Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive319

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 11 August 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>, <317>, <318>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, (new)(back)

lolcows[edit]

So, is it only people from sites like 4chan, Kiwi Farms, ect... using this and/or people with 4chan-esch, ect... behaviour? I watched one of those Jordan Peterson vids from Hugo and Jake and halfway the video, some asked Jake something about SJW and Jake said that he perfectly know what SJw are and compared them with lolcows, iirc... Tinribmancer (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I gather "Lolcows" are people who can be repeatedly set off so someone can laugh at their expense. Basically they're the online version of that kid that the school bully repeatedly harassed for "fun". From what I've seen I'm pretty sure Hugo and Jake are talking out of their asses, given that in the past they repeatedly stated that they have little to no interest in politics. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, turns out "lolcow" just means "person we've mass harrassed excessively". Not one of the losers who dish it out could take it. Not a one. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Kiwis have turned their heads to us again, it seems. Oh well. Oxyaena Harass 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And they almost had 2 months on their name too. What a shame. Seems like they're also following the saloonbar. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And the hunters become the hunted... Watching their thread on us devolve into petty squabbles is quite amusing. For those at Kiwi Farms watching us, hello! (Un)Welcome, blah blah blah. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You can count on us to get the latest news on the Lomax thing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 07:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
LMAO at the "autistic people can't feel empathy" thing. Do these idiots not know what autism actually is and what it entails? Oxyaena Harass 17:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Also the tags from that thread: "neckbeards" (So, if you don't think like them, you're a "neckbeard". Ok, then...) "Pedophile Apologism" (What? When did we do that? I fucking hate pedo's...) "Anti-Semitism" (Says the site that lost their twitter & youtube accounts for these reasons...) "triggered" (4chan intellect), "reeeee" (I don't understand why these people are in a bitch-fight with DHI. Both sites are exactly the same, based on IQ...), "destroyer of several dozen irony meters", "everything i don't like is the same thing" (are they confusing us with their own site with those last 2 tags?). Plus, they archived our saloon bar based on that transphobic topic from that BoN.
Oh, and the Breitbart logo in the lower right corner... Tinribmancer (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Most of those idiots are also hypocrites, being autistic and trans themselves. Oxyaena Harass 19:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
If I recall, a lot of this labeling came from somethingawful, which cost 5 bucks for a membership, and a lot of my friends back in the day used to crash those boards, (reading them, not basketball terminology), thinking that was EXACTLY what was it. I mean, like, we were 10th graders, and the somethingawful and Star Wars Galaxies communities were informing some of my friends. That whole group has devoured and disseminated itself, the boys all chased each others girlfriends, and the best boys are all married to each others' ex-girlfriends now and they no joke hate each other, it's weird.
Part of being "on the boards" is to wreck anyone you can for clout. That's the default board culture. Best advice I ever got in person by a guy who was older than me and on-board when I complained that my friends were stabbing each other in the back constantly was "Yeah, stay off the boards."Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Request[edit]

For people interested in being returning officers for the RationalMedia foundation 2019 board of trustees election. To do it, you must not be an Russian agent, you must be able to keep secrets, and you must be able to use a program called OpenSTV to count votes as shown in the proceedings of RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results/Archive11. You will need a few hours minimum free time to do it in mid August. — Dysk (contribs) 14:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Write here if you are interested[edit]

Tumbleweed.gif

Oh no the poor Russians![edit]

"Russian agent" sounds a little xenophobic; do you mean an ethnic Russian or an agent of the Russian government? nobsI'm all yea'res 15:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Ability to detect jokes: still absent. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What's so funny about xenophobia? nobsI'm all yea'res 15:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that he's making fun of the paranoia you're accusing him of, ya dumbshit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
There comes a time to end this anti-Russian xenophobia that's been mainstreamed the past three years. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
By which I assume you actually mean, stop the Trump-Russia investigation(s) and forget about all the related misconduct. — Dysk (contribs) 17:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, anyone think nobs' psychological defect of not actually understanding what xenophobia is is kinda interesting? No one here is posting louise-mensch-esque "can't overcome their slavic nature" takes that code russia itself as dangerous for being russian. I think he knows that, but he feels like copying the form, without the function, of real criticism of stupid racist policies he whole-heartedly backs, is meaningful. It really is some kind of mental short circuit that just walks past critical thought straight into whatever bullshit feels most appropriate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
cold war warrior rob must have decried the Russians as barbarous animals plenty of times over the years. but now trump is hot for putin, its 'leave those poor Russians alone'. you are a good dog rob, yes you are, good boy. maybe trump has some treats for you?AMassiveGay (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

So,@RobSmith, how do you think Moscow Mitch will fare in his 2019 reelection bid? Ariel31459 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody still watch MSNBC? Does anybody actually use MSNBC as news source? Trump's New and Improved FBI is digging up dead bodies right now. nobsI'm all yea'res 02:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

ohh nooo im fucked arent i БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Monday morning dumpster dive[edit]

I rebooted Fuzzy's moribund Monday morning dumpster dive to be a portal for bored editors who are looking for random articles to clean up. The new page randomizes selections from several categories that already exist here, and might be useful for those of us who are bored at work and are looking at some way to improve the wiki. Comments and feedback welcome as always. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

maybe it'll work this time oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A dude actually recommended Alex Jones's Infowars to me[edit]

Yesterday I checked my YouTube notifications and there was a comment on a video I made about 6 months ago. A dude recommended infowars because in said video I made, most volcanoes erupt worldwide releasing greenhouse gases into the air causing global warming. Why is the content of my video relevant? Because the dude who commented that "Global warming is a farce invented by liberal elites of the NWO and all volcanoes erupting worldwide would cause global cooling".

Me being the smartass I am, I replied, "Because you were kind enough to recommend Infowars, may I recommend RationalWiki or a psychiatrist"?. That comment got me laughing. Why the fuck would I believe anything from Infowars? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Reminder you can be both neurotypical and a fan of Alex Jones. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 16:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I just found it funny for the most part. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The last person who suggested Alex Jones to me did not have autism, but did have a cluster A personality disorder. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Elves[edit]

I've written an article for them (Elf), based on what I've found on the other Wiki and D&D. Since it's in pretty much tongue-in-check maybe it should be a Fun:Elf article instead.

I'll come to it later on when I can write on something better than a fucking tablet. As usual, improvements are welcome. Panzerfaust (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Panzerfaust Sources needed. Spud (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Strike through is just a little overdone. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't make it clear how to tell if elves are shared, relocatable or executable. 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:CDA0:CB0F:1BC3:8EB (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Attack of the Apologists- a call for assistance from Scotland[edit]

Hello! Not got an account here but I’ve often used RW as a resource (and a good one it is too).

I’m the president of the University of Edinburgh Atheist, Humanist, and Secularist Society (my Twitter to prove I be a real person: @DJtotheS). To the point: I’m speaking in October at a debate against the question ‘Is the Christian faith true?’. My partner and I are up against two committed and knowledgable apologists so I fully intend to use RW’s relevant pages as a resource. But I also wanted to ask the community if there were any other resources they recommend? And if they have any advice? I know these two are committed and, though I’m knowledgeable enough about the subject and why I’m a non believer, it’s a fact that apologists have many tricks re. history/bible scholarship and that they spend much more time dreaming up ‘sophisticated’ arguments for their views than I do about Jesus’s resurrection. So, yes, any advice/comments/resources would be much appreciated. Your reward will consist of my goodwill towards you (and if you’re in or near Edinburgh I’ll buy you a drink).

Thank you! Xx — Unsigned, by: 2A02:C7D:2E2B:A700:7177:A3AE:C80A:8575 / talk

The weird contradictions in the Bible is certainly a good start. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a sensible piece of supporting evidence, but it's not exactly something apologists are unprepared for. Besides, the core question at debate is "Is Christianity true?" And evidence that parts of the bible are wrong is going to be treated with a rebuttal akin to "parts of the origin of the species were wrong, does that make evolution wrong?" And rhetorically it looks weak, like you're starting out with nitpicks rather than having a central point.
Instead, you should actually have a central thesis to your argument. Are you going to take the position that "The core tenets of Christianity, are, at best, unproven(and faith without reason is pure naivety)"? Or maybe you'll want to argue "Christianity is just another religion with no special claim to the truth, and an honest truth-seeker should hold truth to a higher standard than faith". Those both make the case that Christianity is not true, but they are very different core arguments. There are more valid theses than that. What is your one-sentence case? We can build on that. Don't come to a debate prepared to refute the other side. Come to a debate prepared to make your own position clearly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, thanks, very wise words there. I was semi-seriously considering researching Islamic apologetics and arguing Christianity isn’t true because Islam is. An ironic demonstration of the power of apologetics. Still, I think I’ll go down a more traditional road. I think my one sentence point would be: “No, Christianity is not true for three reasons: first, there is no god (with brief refutations of the traditional god arguments and a statement of how the concept of god is incoherent at best and demonstrably false at worst) and so however convincing your arguments are they prove nothing if there isn’t a god; second, the historical untenability of biblical claims as well as numerous contradictions within the bible (back up argument as said above, but also I think it’s stronger than that as their whole schtick is that this is a divinely inspired book- silly contradictions, especially in core places, refuted that notion in a way that parts of Darwin being outdated doesn’t refute evolution); and finally, the point mentioned above re. Christianity being one among many with no special hold on truth; so a conclusion would be that, again as said above, Christianity is at very least unproven (and makes some big claims despite this) and, more probably, clearly untrue- certainly we can’t conclude that it is true, and the more rational answer to the question ‘Is Christianity true?’ is therefore no?”
Yes, I cheated because that’s a hell of a long sentence but it’s what I came up with on the spot. Something along those lines I think would be a good opener. Again, thanks for your advice. -D — Unsigned, by: 2.121.110.105 / talk
While I agree with you that god doesn't exist, that's a large-scale debate in and of itself. It's probably the one the apologists types have the most ammo for too.
If you're gonna take that route, you're gonna want to familiarize yourself with all of the "proofs" of god's existence, and be ready to refute them. And that's only if your opponent brings up that specific argument. Don't point out problems with the arguments they're not making. You're trying to establish your side of an argument, not merely defeat theirs.
Your' argument for god's non-existence should come from some philosophical core. Something like "The laws of physics describe the behavior of all matter and energy in the universe; when a ball rolls down a hill, it's because of gravity, not because god pushed it; when you feel warmth of the sun on your skin, it's because a giant fusion reactor in the sky emits photons that excite the atoms of your skin, not because god separated light from the darkness; when you feel joy or sorrow, it's because of neurons in your brain reacting to stimuli, not because god is testing or rewarding you. And there's very little room in the math of those laws for god to hide." I'd say that's my core, at least. Though if they really push you, it does require knowing some of that math.
I'd say getting the silly parts of the bible in the middle of your argument is good. It gives some pacing space. Though take careful consideration of the format of the debate. How much time do you have to answer? How likely is a gish gallop? Have you ever responded to a gish gallop before? Really, they're gonna gish gallop you at some point.
Anyways, you're off to a good start. Bring a few pages of notes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
it works. I am 99% sure there is no God. I am 100% sure than the god of any human text is fantasy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wall of text[edit]

Hey, you, you're finally awake. You were trying to cross the border, right? Walked right into that fascist ambush, same as us, and that centrist over there over there. "Damn you antifa. America was fine until you came along. The nation was nice and lazy. If they hadn't been looking for you, I could've stolen that car and be halfway to Canada You there. You and me - we shouldn't be here. It's these antifa the Donald wants." "We're all brothers and sisters in binds now, liberal." "Shut up back there!" "And what's wrong with him, huh?" "Watch your tongue. You're speaking to Bernie Sanders, the true President of the United States." "Bernie? The Senator from Vermont? You're the leader of the revolution. But if they've captured you... Oh god, where are they taking us?" "I don't know where we're going, but the death camps await." "No, this can't be happening. This isn't happening." Hey, what class are you from, lib?" "Why do you care?" "A true revolutionary's last thoughts should be of their class." "I`m middle class, I'm middle class."

...looks like the Proud Boys are with him.

"President Trump, sir. The headsman is waiting." "Good. Let's get this over with!" "Friedman, Keynes, Clinton, Biden, Obama, Moderates, please help me." "Look at him. President Donald the Military Dictator. And it looks like the Proud Boys are with him. Damn fascists. I bet they had something to do with this."

"Why are we stopping?" "Why do you think? End of the line. Let's go. Shouldn't keep the comrades in the sky waiting for us." Oxyaena Harass 20:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


What are the odds of Abiogenesis happening again on Earth where there is little life[edit]

Not pretending to be an evolutionary biologist or biochemist but I am curious if Abiogenesis could happen again in modern times. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the same (or at least very close) mathematical approximation it once was? Also, regardless of likelihood (1 in 10^40 or whatever it is), once an event occurs, it occurs. It can occur on the very first "attempt" or maybe even double or triple the statistical estimation (1 in 10^80 to 1 in 10^120).
Could it happen again? Yes. Only time will tell though. TheTallMass (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It would probably have to be in places where there is no competition from existing life until it is sufficiently established - this and other environments. Anna Livia (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If it does happen, I wonder how it will impact study of Evolution (Not in the creationist idea)? If scientists manage to observe it, that info could help bring better understanding of evolution and the origin of life. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Low. The magic ingredients of abiogenisis are things existing life loves to eat, and if they were present in the quantities necessary to form basic life, something would eat them first. ikanreed

🐐Bleat at me 01:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This^^. Also, the conditions on Earth now are nothing like the conditions of early Earth when life first arose. If abiogenesis did happen again, the life would be almost nothing like modern life and as primitive as primitive life can be. So at best we can say "We don't know", and at worst we can say "it would never live long enough to be detectable". MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Back after a long hiatus[edit]

Hey guys, I'm back after a long hiatus. I see that my original Bobby Fischer article has really grown and come into its own. I'm immensely pleased. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 15:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Noah[edit]

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Why do many atheists say God was a sadist? Have they not read how the earth was corrupt and full of violence? Do they not understand God was punishing wicked violent people, not enjoying innocent people suffering? And even promised never to destroy the earth by flooding again? Why do they call him a sadist? 2600:1:F167:B7FE:D614:DB:508C:A88E (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So what? Seriously. So fucking what? There is zero justification for genocide, ever. (That includes killing newborns, infants, and children who literally cannot be held accountable for their actions.) But, here's the thing. All the bible says is that everyone is "Sinful". Like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah story isn't too specific about what the horrible crimes these people are guilty of. Nor why mass murder and genocide are acceptable options. All of those excuses are made up after the fact, extra-canonically. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, why does an omnipotent being need to drown everyone? Seriously, drowning takes a long time to kill someone. Why not poof them out of existence? Better yet, Why not poof the sin away? And don't try the "but that interferes with free will" argument, it's bullshit. Drowning them all interferes with free will too, not to mention the multiple instance throughout the bible where God basically possesses or fucks over people with zero regard for their free will. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
For those who object to the literal reading, how do you think of the alternative interpretation that many of the violence in the Bible is meant to be figurative? That way you could not accuse God of being sadist or not omnipotent. 2600:1:F167:B7FE:D614:DB:508C:A88E (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
God made humans in his image. Some humans turned out wicked and evil, like crossdressing and jaywalking, and God killed all animals: puppies, ducklings, river otters, orcas, terror birds, and even water bears, because for an omnipotent being that's obviously the best solution. Then he realized that it's not them that's wicked...it's himself that's the wicked. Nah who am I kidding, it's never God's fault or <high pitched voice>it's just your interpretation</high pitched voice> (sure, let's go with an abstract flood of memories and all the animals are really just representations of God's progressively dying brain neurons) as God is the biggest Mary Sue character in all of fanfiction. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
So the entire book is allegorical and not the breath of the Abrahamic god? Seems like you're saying it's all just "made up" there. Might wanna be careful.
If you're saying that only certain parts are meant to be construed as literal, which parts? And, for that matter, why do you get to have a say in that? TheTallMass (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not cut to the chase, call the whole thing fiction, and be done with it? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Did killing everything on earth solve the problem? #Fail Cms13ca (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If it's just about interpretation, that is deciding which parts are not literal (which will always no matter what involve arbitrary decisions as there is no god given guide on how to do this nor a clear obvious rational way to do so) and how to interpret those non-literal parts (which also involve arbitrary decisions for the same reason) then you have, at the very least, two levels of arbitrary decisions. Even if you get a huge community of scholars to make those decisions, they may be a little more internally consistent and even a little more rational than random wacko decisions, its still mass arbitrary interpretation. At this point, you can respond to religious claims with the answer "well, it's your arbitrary decision that this is literal". Someone says "God hates homosexuals and we should change the law because of it". One is totally entitled to (and logically justified in saying) it's your arbitrary decision that those lines in the bible are literal. We're not changing the law because of your arbitrary decision. And in fact, we're not basing the law on your religious book. Or any religion. Fuck off and leave us alone). Someone says "God created the world" one can easily respond "yeah but that could be a figurative chapter in the bible. It's your arbitrary decision that the Earth wasn't here all along. In fact it's your arbitrary decision that God himself is literal. One can just as rationally decide that every line that mentions God is figurative and that God isn't an entity at all, no powers, no existence whatsoever (which is 99.9999999999999...999999% likely). So ultimately what reason could you possibly give me to take your reading of the bible seriously? And more so...why should I take the damn book seriously? ShabiDOO 20:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we get something for Christian fundamentalists, similar to the "Concern troll" placard, aswell? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's where I make everyone groan by pointing out that Thanos is less of a villain than God. He only killed half of all life, and he did it painlessly. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that parts of the Bible that was supposed to happen in real life got distorted and became tall tales like Johnny Appleseed. The rest was likely mistranslated and some pages might have went missing when the Bible was written. The Bible has very little in terms of factual information. As for God being a dick- yes he would be. Unless there was two different Gods fighting for power, the book would make no sense. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
When did the Bible even make sense, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This God created humans in his own image and then complains about them becoming evil. The Flood as an act of self-loathing anyone?
Most other deities are far more tolerant of human faults (apart from impiety and suchlike). Anna Livia (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Your god sounds like a pathetic, egotistical bully. Oh wait, he already is. Oxyaena Harass 18:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Oxyaena - I presume your comment, like mine, is about the original poster's God. Mine merely wishes the universe that has been created to be admired (and to be improved/ornamented at the very detailed level which sentients can achieve) and for people to be neutral-to-positive and do 'little good deeds and acts of creativity' as a regular habit (and more if they can). Anna Livia (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Turn the question around[edit]

When is it okay to kill a human being? When is it okay to kill millions of human beings? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Self defense, or after a fair trial. Never.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
So Adolf Eichmann should've claimed self defense when being tried for crimes against humanity, then? Oxyaena Harass 02:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I was trying to get at, but I'm realizing now the IP is long gone and we're all just talking among ourselves. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
No he had no defense, and he was correctly sentenced to death after a trial.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have some questions[edit]

Muhammadanism.org is a actual Islamic website? What's your opinion about the Conspiracy Theories with Shane Dawson video and the conspiracy theories its discurse?ANewUser (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

muhammadanism.org has no contact information I can find and apparently hasn't been updated since 2010 or so. Treat it as you would any other blog. And Shane Dawson thinks pitch shifting is mind control or some shit like that. (And here I thought it was just Fourier based math, handily coded as a pitch adjustment control on most DAWs... heh.) Soundwave106 (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but i'm talking about this video: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Series_with_Shane_Dawson ANewUser (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Shane Dawson seems to have a schtick for conspiracy theories on Youtube. It doesn't matter that he made a "series" of two episodes to me, his standard channel has a fair bit of this nonsense as well (though this isn't really his primary schtick I guess). It's garbage bullshit. I mainly found the pitch shift mind control stuff most amusing simply because of my background (professional developer, amateur musician, plenty of experience with DAWs, far from a DSP expert, but I've actually have read a couple books on DSP effects and synths, so...). I never knew you could control minds with a few lines of C. :p Soundwave106 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop it[edit]

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Stop comparing Trump with Hitler. It is a disgusting insult to Holocaust victims. Sure, Trump might be corrupt but it is insulting Holocaust victims to compare him with Hitler. 2600:1:F167:B7FE:4A85:28B8:1035:2593 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No, fuck you, stop making concentration camps. Corruption has nothing to do with the fact that you're repeating history and using that same history to excuse yourselves. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I would have been personally offended by anyone who called Trump Hitler...even 6 months ago. It's not such a stretch anymore. Hitler was more than just the architect of assembly line murder. He:
  • Wreaked havoc on the world economy
  • Made absurd demands of neighbours
  • Whipped up the country into a racist hysteria
  • Spent hours lying about everything
  • Led through hate
  • Treated concentration camp interns with zero empathy with cruel conditions
  • Compared races to rat infested messes
  • Wanted to make Germany great again
  • Spent heavily on the military
  • Slowly started to lead through dubious political mechanisms and executive decisions
  • Was incapable of handling criticisms
  • Easily flew into a rage
  • Inspired his adoring fans through slogans and simple one liners
  • Anti LGTB policies
  • Attacked the media
  • Threatened a countries anovulation
  • Alienated it's few allies
  • Slowly got worse with people tolerating the grotesque cause they liked a few of his more moderate policies

Sound familiar? And he is getting much worse all the time. It is no longer a stretch. He is a Hitler in development now. ShabiDOO 05:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like the picture some libs have of Trump. For the most part Trump doesn't come close to this though. Give him some time, maybe he'll lock up his German ambassador for being gay in a couple months. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
You are stuck in a liberal/conservative false dichotomy. And I'm not American. 90% of Canadians and Europeans have a much more objective view of the guy and they are almost unanimously horrified by his racism, concentration camp conditions, media attacks, hate speeches, chronic lying, hissy fits, political games, insults, trade wars, tarrifs with Canada, China and EU, fucking around with Iran, failure to deal with N Korea. Forget your liberal/conservative bullshit. As a human being I'm aware of how toxic and dangerous this guy is and how many Americans are increasingly tolerating more and more disturbing policies. Look at it from outside, drop your myopia and find another perspective. He isn't Hitler. He is mirroring Hitler's rise to facism. It sounds less like you care about hollocaust survivors feelings and more about Trump's reputation. Zheesh. ShabiDOO 07:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
What you're telling me isn't news to me. Most European media simply parrot the same coverage you'll see in American mainstream outlets. If you're watching Canadian media it's probably more biased still. (Btw I'm not the original poster.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would be worth doing a point-by-point comparison with Robert Paxton's definition of fascism (from The Anatomy of Fascism):

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Bongolian (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"militants working in uneasy collaboration with traditional elites + redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints" That's a good description of the Resistance melting pot of Antifa, the Squad, career Democrats and woke corporations. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Your comments reek of hypergeneralizations and hard core concern trolling. Hey guys..please think of those holocaust victims (which we should). Now fuck those devious trouble making black democrat chicks. How scummy to use fake concern for genocide victims to really just trash an ideology you hate. What's wrong with you?ShabiDOO 09:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
You may be confusing me with someone else. Speaking of hypergeneralizations and hard core trolling, have you read your most recent comment per chance? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump and the whole US Repulican party are far-right. 2001:67C:2660:425:7:0:0:12F (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting how NYT equivocates between the Republican Party being more conservative compared to European right-wing parties and it allegedly being "far-right", a term evocative of fascism-adjacent political movements. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Seriously. What is wrong with you? ShabiDOO 12:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm? Can't you have normal conversations without accusing people of odd things you dream up? It's a bit tiring. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Seriously getting flashbacks to this from American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein (2009)
Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just adding my $0.02 to this conversation: You can compare Trump to Hitler. Sure. But what difference does it make, even if it's true? It comes across as hyperbolic to anyone who isn't completely convinced of it as well, and they'll dismiss any related points you try and make because, in their eyes, you're irrational and heavily biased. I personally agree that the comparison has some legitimacy, but openly pushing the comparison in the hopes that it will "wake people up" is misguided and will in fact do the opposite. TheUnderOver (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The comparison to Hitler fails in part because Donald Trump is far more incompetent, frankly. As it stands, I see Donald Trump as a dumber, brasher version of Silvio Berlusconi. (If Jeffrey Epstein ends up being Donald Trump's bunga bunga party equivalent scandal, even more so.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Did someone on rationalwiki even make the claim that Trump is Hitler? It's the concern troll who brought it up. Indeed, talking about the parallels of Hitlers rise and things Trump is doing now is interesting. But saying "Trump is Hitler" could not possibly be more counterproductive. Comparing Trumps style with many elements of facism is a lot more useful. ShabiDOO 14:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The GOP isn't just comparable to the far-right, they are the far right. If we assign the role of centrist to a roughly 50/50 mix of policies between left and right, the GOP is objectively far right, as they fail to support moderate policies consistently and in fact support extreme policies and rhetoric much more often. This includes dehumanization, tribalism, calls for violence, support for a greater concentration of power, etc. This harms our society as a whole and ultimately leads toward a dictatorship. We don't need to prove this claim with any more effort than pointing to the rise of authoritarian groups and individuals throughout history, including the present day. Trump is the U.S. version of Hitler, we are watching the fall of the Weimar Republic 2.0, and your deflections or denial mean nothing. The ultimate culmination of American nationalism and ego-centrism will arrive, whether we want it to or not, and ultimately, what matters is how we react to it. Do we support it like simpering children? Oppose it as rebels who may die or be injured in the struggle? Or passively let it go by as indifferent onlookers? Whichever choice, there will be consequences, and you'd best be ready to accept them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, imagine equating a ragtag bunch of traditionalists and corporate shills with fascists and white supremacists. There are still many wonders to be seen in this world. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Troll Oxyaena Harass 18:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That would be profoundly insightful were it not for the numerous fascist and white supremacist elements clearly at play. If you think the present fascists are merely traditionalists, that's because you're a fascist. If you think the present literal concentration camps are mere corporate shilling, it's because you've always been a racist. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If corporate shilling leads to fascism (it does, look at the alliance of religion, fascism, capitalism, and "traditionalism" read "monarchists desperately clinging to the last ragged shreds of their power" during the time leading up to WWII) then burn it all. If being a "traditionalist" means you're willing to ally with outright Nazis, burn those traditions to ash. If your noting a theme here, good. Fascism is a moronic attempt to return to a gilded age that never was, all on the corpses of innocents. To say that such views are stupid is to understate just how unhinged such an ideology is. It is not merely the political equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum, but of said child pulling out a weapon and going a rampage before ultimately killing themselves. It is a no win option, with nothing useful to add to the conversation, and as thus we should oppose it. The end. If you're still onboard with the GOP at this point, I'm not going to expect you to care about human life, or morality, or even the rule of law. You just want some poor shmuck to heel-kick until they die, all to make your pathetic life more bearable. And should you fail the purity test, (and you will, no one is "pure" enough) and they come for you next, I told you so. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you were so close to having a meaningful insight―namely that all systems are corruptible and that corruption can come in many shapes and forms, which can in turn enable additional variant types of corruption―but instead you come up with the most partisan-biased take stringing various disparate things together, condemning everything right-wing as "all is fascism" and dreaming of a political purity that only exists in fictional utopias. And you think it's Trump who wants purity! Ha! 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"Every system is equal, pay no attention to the mountain of corpses." Perhaps you were too busy strawmanning me to get the memo. Because I stated outright my distaste for political purity tests. So let me lower my speech to your level. Fascism = bad because it kills innocent people. Any system that allows fascism to rise = bad. If fascism rises all the fascists go bang bang at their enemies, then they go bang bang at each other. Winning not possible. Fascism bad, you dishonest and no able to read. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Whelp, now you've reduced yourself to talking in baby language in hopes of proving how being petty makes you better than others? Your mental processes are a thing to behold for sure. So to reiterate, you single out a particular political party, claim "The GOP isn't just comparable to the far-right, they are the far right", then you peddle back slightly saying it leads to fascism while adding a little brainfart about monarchists and reaffirm "then burn it all." Regardless of whether you want to burn specifically everything right-wing or everything else as well, it's still purity you're after all the same. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A corporate shill like Henry Ford, perhaps? Bongolian (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

See, the thing is that the GOP is now the Party of Trump, the coda of the Southern Strategy. It's not terribly close to a Hitler Final Solution level (as much as this disappoints 8chan's /pol/), but Trump has shifted the GOP to where white male identity politics is the dominant subject matter of the day. The party is paying much less lip service to the 1980s Ayn Rand-style business side that never met a tax and regulation they liked. True, the GOP got a big tax cut passed thanks to Congress (Trump's only major accomplishment per se) but the 1980s Reagan era GOP would be horrified at Trump's slapdash tariff wars and other anti-globalization economics, the Putin adoration (and other strongman worshiping), the strong over-focus on keeping dem immigrants out (Reagan actually granted amnesty to dem illegals at one point), and even Trump's racist tweets (1980s GOP used "dog whistles" to get the Archie Bunkers on board, of course, but nothing like today). Do you think Donald Trump even knows what a Chicago School of Economics is? I have my doubts. It's pretty clear Donald Trump wants to be a strongman, it's pretty clear there's a fair amount of people in America that wish to be led by a strongman cult, and in a way we are fortunate that American institutions are robust enough where a dumb strongman wannabe can't do catastrophic damage, at least while that "fair amount of people" is not a majority. It's also pretty clear that the long term effects of this strategy are questionable (due to shifting demographics). So GOP, go to it, and good luck. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I see my mistake now. I assumed this BoN was either uninformed or unintelligent. I should have noticed that they were a blatantly dishonest troll. (And I think I know which one...) I apologize to my peers for throwing caviar to the swine. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pic I found[edit]

Thought it was quite funny. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Making fun of the fascist threat, are we? That'll be 50 "Hail AOCs." 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:A522:4425:C33D:25EF (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about? It's just a picture I found. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tinribmancer I'm starting to think this person might be a dishonest troll... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You could barely call him a troll. Most trolls are at least slightly funny or interesting or provocative in an amusing way. This guy is just dull and unpleasantly-annoying and wasting his free time trying to get a rise out of people he doesn't even know out of sheer dull boredom. God I wish I could be as awesome as him (most likely a guy). ShabiDOO 13:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Spud's first RW French translation is now in mainspace[edit]

A little earlier, I moved my first RW French translation out of draftspace and into mainspace. It can now be found at Halloween (français). It's the longest thing I've written in French since I graduated from university 24 years ago. Other French-speaking editors are, of course, most welcome to correct any mistakes I've made, rephrase anything they think could be phrased better and generally do whatever they like to make the page better. Spud (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Spud! Bongolian (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How long before Trump pulls a Herbert Hoover?[edit]

After WW1, the veterans of the war marched on to DC demanding the financial compensation they were promised; they also brought their families. In response, Hoover uses tear gas and water cannons against them. Some people died and it killed Hoover's chance at reelection i.e "Political Suicide".

Now, how long before Trump decides to do something similar? I certainly don't trust a traitor in the highest office in the country. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

what group of people have a similar status in us society today that such actions would be political suicide? its not going to happen. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
and the bonus army didn't have fox news calling them Antifa terrorist and communists. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
here's the attorney general of the US calling the marchers communists and terrorists(not antifa though) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
yeh, I know reds have been under the bed since way back, I was alluding to more to the state of news media in the current climate, and that protests that are likely to get broken up in violent fashion by the state would be of groups whom trump's base would be cheering on any death or injury they sustain. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I said this before, but Trump's supporters will stand behind him if Trump does something as much as nuking Los Angeles. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hell, half of trump supporters already want to nuke LA, and the other half would get on board when it happened. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree, 45 could do just about anything and the 30% of Americans that worship the ground he walks on would continue to support him. But the Hoover comparison is interesting, because a large part of Hoover's downfall was his failed economic policies. Coming off the WWI victory, the 1920's saw massive success and prosperity in the US. Then the stock market crashed, the dust bowl made large swaths of the Midwest unlivable Hoover put on a bunch of tariffs that managed to make things worse, then he got the boot. The only thing I could ever see booting Trump, is if his actions were so cataclysmic to agriculture (like he destroyed millions of acres of farmland), and completely erased all the economic gains made since 2016.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
At risk of being antagonistic, of course the President would never nuke Los Angeles! He owns a golf course there.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, looks like he already nuked it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You people are on drugs. Duh, the veterans march occurred at the pit of the Great depression, duh, the U.S. economy has more jobs than citizens or immigrants can fill right now, duh, you think Hoover just wanted to streamroll people for the fun of it, duh, where do you get your information from, duh, Howward Zinn? nobsI'm all yea'res 05:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Most of those jobs don't provide enough to even afford basic healthcare right now. Try again. Oxyaena Harass 07:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
So you're peeing your pants like an adolescent, denigrating the value of work, the self dignity of work, of being a contributing member to society, of service to others, and you want it all NOW - home, healthcare, tuition assistance, etc. You want debt and enslavement of your fellow citizens to satisfy your immediate needs. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
And you igjnore a simple economic fact - supply and demand. If more jobs are available due to restricted immigration, wages have to rise; we don't need no goddamm leftist totalitarians stirring up shit between workers and employers claiming leftist totalitarian big government needs to "protect" the poor oppressed working class with minimum wage laws, cause wages will rise anyway. nobsI'm all yea'res 16:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"Wages have to rise" I say as no correlation exists with respect to time or location between wages and immigration. Look, your pogroms solve no problems. You're just evil. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Immigration increases the the aggregate workforce, or labor supply, duh. More workers available for fewer jobs drives down wages; more jobs available than workers increases wages. nobsI'm all yea'res

(Reset) What about certain specialist jobs/persons with specialist skill-sets; certain seasonal jobs; unskilled casual labour operating in fragmented markets and zero hours contracts; automation; and vanishing trades. Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It is already well established that Hoover's tariffs made the Great Depression a lot worse. In this sense Trump already has pulled a Herbert Hoover with his scatterbrained tariffs. We'll see how the economy responds from here. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Duh, tax increases (tariffs are taxes) should never be applied in a recession. We are not in a recession. nobsI'm all yea'res
Well, your concern about "value of work big government economy etc." rings hollow to me when, to giver a current example, our current Trumpian government gets in a tiddy with China, screws over the soybean farmers with tariffs, and then offers welfare... er, sorry, "subsidies" to the farmers to try and compensate. (sarc)Small, market oriented government in action indeed.(/sarc)Soundwave106 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Anna,
  • specialist jobs/persons with specialist skill-sets - this is what is commonly referred to as "legal immigration";
  • unskilled casual labour - illegal immigration limits these types of jobs available for indigenous population and stunts wage growth.
  • automation - the original Green New Deal uses this language: "private companies are wary of making massive investments in unproven research and technologies; the government, however, has the time horizon to be able to patiently make investments in new tech and R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of government investments in “new”tech that subsequently spurred a boom in the private section include DARPA-projects, the creation of the internet - and, perhaps most recently, the government’s investment in Tesla. Funny. Communists now are claiming Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for R&D that created cell phones, flat screens, Intel, Microsoft, Google, etc. etc. worked.
  • vanishing trades - See cp:Creative destruction (Investopedia's article is a bit complicated, and Wikipedia's is horrid; CP's is concise and to the point). nobsI'm all yea'res 16:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me give a simple example of creative destruction at work: Youtube (formerly). Big Media and the high-paid journalism trade is being replaced by technical improvements and Youtubers (actually expanding employment, albeit at lower pay with more workers, in that field). Big Media journalists and broadcasters are the buggy whip makers of yesteryear, fighting against technology and improvements. nobsI'm all yea'res

Your logic is flawed - but I will leave it to the experts to carry on this discussion further. Anna Livia (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Supply and demand don't decide wages in a complex mixed economy like the US. Especially considering wages for middle income workers have increased about 11% adjusted for inflation, and CEO's wages have increased 761% (since the 70's). CEO's made 28 times more than their lowest paid worker in the 80's, now it's closer to 300 to 1. Corporations made a deal with governments to keep wages low, invest abroad to make products cheaper, and then hollow out American industries. Corporate greed is responsible for income inequality, and there is literally no excuse.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Mixed economy = socialist planning.
My point still stands: Even unskilled wages will rise above the minimum wage when more demand for unskilled workers exceeds labor supply. Everybody needs their lawn mowed or their toilet cleaned. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Corporations made a deal with governments to keep wages low, invest abroad to make products cheaper, and then hollow out American industries -- a Trumpism if I heard it. nobsI'm all yea'res 17:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Not how supply and demand works, dumbass. There isn't some static "supply" magic variable. Proposal: execute nobs, use his brain(entirely made of the finest hair) to clean toilets. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh? "static 'supply' magic variable", "no correlation exists with respect to time or location>" The harder you try to sound intelligent, the more of a dumbass you look. nobsI'm all yea'res 18:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine. Tiny words for tiny brains it is. If you look at immigration into the US, it has no relationship with wages, at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
But Corporations blaming immigrants for low wages? That's constant. What better way to keep the workers in line then focusing their anger on anyone other than the capitalists. Also mixed economy means a variety of different models working in concert, how are you so bad at this.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The government is a corporation. It is one of the few corporations that pisses on its share holders (the taxpayers). 71.215.128.66 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The best way to keep the plebs in line is to feed them a steady supply of mass produced junk with one hand, blame random people for the ensuing woes with another, and whisper how much you secretly love them all the while. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A government is not a corporation. That's called false equivalence and it's stupid. Corporations exist to to make money, the end. Governments exist to administrate over large groups of people. To conflate the two is to expose one's deep ignorance on the subjects of civics, economics, and social behavior. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you@GrammarCommie. That comparison is not only stupid, but dangerous.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Best arguments for Open Borders[edit]

What are the best arguments in favor of Open Borders? (I live in US but I'd like arguments that applies world wide)— Unsigned, by: 2a00:1298:8011:212::165 / talk / contribs

I'm not a huge fan of open borders as a goal in-and-of itself, but when the "sensible" "alternative" is concentration camps, civil standards in criminal trials, arbitrary denial of constitutional rights within 200 miles of a border, massively expensive enforcement programs, constant mass surveillance programs, militarization of peaceful borders, gigantic wasteful infrastructure projects that provide negative net value(like "the wall"), it becomes the obvious choice. The cost of freedom of movement is way lower. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
What about this? Anna Livia (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Quick! Defend the arbitrary squiggles that'll be changed for various reasons within the next 500-1000 years!!! THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT!!!!! Please pay no attention to the fact that we are completely ignoring the squiggles to the north which is stereotypically where white people come from full of good people. 17:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Any RW drinks arising from this discussion should be Scotch whisky. Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"You either support the WALL or you support OPEN BORDERS" is so tired, second only to "Everything I disagree with is COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM". Seeking asylum isn't illegal, and walls don't work.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. We should be drinking rum and tequila. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
That is undeniably where our just-enforce-the-laws "pragmatism" ended up. Because there's never actually enough "control" of ethnic minorities to satisfy people who's goal is their total absence. 3/4 of the completely untenable garbage I listed existed under Obama and Bush. If there are centerpoints that don't require abrogation of rights, abusive search-and-destroy enforcement methods, massive over-policing, huge expenses, then fucking describe them. You can't say "The truth is in the middle" if you're not willing to lay down what the fuck that middle is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

as with so much the situation in the us muddies the waters. its difficult to apply arguments over the mexico-us border to the rest of the world. you have to factor in the relative wealth of one country to another, the nature of the immigration, the flow, and probably a whole lot more. and how open do you consider open?

in the eu Schengen area is as about as open bordered you can get without being a single country, and you can add efta to that too. it requires a high degree of cooperation and agreement to set up. it never covered the eu at first, than expanded, and now we have the uk and Ireland opting out, while for more countries have yet to be admitted, requiring certain conditions to be met - do with police cooperation and visas and data protection.

the benefits are obvious. a group of countries bordering each other, trading with one and another, with so much mutual cooperation and shared goals and ideals, boarders were essentially irrelevant. uk and Ireland, being separated from the rest of Europe by sea, were able to keep some semblance of border control as you cant just stroll over at will, and passports still pretty much a requirement for air travel. still had freedom of movement.

immigration issues centred not on illegal immigration, as seem to be the case in the us, but legal. as the eu an the Schengen area expanded to include former warsaw pact countries and the Balkans, there was disparity in the wealth on newer countries with older ones. the new arrivals were seen as poor and backward, thieves and rapists. they weren't going to take your job, but they would lower your wages, in the uk at least, these turned out to be largely unfounded.

where it was true, polish plumbers did cause the rates plumbers charged to drop - after years of being a very lucrative profession for someone without a degree, with graduates starting to opt for it. newer arrivals added to this and across the building trade - lowering the wages of a profession that traditionally paid the highest for those without a higher education, but still good compared to other industries. minimal impact if you had an education, you had opportunities in Europe so the flow was both ways. and the nhs is virtually run foreign born staff, and not just the eu.

problems only really arose with the banking crash, the resulting austerity, and the rising tide of far right populists. the squeeze on wages, the cuts of services, housing shortages creating animosity to your polish neighbours - now seemingly in competition for scarce jobs, school places, housing. its difficult to accept the idea of 'awarded on basis of need' when you are struggling and you see 'johnny come lately' seemingly jump the queue. very easy to exploit people peoples fears and scapegoat European interlopers over the more complicated and abstract causes of political mismanagement and neglect dating back decades. especially when it suits an anti eu agenda, as a very visible target for the them and us politics.

but it was outside of open borders that really made a problem with freedom of movement. the Syrian and Libyan conflicts and the resulting refugee crisis. refugees hit a hard border when they crossed the med or came through the Balkans, but once admitted and given asylum, the schengan area open borders were open to them too. cue hysteria, cue rising racism, the far right resurgent, the lie of turkey being admitted to the eu, to send a deluge of brown and muslim people to join the million plus brown and muslim refugees merkel accepted in germany and everyone of them would be in your small village in the Cotswolds, waging jihad, raping your granny, and making the local corner shop sell some strange foods in jars with funny writing.

I hope this rant helps. open borders are great idea if everyones best pals and doing fine, but the wax and wane of economic prosperity and the fickle nature of politics make it a hard prospect to get off the ground. its working more or less in Europe, which is rich enough and stable enough to weather its storms, I hope. where is else is that a possibility? us-Canada, maybe. us-mexico? im doubtful. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

To me, that doesn't really help. It seems like a poorly phrased "problem statement" that comes off endorsing xenophobia, but doesn't actually propose a solution. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at open borders from the its perception in the uk of the eu. my intent was to highlight one the few places where open borders are a reality made possible from over 50 years of integration and cooperation towards a shared ideal forged from the ashes of ww2.
I was not intending xenophobia but to highlight how xenophobia was stoked and exploited in Europe, where open borders prevail, and the uk where open borders contributed to Brexit coming as it did amidst the refugee crisis and the lie of turkey's imminent admission was factor that pushed many, (my mother included) to vote leave. it brought to ahead existing anxiety from austerity and the pressure that was causing, open borders and uncontrolled immigration blamed instead of the more domestic cause. that's not an endorsement, that's what was being sold by chancers like boris and farage.
i'm not sure what else is being characterised as xenophobic. from the poles to the Bulgarians, to the Romanians when they qualify - backward, thieves, rapists, beggars, gypsies - again, this is how they were portrayed in the right wing press, and farage was very vocal in promoting this view, with each nation worse than the last. by the time the Bulgarians had started arrived polish folk had already been well accepted, well liked and respected. it was only Brexit that made racism more overt.
and again this was down to open borders and the perception of these countries in the uk, from their relative poverty in comparison to the uk - every racist fucknut here thinks everyone not in England is on their way over to claim benefits, to rape, to spread aids - again actual opinions of farage, and the relative unfamiliarity of countries that were for a time behind an iron curtain, whose mention in history class or historical media is rare, drowned out by a focus on the French and spanish, and germany, Russia, - places that were significant historically through war and empire to Britain. this is not an endorsement but what was being sold by the usual suspects.
the point was open borders, where cooperation and integration with a shared vision, built up over decades, has worked in the eu, but it took a level of commitment not present elsewhere in the world to achieve, and has managed to survive all assaults thus far, while for the uk on the other hand, through a geographic separation and a lingering memory of empire, was reluctant to commit, never fully when it did, so open borders became a chink to exploit. years of lies and misinformation took a toll and open borders was the lever that ripped the uk from the eu.
I was not asked for solutions but for the benefits with a view to the world. my answer is you need a level of cooperation and integration between countries before you can even get off the ground or for it to survive the first economic or political crisis. outside the eu, I see nowhere else this currently exists, and the benefits to trade and stability open borders can only be brought if there is significant integration in the first place. otherwise its the first point of attack. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
also any discussion of open borders needs to look at the experience of the eu, and not at a wall not yet built. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
by all accounts it seems that a focus on the border is the wrong place to start with in the us anyhow. status of undocumented immigrants seems like it needs addressing first. as I understand it, significant sections of the economy are dependant on these people, but there status makes them ripe from abuse from unscrupulous employers, from politicians needing a convenient scapegoat. with the horrors of ice and detentions, the precariousness of their existence must be ptsd inducing. and I cant imagine access to services is made easy. all this inhumane effort that seems designed to keep things as they are. its as if recognising their role in any official way would mean they might have to treat them as human being with actual human rights. deal with that, then a suitable response to the border might present itself. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Babylonbee vs The Onion[edit]

I think it's safe to say that Babylonbee sucks. I compared their homepage with the onion's. Note how one has a partisan slant and the other takes on all comers. Babylonbee, for when even the onion's satire is "too far left". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't agree that the the onion is "equal opportunity" in that sense. They're basically never gonna make any case from a conservative perspective, mostly because conservatism isn't capable of sincere criticism attacking the root of issues, only saying "other side bad, and suck" in very literal terms. If they parody the left, it often ends up sounding like even further left criticism. Babylon bee demonstrates that principle really well Look at this stupid garbage it balks in the face of making a point, just "liberals bad". Or this? It's not getting at any deeper bias in The Economist or flaws in reasoning, it's just going "no fair you described Shapiro that way". It's got no teeth, because it has no vision. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Conservative humor is rarely funny. Humor requires respecting diverse viewpoints, knowledge of subjects you ridicule, and surprising people through transgression of some norms. None of these are conservative values. On the other hand, conservatism ideology is fantasy nonsense that people take seriously and is always ripe material for comedy. You know Babylonbee is peak boomer humor when I picked headlines like these to illustrate examples in our Fake news article.
Headline: "Bigoted Boy Scouts Welcome Girls But Still Exclude All 49,247 Other Genders"
Headline: "Kamala Harris Reiterates Strong Support For Separating Families At Border Of Birth Canal"
And I don't know what this "humor" is either. It just seems like "haha triggered Democrats".
"House Democrats Draft Legislation That Would Make It A Hate Crime To Eat At Chick-Fil-A"
--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed While true, they certainly don't hold back when poking fun at politicians. (Sort of like a certain famous comedian...) That's good comedy. Not like these wannabe edgelord posers. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Fundamental differences between the modern American Left vs Right[edit]

I've been trying to pin this down recently, to get at the root of why these two factions are so at odds with each other. I understand the differences between classical Left vs Right thinking, but the modern US landscape is different.

I think the main difference is how we look at our changing world. It's no secret that the world is changing, fast. Faster than it's ever changed before. The Right is afraid of this change, but the Left sees it as inevitable. This fear of change seems to be the root of the Right's arguments for/against basically any social issue, while the Left is advocating for this change just because... It's the way the world should be and it shouldn't be hard to get there.

Obviously there's a lot more nuance to either side, and a lot of issues are much more complicated than this, but it's an idea I'd like to explored more. Appealing to the Right's fear has recently been the key to winning them over, so maybe exposing that fear would help people get their heads out of their asses.

I don't know. Just rambling. Thoughts appreciated. TheUnderOver (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the left vs. right paradigm doesn't really work well in America. It was invented in Europe to help decide where to seat numerous parties in a legislature. It is vaguely defined and not taken too too seriously. That's because there is an extreme "left, far left, left, centre left, centre, centre right, right, far right, extreme right" and that can be done either economically OR socially as one can be left with finance but right with social-policy etc. Most continental Europeans don't identify as "left". They may "tend to vote for parties on the left side of the legislature" but because there are so many parties to choose from on each side, parties that can be VERY different from one another in important ways it doesn't make that much sense. Left and right isn't a badge of identity nor was EVER supposed to be used as an attack word. When I see Americans say "damn leftist" or "right wing asshole" I'm fairly horrified. The U.S. two party system doesn't allow for a left vs. right. It allows for a red vs blue. And those parties cover parts of the spectrum that cross over the "centre" mark all the time. red Vermont can seem fairly similar to blue Alabama. Centrists, very important group of people can waffle from red to blue each election and they are almost completely ignored when people use the "left" vs. "right" false dichotomy. And within both fields are an enormous range of political and economic policy differences that are lost when "left" and "right" become the two boxes that define everything. The use of left vs right in the US seems extremely toxic to me, useless and basically sweeps so many issues, sub-issues, centrists and important details under the rug. You are searching for a US left/right definition but also trying to jam the whole world into it with some extremely simplistic generalizations (fear of change vs. inevitable). Consider broadening the scope of your investigation and finding a larger perspective. ShabiDOO 14:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
All good points. Maybe I'm not really searching for a Left/Right dichotomy - I'm just trying to pin down this whole us/them dichotomy. I know things are way more complicated than just two squabbling factions, and every issue can be measured on more than one spectrum, but the American political system has undoubtedly pidgeonholed our factions into two sides (Red vs Blue) - and the rhetoric on either side is trying to draw that border clearer and clearer ("if you're not with us, you're against us", painting the entire opposite side as extreme/radical, etc). So I'm just trying to clear up, in my own head, what makes a person choose one side or the other. I absolutely agree that the most important group is the centrists who waffle from side to side... But there are many, many people who are stuck on one side and aren't even entertaining the idea of going to the other side. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, the big divide is that the right has become inhuman monsters who probably sincerely deserve death. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The right hates Hispanics, blacks, women, immigrants, LGBT people, the poor, the disabled, and several other groups, and repeatedly attacks their rights, threatens, insults, mocks, and victimises them, and the left feels this kind of thing should be opposed. Your personal allegiance depends on whether you identify with the attackers or the attacked. --Annanoon (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The United States has two right wing parties, the Dems are Center-Right and the GOP is Far-Right, bordering on fascist. The GOP doesn't necessarily hate the groups Anna mentions, however they currently do seem to care more about white, under-educated, gun owning males.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, they very much, very provably hate immigrants. You don't jail millions of people without trial and run active campaigns to round them up because you don't care. Look at how much nobs blames them, without any evidence, for major problems. That's hate. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
What the fuck are you talking about? Produce one goddamn diff, anywhere anytime, asshole. nobsI'm all yea'res 08:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
He's probably talking about how he doesn't believe illegals propping up liberals' wealthy lifestyles through a black market of cheap labour has any effect on wages, and thus everyone else must be racist. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:BD5D:3C9F:496E:B17 (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
While I have no love for the current national Republican Party (in New England we do get a few saner types in local elections), I don't think I've ever persuaded anyone by saying they deserve to die. Look up Daryl DavisWikipedia's W.svg. And I know some diehard conservatives who truly aren't racists at all, they do all manner of things to engage with the community; going down to help the local churches and soup kitchens feed people, donating to various charities. Though I find their assumption flawed, that individuals and other organizations are inherently better than a social safety net, what they do themselves is certainly beneficial. It is exasperating how divergent we are on so much, but I'll take the help from anyone who'll give it; at least we can talk. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I'm going to pursuade them. I just think it's true that they've crossed some lines that you don't come back from crossing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. And yeah, I find the immigration disaster going on to be inexcusable no matter what label anyone puts to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The left in the United States has its 'hates', too. For better or for worse, the left is the educated clerisy, so they express themselves better and the hostility is subtler, even though you can't really escape noticing. There's a lot of smugness and spite there, a sense that if you aren't 100% down on every item of a checklist, you are a Bad Person, because the list is what defines a Good Person. If you aren't down with the list, you're some kind of retrograde slob, unfit to mix with the best and brightest like us. And the list is constantly changing. They, too, start divisive agitations like 'slavery reparations' that are literally the equivalent of the Right's territorial pissings, and are in some sense not 'real politics' in the sense that it never will happen in the real world. There are movements within the Left that are genuinely creepy. The 'green' faction seems to think that Thanos was the good guy. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 00:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No sooner did I mention using left/right as pejoratives than three users hyper generalised the left and the right (perhaps one was a joke I'm not sure). Ripcityliberal actually out it quite well. The democrat party (if you don't count the Sanders etc camp) would be considered on the right side of the camp in Canada, Belgium, Spain, Germany and Ireland (countries I'm familiar with politically). The conservative party of Canada is far more progressive than the general policies of the US natioan democrats. I'd say Rapid is totally correct. You have two parties on the right spectrum where EUparties are arranged in their parliament's...with one party (the democrats) hugging the centre and a group of people within trying to actually bring the party into the traditional left spectrum (though this is in very very vague rough terms). Why someone votes red depends on the state they live in, national and local issues, family history, personal ideology, friends and community, TV commercial watching habits, news media they watch, their laziness/engagement, salary, race, class, gender, sexuality, personality type etc. You'd need to write a 300 page book to make even a basic generalisation worth reading as those fundamentals are very very hard to keep brief and clear.. ShabiDOO 16:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is who currently is heading the "right" in America. Tribalism tends to breed more impassioned responses than, say, dull economics. The Republicans are as much of a coalition as the Democrats are, of course. But WASP / male identity politics and jingoist nativism are such a huge factor of the Trump presidency. Such tends to spark increasingly polarized responses. Not all on the "right" are this racist variety, of course -- how many of the CEOs that left Trump's business council after the Unite the Right fiasco would you place on the "left"? But with Trump, the racist, nativist strand of the party is highly visible. I'll add another angle: keep in mind that from the data ("independent" is the fastest growing political party for several years now.) I would say that many people seem to be rejecting the political circus altogether. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying that by 2130, we'll figure out that blindly following an over-simplified summarization of multi-faceted issues is a bad thing and instead think for ourselves and try to improve what's left of human civilization? Well that's good to hear. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
And we'll all be dead by that time (anyone who's alive in 2019, that is). Tinribmancer (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
New parties will form, old parties will fail, humans will continue to group together based on arbitrary bullshit until we kill ourselves. Hopeful I know.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
You really sound pessimistic, dude. Things aren't always as bad as they look (future speaking, not Trump based. The US is pretty much fucked (and maybe the whole world) if he gets a second term...). Tinribmancer (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I do have to disagree with the Belgium part (being from Belgium myself). If the Democratic Party were to be seen as a right-wing party, New Flemish Alliance (Right-Wing, separatist, conservative and nationalist) & Flemish Interest (Far-Right, sexist, islamophobe, separatist & racist) would have been pro-dem. N-VA is divided and pretty vague on Trump's presidency (with Theo Franken definitely being pro-Republican) and Flemish Interest's leader Tom Van Grieken was literally cheering for Trump. Not to mention that I've seen several posts from Flemish right-wingers & Far-righters on the internet that want a Trump-like prime minister here and embrace almost all Democrat conspiracies, like the Killer KKKlinton family and evil Shillary KKKlinton conspiracies. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@TinribmancerThe Democratic party is definitely a center right party. Though this is more a political comparison than a social one. Socially the Dem's are probably center-left (Pro-immigration, LGBTQ rights, favor equity and equality, want to reduce military interventions). But Dems still have an overwhelmingly religious (read: Christian) moral standards, don't support radical wealth redistribution, support borderline economic voodoo, and still support some form of gun ownership. And while not overtly racist, there is still plenty of xenophobia and racism in the Democratic party. But it isn't the guiding principle, like Trumpism is.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
LOL All three of you are right in one way or another. I think the only hope out of this blue/red very ugly and toxic polarization (which I honestly believe is 90% responsible by a handful of very ugly republicans and their teams publicity and policy planners) is to have more parties. Two parties just isn't enough in the 21st century, especially for an enormous and diverse country (was it ever enough)? But realizing that in the U.S. will be an epic achievement, I doubt it will happen any time soon (especially the way the constitution is written and the near impossibility of passing notable amendments these days). But you can at least imagine how things would work if there was at least a third party. A centrist one. Could you imagine, two parties teaming up in the Senate or House of Representatives. Compromising. Pulling away from the extremes? Something like that sort of happens in a few State legislatures (vermont I think). Perhaps there'd be less of "leftist tears" and "right wing douche-bags". ShabiDOO 21:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
And that in turn, requires tearing down and completely rebuilding how american democracy is designed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Shabidoo, I mean I get where you're coming from, I really do. But... You can't compromise when part of the other side wants to kill you for existing, another part wants to work you to death, and the final part is too scared of backlash to stand up to the psycho parts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I addressed some level of this in the essay I wrote on here, but the main thing the US needs to shed is the Senate. The Senate is fundamentally undemocratic, and gives too much power to small states. The House is also too small 435 seats is not enough. Need to abolish the Senate, increase the House to 550, and in the new Representative districts that are drawn, disallow GOP or Dems from running a candidate in those seats for five election cycles.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a slight correction to Shabidoo’s depiction of left/right as a product of a European multi-party tradition: It wasn’t. Indeed you have several countries, including today’s notorious multi-party Scandinavia, in which there was simply a “Left” party and a “Right” party (or perhaps rather parliamentary grouping), before changing political currents, franchise and electoral systems created the diverse party system you see today. A remnant of this can be seen in the rather curious names of some of the Danish political parties: The Left (Venstre) party is rightly subtitled Denmark’s liberal party (Danmarks liberale parti) as it is a centre-right party grounded in classical liberalism, while the Radical Left (Radikale Venstre) party is a centrist, social liberal party. Btw, the old Danish Right (Højre) party changed its name to the Conservative People’s Party and subsequently simply the Conservatives, whereas their Norwegian sister party is still called Right (Høire). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Returning to the original topic, I don’t think the embrace of/resistance to change distinction works, as you have plenty on the right who embrace (some of) the changes that has followed globalisation and indeed done much to bring them about. The problem with the left/right terminology has been that it was centred on economics and as the (New) Democrats basically adopted much of the GOP’s economic line in a more or less watered down form (e.g. how “RomneyCare” became “ObamaCare”), this distinction became increasingly meaningless, leading to left/right becoming more about identity politics (there have been somewhat similar trends in Europe as social democratic parties adopted supply side economic neoliberalism to varying degrees). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

So I found this "news" site...[edit]

They seem to be um... "Fair and balanced". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

They've had their good moments (such as covering the A Rape on Campus fiasco), but yeah it's decidedly a place with an agenda. To be mild. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I kind of noticed that halfway through reading... Well... This giant fucking strawman! Seriously? A consensus across multiple fields, with physical evidence... Is a religion and is totally the same thing as declaring the magic creation story from some random book of fables (and there totes aren't others, please ignore most of the earth's cultures...) because... Bible? Seriously, this is so stupid that there's an entire group of theistic scientists who aren't buying into itWikipedia's W.svg!!! So... maybe the bible isn't a great source? Just throwing that wild and totally new idea out there... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
David Gelernter did some good work in parallel computing particularly in the 1980s, but his Scholar citations dramatically fall off post 2000 or so (he was a Unabomber victim and unfortunately I wonder if this had anything to do with this decline). At any rate his new Discovery Institute approved philosophies and liberal campus strawman attacks get him trotted out in conservative circles sometimes, but book citations and interviews with Discovery Institute philosophers have zero credence in biological circles. So he's basically preaching to the choir here. I notice that some programmers and engineers get very During-Kruger like on occasion in subjects they know less about than they think. And even on this end, I'm not impressed. Genetic algorithms have been around since the 1960s, after all, you think a professor of computer science at Yale would be aware of this. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The WP link needs repointing.
Now would 'giant fucking strawman' come under slash fiction? Anna Livia (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Fixed, and maybe? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyways, creationism never goes away, it just becomes dormant and waits for a shitty republican presidency. It's like an AIDS virus. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Trying to come to terms with my anger and hate[edit]

Okay, my dad died and every memory of him was bad. I am trying to let go of my anger but I am struggling. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And you're feeling guilty about being angry at a person who treated you badly? Because it's always okay to feel. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
My rage, anger and hurt was consuming me. I am trying to avoid becoming a bitter person. I wanted to feel some kind of emotion for him but all that came up was pure rage. It makes me feel depressed that I am having a difficult time letting go and realizing that the past is done. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. So speaking as someone who hasn't spoken to his father in years, here's what you need to do. He was a shitty person, acknowledge that, own that, and move on. Sometimes there is literally nothing about a person that is actually redeeming. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Same, I've tried reconnecting with my father before, but he always fucks things up by doing something heinous. I don't know how I'd react to news that he were to die. Oxyaena Harass 03:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
You only owe your father as much lamenting as he deserves and it doesn't seem like he deserved much. If he did do things for you when you were younger or if he did invest in your childhood (financially or god forbid actually spent some time with you) it's easy to overlook. However if he was a total deat-beat and virtually absent and contributed nothing and was unpleasant and toxic...then you owe him nothing. It's hard core brutal not having a present, reliable, useful and agreeable father around. If he robbed you of that (and there is no doubt it is something you and all children needed and need) then he deserves shit. Likely the best way to deal with the rage is through a cognitive therapist. If you cannot afford them I know that you can find fully qualified online ones in other countries for a fraction of the cost (skype sessions). These emotions won't go away without help of some kind. Fuck your father and the pain he's caused you. Sticking to family just cause you share blood is overrated and if they are toxic, hanging around them or mourning them just cause of blood normally intensifies the suffering. It's a total bummer your dad was like that. ShabiDOO 07:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I am glad that I have supportive family. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Almost 30 years ago my father died suddenly. We had always fought and been angry with one another. At the funeral I cried uncontrollably. There was no longer any reason to be angry and I remembered better things.Ariel31459 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
My dad is/was an abusive piece of shit who caused my mom's mental breakdown, almost lead my sister to commit suicide twice, and is now doing the same to my youngest sibling as well. I would not shed any tears if he were to drop dead right now. Oxyaena Harass 13:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes we give people our thoughts, our time, other things that they don't deserve. Sometimes it helps oneself to transcend ones own anger. One can can burn out. I am sorry for your troubles.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I am sorry for your loss and troubles as well. Oxyaena Harass 22:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Am I the only RW editor who has a good and kind father? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm that fortunate, yes. My dad is everything anyone could possibly want, and then more on top of that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I love my dad, and he's always been good to me. Unfortunately, he's also a Trump supporter. But he’s still a great dad. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup, ikanreed, you are. My dad has high morals and genuinely cares about my well being, but on the emotional sides of things, he's hurt me deep. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My dad died back in January, and we had a very complicated relationship, partly due to his deeply vicious racism but mostly to his cruelty and inability to change or show kindness. Strangely enough now we can talk (one-sided) about all the things I could never address with him while he was alive. The things I couldn't say because he couldn't hear or wouldn't listen or would hear something different, I can say those now with my memory's image, the what-could-have-been reconciling with the what-actually-was. He's equally present everywhere, but I prefer these chats on mountaintops and on long car rides. Also seconding what everyone before me said about CBT. I hope you can find some measure of peace; if you do, tell me how. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't figure out how to post this to blogosphere[edit]

But I must share it anyway because it is important. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a23010174/stripping-american-citizens-passports-genocide/

Inb4 nobs comes in, doing the nazi salute, and advocating for pogroms. — Unsigned, by: FillinFilbert / talk / contribs

WIGO only allows autoconfirmed users to edit it, you have to have at least ten edits to qualify for autoconfirmed, of course I could grant you autopatrolled perms which would allow you to circumvent such filters but I`m not sure if I trust you yet. Oxyaena Harass 13:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It is amazing how far we're all letting this go. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hell, nobs doesn't even have to post, I can do his shtick for him. Begin by presuming that 100.0% of these people are lying, which they must be, since they're under investigation so they must be guilty of something. Therefore these people should also be stripped of their citizenship and placed in don't-say-concentration camps for the rest of their lives since they're actually also 100.0% ISIS members in disguise, especially the kids under 5. In other words, nobs will state that this effort doesn't go far enough and that you're a comsymp for showing empathy to people different from you. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
You forgot the Clintons. He'll find a way to link the Killer KKKlinton family with this. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Semipenultimate, get fucked, bigot. nobsI'm all yea'res 08:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Total Existence Failure?[edit]

I was reading that two articles:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/vacuum-decay-ultimate-catastrophe

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-collapse-universe-closer.html

The first said there is no need to worry about vacuum decay. The second said this:

"Although the new calculations predict that a collapse is now more likely than ever before, it is actually also possible, that it will not happen at all. It is a prerequisite for the phase change that the universe consists of the elementary particles that we know today, including the Higgs particle. If the universe contains undiscovered particles, the whole basis for the prediction of phase change disappears.

"Then the collapse will be canceled", says Jens Frederik Colding Krog."

After that, i read in the BBC site that article:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33517492

There also that articles:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44370751?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c77jz3mdmqnt/particle-physics&link_location=live-reporting-story

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39333376?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c77jz3mdmqnt/particle-physics&link_location=live-reporting-story

So, there is no need to worry, right? ANewUser (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a scientist so I cannot give a proper answer. I will say that there are too many unknown variables at this point to say yes or no. It will take a lot more research to figure it out. Now if it happens, then it happens- not like anybody could stop it from happening. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, you'll die way before this could ever happen. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Also there's nothing anyone can do about it. There are more pressing existential hazards that people can actually do something about — because people caused them in the first place. Bongolian (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Seconded -- no need to turn quantum woo into an apocalyptic death cult (and this goes for you too, pop science!). Those who have turned global warming or nuclear war into an apocalyptic death cult are also probably wrong in severity, but at least the dangers are more realistic. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
See here. For all we know, maybe this is be the way the Universe has to recycle itself, so no weird things as Boltzmann brains could pop up. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Time to update the very detailed account in Existential_risk#Cosmological_phase_transition? --Annanoon (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat updated. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we can ever be too prepared for disaster. I say humanity show some responsibility and start working out a way to avoid heat death now! We only have a few billions years so let's make the most of it. You know...it's apathy that is destroying the moral fabric of society. Let's show future generations that we acted now. I don't want my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- ...(millions of characters later)... great-great-great-great grandchildren, or whatever they are then, my grand-robots or grand-cosmic-ghostly-consciousness having to suffer a slow dispersal of their molecules. I think the UN should dedicate a few trillion dollars now to anti-heat-death research so we can nip this cosmic tragedy in the bud. Who is with me? ShabiDOO 23:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Homina[edit]

Oxyaena Harass 09:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The Astounding World of the Future[edit]

Since we're posting videos... 142․124․55․236 (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. Elsewhere on the internet[edit]

Dumbasses are still doing the "no! sunspots explain global warming" We deserve worse than we're gonna get. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow up, it turns out one of the early proponents of this theory, Dr Theodor Landscheidt, was a fucking astologer who wanted to prove that the positions of solar bodies could affect life on earth. Crank magnetism at work. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Astrology and climate change denial are pretty much on par as each other for accuracy anyway. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Notably, his doctorate was real but in nothing relevant to anything he wrote about subsequently ("Der Einfluß des Islam auf die Entwicklung der Temperamenta belli im europäischen Völkerrecht: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Kriegstemperamenta"),[3] or perhaps anything at all. Bongolian (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Heart Sutra in Buddhism[edit]

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-heart-sutra-will-change-you-forever/

So apparently the point of this one is to undo essentially everything else you were taught about in the school of Buddhism. It seems rather counter productive to me really. Why go through the trouble of learning all that only to just have to throw it all out. What it actually says is supposedly radical that most say it's nonsense (like saying that our feelings, thoughts, and emotions, etc are invalid and don't exist). It just seems like the weirder aspect among many religions I have come to know in the past.Machina (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Woke branding" (Or, how capitalism seeks to co-opt and undermine social justice)[edit]

(Also subtitled:I found Leftytube, and it is fun.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing new, see https://documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/suiting.html Sharon Beder's enlightening/enraging/merely-confirming-what-we-already-know book from 2006 Suiting Themselves Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
hbomberguy is quality. Let's not dismiss that just because we don't enjoy the arts. The razor in the toilet joke is objectively hilarious. You could make a joke here, too. But I don't think you're up to that speed, since you're literally cititng an older study that confirms the message of the video. I was alive in 2006 too. Did you make this information available or relatable? Did you share it with an audience? I'm sorry, but you're not helping or even really criticizing. You're holding onto information that you think is important just to prove somebody's work or enjoyment of said work is less valid than your opinion that the information is already out there. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Retcon Version II[edit]

I can use this space better.

Andrew Savage, Adam Savage is the mythbusters guy. Not dissimilar. Andrew Savage is one of the best modern composer we've got. He's a poet first and foremost, but his music is also completely on point. He hasn't got pipes, but if you won't listen because you don't like his singing you've been missing out.

We've come to replace your clock's old stubborn hands We are the answer to why they never had a chance It was not so long ago that the world was mostly slow The age of iron, steam and speed Turned a stroll to a stampede But we've come to increase time in between ticks And there's romance in the slow dances 'Cause they're fertile in hush, futile in haste These are your nerves, this is how they taste Well I can't count how many times I've been outdone by nihilism Joined the march that splits an open heart into a schism I cower at the thought of other people's expectations And yet still hand over mine to them Travel where you are, tourism is sin These are the ruins we left behind, you can't take pictures of them If what they say is true, then you become what you chew If it decays spit it out, affectation is a drought That you wait through when you hate everything that you do You wanna live outside the groove, then fine But it's there like a flower blooming in your ears Open up your mouth, pollinate your peers Nothing reminds the mind of power Like the cheap odor of plastic Leaking fumes we crave, consume, the rush it feels fantastic But like power turns to mold, like a junkie going cold I need the fix of a little tenderness


Off-beat guitar was ska only. Nobody listened to me and this guy did it. It's soul. This isn't a mega super hit song. We are all guilty. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I am having a hard time coming to terms with the fact you guys don't know about somethingawful. Personal crisis.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)