than for others).

Let’s face it; candidates like Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden were probably going to run no matter what, but the ridiculous ballooning of the field to more than 20 more than smacks of opportunism; especially when you’d be hard pressed to argue that they all really reflect different strains (ideologically, geographically etc.) within the Democratic Party. This doesn’t mean they’re all interchangeable - just note the differences between Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren and Yang, to take just a random sample. But with so many candidates you basically have to have some “doubles”.

Also, I don’t see the current Democratic contest as quite as clownish as the 2016 shit fest that was the last GOP nomination. Sure, some of the Democratic candidates are fairly left wing by US standards (meaning that they would be centre/centre-left/centre-right social liberals in much of Europe with a few social democrats in the mix), but remember the 2016 GOP field? Arguably, the most sane candidates were the likes of Pataki, Kasich, and Jeb Bush for crying out loud, of whom the two first basically never stood a chance and the last quickly flamed out. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem with unsuitable opportunistic candidates who have no real policy and who are just running for the publicity is that they might win. Ah no. That was the last election with Trump.Hubert (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

isn't this the (only) benefit of such a long and drawn out electoral process? you've got over a year to whittle em down. everywhere else in he world would only get about a month AMassiveGay (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

and we still get joke or opportunist candidates. look at Corbyn in the labour party. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I share your concerns, perhaps even moreso. How, unfortunate as it may be it is very likely that Trump will be re-elected in 2020, much to my eternal shame. I of course, will vote against Trump and for the candidate that I think is the most qualified, but I do not expect to win. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The field will be thinned out by the third debate, which has much more stringent qualifications. So far, only five are in the position to qualify for that. Unless there's another breakout moment (like Harris out of the first debate) or maybe better polling for a couple of marginal candidates like O'Rourke and Castro, you aren't going to see too many other faces IMHO. At present, Biden, Harris, Sanders, and Warren are the clear front-runners -- the others aren't very close at all. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So... the ones with the highest name recognition a year ago. Marrianne Williams has been consistently outpolling O'Rourke and Castro, probably entirely due to an irony campaign of overly online people. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Y'all are missing the forest for the trees here. Although there are 23 Democrats running for president, 5 (Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Mayor Pete) have raised $100 million combined and account for more than half of the support in polling. Sanders and Biden supports choose the other candidate as their second choice. Warren and Harris supporters choose the other as their second choice. Not to mention we are FIVE MONTHS AWAY from the first actual votes in this primary and 15 months out from Election day. SoundWave is correct that the field will likely cut significantly by August/September. Currently a lot of people feel like this is a crisis (which honestly it is) but there isn't an immediate solution here. It took time for 45 to rise. It will take time for him to fall.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the Dems will probably pick a candidate capable of winning over Trump, and really that's all they can do, so no use agonizing about it. The candidate may not matter, though. Trump's people and Putin's people will have had 4 years to plan how to handle the election. It may be seamlessly hacking the vote tallies to provide a narrow victory for Trump. Or it may be simply a matter of putting the results in doubt, and giving Trump an excuse to freeze the election decision "pending investigation" i.e. indefinitely. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

45? Tinribmancer (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The forty-fifth president in the US. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

45 = Trump. Because saying his name is now problem. Apparently... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Call it the harrypotterification of the center. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

More like his entire empire is premised on his name. He doesn't build anymore, just lends his name to things. It irritates him when people don't use him name or say "Mr. President". Does it mean much on this website? No, but any possible slight to that fuck I will continue to do.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the 5 “main” candidates mentioned by RipCityLiberal above (i.e. Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders and Warren) presents some interesting trends:

• Two (Sanders and Warren), possibly three (Harris) represent the kind of left wing of the Democratic Party that was seen as “unelectable” since at least the Clinton years if not before; a sentiment that was only dented by Sanders’ strong challenge to Hillary Clinton last time around (and of course by Hillary’s subsequent loss to Trump).
• Three are over seventy and only one under 50, continuing the trend from the 2016 election and Democratic primaries of fairly old candidates.
• Also, only one (Biden) or at the most two (Buttigieg) seem to represent the sort of “establishment” Democratic machinery that has been strong in earlier primaries (though initially backing Hillary against Obama, it quickly swung behind him when it became obvious that he was more about preserving the status quo than his vaunted “Change!” rhetoric at first suggested).

Basically, the status quo, “tinkering at the margins”, triangulating type of “New Democrat” that has been the norm at the top of the party since at least the 1990s seems almost to be the outside chance option at the moment. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that with a few caveats

• Having two of the five leading candidates be women is an astonishing feat even by 2008 standards
• The overton window on "liberal" has shifted considerably. The Democratic Party might essentially be a centrist party now by classic European standards.
• All of these candidates agree government needs to have a significant role in health care.
• The establishment money class definitely is not a fan of this shift.

That said, every indicator of a normal political system gives 45 a significant advantage, and he probably has a better than 1/2 chance of winning reelection.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am less than thrilled with the (in my eyes over)emphasis on gender when selecting candidates for high political office. Not that I don’t think it matters or is important, but I have seen several cases in which rather lacklustre status quo politicians get hyped simply for being women.

Cases in point: Hillary Clinton or former Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt. By contrast, newly elected Danish PM Mette Frederiksen has not emphasised her gender, possibly because HT-S did it so much, making a big hoopla back in 2011 about being the first, female Danish PM, but then went on to basically run a right/centre-right set of policies, despite being a Social Democrat, ending up as a one term PM while facing a not particularly strong opposition and having taken office against a background of not only the Great Recession, but also an increasingly worn out series of centre-right cabinets that had ruled since 2001. Or take the last UK Tory leadership contest in which both of the finalists were women (May vs. Leadsome) and almost equally uninspiring machine Tories, though the current contest between the (male) haystack haired buffoon and the (male) grim reaper of the NHS is arguably even worse.

Also, last time around it pretty quickly turned into a perfect 50/50 gender balance (Hillary/Bernie) so a two in five split could even be said to be a step backwards, if you’re in a nitpicking/devil’s advocate mood.

The shift in the US Overton window is indeed very interesting, though it remains to be seen whether these kinds of ideas are able to get traction outside of the Democratic Party. I’m hopeful, but so far identity politics and the culture wars have worked very well as substitutes for more than superficial discussions of socio-economic questions (this, btw, is certainly not unique to the US).

I find it equally interesting, if far more worrying, that Trump is doubling down on mobilising the most extreme parts of his base, though I sadly expect the “responsible” GOP supporters to root for Trump due to mutually reinforcing characteristics of US politics in which it’s more about voting against, rather than voting for someone, as well as the tendency of political affiliations/sympathies to become a key feature of personal/cultural identity. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: I do not consider Harris and especially Warren to be examples of the Hillary Clinton/Helle Thorning-Schmidt type. Warren in particular has a long track record of a more progressive ideological bent than has generally been the party line among Democrats. Harris is a bit less easy to gauge, simply because her political backstory is shorter. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a value to having female candidates reach this level for a couple of reasons. Women bring a different perspective to a political system that has for most of history rejected them, have a different process for conflict resolution and are also uniquely qualified to talk about reproductive rights (because they're the ones who have to carry pregnancies). I also disagree that either of these candidates are explicitly going after the female vote (Sen. Gillibrand seems to be the only one making an explicit appeal), and currently female voters support Biden in larger numbers than either.

45 was always going to make a run to the base, he's not interested in anything else, a lesson from '16 he learned, in my opinion, incorrectly. Non of these candidates have nearly the negative numbers HRC had, and many voters failed to turn out in '16 (especially Michigan and Wisconsin) because they didn't like either. Those voters might not make the same calculus with a candidate not carrying the baggage HRC had.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I'll point another evidence of a certain shift: Nancy Pelosi, she being one of the biggest "liberal boogeymans" on conservative talk radio, is now effectively in the "moderate" wing of the House of Representatives. The "liberal boogeyman" focus of conservative talk has shifted to much more left wing representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If Trump was actually smart about this election and actually moderates his behavior some, I would agree that Trump would be the shoe-in favorite. But if he plays to his base alone with tactics like the racist tweets, there is a very good chance he will not win. His base isn't enough.. And Trump being Trump, I personally wouldn't bet on him changing his persona much. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

But that is kind of the problem. The Republican establishment is used to his persona, it is just a louder version of what they normally do. The conservative base is used to his persona. And just because he has an approval rating less than 50 percent doesn't mean he won't win the next election. Plenty of people hate the guy, or understand that they are supposed to hate the guy, but will vote for him on principle alone. The more it sounds like his ineptitude is the problem, the more anybody under him can get away with an agenda. And the administration and the base like what they are getting away with. Any time Trump balks, the conservative wing gets two steps forward before it's penalized one step back. I mean, why aren't we talking about Mike Pence when we're finally talking about Dick Cheney? Title X is gone, gerrymandering is not a federal court concern, deportations are up, Jerusalem is declared America's favorite city in Isreal, there was an attempted trans troop ban, I mean, the guy doesn't actually care about this stuff. He's got a voice in his ear, who thinks he has God's voice in his. I would get prepared for 45 to last another 4. America won't fall apart or go to civil war, but Mike Pence is the Palpatine here. Mike Pence believes Disney is liberal propaganda to convince kids that women in the military is ok, when it's actually supposedly subversive to the military to have women anywhere near it. The dude doesn't just do the Billy Graham shit, he preaches it, and he is next in line if Trump blows an artery. Why doesn't anybody blow off Trump for a week and go all in on Mike Pence and what he thinks? Why don't we hear more from the self-described Christian Conservative Republican? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mike Pence is actually one of the stronger reasons why the impeachment crap is foolhardy -- Trump politically regularly shoots himself in the foot, Pence doesn't. And for all of Billy Grahams' faults, comparing Pence to Billy Graham is a bit foolish, as Billy Graham occasionally defied the modern Republican Jesus route. The modern fundie has descended into a vision of itself that hardly has any relation to their New Testament books their religion is supposedly based on -- modern Pharisees, essentially. Franklin Graham is a better representation of the insanity. The four Gospels honestly do not have much to say about the military, other than a relatively generic pacifist attitude ("turn the other cheek" etc.) that those fundies who seek a muscular testosterone Jesus seem to ignore. I personally can't find what Bible verse Mike Pence has in mind when he was triggered by Mulan, probably because it does not exist. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Calling Mike Pence Palpatine and on par with Dick Cheney seems a bit of a stretch. Though I agree many of these anti-progressive proposals (Title X/Trans troop ban/Israel worship) are probably top line for Pence, the only reason Trump goes along is because he doesn't actually give a shit. Trump has no ideology except what is good for me, and he throws his support behind these proposals because he wants to maintain the support of White Evangelical voters, who support these sort of proposals. Impeachment, however unlikely, would likely reveal a lot of things Americans were not aware of happening in this administration, including actions by Pence that may be, unseemly. The impeachment inquiry is the good bit, impeachment removal though is unlikely.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pence is scum, but that doesn't matter. The point of impeachment should not be to get a better president. It should be to maintain that presidents are constrained by the fucking law. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Ikanreed. I would think that by now you would know that what should be and what is are rarely the same. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer "So you think that whatever any democrat has been saying on TV (reactions to the refugees, trump's racist tweets), has been just one big show for publicity and that they really don't care at all?" Sorry, I put a joke response to a joke response in the middle. No, I don't think it's dishonest. I also don't think McCain/Palin, Romney/Ryan, or Trump/Pence versus Clinton/name the guy, 5,4,3,2,1, was dishonest so much as it was incredibly disconnected. But what I'd like to point out is that the old guard recommended against impeachment. Impeachment is thrown as a show. I think these politicians do calculate their statements, and the old guard is trying so hard to play an outdated middling game until just now. I think they also speak for themselves, and their own intentions, if not informed by their perception of their constituency, at least enough to scramble to figure out why the new guard has eyes and support and isn't cut down by the same scary empty arguments that put their old guard colleagues out of office in the past. But I still think Mike Pence is the exhaust port of this death star. If we can get the vice president to speak honestly about the president and his own faith, what does the administration do before the next election? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I enjoy fighting games, and if you want to fight against cheap tactics, you can be cheap right back or you can blow off spamming low kicks and come up with a meta strategy. Pressuring the vice president visibly (since he's accountable for the position he's potentially going to fill in case of disaster) doesn't seem like that cheap of a move to me. Ignore the big planet destroying laser, that's not the weak point.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump haters invested waaaay too much in hating Trump, cause nobody believes a word they say anymore. Hear that? It's the sound of pissing in an echo chamber in the wind now. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, a certain number of people didn't care when Trump pissed into the wind. They looked at the piss on their jeans and said "yeah, this is what we want!" Feel that? That's piss on your jeans. And it's not even just your own piss. So I agree that attacking Trump directly is the wrong strategy, because I understand that a certain number of people will shower in his piss and say "at least he's not a Democrat." I don't like the Democrats either. But the Republican and Democratic party bases want a Teddy Roosevelt charicature. Explain to me how exploiting that desire and winning with it isn't ironic. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nerd

Has he gone and disappeared on us? Yikes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be happy? You and Avida Dollars were complaining several times about him changing titles in WIGO last month. Tinribmancer (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We were. Most of the time he's fine, but sometimes he gets it wrong and won't stand to be corrected. He also seemed, in the last argument, to believe RW should be NPOV instead of SPOV, in order to attract more readers. Avida Dollars^{her again} 08:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

He's only been a way for a month and a half. He might just be taking a summer break. Spud (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably because @Oxyaena and @Avida Dollars hounded him off. Nice job, idiots Nice job (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll feign some distress for you. Oh no. How terrible. Another user who has been here a long time just stopped editing. How tragic and unprecedented. And such a nice one I always got along with. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

chasing off editors you don't like. hilariousAMassiveGay (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I never chased anyone off. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, don't believe them! Believe the drive-by troll editor who's never going to post again! They know what's really going on! I think it's far fairer to say I might have some culpability in the entirely hypothetical "driving off" of a user who just stopped editing without giving a reason. Given my repeated disputes with them about, let's call it the validity of certain kinds of editorial tone and content, such a conclusion isn't unreasonable. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ikanreed / talk / contribs}

Shhhhhh! Don't expose the cabal's secrets!!! — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what happened to him. I thought about undoing some of his edits, just to see if he would come back. XD G Man (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The police in my area are steadily becoming stupider

Fewer and fewer are obeying traffic laws along with not enforcing leash laws for dogs and well..........not doing the job that they are paid to do. How sad. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Good. Broken windows isn't a good enforcement paradigm. Also the police have ignored traffic laws as long as there have been police cars. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Cosign the fuck out of this. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So what? Police threatened to slap me and my mom with jailtime for being a "nuisance caller" to 911, simply because we called 911 more than once a year to deal with domestic violence. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like the American police I know. Law as weapon against those they deem unworthy. Not a way to define moral boundaries explicitly in the hope of making justice fair. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Can't say I agree. How police acts is really dependent on the department, resources allocated to them, and other factors such as being prepared to deal with everyone since our gun laws put them in every step of danger, and I feel all these generalizations about police are from confirmation bias and bad press. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have had one interaction with the police in my life, and included overt threats of arrest and jailtime over a procedural matter that was dismissed without fine or warning by a court official in 10 seconds flat upon seeing a single document. I don't think that's a particularly unique kind of interaction. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Police brutality is a problem and many people have similar experiences, but to generalize it as a trait among American police and concluding they mistreat those they deem "unworthy" is pretty hasty. I've also noticed those that have negative interactions with police are more likely to generalize them like this when I feel we need to point out that there are 1.1 million of them and conduct can vary wildly by county. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Overgeneralizing is bad, but there's not just personal anecdote at play here. One out of every four people in jail in the world are in the United States. Systemic problems with excessive force, over-armed police, and lack of prosecution of police misconduct are structural problems here. Mandatory sentencing minimums have created a prosecutorial environment where conviction for anything is life-destroying. Which makes it easier for police to hold that threat over peoples' heads. Cultural ideas such as the "thin blue line" are all but completely unopposed within police culture.

When I went to china, every single police station I went to(we had some paperwork to do) had signs up about how the government would pay you for leads on police corruption. Imagine that here. To say "Don't generalize" really needs me to actively see evidence showing reasons to trust police at this point. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I never imagined I would ever imagine LGM would be to the right of me on anything. Though resources and departments vary, the overwhelming culture of police in America is corrupt. It is focused on protecting privilege and maintaining order. Which is why the police have always been the tool of those in power to hinder social movements. Individual police officers may not be bad, but the system itself is the problem. and @Ikanreed using China is an awful example. Though I'm sure that may appear to target police corruption, authoritarian governments like China often use corruption as a cover to remove members of the party that aren't in line.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond anecdote, the only real global statistics I've found to compare "police violence" are police shootings per capita. American police are more violent in this regard than all other rich nations... but there's some countries that are *way* more violent than us. In general, according to the article, the more violent the country, the more police shootings there are. America's pretty violent for a rich nation. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a correlation in aggressive police behavior as well. I've found overseas police to also be much less aggressive than American police, but I've never traveled to countries suffering from a huge amount of violence or police brutality (and see no reason to). So hard to tell from personal anecdote. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's possible and not unheard of to abuse anticorruption to solidify power. Usually that doesn't really refer to local outreach programs though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm more moderate on police compared to average user here I believe. This may have to do with me passing as white, a woman, not networking much with black people, and living in a nice community that would rather have a big library than a prison. I think the acab mentality is misguided though (not to mention its really dubious origins), and I do think police requires systemic reforms but it also requires major shifts in cultural attitudes, particularly toward racism, gun ownership (police effort gets curbed when gun crime is high like this) and drugs (war on drugs was a terrible idea). Police problems are extremely complicated involving the parts of several different departments. I think it requires examining the big picture rather than saying "acab" or that the police is there only to reinforce societal norms (which IMO is too simplistic), particularly when in America, the police has tons of problems. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not sure I subscribe to all cops being bastards, but I definitely subscribe to policing being fucked up 2 or 3 levels beyond sanity in the US. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's definitely the case. Police have very little accountability and no uniform training. In most countries, police cadets have federal training, and then are sent to regions to police. The US has no standards, so we end up with 15,000 different departments with different standards.Police accountability is limited by this as well, as not all police jurisdictions report use of force, and often under report when they do. The type of people attracted to local law enforcement, like the border patrol, tend to be rejects from military or law enforcement with higher standards (this is more from my own experience than an actual study), and if they aren't qualified to handle the rather straight forward mission of the Armed Forces (namely to kill people) how are they qualified to handle the very complicated levels of community policing?RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the last time a Canadian policeman shot someone, was a kid with a knife, clearly had mental problems, was 5 meters away from the cop, five men had guns pointed at him, he started moving forward, the cop shot him multiple times and tazed him. He was arrested, charged and went to court. His fellow policemen may have tried to explain what was going on in the cops mind but didn't defend him. The over wealming majority of Canadians considered this murder. The cop was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years in jail. Notable is that the victim was not a WASP. It seems that it is possible to have police that deal with violent crime in a big city, having consequences if they murder citizens...and yet the streets are still safe. Yes, it is actually possible to not give police a free reign to do abuse citizens and still maintain law and order. Apparently a justice system actually can lock up badge wearing murderers. I think many Americans have an extreme non-romantic fetish for anyone wearing a uniform...and it leads to murderous policies and behaviours at home and abroad. It's baffling. ShabiDOO 01:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not quite true - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sammy_Yatim - the cop fired 2 bursts of 3 then 6, total 9 shots. The first 3 killed hte victim and were ruled as legitimate self defence - police instructor did testify that he was "out of options". The 2nd burst was done with the victim (already dead) on the ground - this was ruled as attempted murder since the self defence defence no longer applied, and he was convicted on this - the sentence was appealed and upheld.Aloysius the Gaul 01:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Police brutality is a major problem. I am also saying that there are stupid cops who basically do zilch and tax payers get to pay for laziness. Can't there be cops who actually do their job properly? What a world we live in. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. That's really depressing. 5 meters away and inching forward with a small knife and it was legitimate self defense? Sounds like a good time for a change of law. ShabiDOO 03:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Eugh. I wish it was more like my community, where the jails are really quiet. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've today done a ride-along with LASD's Volunteer-On-Patrol in our city, that's how LGM got the info that the jails are really quiet since the other volunteers told me about it. I didn't even know our community even has a jail, lol. Burglary and theft are the most common crimes where we live because it's fairly affluent and we're near several freeways that attracts them. I guess that also means our cops are better so we have a more...uh positive look on them. I fear what it's like outside of our city. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 04:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at it from a cops' perspective - they somebody violating a minor law like a dog not on a leash or a drunk at a busstop, it's not worth getting killed over cause you never know how people will react; it's less risky to wait for a citizen complaint/ nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 06:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

nobs, I will make this crystal clear- cops knew what they were getting into. It is their job to enforce the law. There are also not supposed to use unnecessary force. There has to be accountability among cops instead of some bureaucratic nightmare where there is little punishment among incompetent police. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There's basically two motivations to become a cop: one, somebody who genuinely wants to help people, and two, somebody on a personal power trip. Either way, self preservation and survival dominates. Their biggest fear when asking for a payraise is for people to say, "I called the cops, and nobody showed up." So in between calls they want to remain free of trouble. Let sleeping dogs lie. What happens when an armed robbery occurs, but the whole force is busy investigating broken taillights? It doesn't look good. It looks cowardly. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Understanding the culture of police work is an eyeopener. Look at any department - a 20 year veteran is rare. Most cops are between 22 and 28; by 28 they quit to become bar bouncers (where they still can enjoy drinking on the job, nightlife, and beating people with less stress) or get booted off the force. How many above minimum wage jobs are available to GED holders with no typing skills?

They enter the academy for six months training in their early twenties. When they graduate, it becomes a contest to see who will be the first in their class to make sergeant. This is done by merit, beginning with their conviction rate. Any idiot cop can make an arrest, but having a 67% conviction rate (preferably felony convictions, i.e. "getting the badguys off the street") stand up in court is not so easy. A cop with only a 33% conviction rate is not only wasting taxpayer money by harassing innocent people, he is exposing the department and city to lawsuits. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 18:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC) .

Stephen Colbert's take on the Trump tweets

Laughing my ass off with this. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

too sad to be truly funny, and too true to be truly sad Aloysius the Gaul 23:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's the problem - you guys think calling somebody a racist is a big fucking joke. Fuck all you communist motherfuckers. Rot in hell, and get ready for 5 more years of Trump. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, all you amateur socialist psychopaths need to look at this, "By attacking Democrats, Trump has united them". Two weeks ago Pelosi was trying to marginalize the Squad and distance the DNC from them,. The Squad called Pelosi a racist. Trump came to her defense. Next Pelosi appears on the House floor saying, "I'm not a racist, he's a racist." Good. Pelosi tried to split the extreme fringe from the Democrat party, and Trump bound them all together. If Colbert is your political mentor, get ready for more years in the wilderness. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 19:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Firefighting goats, and more...

https://www.indy100.com/article/simon-mccoy-bbc-news-goat-yoga-watch-video-9007246 Thank you for your service, noble beasts. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)~~

Back to the bar

For no "specific reason", I suddenly desire to actually read the Saloon pages again and enjoy the discussions, conversations and silliness. So, anything politically controversial going on in the United States lately? Is Brexit finally over? Have we got a man on the moon again? Is some election only 67 weeks away? Did a great school of Sea Lions go to Antarctica to Hibernate for the summer? ShabiDOO 00:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of it, but the sea lions always return from their migration eventually. Or at least a new generation does, hopped up on pacific herring and ready to rumble. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The sealion in question has been permanently retired. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists believe that there are lizard people from the 4th dimension that take the form of people yet evolution is a fairy tail?

There is something clearly something wrong with that picture. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I'm gonna take their side, lizards with substantial numbers of morphological and psychological characteristics in common with humans would raise serious quandaries for the theory of evolution, considering the far separated lineage and the lack of specimens in the fossil record showing a convergent evolutionary history. Anything in a lizard representing similar character to a mammalian cerebrum, even if quite primitive would be the kind of extraordinary evidence that could back an extraordinary claim like evolution being false. Fight me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

He's right. It wouldn't necessarily prove any other theories, but it would raise serious concerns regarding the accuracy of evolution. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfair to lizard conspiracy believers - at least they aren't relying on stone age myths for their stoopid beliefs Aloysius the Gaul 03:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

In a parallel dimension the sentient reptiles which are our analogues, there are RW-equivalent discussions about the 'humanoids from the 4th dimension/humanoid rulers' conspiracy theories and woo. Anna Livia (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, which dimension am I in right now? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

[insert dimension here]. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Gravity

What is it? No one knows. We can predict its behaviors but even relativity is an incomplete view since we don't know what gravity actually is, alongside other conundrums associated with the force such as why it's so weak compared to the other three forces. This video by the esteemed John Michael Godier elaborates more. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "what Gravity actually is"? Most theories speculate it is mediated through gravitons so it would be rather similar to the other forces. Or do you mean the "what is the point?" behind it? Or "is gravity even necessary? ShabiDOO 05:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean the essence behind it, and the hypothesis that gravitons are behind gravity has been discarded, so we're back to square one. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Discarded you say? That's surprising. I've read about gravitons in multiple sources and science magazines this year including SA. I believe there are several research programs at CERN involving the search for gravitons (or evidence for or against it). Do you have a source for your claim that it's been discarded? Very curious. ShabiDOO 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I read something a while back that I may have misread as saying that, but the consensus is out on gravitons, and that's an understatement. As of yet we don't know what causes gravity, or, in other words, what it is, gravitons are one mere hypothesis competing among many. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That article said that gravitons are a reasonable theory, just that they are so low energy you would need a universe sized particle accelerator (which is a high estimate, the estimate I've always heard is a 3 light year diameter. Still unconstructive for us any time soon). The only people who seem to seriously disagree with gravitons are string theorists, but string theorists aren't exactly held in high regard. Some string theorists even argue that mathematical elegance beats experimental evidence, which is pseudo scientific to its core. Gravitons are unproven and nigh unprovable, but there isn't a more widely accepted alternative among physicists. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There's always the possibility that gravity is leaking in from somewhere else (*cough* the multiverse *cough*) but given how we can't travel to other dimensions as of yet what truly causes gravity will remain unknown. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't asking what any really fundamental thing "really is" the wrong question? You could equally well ask what a photon "really is" or what magnetism "really is". In one sense the answer is obvious: "it's a photon" or "it's magnetism" or "it's gravity".

But these are not the sort of things we can comprehend in the same ways as cars, houses or dogs. The scientific concepts exist in ways we cannot well understand based on our day-to-day lives.

But what we can do is describe and measure their effects. Rather than ask "what is it?" we should ask "what does it do?"Hubert (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just ask Kim Jong Un, since he apparently invented it. Kencolt (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Duh, I thought gravity was the weight of the air. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 07:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought gravity was the curvature of space-time, my bad. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we've crammed enough disparate thoughts into this one yet. If it ain't a whole-theory, it's a... fuck you, I'm not a rhyming dictionary. Isn't there a "density" idea? Like, the Earth is flat, so it's just that fluid dynamics demands that denser objects sink to the bottom of THE ENTIRE MEASURABLE UNIVERSE, which somehow works better on a flat plane, thus proving the flatness of the Earth, and because water can't flow from the top of a hill unless it was sourced there by a constant force in the first place, a river disproves evolution? That didn't start as a question, but, I mean, that should cover everything. Everything else is just plug-my-ears, lalalala, confirm my bias or move on. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kyoto Animation Massacre

Source. I can't be the only one eaten up by this. Its clouding my head and I'm not sure how to handle it. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You aren't. I'm at a loss as to why this one happened. I mean, there must be a motive, but I can't think of one... Kencolt (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The melancholy of the karōshi mangaka? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's terrible, not only was it intentional arson but it also killed 30+ people. Commie Lib (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. The source mentions emails, but nothing specific other than the "die" message. Perhaps The perpetrator is delusional? Going through Kyoto's recent projects I can't find anything that sparked any controversy, at least, not at a glance. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

They only made cute moe shows that's why people are in shock, there is no motive. Commie Lib (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No motive for someone in the anime industry to be hostile? You know how fucked up and overtime driven that is right? Japanese office culture is already considered quite tortuous, and somehow being an anime artist is reputed to be far worse. Imagine working 80-100 hour weeks when its considered to be a sign of quality for a boss to be dismissive and highly critical of underlings' art.

None of that excuses the worst slaughter in Japanese history since WWII, but if you're struggling to find a motive, I think there's some possibilities. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you even keep up with news? Kyo Ani was one of the few studios that treated their workers well. That's why they were so loved, so before you slander a studio make sure you know what your talking about. Commie Lib (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It seemed like the motive was somebody who thought their idea was stolen by the studio. I had an idea about a sci-fi adventure that mimicked Rick and Morty before it came out (enjoyed the show, finally truly relaxed when they referenced "Sandman" by Neil Gaiman, we all had the same idea at the same time, influenced by the same media, ok, easier to breathe). I told a joke about a sales department at my work huffing glue or having a gas leak before Last Week Tonight did that exact joke in some Stupid Watergate segment like 5 years later. I'm frustrated, sure, that somebody else eventually made my joke and got paid for it, but the single similarities with each took too many years line up. I can feel this guy's pain, but if he can't feel the pain of dying in a fire over some great idea or joke that he had himself, he's not my doppelganger and I hope he lives long enough to understand what he did. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hostility towards Japanese animation studios is not new, but actual violence I haven't heard before. Studio Gainax got death threats for the disappointing ending of Neon Genesis Evangelion, but there was never any true act of violence.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 22:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheerleader?

Seriously, wtf is going on? I see BoN's attacking Dysk and Ox in the past few days and now I see this. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It is creepy, I know. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Check out the block log; Oxy randomly ranted about cheerleaders. Creepy indeed. 2607:FB90:BC4C:470C:0:9:D88A:3F01 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

— Oxyaena ^Harass 23:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The cheerleader trope is a reoccurring fixation of DMorris, otherwise known as User:Conservapedian Troll et al recently User:What a Wonderful World. He has been trolling this site while logged out for years. He currently seems to be having a laugh with trolling the board election. — Dysk (contribs) 17:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, he does have some "interesting" view points:

American Conservatives, like myself, cherish American traditions that make this nation so great. Our founding fathers recognized the problem with large government and took great efforts to prevent our nation from becoming the same type of dictatorship that England was at the time. We support freedom of religion and the right to bear arms that the liberals and atheists try so hard to censor. We see that marriage should be between a man and a woman. American liberals have no respect for tradition, and they fail to recognize that radical changes for the worse will destroy our great nation. They label Christians as "close minded" for embracing their beliefs. Ironically, it's really the atheists and pagans who are "close minded" as they cannot tolerate Christians minding our own business. Liberals believe that capitalism, a wonderful system which is a main reason why our nation is so great, is evil, and they believe in communism. They complain about minor or even manufactured problems with our outstanding health care system, which is coveted by many foreign nations, and they falsely claim that other nations have better systems. They will never be satisfied, not even with our great American system. Liberals, in my opinion, are anti-American. In contrast, conservatives are patriots; we desire to conserve America and every traditional piece of the puzzle that makes our nation so better than the socialistic nations elsewhere.

Wtf? Tinribmancer (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Evangelical Christianity cannot persist without an enemy persecuting it. It relies on a self image of the few and righteous standing against a tide of evil. Atheists and pagans, in spite of being a tiny fraction of the world, must be an overpowering enemy that only their righteous hearts can stand against. Without that scapegoat, it would have to turn its critical vision inward, and its charity and pity outward, and that kind of self-reflection would show them very wanting. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I love how conservatives cannot escape two basic tropes they use over and over and over again: 1. Everything I disagree with is socialism/communism. 2. All ideas that aren't White Evangelical Christian are anti-American.

Fucking cunts.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an absolutely fantastic gish gallop How much effort would it take to refute sentence by sentence?Hubert (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think RipCityLiberal summarized every single sentence of that just fine. It's basically member of tribe slinging shit at "other" tribe stereotype. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed It's not just Evangelical Christianity. During my elementary Catholic education, martyrdom and oppression of Christians (but mostly just Roman Catholics) was talked about in the same breath as Christianity's power and dominance over much of the world. It's classic dogmatic propaganda; the enemy (non-Catholics) must simultaneously be strong enough to oppress, but weak enough that the triumph of the Church is inevitable. The persecution and martyrdom of Catholics is (rightly) considered wrong, but the persecution and martyrdom of non-Catholics is either ignored or considered not only necessary, but just. The story of St. Boniface, who chopped down oak trees the Frisians considered sacred to Donar/Thor is one common example. I also suspect this lack of self-reflection is common in most organized religions built around the concept of spreading the faith by any means necessary. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

While I agree Catholics do the same thing, I don't know they need it the same way. These right leaning evangelical churches are forever at war. Every piece of their religion is built from a cloth of being under attack. And it's the only way to sustain the faith, because without it, they have nothing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Forgive me for potentially invoking Godwin's law, but wouldn't be similar if not identical to the thought structure of the Nazis during world war two? At least, base concept-wise? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an entirely unwarranted comparison. Umberto Eco, in his Essay "Eternal Fascism" describes it as a characteristic(number seven, in fact) of "Ur Fascism" or the skeleton around which fascism coalesces. It's not really specific to the Nazis though, whose version included a lot more material conflict, and less spiritual warfare. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be a common thread throughout all ideologies that pride themselves on dogmatism. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Fundy) Pentecostals at the very least describe themselves as always at war against the world and its demonic influences, up to considering this a demon that loves to manipulate leaders, religious or not, to its ends and of course both prosecution complex, spiritual warfare, claims of wanting to convert an entire -already Catholic- country to Jesus, that (far) left countries practice Satanism and occultism, an earthquake in Southeast Asia last year was caused by people there practicing witchcraft and being punished, etc.

The prosecution complex is often present among Catholics when they receive flak for their stance on feminism, LGTBQ issues, etc. But they tend to be more serious than their Fundagelical counterparts Panzerfaust (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

WTF is this item actually about??Aloysius the Gaul 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Oxyaena, this looks like it might be the same guy.[1] If so, he seems to be continuing his stalkerish behavior. Bongolian (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That's because it is the same guy. I have received confirmation via a friend's email whom subsequently dmed it to me, straight out of the horse's mouth. @EK can provide screenshots. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

He also got trounced when he ran for school board in a solidly Republican area, despite running as the "only Republican" in what was a non-partisan race.[2][3] Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

If he did indeed run for political office (even if just a schoolboard) then I can finally make sense of his satirical exposition on American conservatism. "Our great health-system". "They are communists". "Complaining about minor-problems". "Right to bear arms". "Anti-American". It's simply too helariously satirical for him to have written seriously. It's just practice for future political campaigning. I admit it could be he enjoys attention whoring or is developing some interesting alternative-facts narrative. But the political thing makes sense. Good thing he'll not be elected in the future due to his crimes. Or is it the case that in the upcoming future, having committed a crime is a positive when running for office in Florida? ShabiDOO 07:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I always knew the guy as the troll Grawp. I thought this was just trolling. I didn't know this guy had a history of stalking women.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As much as I would love to join in this discussion of local politics, there are at least three people with my name in Charlotte County, and this attempted sleuthing is a direct violation of RationalWiki:Privacy policy. So you will stop. 'No excuses'. Also, claiming that I, the Conservapedian, have a "history of stalking women" is libelous because it is not true, which is all you need to know about me in real life. Pet Shop Boys (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. You seem to be making that up. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thought of this earlier today: a little thought experiment

Lets say that 100,000 years from now and humanity is extinct, say apes evolved to the point of the stone age and they find old buried cities- what are the odds that they come up with a religion based around it? They would not have the understanding to figure out what our cities were (part of the hypothetical). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

All answers can be found in Planet of the Apes Trilogy. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"say apes evolved to the point of the stone age" Oh no! Not apes again! It was the bloody evolved apes which got us into this mess with Trump, Brexit and global warming. I think that chickens should have the next go.Hubert (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Chickens had their chanceAloysius the Gaul 20:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

One hundred thousand years is too short for any meaningful evolution among apes to occur, @Rationalzombie94. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Only a little. It's only an order of magnitude short. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not at all - plenty of time for changes to be notableAloysius the Gaul 03:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aloysius the Gaul Too short for major developments like the Stone Age to occur among nonhuman apes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So 'assuming a sufficient length of time has passed' for Simian Sapiens sapiens to emerge how much of Homo Sapiens sapiens material would survive - this much or more? And would 'stone age sentient simians' be making use of the material before they realised it was worked by other sentients? And when they did, would they be capable of recognising that some of the solutions to then present problems had already been solved (and could be made use of)? Anna Livia (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Some chimpanzees have already entere the stone age.[4] Bongolian (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

They haven't even developed language yet. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And by dammit, I will bomb them back past the stone age the second I notice patterns in their hoots and hollers. The problem isn't the existence of the niche, because that's not how evolution works. The problem is the availability of the niche to work to a benefit. Language is really fun, and open, but syntax seems to be the only way it works. I mean, when humans want to lay out a newspaper or magazine, pictures and text, before we have the pictures or text, we first put in placeholder pictures and text that are pure nonsense, because we just want to see what it would look like. Humans are a very advanced species, I don't know if there's so much merit in lording our collective advancement over every other species. I mean, yeah, we won, why are we still acting like we are in the predator/prey game? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena 100k years is plenty - start measuring 50k before the development of stone tools, then you have 50k after the development - simple. And they're in the stone age alreadyAloysius the Gaul 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There are many other factors at work here tho, it took over seven million years from the evolution of the first hominins to get where we are now, 100k years is too short of a time span. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The Area 51 'invasion' in about 2 months

So, I heard about this shit yesterday when watching some video's from Trevor Noah. Today I saw that a TV station in my country covered it aswell, highlighting the following quote from said FB group/page/whatever:

Their bullets won't stop us, if we run like Naruto.

So, let me get this straight. On The 20th of September, A bunch of Conspiracy Weeaboos are going to "attack" Area 51, together with their I'm-so-lonely-sexpillows"Waifu's" or their borderline pedophilia fantasies "army of loli's", to find out why they are a bunch of scizo's and creeps free aliens...

Well, the only logical response to give to this, would be this.

I kind of feel disgusted after typing "waifu" and "loli", is this normal? Plus, I'm also disappointed in humanity again... Tinribmancer (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I hate this so much right now. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 10:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pedophiles have nothing to do with this. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why I added the word "Borderline". Tinribmancer (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Basically, someone shitposted on Facebook and "fun" hilarity has ensued. There is a Kurt Vonnegut quote / book we need to mention to these shitposters, you know. Again. At least the bemused Area 51 memes that have responded to this have provided light entertainment for social media. *shrug* Soundwave106 (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

$10 says some people will actually attempt it. They will either get shot and end up peeing in a bag or get arrested and spend time in prison. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

They're going to attempt to emulate a fictional character with magical powers who is exaggerated for dramatic/comedic effect, all to storm a testing facility for the U.S. Military (the Air Force if I remember correctly) that openly states that they test spy planes, and all because of baseless urban legend. (And let's be honest, if there were E.T.s out there and the U.S. knew about them, we'd either be at war with them or screaming about how evil they may or may not be.) I hate them all. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Still less stupid than qanon. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Almost everything is less stupid than Qanon. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The first thing people's mind go to with Area51 is fucking the aliens or keeping them as pets, it's just as stupid.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I've a feeling the Naruto quote was said by someone either 13, or taking the piss. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Noir LeSable Sadly, I can see this being said in all serious. They really are dumb enough to say something like this. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The authorities should invite 'street preachers, buskers (particularly the ones paid to go away), Burning Man participants wanting a follow on gig, and assorted others to serve as a reception committee. Anna Livia (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And then filming it, to throw it on YT afterwards. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing was a joke from the begining. That's why it's popular. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

How many people will be stupid enough to actually try it?

We will find out soon enough. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Less than a hundred, more than 50. Military response will be non-lethal, will trend on Twitter for 1.5 news cycles and then we'll move on to the next--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Very likely just a couple dozen. Once military kicks in (non-lethal, I hope), they'll scatter away, just for the remaining ones to be arrested if they manage to reach the entrance, or worse (I suspect gun nuts will be among the ones going there). Panzerfaust (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So back in 1988, Fresh Air host Terry Gross (my radio waifu) interviewed Chuck Yeager. there are several interviews contained in this link, I apologize, you can't just click play. But what was interesting is how openly Yeager explained the mechanics and how adamantly Yeager spoke about keeping the mechanics of supersonic rocketry classified at the time. I mean, he was doing his flights in the late 1950's, the only reason he didn't go to space was because they required a degree, so he trained every astronaut with his own high school degree. What are the odds that those recent test flights that spotted UFOs were also test flights for manmade drones that might fly in a way we don't quite get yet? I mean, we broke the dynamics of supersonic flight and adjusted for the win in the 50s, kept it secret from our allies. Let's say we do it again today. Wouldn't you want our pilots to know that they are looking for "something? on a test flight just in case? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer You are aware that it's a joke right? Commie Lib (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Will mention this for a more positive version. Anna Livia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)