|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive321
Jeffrey Epstein is dead[edit]
So, yeah, he's dead. My dad said that he thinks that someone was told to ensure that Epstein never sees court to reveal too much. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but is it too implausible? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- To clarify, he meant someone other than the Clintons. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Will Ghislaine Maxwell meet the same fate or will the accusers be entitled to their day in court after the UK extradites Prince Andrew for trial? nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 17:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- It’s impossible to kill yourself on suicide watch in prison, he was at the centre of a bipartisan pedophile ring implicating some of the most powerful people on the planet. Someone, probably a Clinton but it could be Trump or anyone else on the flight logs, definitely had him killed. Obsession with debunking flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists shouldn’t blind us to actual conspiracies. Also it’s been a long time, hi everyone. Christopher (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, you sound a lot like a certain former NYC mayor. ;) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:408F:6637:4B09:1A2 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trump supporters bringing attention to Epstein stuff to shit on Hillary is almost as stupid as Clinton supporters using it as a cudgel against Trump. Christopher (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, you sound a lot like a certain former NYC mayor. ;) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:408F:6637:4B09:1A2 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- surprised you don’t have an article on Epstein yet. Christopher (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it's just really hard. You can kill yourself, on suicide watch, if you time it right. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- He officially died of hanging, they take away your shoelaces in case you hang yourself with them, I’m not ruling out suicide but Occam’s razor suggests that he was killed. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Russians killed Epstein. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Was he given sheets or some other fabric? Also, did the other inmates know he was a pedophile? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Alternate theory, Other inmates murdered him because they wanted someone to vent on and hurting pedos is almost guilt free. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- suicide risks tend to very motivated and very inventive. I remember reading a report when working at kch when someone had stripped the sealant from a window, almost successfully hanging himself with it before he was discovered by a nurse. all is required is a guard to take a catnap at a crucial moment. all that is certain is that if he had stubbed his toe, it was the Clintons. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- So reports at the moment state that he committed suicide. But that's so boring! There was a conspiracy! The Clintons! Trump! The Russians! The inmates! The British Royal family! (OK, I added that one.)
- Maybe we should wait until there's more information before we start identifying murder suspects?Hubert (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt he was "killed". Thats messy, and leaves a trail. Someone likely told him he wasn't going to be protected, but if he could... become quiet, they'd make sure what wealth he has will be sent where he wants, rather then payed to his victims. Revolverman (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- suicide risks tend to very motivated and very inventive. I remember reading a report when working at kch when someone had stripped the sealant from a window, almost successfully hanging himself with it before he was discovered by a nurse. all is required is a guard to take a catnap at a crucial moment. all that is certain is that if he had stubbed his toe, it was the Clintons. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Alternate theory, Other inmates murdered him because they wanted someone to vent on and hurting pedos is almost guilt free. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Was he given sheets or some other fabric? Also, did the other inmates know he was a pedophile? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Russians killed Epstein. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- He officially died of hanging, they take away your shoelaces in case you hang yourself with them, I’m not ruling out suicide but Occam’s razor suggests that he was killed. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it's just really hard. You can kill yourself, on suicide watch, if you time it right. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Normally I`m not one for conspiracy theories but the timing of this "suicide" is too much, even for me. Just a few days prior to the release of new documents.... Yikes. — Oxyaena Harass 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the "no shit Sherlock" department, the FBI has opened an investigation. Whatever happened (and yes, the timing is suspicious), "the plot thickens", so to say. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Hubert Good point. @AMassiveGay Well said. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently he wasn't under suicide watch at all. So he could feasibly commit suicide, but why wasn't he under watch? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- If he wasn't on SW, he might have conned the prison shrink into letting him go. Given reports of his intelligence and charisma, I'd buy Epstein being able to pull off a grift like that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Good riddance. Even if it's a "Conspiracy", should we care? One less child molester in the world. Thanks, Imaginatti! Tinribmancer (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- doesn't help his victims get any sort of justice or closure AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Being that (a) initial reports were that he was held in solitary confinement, then (b) he was found unconscious by a cell mate, then (c) no reports ever clarified discrepancies after the first attempt, (d) we're unlikely to ever get an understanding what happened.
- Never mind the fact he was held in a cell under video surveillance and 24/7 suicide watch. Unless a jailer is disciplined for negligence, we can only assume the most logical explanation. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 21:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. He conned the prison shrink into letting him leave suicide watch, then offed himself BECAUSE HE WAS 66 YEAR OLD NARCISSISTIC EGOMANIAC USED TO A HEDONISTIC LIFE OF PRIVILEGE AND POWER FACING UP TO 45 YEARS IN PRISON!!!! Dumbass. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Epstein was actually suicidal. The dude had everything right up until he lost it all and became one of the most hated people in the US. I bet the arrogant fuck never saw it coming. Of course the coward couldn't handle it.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictatormoderator 22:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)- Welp, guess I gotta resign from RW, I believe in conspiracy theories now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- The American penal system calls for the blood of criminals and jail conditions are deplorable in many states. Violence, rape and guard abuse is a chronic problem. The general populace shows indifference to this and during special ballot measures dealing with prisoners rights don't usually vote to protect them and politicians are hesitant to bother with prisoner rights and people generally support retirbutive punishments including cruel and unusual punishments including the right of the state to murder a citizen (also supported). All of this leads to a justice system that in many states/prisons is pretty indifferent to the care /treatment/well being of a prisoner and only do so to the point where they will get in trouble if something really bad happens or there is a successful law-suit. It seems there are many suicides that should never have happened and pretty suspicious deaths and rarely does it involve substantial changes to law, prisoner rights or even prison policy. This isn't a suprise in the slightest. And so while I wouldn't be shocked if something suspicious happened, I find it equally likely this boils down to terrible policy, indifference and incompetence. ShabiDOO 23:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Welp, guess I gotta resign from RW, I believe in conspiracy theories now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Epstein was actually suicidal. The dude had everything right up until he lost it all and became one of the most hated people in the US. I bet the arrogant fuck never saw it coming. Of course the coward couldn't handle it.
- Yeah. He conned the prison shrink into letting him leave suicide watch, then offed himself BECAUSE HE WAS 66 YEAR OLD NARCISSISTIC EGOMANIAC USED TO A HEDONISTIC LIFE OF PRIVILEGE AND POWER FACING UP TO 45 YEARS IN PRISON!!!! Dumbass. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- doesn't help his victims get any sort of justice or closure AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
| Rob forgot to take his meds again. |
|---|
|
- Not totally on topic, although considering the renewed press interest in one of Epstein's "acquaintances" and I'm in a somewhat giddy mood.
"Oh, the grand 'ole Duke of York, He had ten thousand quid, He gave it to Jeffery Epstein, So he could f**k a kid." Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Really, how many chasers per pint do you need for that to be funny? @RoninMcB: I am not much moved by his death, but the fact that it happened while in Federal custody stinks.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It's Clinton Tinfoil time!!![edit]
https://i.ibb.co/3sw5Qgf/Shitty-Conspiracy.png
The amounts of likes disturb me. More than 100 thousand americans are loyal Infowarriors... Tinribmancer (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Whodunnit[edit]
It seems obvious that HRH Prince Andrew did it, since the British Royal family has a known history of assassinating embarrassing persons, like Diana. It logically follows that the Royal assassins worked with Mi6 to knock off Epstein and burn the evidence. /s — Dysk (contribs) 09:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- What about MI5? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- MI5 can't operate internationally. Only domestically. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's what they want you to believe! 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:408F:6637:4B09:1A2 (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- it was unnecessary to leave Britain for mi5 assassins to do their job. that's how efficient they are - they could just go to the pub while the mark takes care of all the arrangements themselves. if suicidal billionaire prisoners aren't safe from these villains who is? such evil. they probably had to pay the guard who Epstein probably paid to look the other way while he hung himself to not look the other way so he couldn't hang himself and they could hang him instead. the timing and the planning had to be so spot on so precise, because one tiny mistake would have meant instead of Epstein being found dead in his cell, Epstein would have been found dead in his cell. and Epstein was found dead in his cell. real professionals these fellas. don't piss of the windsors. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's what they want you to believe! 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:408F:6637:4B09:1A2 (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- MI5 can't operate internationally. Only domestically. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Dunno who did it, but "Epstein killed himself" is the unrealistic conspiracy theory to me now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- SyrianGirl is claiming that Mossad did it. (User:Elzair) 14:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. That's useless hearsay. Claiming someone did it is easy. Getting evidence of anyone in particular doing it is hard. Really the only evidence available at all is circumstantial: The Secretary of Labor's testimony that he "Belonged to intelligence" and the flight logs listing important people. Being that the official autopsy found he killed himself, there will likely be no follow up on his death in particular, in spite of the... weird things... surrounding it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Occam's Razor[edit]
So I've been trying to decide what could have happened, more than what must have happened. I've come up with 3 and a half possible scenarios. They are exactly as woefully undetailed as the reports.
The first possible scenario, Jeffery Epstein was taken off of suicide watch, the guards assigned were cartoonishly overworked and both guards missed a 2 hour window of half hour checkups on the highest profile federal prisoner ever. Within that time, he would have had recognize the opportunity to commit suicide of his own volition to meet those parameters.
The second possible scenario is that Jeffery Epstein was expected to kill himself, and the conditions were created with the hope he would make another attempt. He would have had to recognize the opportunity to commit suicide of his own volition to meet those parameters instead.
The third possible scenario is that Jeffery Epstein was assassinated, or encouraged to self-assassinate, which could include the second possible scenario's parameters as a tacit means, or could simply be somebody going into his cell and killing him. He would have to have died under the condition of extreme coercion or direct murder within a pre-planned two hour time frame that nobody involved with this federal prison, top brass to personnel, had any notice of or reservations about in order to meet those parameters, and it would also have to be understood that it would go off without a hitch in order to fit the extreme parameters of assassination or coercive suicide.
The half is this thing I keep hearing that Jeffery Epstein is still alive somewhere, there was either a legit dead body double or he faked it and wore dead-face. What, where is he then, fucking hanging out with Tupac and Hitler on Juggalo Island?
The absolute problem is, I cannot actually figure out which of these, even the half, makes the least sense. The main reason I disagree with the half idea is that it puts pressure on the next people down the line in the Epstein case to defend their own names, give up other names. His death indicates but doesn't admit to his guilt, sure, but it adds all of that scrutiny to everyone remotely connected to the case. If this cabal that could sneak him out ran a tight knit pedo ring, the last thing they would want to do is sneak their loyal tight-lipped pedo-pimp organizer out of there and pretend he was dead. They would want him to take every fall. But I dunno, I've never been in a global child rape frat before, I don't know how they keep their shit off the books, and I concede that. But I still think it's more likely that he's dead.
The problem I have is all of these scenarios are... unlikely. None of them meet the simplest explanation metric. I would hope something revealing is made public, but I am not optimistic, which sucks, because not knowing the truth of this is further serving to rip this country into factions. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- With Occam's Razor in mind, I'd say your second scenario is the most likely. The MCC is a federal prison and falls under the DOJ's jurisdiction - they should have been pulling out every stop to ensure that Epstein stayed alive. William Barr was "appalled and angry" after learning of Epstein's death, but why wasn't he appalled and angry after the first attempt? What about when he was taken off suicide watch for seemingly no reason? Where was the outrage then?
- Bottom line is, it should have been a no-brainer to keep him alive. The DOJ dropped the ball, in some form or another, and AG Barr needs to be held accountable. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am completely in line with that. I could go over everything again and again, but Barr must prove that he is facing some kind of accountability for his department's failure, be it preconceived or coincidental. To be unable to hold a high-risk prisoner safely is a failure of the Department of Justice, and if the guy in charge cannot answer for it and faces no consequences, said failure is on a level that undermines the entire executive branch. Not that that would be new. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- We've already calmed down about this case. He killed himself, and a ton of people are happy enough with that result. This is the exact reason I am against capital punishment, nobody should relax just because the criminal is dead. That's vindictive bullshit that does not help anyone. The crime does not end with a single person, how do we address the crime? Who was involved in this crime? Why is this the crime that makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist? Epstein is dead, and I shouldn't be less pissed off about his crimes than I was before he was dead. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am completely in line with that. I could go over everything again and again, but Barr must prove that he is facing some kind of accountability for his department's failure, be it preconceived or coincidental. To be unable to hold a high-risk prisoner safely is a failure of the Department of Justice, and if the guy in charge cannot answer for it and faces no consequences, said failure is on a level that undermines the entire executive branch. Not that that would be new. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Michigan is getting pretty damn close to allowing Naturopaths to practice medicine[edit]
The Michigan Association of Naturopathic Physicians has done some impressive lobbying for it and like I said, licensing for naturopaths is getting close. Does not help when the AMA dropped the ball with Chiropractors and Osteopathic doctors.
https://www.michiganvotes.org/2018-SB-826
--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can we just create a type of license where prospective naturopaths have to go to an accredited medical school, get a bachelor's degree recognized in the AVICENNA Directory for medicine/FAIMER International Medical Education Directory, achieve satisfactory MCAT scores, and pass a board certification exam? --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 02:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh man, the full text is more fucked up. They give them full prescription rights, allow them to use the term "doctor", allow them to perform any operation "consistent with their training". The suffering this will create. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can we go the easier route, where they just get their bullshit license, but like nicotine or alcohol have to post all over their shit that the license is not accredited and there is serious risk involved in their use? I guess that's probably the harder route in Michigan, now...Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- As I said in the past, the AMA really needs rethink their strategy for handling alternative medicine. The previous strategies failed and ended up benefiting alt medicine. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can we go the easier route, where they just get their bullshit license, but like nicotine or alcohol have to post all over their shit that the license is not accredited and there is serious risk involved in their use? I guess that's probably the harder route in Michigan, now...Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh man, the full text is more fucked up. They give them full prescription rights, allow them to use the term "doctor", allow them to perform any operation "consistent with their training". The suffering this will create. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Leaving toxic relationships[edit]
https://www.lionsroar.com/is-it-worth-sticking-with-a-testy-relationship/
I mean I get trying to understand things from the other point of view, but I think sometimes it might just be better for you to leave.Machina (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- sometimes you are a battered wife. sometimes you are abandoning a friend in their hour of need because they are harshing your high. sometimes you are fleeing all commitment for the most trivial of things and doomed to die alone. sometimes it means too much to walk away. sometimes things can be salvaged. sometimes you just need a chat. sometimes you are a god awful prick.
- these are not one size fits all situations. I have had some extremely toxic relationships, abusive even, where I was not the 'guilty' party. I have on other occasions been hard work to say the least. I come with baggage. so does everyone. you can watch a relationship whither and die without ever knowing why and other times you can see every problem while doing nothing to fix them.
- its not you its me. its not me its definitely you. in truth we are both cunts. you'll never grow if you put it all on them, or take all the blame yourself. if honest conversation is possible, things can be fixed, or you can part as friends.
- its never black and white. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a skill millions of people need desparately. Ditching toxic people. It can be really really really hard to do. Reasons include: the feeling you won't find someone else (friend/partner), giving up on something you've invested in, just a little more time will bring change (or make the other person better), have invested most of your self-esteem in the other person's opinions and treatment of you, feeling sorry for the person you are leaving, willfull manipulation on the part of the toxic person, financial/economic dependence, social/familiar dependence, the judgement of others, fear of change (and so on). I'd say 99% of the time your best bet is to ditch the toxic fucker. However if it's a toxic relationship (not necesarily toxic people) there is the chance the relationship could be salvaged. ShabiDOO 15:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- the difficulty I have with this discussion is that it asks the wrong question. 'should you leave a toxic relationship?' has such a clear and obvious answer. you might as well ask if you are on fire should you put it out? a clear and easy answer. what is not so clear and easy is what makes a specific relationship toxic? asking should you leave presupposes it is toxic, and If you are viewing it as toxic, it might already be beyond repair. ask what makes this relationship toxic. ask how it has progressed to this. a suitable course of action may present itself.
- the other difficulty I have here is that we can only speak in generalities. there are many variables, so many qualifiers, unique to case, each person, it is so fundamentally subjective, that no judgement of any kind can be made without intimate knowledge of the a specific situation.
- i will not label anothers relationship toxic. that is a judgement only the participants can make. and i will not label another person toxic, full stop AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a skill millions of people need desparately. Ditching toxic people. It can be really really really hard to do. Reasons include: the feeling you won't find someone else (friend/partner), giving up on something you've invested in, just a little more time will bring change (or make the other person better), have invested most of your self-esteem in the other person's opinions and treatment of you, feeling sorry for the person you are leaving, willfull manipulation on the part of the toxic person, financial/economic dependence, social/familiar dependence, the judgement of others, fear of change (and so on). I'd say 99% of the time your best bet is to ditch the toxic fucker. However if it's a toxic relationship (not necesarily toxic people) there is the chance the relationship could be salvaged. ShabiDOO 15:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess the point I am trying to get at is that the article asks to consider their side. Which to a certain extent I can agree with, but you have to wonder if whether sorting through whatever is the root of their mess is worth compromising your own health and well being. I know that sometimes other people have pain they haven't dealt with and inflict it to others (since I doubt anyone is inherently that malicious), but there comes a time when you need to break off and help yourself.Machina (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Video game hysteria Part deux: Walmart Edition[edit]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard that there are some Walmart stores in the US that sell Glocks and handguns. If so, then I'm not surprised that they are siding with the gunnuts and weapon lobbyists... Tinribmancer (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are correct, at least for all the Texas Walmarts I've been to. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also, it’s the smart commercial move: Removing some promotional material is probably not going to hurt video game sales much, you earn points with all kinds of “concerned citizen” types, and you avoid an embarrassing discussion of (and possibly curtailing) your gun sales by shifting the debate. Well spun, Walmart... ScepticWombat (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- especially so when you don't want to miss out on the boost that gun sales get after a mass shooting of this kind. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's also an easy trapdoor. You give people the appearance of doing something about a huge problem in the country, about caring. But you do the bare minimum, take the least effort, and doesn't really affect your sales of things. Of course, nothing changes because it'll cost a lot of money to do something, maybe cause controversy with the gunnies, and Walmart can't afford to lose out from the gunnie demographic. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Wal-Mart in my area happily sells guns without second thought- mostly hunting rifles but they also sell hand guns. Going with the "video games cause violence" logic, what video games did Joseph Stalin play when he led the Soviet Union (into the toilet)? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's also an easy trapdoor. You give people the appearance of doing something about a huge problem in the country, about caring. But you do the bare minimum, take the least effort, and doesn't really affect your sales of things. Of course, nothing changes because it'll cost a lot of money to do something, maybe cause controversy with the gunnies, and Walmart can't afford to lose out from the gunnie demographic. --It's-a me,
- especially so when you don't want to miss out on the boost that gun sales get after a mass shooting of this kind. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also, it’s the smart commercial move: Removing some promotional material is probably not going to hurt video game sales much, you earn points with all kinds of “concerned citizen” types, and you avoid an embarrassing discussion of (and possibly curtailing) your gun sales by shifting the debate. Well spun, Walmart... ScepticWombat (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
My Walmart today doesn't even allow sales of any video games (and it doesn't even sell guns as far as I know, or I'm just not aware despite visiting that place many many times). I have no idea if it's related to the incident at all, though, since I haven't visited it any short time period prior to the shooting in El Paso. --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 04:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Btw, I think it’s very much on point that Sterling in both this and another video on this “evil video game” brouhaha insists on emphasising that Walmart’s and others’ ridiculous actions have not been taken “in the wake of the shootings”, but in the wake of Trump and others trying to deflect the discussion away from guns and onto literally anything else, with video games being the scapegoat du jour this time around. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Walmart was probably looking for an excuse to clean out the floor space dedicated to video games anyway. Nobody buys hard copy game discs anymore. Hannasanarion (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
My Wal-Mart jumped on the same bullshit band wagon[edit]
The ads for games in Wal-Mart are now gone and surprise- they still sell guns. This whole thing is an attack on free speech. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not an attack on free speech. It is a choice in an advertisement. If you are buying your games from Wal-Mart, guess what, they are all still there. Sorry to break the Santa myth, but this is the same link posted above. Nintendo has always been against anything not family friendly. So playing this as if a Switch display carried controversial games and Wal-Mart pulled them is silly. Wal-Mart isn't pulling the games, or the guns, because they have calculated that they won't lose game or gun sales over it. They just don't have pictures about them in their departments. What do you care? The game is still there, you were still going to buy the game. Are you worried you're going to stumble through a Wal Mart and buy Animal Crossing by accident because the in-store banners are different? Wal-Mart hopes you do. Take it up with Nintendo. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Must admit[edit]
You have to admit Doable Trump is a fearless speaker, saying things that offend other people. Not that I think he is doing the right thing but still must say he is a fearless speaker. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F142:3D01:161E:CB7A:729A:158D / talk
- Talking out of one's ass isn't that impressive. Youtubers have been doing it for years. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- You could say that about damn near any high-profile public figure. Anything anyone says will piss off a huge number of people. Hell, it probably requires even more guts to be a high-profile Democrat now that so many far-rightists are turning to terrorism. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Literalism[edit]
Is there a reason why the seven days of Genesis must be literal but the dome as well as moon being a light and the light and darkness being distinct from the sun are not literal? What is literal and what is figuritive in the Bible? How can one be a true literalist? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F142:3D01:EDC7:CEA5:350:DA08 / talk
- It's very simple. You can't. The bible is internally inconsistent, that is to say in a vacuum, on it's own, it makes no sense. Adding anything else to that already untenable situation makes things worse. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- It’s even simpler: When the bible is clearly wrong, the passage should be taken figuratively, otherwise it should be read literally. At least that seems to be the literalist apologetic MO (unless they can find another reason why the text shouldn’t be understood in the way it appears, cf. the attempts at “explaining away” biblical errors and contradictions). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- The seven days must be literal because someone brainwashed you into believing that this preposterous passage of a book happened and next to nothing will change your mind on the issue. The dome and moon part aren't literal because even a ridiculous lost case like you cannot force your brain to accept every single blatant absurdity of the Bible...plus no one brainwashed you to care at all about the moon and dome...and thus it is metaphorical. If no one brainwashed you ever on this book and then you read it...the only opinion you'd have is sadness for the fools who take anything in that book literally. ShabiDOO`
- Checking my sourcebooks. Says here "a wizard did it". Thank you for your deep theology question. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with it is that the book does not come with a God-sanctioned appendix telling what's allegorical and what's not as well as the way to interpret it. Meaning the too-many-to-count schisms over its interpretations (and things just go worse from there), the countless number of Fundies who keep insisting something written millennia ago holds the Absolute Truth™ despite both archaeology and science having advanced a lot since then, and more.
- The sad part is that it's highly likely there'll be uber-fundamentalists (not just the flat-Earthers) out there who will think that dome is real and what we know to exist insteadd just lies of the Devil. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- The seven days must be literal because someone brainwashed you into believing that this preposterous passage of a book happened and next to nothing will change your mind on the issue. The dome and moon part aren't literal because even a ridiculous lost case like you cannot force your brain to accept every single blatant absurdity of the Bible...plus no one brainwashed you to care at all about the moon and dome...and thus it is metaphorical. If no one brainwashed you ever on this book and then you read it...the only opinion you'd have is sadness for the fools who take anything in that book literally. ShabiDOO`
- It’s even simpler: When the bible is clearly wrong, the passage should be taken figuratively, otherwise it should be read literally. At least that seems to be the literalist apologetic MO (unless they can find another reason why the text shouldn’t be understood in the way it appears, cf. the attempts at “explaining away” biblical errors and contradictions). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
To quote
- “And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
- Whereunder crawling coop't we live and die,
- Lift not thy hands to it for help -- for It
- Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.”
Omar Khayyam Anna Livia (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Neil deGrasse Tyson was absolutely right, and should not have apologized[edit]
- Https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-in-USA-vs.-media-coverage.png
I'm talking about his tweet about gun deaths compared to other deaths. He was seen by people as being "cold" and "statistical" (as if those are somehow bad traits. Yikes) just because he didn't wait long enough and because of the internet outrage machine. His tweet was entirely factually correct- disease causes dozens of times more deaths than gun violence, and yet due to our cognitive biases, we treat these "natural" deaths as somehow less bad than violent ones, and our outrage towards them is far less than they should be. At no point in his tweet did he say gun control was unnecessary- he was merely pointing out that it is illogical that reducing medical errors, which are equally as preventable as gun deaths, doesn't have higher priority in our minds. The inability of humans to process scale is behind many of our societies problems- we treat near nonexistent threats as huge while far away real problems are ignored. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx As this poll shows, people treat climate change with the same level of severity as gun violence, despite the fact the former will cause thousands of times more deaths. — Unsigned, by: 173.64.88.45 / talk
- And people wonder why I'm a depressed douchbag all the time. Most of society acts in a manner that makes me look down on them as a default. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Such as once again missing the point on the gun control debate. Does someone need to shoot up your loved ones before you finally get it? We can do something about this problem. This almost exclusively U.S.A. problem. The one that we've been arguing about since before I was born. We've been arguing about mass shootings for over 50 years. Over 50 years!!! You would have to be an idiot to hold back at this point. Or a sociopath... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- His tweet is not correct. Death from medical errors is vastly overstated and inaccurate, based on a flawed study.(Tyson uses a lower estimate but it's still misleading). So, he's wrong there. Even if he was correct, however, I'm not sure why Tyson had to bring that aside from to distract from the issue that we could save more lives if we just paid attention to medical errors. I get that in sheer numbers, you'll save way more lives to tell people to quit smoking rather than enforce helmet laws or something. But Tyson just isn't helping here when we can talk about both trying hard on gun violence and also climate change. Gun violence is a major problem while climate change's problems is only understated. The priorities are wrong but gun concerns are rightly concerning. Also, we already work super hard to minimalize medical errors, take a lot of legislative steps, compared to the jack we've done with gun control. He may not realize it, but he's also tarring doctors in the same brush as ideologically motivated mass shooters and people should feel right to be offended. Being "cold" is a bad trait, by the way especially if you post misleading stats to begin with. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think an even more basic “apples to oranges” problem with Tyson’s comparison that renders it tantalisingly close to if not an outright false analogy is that these other examples all involve unintentional actions or what economists would call negative externalities. People usually don’t get into their cars with the intent to crash, doctors usually don’t operate with the intention to botch the operation, we generally don’t emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases with the intention of heating up the globe. By contrast, these mass shooters knowingly and intentionally set out to kill people. This is a valid and hugely important difference that is also reflected in the legal distinction between man slaughter and murder. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's douchey to take a recent traumatic event and trivialise it compared with some other problem. Wait a bloody week or two. Or argue the merrits of working against disease on its own...you don't have to compare that in sheer higher numbers than the deaths that just happened in a national tragedy. If we had a recent spate of vicious LGTB+ discrimination and violence and anyone were to say "hey look racism is a more serious problem leading to far more discrimination and violence than with LGTB+ victims insinuating that we should deal with racism as opposed to the not as alarming LGTB+ problem...you have to admit that sounds really douchey and unconstructive not to mention inconsiderate, hurtful and in really really bad taste (this is a guy who thinks he is a class act). We should work on both. However a recent national trauma or tragedy is a great time to focus on that particular problem...trivialising it in the face of recent victims is not just cold...it's assholey. Tyson has a history of being a stupid asshole sometimes. At least he apologised. There is likely no better moment than now to rally for gun regulations. ShabiDOO 10:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair to Neil's "technically correctness", two of the statistics he mentioned ("suicide" and "homicide by handgun") probably would be quite mitigated by firearms regulations. ScepticWombat is more on point: the type of event matters (people usually don't expect to need to worry about getting gunned down shopping at Walmart or attending a garlic festival), and the spectacular mass event, the immediate worst case scenario, worries people more than the mundane or slow, creeping massive issues. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Shapidoo Appropriate to say a "bloody" week or two, because in that time span we've already had 2 more attempts at mass shootings. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's douchey to take a recent traumatic event and trivialise it compared with some other problem. Wait a bloody week or two. Or argue the merrits of working against disease on its own...you don't have to compare that in sheer higher numbers than the deaths that just happened in a national tragedy. If we had a recent spate of vicious LGTB+ discrimination and violence and anyone were to say "hey look racism is a more serious problem leading to far more discrimination and violence than with LGTB+ victims insinuating that we should deal with racism as opposed to the not as alarming LGTB+ problem...you have to admit that sounds really douchey and unconstructive not to mention inconsiderate, hurtful and in really really bad taste (this is a guy who thinks he is a class act). We should work on both. However a recent national trauma or tragedy is a great time to focus on that particular problem...trivialising it in the face of recent victims is not just cold...it's assholey. Tyson has a history of being a stupid asshole sometimes. At least he apologised. There is likely no better moment than now to rally for gun regulations. ShabiDOO 10:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think an even more basic “apples to oranges” problem with Tyson’s comparison that renders it tantalisingly close to if not an outright false analogy is that these other examples all involve unintentional actions or what economists would call negative externalities. People usually don’t get into their cars with the intent to crash, doctors usually don’t operate with the intention to botch the operation, we generally don’t emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases with the intention of heating up the globe. By contrast, these mass shooters knowingly and intentionally set out to kill people. This is a valid and hugely important difference that is also reflected in the legal distinction between man slaughter and murder. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- His tweet is not correct. Death from medical errors is vastly overstated and inaccurate, based on a flawed study.(Tyson uses a lower estimate but it's still misleading). So, he's wrong there. Even if he was correct, however, I'm not sure why Tyson had to bring that aside from to distract from the issue that we could save more lives if we just paid attention to medical errors. I get that in sheer numbers, you'll save way more lives to tell people to quit smoking rather than enforce helmet laws or something. But Tyson just isn't helping here when we can talk about both trying hard on gun violence and also climate change. Gun violence is a major problem while climate change's problems is only understated. The priorities are wrong but gun concerns are rightly concerning. Also, we already work super hard to minimalize medical errors, take a lot of legislative steps, compared to the jack we've done with gun control. He may not realize it, but he's also tarring doctors in the same brush as ideologically motivated mass shooters and people should feel right to be offended. Being "cold" is a bad trait, by the way especially if you post misleading stats to begin with. --It's-a me,
- Such as once again missing the point on the gun control debate. Does someone need to shoot up your loved ones before you finally get it? We can do something about this problem. This almost exclusively U.S.A. problem. The one that we've been arguing about since before I was born. We've been arguing about mass shootings for over 50 years. Over 50 years!!! You would have to be an idiot to hold back at this point. Or a sociopath... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Is boredom a bad thing?[edit]
https://www.lionsroar.com/booooring-september-2012/Machina (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, boredom is caused by a lack of stimulation, pretty much on par with hunger, so I don't agree with the article at all. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- No way, it's one of the best songs Buzzcocks ever did. Avida Dollarsher again 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boredom is one of the greatest traits of humanity IMHO. It leads people to try new things, to explore new ideas, and to seek new opportunities. If making just enough money to buy food and shelter was all it took to be happy, the world would never have made it as far as it has. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- it has been my experience that acquiring food and shelter is the main motivator not boredom. new ideas and new opportunities are not fuelled by tedium but the polar opposite - overcoming all the shit that life throws at you. for most of humanities existence, boredom would have been welcomed. it meant something wasn't trying to eat you.
- and since my method for dealing with boredom generally involves meth and very risky sex. boredom has been very bad for my health. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- 30-50 wild bores. — Oxyaena Harass 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now there's a threat to children. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- For three or five minutes? — Oxyaena Harass 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boredom can be agonizing. A 15 hour flight without a book, no battery in your phone and a touch screen that doesn't work...can be utter hell for some. Same goes for those forced to share a room with someone who needs the lights out at 21.00 while you cannot possibly fall asleep for hours, doing nothing in the silence and dark. Forms of punishment or imprisonment can turn general boredom into agony. It can be pretty toxic stuff, boredom. I recently had a pretty serious medical problem and spent 2 months in the hospital and 4 months recovering at home often spending hours on my own while everyone was away for the day. I never let myself get bored. If you have even a small library, laptop and/or phone and a connection to the internet...I cannot imagine how you could possibly get bored. I improved my language skills, learnt advanced level use of some programs, researched a trip in a few years, caught up with old friends, watched tons of series and films, caught up on a backlog of philosophy reading, read a few stupid but fun trashy books, read several beautiful literary novels, music, magazines, games, competitions, writing, editing, learning, improving. Say what you like about the modern online world...you seriously have no excuse anymore to be bored. ShabiDOO 21:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I keep hearing that peoples threshold for boredom has significantly decreased due to iphones and social media. if its a problem for anyone, that they cant find something to divert for the attention though out the day, I suggest shoot up some smack. days will pass with you doing literally nothing. (don't shoot up smack)AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- If you are easily distracted just try whatching influencer videos on youtube. Some of the videos are less than one minute. You can watch annoying young know-it-alls with a cool "I don't care attitude" tell us whats-what while virtually yelling at you in a frantic loud voice with near hysterical levels of energy and very mediochre production qualities. Any topic you like, there will be hundreds of such videos (along with how:to and critiques). Not entertained enough? Read the 10,000 comments on each video. So many comments are entertainingly mean with unecessary insults and vicious opinions everyone is dying to hear. Luckily with auto-play, you can just sit back and watch hours of soul destroying expert knowledge disemination. By the end you will know exactly which products you should buy, the info you "need to know now" and the top 10 vital facts that will have surely "blown your mind". More than a dose of smack will. If you shoot up smack...you might have the attention span to watch some of the longer videos where they go more indepth. Like a 20 minute make-up tutorial or an advanced Fortnight strategy guide or a 30 minute Gossip session about the adult lives of the "Saved by the bell" crew. As I said...you just have no reason to be bored. ShabiDOO 09:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I keep hearing that peoples threshold for boredom has significantly decreased due to iphones and social media. if its a problem for anyone, that they cant find something to divert for the attention though out the day, I suggest shoot up some smack. days will pass with you doing literally nothing. (don't shoot up smack)AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boredom can be agonizing. A 15 hour flight without a book, no battery in your phone and a touch screen that doesn't work...can be utter hell for some. Same goes for those forced to share a room with someone who needs the lights out at 21.00 while you cannot possibly fall asleep for hours, doing nothing in the silence and dark. Forms of punishment or imprisonment can turn general boredom into agony. It can be pretty toxic stuff, boredom. I recently had a pretty serious medical problem and spent 2 months in the hospital and 4 months recovering at home often spending hours on my own while everyone was away for the day. I never let myself get bored. If you have even a small library, laptop and/or phone and a connection to the internet...I cannot imagine how you could possibly get bored. I improved my language skills, learnt advanced level use of some programs, researched a trip in a few years, caught up with old friends, watched tons of series and films, caught up on a backlog of philosophy reading, read a few stupid but fun trashy books, read several beautiful literary novels, music, magazines, games, competitions, writing, editing, learning, improving. Say what you like about the modern online world...you seriously have no excuse anymore to be bored. ShabiDOO 21:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- For three or five minutes? — Oxyaena Harass 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now there's a threat to children. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- 30-50 wild bores. — Oxyaena Harass 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boredom is one of the greatest traits of humanity IMHO. It leads people to try new things, to explore new ideas, and to seek new opportunities. If making just enough money to buy food and shelter was all it took to be happy, the world would never have made it as far as it has. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- No way, it's one of the best songs Buzzcocks ever did. Avida Dollarsher again 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm mostly wondering what people think about the article itself. I mean in one aspect I guess she is arguing that boredom is some kind of myth or that it doesn't exist because we tend to say " i Am bored" but that there isn't really anything solid you can point to as boredom. The other part of that is that I wonder if she means that one is only bored if they are not present and living in the now.Machina (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- You say there's nothing solid I can point to as boredom, but I would argue a monopoly board is hella solid. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Endangered species act to be gutted by executive fiat[edit]
Sorry, gray wolves. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah fuck Trump. — Oxyaena Harass 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trump is too dumb to know anything about it. It's David Bernhardt, oil lobbyist turned secretary of the interior. I mean, fuck trump for appointing the asshole, but still. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You mean to tell me that Trump cares more for his cronies than for the rest of the country? Color me shocked... G Man (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't mean to tell you that. I mean to tell you the entire apparatus of the republican party is corruption incarnate, and trump is just a very notable part of it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You mean to tell me that Trump cares more for his cronies than for the rest of the country? Color me shocked... G Man (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- But seriously, why should anyone be surprised that Trump appointed all sorts of lobbyists to his cabinet? Drain the swamp, my ass... G Man (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I want to see how his supporters excuse or overlook this one. This sort of thing would be political suicide for anyone else, but no, Trump still will have an approval rating over 30%, and Republicans still stand by him, because "at least the economy is good". Trump is still responsible for this for choosing the worst possible guy to lead a sensitive position in the name of draining the swamp. You can't screw up this badly unless you are stupid or you put yesmen in charge for corporation allies to operate without more liability. Oh, he will drain extremely biodiverse swamps but he will replace them with concrete cesspools. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised, but I'm still really angry and more angry that I'm not surprised. I still haven't quite gotten over this administration gutting protections from the migratory bird act such as allowing polluters to not be held liable from negligent killing birds. That one is getting legally challenged up the wazoo, fortunately. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trump already has a bit of a cult of personality. (I seriously considered adding him to the "Cult leaders" category on this wiki, at some point.) It almost seems like his base couldn't possibly be phased by anything. I'll go out on a limb and say that his "small government" supporters would probably be fine if he hypothetically overthrew democracy and turned it into a dictatorship, so long as he was the one who did it.G Man (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trump is simply ramping up a GOP war against any and all environmental regulations and protections that dates back at least to Reagan. Trump is simply more successful because his ongoing shitshow distracts attention from his cronies’ and minions’ gutting of the remains of the laws and regulations that made the US a functioning modern state, rather than a semi-Dickensian Gilded Age’ish robber baron paradise with internet. Considering that swamps tend to be complex ecosystems with lots of endangered species, I guess that “drain the swamp” is a somewhat fitting slogan. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, a pro-atheism and (for the most part) pro-science page on Facebook posted this article a few months ago about how the Trump administration is legalizing lead bullets and harming wildlife (such as the golden eagle, which ingests the bullets found in its prey). Like clockwork, someone commented, "So, what?" and began making excuses about it, copying straight from the anti-environmentalist playbook (e.g. survival of the fittest, or whatever *rolls eyes*). G Man (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now, to be fair, I have one disclaimer to make: My story is an anecdote which happened a few months ago. It would be too much to go that far back and take a screenshot to prove it, so you don't have to take my word for it. I was just trying to illustrate a general trend that I have observed under this anti-environmentalist administration.G Man (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that even sensible environmental protections have become part of the culture wars, not least due to free market fundamentalists viewing anyone who cares about the environment as “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside). Such free market fundamentalists rely on the conspiracy theory that any kind of environmental regulation is just the thin end of the wedge towards socialism and a planned economy (the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt traces the origins of these tactics to the tobacco lobby, replete with experts for hire). This is even more bizarre in the post Cold War era, when you can’t even rustle up the USSR bogeyman as justification, yet the same spiel continues and if anything, the GOP stance is becoming more extreme. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Inevitably, a hundred or so years from now, the concept of breathing will be seen as socialist by the GOP. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bottled air is already a thing. We're already living in that capitalist nightmare where air is profitable commodity, forests are viewed only in the lenses of relentless exploitation, short term jobs/concrete marinas/cheap tables/toenail clippings are more important than the homes of tons of organisms, and Trump and his supporters say, "Who cares" to endangered species despite years of education screaming at us that biodiversity is hugely crucial to our success and it is a Moral Imperative to protect and preserve it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bottled air is already a thing. We're already living in that capitalist nightmare where air is profitable commodity, forests are viewed only in the lenses of relentless exploitation, short term jobs/concrete marinas/cheap tables/toenail clippings are more important than the homes of tons of organisms, and Trump and his supporters say, "Who cares" to endangered species despite years of education screaming at us that biodiversity is hugely crucial to our success and it is a Moral Imperative to protect and preserve it. --It's-a me,
- Inevitably, a hundred or so years from now, the concept of breathing will be seen as socialist by the GOP. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- A hundred? Lol Trump's EPA is already trying to undermine the Clean Water Act
. Don't be surprised if they go after the Clean Air Act with the next 10 years. Gone are the days when the GOP cared for the environment like Nixon did.G Man (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that even sensible environmental protections have become part of the culture wars, not least due to free market fundamentalists viewing anyone who cares about the environment as “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside). Such free market fundamentalists rely on the conspiracy theory that any kind of environmental regulation is just the thin end of the wedge towards socialism and a planned economy (the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt traces the origins of these tactics to the tobacco lobby, replete with experts for hire). This is even more bizarre in the post Cold War era, when you can’t even rustle up the USSR bogeyman as justification, yet the same spiel continues and if anything, the GOP stance is becoming more extreme. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Now, to be fair, I have one disclaimer to make: My story is an anecdote which happened a few months ago. It would be too much to go that far back and take a screenshot to prove it, so you don't have to take my word for it. I was just trying to illustrate a general trend that I have observed under this anti-environmentalist administration.G Man (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, a pro-atheism and (for the most part) pro-science page on Facebook posted this article a few months ago about how the Trump administration is legalizing lead bullets and harming wildlife (such as the golden eagle, which ingests the bullets found in its prey). Like clockwork, someone commented, "So, what?" and began making excuses about it, copying straight from the anti-environmentalist playbook (e.g. survival of the fittest, or whatever *rolls eyes*). G Man (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trump is simply ramping up a GOP war against any and all environmental regulations and protections that dates back at least to Reagan. Trump is simply more successful because his ongoing shitshow distracts attention from his cronies’ and minions’ gutting of the remains of the laws and regulations that made the US a functioning modern state, rather than a semi-Dickensian Gilded Age’ish robber baron paradise with internet. Considering that swamps tend to be complex ecosystems with lots of endangered species, I guess that “drain the swamp” is a somewhat fitting slogan. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trump already has a bit of a cult of personality. (I seriously considered adding him to the "Cult leaders" category on this wiki, at some point.) It almost seems like his base couldn't possibly be phased by anything. I'll go out on a limb and say that his "small government" supporters would probably be fine if he hypothetically overthrew democracy and turned it into a dictatorship, so long as he was the one who did it.G Man (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I want to see how his supporters excuse or overlook this one. This sort of thing would be political suicide for anyone else, but no, Trump still will have an approval rating over 30%, and Republicans still stand by him, because "at least the economy is good". Trump is still responsible for this for choosing the worst possible guy to lead a sensitive position in the name of draining the swamp. You can't screw up this badly unless you are stupid or you put yesmen in charge for corporation allies to operate without more liability. Oh, he will drain extremely biodiverse swamps but he will replace them with concrete cesspools. --It's-a me,
- Trump is too dumb to know anything about it. It's David Bernhardt, oil lobbyist turned secretary of the interior. I mean, fuck trump for appointing the asshole, but still. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt that Nixon cared much about the environment. His environmental legislation was in response to a general concern among the US populace about pollution and environmental degradation and Nixon latched onto it to seem green and caring. The difference is that today the GOP is actively anti environmentalist (or simply anti environment...), rather than rather being indifferent/opportunistic as was the case with Nixon. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I can't weigh in on this because I am so emotionally attached to it and on a federal scale it is so impossible to fight. I am against it, and I have seen how they do it. I will say, as an on-the-ground fighter against the Keystone pipeline, I saw my state representatives spread corporate propaganda as they allowed bogus eminent domain threats to be used as pressure against land-owners, proposed a change to the size of a National Natural Landmark to protect the route of the pipeline over protecting the landmark, and calculated a 0% chance of a leak in said pipeline, "proving" that there was no actual need to come up with a cleanup plan in the extra difficult cleanup area that is the Ogallala aquifer. I've seen the tactics. They are intense, and they are hard to stop. If the federal government owns the land, there is no real recourse because not enough people care to force their representatives to fight back to protect land. I mean, even in my state, we had to fight our own congresspeople tooth and nail. This is a huge blind spot that we, as American citizens, and joint owners of this space are never going to get back.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Discord[edit]
I never slandered anyone by "faking illegal requests." Soap legit asked for nudes when I was 17, you're going to trust a known Nazi shit over me? To hell with all of you. — Oxyaena Harass 00:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyaena Calm the fuck down and keep reading to the bit where I called them out on their bull. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can you not drag drama to here, please? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry all I was having an episode. — Oxyaena Harass 01:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie Thanks, I appreciate it. — Oxyaena Harass 01:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry all I was having an episode. — Oxyaena Harass 01:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- You can't go to something that doesn't exit. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can you not drag drama to here, please? --It's-a me,
Cop mistakes bird shit for cocaine[edit]
The bird shit part is at 8:40 btw. — Oxyaena Harass 10:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ah yes bird poop. If that was illegal to possess I would be jailed for a really, really, really long time, since I own a bird poop generator in my home. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Careful, that shit could blow up half a block if you let it out of its cage. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 02:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh no, it's not caged... БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 02:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you got into the chirpy boy game, things got messy. Classic chirpy boy poop dealing-wither. Caught white and black handed. Oh, you're going down. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh no, it's not caged... БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 02:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Careful, that shit could blow up half a block if you let it out of its cage. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 02:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Talking about dealing in shit reminded me of this. (If you are totally lacking in taste and culture) you can go forward to about the 3:45 mark to see what I mean. Spud (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Good gold, thank you for sharing. It's hard to find a reason to say it, but this was fun and I loved watching it. Whoever posted that TV man article to the news portal deserves a medal.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Discord times 2[edit]
| Chat room drama creating drama outside of the chatroom |
|---|
|
I have in no way sent soap to discord. Shame on all of you for even entertaining the notion I sent a Nazi pedophile over there. You call me a fascist, a troll, consistently misgender me, and are now entertaining lies that I sent a known troll to harass you people? You're all fucking awful. — Oxyaena Harass 12:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
|
- Posts like this are why trolls think you’re a soft target. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 16:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Luna Younger / Child abuse or transphobia?[edit]
https://savejames.com/ James is an innocent seven-year-old boy. He has a twin brother, Jude. His pediatrician mother, Anne Georgulas, wants to change James’ gender and chemically castrate him as early as age eight. James’ father, Jeff Younger, is fighting in court to Save James. He needs your help.
According to the website, the trial will be this October. — Unsigned, by: 2620:7:6001::ffff:c759:e653 / talk / contribs
- I don't care except inasmuch as the website you've linked is stupid propaganda and you should not like link stupid propaganda. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- From my cursory glance on what's out there that isn't the site, I'm seeing a number of accusations of scam artistry (e.g. this Reddit thread on /r/Scams). Even TERF Central /r/GenderCritical thread on this had commenters expressing how sketch this is. They also cite ACPeds, which is a fringe group masquerading as an academic medical organization.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Has UT returned, because this seems very much like the bullshit UT would post.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well it would certainly make the Bar more lively again, trolls help bring traffic. — Oxyaena Harass 19:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly looks like a con to me. Is there somewhere to donate to the mother's costs?Hubert (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- She is quite safe, thank you very much. This wingnut based hysteria is a bunch of bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly looks like a con to me. Is there somewhere to donate to the mother's costs?Hubert (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well it would certainly make the Bar more lively again, trolls help bring traffic. — Oxyaena Harass 19:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Has UT returned, because this seems very much like the bullshit UT would post.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- From my cursory glance on what's out there that isn't the site, I'm seeing a number of accusations of scam artistry (e.g. this Reddit thread on /r/Scams). Even TERF Central /r/GenderCritical thread on this had commenters expressing how sketch this is. They also cite ACPeds, which is a fringe group masquerading as an academic medical organization.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm an avid Trump supporter, but I disagree with Trump on something[edit]
Trump is in favor of tougher background checks to buy firearms, and I disagree with that. We already have very tough background checks for one to purchase a firearm. Trump wants people diagnosed with mental disorders to be barred from owning firearms, which may seem like a good idea at the surface, but realistically, this is going to stop people who need help from seeking help because they will lose (or will think they will lose) their second amendment right to bear arms if they go to a doctor about their issues. That's exactly the opposite of what we need right now. 71.215.128.66 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is a supremely bad take. First off, Trump has made it easier for people with mental disorders to get guns. Second background checks are notoriously easy to get around and often NICS doesn't have complete information. Also people suffering from a mental illnesses often are bigger threats to themselves and people will choose not to kill themselves if they don't have access to their preferred method. Troll harder.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- This can be framed as, in fairness, to mean "mentally handicapped people won't seek care they believe they cannot get a gun, so background checks hurt them". Similar to undocumented immigrants risk their lives avoiding health and economic support in fear that their status leads to deportation. Addressing mental health won't solve the gun crisis here, so this can further stigmatize people with mental health. BoN is correct in the sense that this sort of thing hurts people with mental health problems, makes them appear more monstrous. Maybe this sort of thing should instead help us question about the merit of a long-dated, irrelevant, and destructive amendment, question how sick this gun culture is into training people to value guns to the point it appears feasible that people with mental health problems don't want undergo a background check on fears they cannot own a gun, even though guns aren't that valuable. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not even just about guns, it's outright belittling to people with mental health issues. And some of these people aren't what you would call "crazy" but merely have clinical depression, autism spectrum disorder, or even mild cases of bipolar disorder. LeftyGreenMario seems to get it. I wish Trump would stop stigmatizing mental health issues. 71.215.128.66 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose those dead people with holes in them died from mean words. No, they died from bullets fired from guns. The mental health crap is deflection form the main issue, same thing politicians have been doing for 50+ years. Now we have racism and xenophobia chucked in on top of that crap. These recent shootings weren't some big mystery, not in any real sense. The shooters were told by Trump and others that immigrants were invading their home and had to be stopped, they were told said immigrants were subhuman, they were told it was their duty to defend their homeland, and so they did exactly what they were told to do. They killed the people they were told were a threat to them. A + B + C = D. The chain of events is there, plain as day, but dipshits like you insist it's something else, anything else, besides xenophobia, besides white supremacy, besides guns being used for their intended purpose. "Violent video games are to blame" Trump says, "mental health needs to be addressed" says the NRA, "secure the border" says the GOP... Fucking cowards the lot of you. This is why I hate you, this is why I want to take your guns away. Because you're all terminally stupid. How about we either reduce guns use or eliminate it, actually give more than lip service to mental health issues, and actually view refugees as human beings who would rather live in their home countries than come to this shithole we live in? Maybe if we actually adressed the issues instead of hiding from them, we'd get results other than more death and suffering. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- You say you're a Trump supporter. Well, I say this as an anti-Trump person: stigmatizing mental health, being nasty to them, is the point. Trump doesn't actually care for these people. The gun lobby has their fingers, filled with gold coins, deep inside his pockets. They are friendly to him. And there are other supporters who also don't care about people with mental health issues. You should know how poorly Trump treats people with mental health problems by removing funding from organizations that help them. He tries to take away welfare and healthcare that are one of the few crutches that keep these people from falling through the cracks. He mocked a disabled person. Mental health problems is a convenient scapegoat for someone more concerned about political expenditure than human welfare. This is why I strongly oppose Trump. He hurts people so bad in the name of rich and powerful interests and intends to hurt them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- You say you're a Trump supporter. Well, I say this as an anti-Trump person: stigmatizing mental health, being nasty to them, is the point. Trump doesn't actually care for these people. The gun lobby has their fingers, filled with gold coins, deep inside his pockets. They are friendly to him. And there are other supporters who also don't care about people with mental health issues. You should know how poorly Trump treats people with mental health problems by removing funding from organizations that help them. He tries to take away welfare and healthcare that are one of the few crutches that keep these people from falling through the cracks. He mocked a disabled person. Mental health problems is a convenient scapegoat for someone more concerned about political expenditure than human welfare. This is why I strongly oppose Trump. He hurts people so bad in the name of rich and powerful interests and intends to hurt them. --It's-a me,
- I suppose those dead people with holes in them died from mean words. No, they died from bullets fired from guns. The mental health crap is deflection form the main issue, same thing politicians have been doing for 50+ years. Now we have racism and xenophobia chucked in on top of that crap. These recent shootings weren't some big mystery, not in any real sense. The shooters were told by Trump and others that immigrants were invading their home and had to be stopped, they were told said immigrants were subhuman, they were told it was their duty to defend their homeland, and so they did exactly what they were told to do. They killed the people they were told were a threat to them. A + B + C = D. The chain of events is there, plain as day, but dipshits like you insist it's something else, anything else, besides xenophobia, besides white supremacy, besides guns being used for their intended purpose. "Violent video games are to blame" Trump says, "mental health needs to be addressed" says the NRA, "secure the border" says the GOP... Fucking cowards the lot of you. This is why I hate you, this is why I want to take your guns away. Because you're all terminally stupid. How about we either reduce guns use or eliminate it, actually give more than lip service to mental health issues, and actually view refugees as human beings who would rather live in their home countries than come to this shithole we live in? Maybe if we actually adressed the issues instead of hiding from them, we'd get results other than more death and suffering. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not even just about guns, it's outright belittling to people with mental health issues. And some of these people aren't what you would call "crazy" but merely have clinical depression, autism spectrum disorder, or even mild cases of bipolar disorder. LeftyGreenMario seems to get it. I wish Trump would stop stigmatizing mental health issues. 71.215.128.66 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- This can be framed as, in fairness, to mean "mentally handicapped people won't seek care they believe they cannot get a gun, so background checks hurt them". Similar to undocumented immigrants risk their lives avoiding health and economic support in fear that their status leads to deportation. Addressing mental health won't solve the gun crisis here, so this can further stigmatize people with mental health. BoN is correct in the sense that this sort of thing hurts people with mental health problems, makes them appear more monstrous. Maybe this sort of thing should instead help us question about the merit of a long-dated, irrelevant, and destructive amendment, question how sick this gun culture is into training people to value guns to the point it appears feasible that people with mental health problems don't want undergo a background check on fears they cannot own a gun, even though guns aren't that valuable. --It's-a me,
- Background checks won't solve anything. Guns per capita is the only metric that matters for unnecessary death. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- interest in acquiring a gun should be a bar on ever being allowed one and you should be put on to some sort of watchlist along with the paedophiles and terrorists. anyone already owning a gun should find themselves not being invited to parties, partners should leave them, and be generally ostracised. they should not be allowed to live within 3 miles of a school, people should add no guns to the no pets clause of house rentals. any excuses for gun ownership should result not in debate but with people standing and pointing at the individual expressing support, accompanied by that howl from invasion of the body snatchers.
- I am 100% serious in all the above. keep your guns if you want them. just go live on the side of a mountain with the other weirdoes who cum discussing calibre sizes. instead though we have a mass media that fetishizes guns and you can buy groceries with an instrument of death strapped to your back.
- as long as you have culture where gun ownership is seen as normal, or in some parts 'patriotic' even, where guns are seen as sexy, it will always be a culture where a mass shooting doesn't result in legislation, but increased gun sales. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not an original idea of mine, but I think the "Gun Club" idea is the best model. You cannot purchase a gun from anywhere but a gun club. You cannot show a gun anywhere besides a gun club sponsored event. Any gun you own must be registered and stored at the gun club. Any time you take a gun from the gun club for a sporting event, you must log it. I don't think it should be much more difficult to register as a gun club than obtaining a license to sell alcohol, but getting a gun out of a gun club should be the limiting factor. They are not selling alcohol, they are renting gun-safe spaces. Probably will have to reword that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Important[edit]
What is the best way to delete your account completely? Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Log out, then never log back in. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Scramble your password if you must. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, I want my account terminated. Completely. Is there such an option Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- We would've said so. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is urgent that I terminate my account? How can I accompish that? Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not possible. But if you want, I can delete and then mod suppress your userpage. But only your user page. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 01:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- They can rename your account to something like "retireduser47391" like happens frequently on Wikipedia. But they cannot delete your account. 71.215.128.66 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that people come here and see my earlier, bigoted posts and think that defines me. I have since changed my views, but I do not want this stuff to be searchable or to be traced back to me. What are my options? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weird that. It's almost acting like a self centered jackass has consequences... Huh. I mean you could suck it up, admit your previous misdeeds, publicly display them with honesty and integrity... Or you could try to hide them and pretend they don't exist, thus undermining any actual percepption of change since it looks more like you care about your reputation than actually becoming a better person. I mean, I can't make the choice for you, but if I was in your shoes I'd choose the option that actually means more. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have already repented. I was a MORON. I stupid, bigoted, borderline racist idiot. I repent it. But I do not want this stuff to EVER be tied to me. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- You don't get it. Until you do we have nothing more to talk about. Either accept your past for what it is, and prove you can be a better person, or act like a coward and try to hide it. Your choice either way. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, you have admitted it, that's one thing. You could always just make a new account and pretend the last one wasn't yours. You could go with Kingdamian2, that isn't a bad username. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- But is there an option to retire this account? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, I don't know. I've forgotten my password before, and not had a real way to retrieve it. I'm not sure how archiving works for userspace. The only option I know of is to ghost for two to three months, come back, be like "son-of-a" and start over, no history. I've put an effort in to not doing that this time around, myself. Sounds like you're really intent on losing your username though, so I don't know if I can help you there. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- But is there an option to retire this account? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, you have admitted it, that's one thing. You could always just make a new account and pretend the last one wasn't yours. You could go with Kingdamian2, that isn't a bad username. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- You don't get it. Until you do we have nothing more to talk about. Either accept your past for what it is, and prove you can be a better person, or act like a coward and try to hide it. Your choice either way. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have already repented. I was a MORON. I stupid, bigoted, borderline racist idiot. I repent it. But I do not want this stuff to EVER be tied to me. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weird that. It's almost acting like a self centered jackass has consequences... Huh. I mean you could suck it up, admit your previous misdeeds, publicly display them with honesty and integrity... Or you could try to hide them and pretend they don't exist, thus undermining any actual percepption of change since it looks more like you care about your reputation than actually becoming a better person. I mean, I can't make the choice for you, but if I was in your shoes I'd choose the option that actually means more. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that people come here and see my earlier, bigoted posts and think that defines me. I have since changed my views, but I do not want this stuff to be searchable or to be traced back to me. What are my options? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- They can rename your account to something like "retireduser47391" like happens frequently on Wikipedia. But they cannot delete your account. 71.215.128.66 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not possible. But if you want, I can delete and then mod suppress your userpage. But only your user page.
- It is urgent that I terminate my account? How can I accompish that? Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- We would've said so. --It's-a me,
- I mean, I want my account terminated. Completely. Is there such an option Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Scramble your password if you must. --It's-a me,
@Kingdamian1 It's good that you've written a disclaimer on your user page. It's bad that you've written it in all caps but I'll let that go for now. Having just googled Kingdamian1, it looks like RationalWiki is the very least of your problems. Why did you join a social media site for fascists, for fuck's sake? Still, since you seem to have used the Kingdamian1 alias all over the internet and not revealed your real full name, the easiest thing would seem to be just not using any of those old accounts anymore and not worrying too much about people tracing those accounts back to you. And I must say, if you were trying to come across as a genuine bigot here on RationalWiki, you did a lousy job of it. You certainly wrote a few vaguely sexist things and plenty of stuff along the lines of, "Look at these stupid liberals. Aren't they stupid?" But you always came across more as half-arsed troll who was pretending to be a conservative than anything else. The fact that you'd already been banned as a liberal troll on Conservapedia meant I was never going to take you seriously as a wannabe fascist.Spud (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Spud I opened gab back when it was not as fascist. Also, I was pretty stupid with what I said. Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- KD1 - come up with whichever version of this quote suits you. Anna Livia (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just want to mention this, Gab was always fascist. It never changed, not really. It was built for and by people who got kicked off Facebook and twitter for saying and posting Nazi shit. It was never anything more than that, not outside their near transparent PR campaign. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- GrammarCommie is absolutely correct, Gab was a fascist hellhole from the start. That was the pitch. Also, how are people looking you up? Are you telling them this username for some reason, maybe don't that? Spud's right, your best chance is to just walk away, and make sure any new accounts you tell people about, have no similarity to your old username. Also take GrammarCommie's advice and do a some more soul searching. I was an kind of an asshole to some of the people around me a while back. It few years to fully grasp how big of an asshole I had been to them. Almost 6 years on, I don't feel I've fully come to terms with it... My advice to you. So, I also went and looked up KD1 on Wikipedia and that was a treat. So, apparently KD1 got a perma-banned from English Wikipedia for being combative with other editors about edits that were clearly in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies on over a dozen occasions. They also caused RationalWiki to get brought up in the ban discussion, because apprently KD1 kept bringing it and CP up randomly to people in user talks. That was amusing to see...*Keeps clicking around in your former Wikipedia edits* Wait, did you seriously upload a screenshot of Wikipedia to the Commons to show another editor your edit instead of just linking to the revision, or quoting the text in the user talk... Why? You'd been editing for months, you had to know about the history and revisions.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 10:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just want to mention this, Gab was always fascist. It never changed, not really. It was built for and by people who got kicked off Facebook and twitter for saying and posting Nazi shit. It was never anything more than that, not outside their near transparent PR campaign. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- KD1 - come up with whichever version of this quote suits you. Anna Livia (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Intelligent Design VS Evolution: the Board Game[edit]
If someone wants to write an article for it. Complete with Ray "BananaMan" Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Panzerfaust (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nice. — Oxyaena Harass 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds interesting. I say- it is worthy of an article. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
8Chan follow-up[edit]
Found this video in an article in my country that had an update on the situation:
Extremistic site 8chan remains offline for the time being: owner is waiting for conversation with US Congressmen
The controversial internet forum 8chan will remain offline for the time being. The owner of the site, on which radical and extremist ideas are often shared, says he does so voluntarily, until he has had a conversation with members of the American House of Representatives.
Owner Jim Watkins has been keeping 8chan voluntarily offline for more than a week, after security company Cloudflare has decided to stop securing the forum against external attacks - a response to the terrorist attack in El Paso.
Watkins is now announcing on YouTube that his forum will remain offline for a while until he has had a conversation with members of the US House of Representatives. However, such a conversation is not yet planned. Watkins wants to convince Congressmen that 8chan has nothing to do with what he has called "the idiotic violence" of recent weeks.
A four-page text linked to the perpetrator of the terrorist attack in a shopping mall in El Paso, two weeks ago, was published on 8chan. Earlier the forum was in the news as the place where the perpetrator of the terrorist attack on two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch posted his manifesto.
8chan is controversial, not just because of the manifests posted. Users also chase each other with all kinds of memes to commit attacks. There is even a high score, the highest number of deaths in an attack.
But Watkins continues to defend his forum and, among other things, talks about a smear campaign by the media against his site. He hopes that people will not blame him for the violence.
Tinribmancer (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh I don't blame him for the violence. I blame him for being an apathetic opportunist who profits off the violence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- And child pornography. Don't forget profiting from the distribution of child pornography. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ikanreed That too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- he should be blamed the violence. I hasten to add not all the blame or is most to blame - theres a lot of blame to share - but he is an owner of a site that allows encouragement and validation of this violence and of the views that lead to it. in the recent high profile examples of this violence it undoubtedly a contributing factor.
- sadly, 8chan it is not the only place on the internet or else where that does this, and recognising its culpability in all of this does not absolve anyone else of their own. it is though a more extreme example of the cancer that afflicts us. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- 4chan is another cancerous site that has shit like 8chan. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ikanreed That too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- And child pornography. Don't forget profiting from the distribution of child pornography. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say that Mr. Jim Watkins is maybe finally waking up to the fact that his money making site has been assisting mass murderers with carrying out their twisted plans (only after having others finally "pull the plug" on the site.) He claimed that the site was down by his own decision, but apparently it actually went down when two of his Internet service providers pulled the plug. I'm amazed that he only seemed to feel sorry for the Norwegians that may have been affected by the site, apparently because he has some Norwegian blood. Not a single apology for the Mexicans and New Zealand Muslims whose lives may have been lost, partly due to his reckless greed.
Thank God the site is down. I seriously doubt that anyone from Homeland Security is going to encourage this clown to re-establish his little "piggy-bank/ rent-a-homegrown-terrorist" site again. If the site ever does pop up again under his name, I hope we might be able to add an exposé section to our article on 8chan better exposing Mr. Watkin's apparent complete indifference to the fact that his lack of responsible oversight on 8chan has by omission, made him a certain kind of an accessory to the murder of Mexicans and New Zealanders. Amazing how a little money in the palm can so quickly act to blind the eyes of some. Scottperry (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Ethics of Doxxing White Supremacists[edit]
As many of you could probably identify from my screen name, I hail from a city that will feature another Proud Boy/Antifa Claash this weekend. The last time this happened I was more a casual observer, primarily concerned with the response from police. I was generally shocked at how open these people seemed to be, and I took a camera with me to snap pictures. Afterwards, I considered whether it would be appropriate to work with someone to help me identify some of these people, and then report their activities to their employees and families to shame them. Is that ethical? Should I document similarly this weekend? Is there anyone similarly interested in out White Supremacists?RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- According to Breadtube, yes. According to me, it's the least you could do. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I can't say I myself have confidence in identifying people. There's always a huge risk of getting the wrong person and there's always the risk of information falling into the wrong hands that leads to always unacceptable violent threats. Still, I like incidents like people calling for taco trucks and mariachi bands on racist thugs like Aaron Schlossberg and "Taco Truck Tammy". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I can't say I myself have confidence in identifying people. There's always a huge risk of getting the wrong person and there's always the risk of information falling into the wrong hands that leads to always unacceptable violent threats. Still, I like incidents like people calling for taco trucks and mariachi bands on racist thugs like Aaron Schlossberg and "Taco Truck Tammy". --It's-a me,
Whether it's right or wrong, attacking an attacker as a sort of a "defensive" act is unlikely to persuade the would be attacker to stop attacking. It'll only encourage the would be attacker to put up more defenses. On and on the fabled arms-race/ war tends to go. Rather, open, honest, non-accusatory statements of personal experience, directed at the individual, and the solicitation of similar non-judgmental personal feelings and observations from the other can often be far more effective in "stopping" white supremacism. Here is an example of how one black man was able to stop 200 KKK members with this type of dialogue:
Here is another story of how a certain former CIA agent came to find herself to be more effective through dialogue than through sabotage:
He who knows how to win the battle of hearts and minds, ultimately always achieves a more favorable outcome than the warrior of mere tactics and stratagem.
Scottperry (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah... No. Most of these dipshits are invested either through money or effort, and aren't going to change. Especially those that go to rallies. Slash their tires, trash their rides, get them fired, de-platform them, the works is my advice. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not worth it @RipCityLiberal. Do that and it makes them look like victims and it makes all of us look bad. Just don't. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've heard a lot of these kind of folks come from families that were pretty dysfunctional, and in reality haven't got much of a clue what it means to have a "real" conversation where they really connect on a deep level with another. I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the black guy who got 200 KKK's to give up their robes knew how to really "connect" with the folks he talked to. How else could he have succeeded? I just wonder what that black fellow does with a closet full of 200 slightly used KKK robes?
- Scottperry (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the debate over doxing homophobic politicians with gay profiles in online dating sites. On the one hand you think you are doing good (and there is always that chance it will lead to good) but you are also potentially ruining people's lives and outing someone before they are ready. Unless that person is a brutal active bully bordering on full out harassment or a crime I don't think the potential political gain (or backlash) outweighs the personal harm. It can all be handled in a better way. I think the same sort of applies to white supremacist (the difference being that there is nothing wrong with being gay while white supremacy is invariably toxic). Unless they are bullying people to the point where it is almost criminal, plotting a crime or engaging in any serious dubious activity...I think you have to sacrifice your own principles (taking away someone's anonymity for your own political gain) in order to promote your own principles (assuming doxing the person will ever actually lead to more than a bitter angry person who has been fired from their job.) Regardless of the moral system you use...it's an extremely difficult moral problem to solve...even with deontological ethics. ShabiDOO 11:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not worth it @RipCityLiberal. Do that and it makes them look like victims and it makes all of us look bad. Just don't. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd say take as many photos you like of what's going on and who's there, but due to the likelihood of false positives and accusations, I have to say I am vehemently against doxxing by amateur investigators and/or without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "Oh hey the guy in this photo looks like the guy in this other photo" is NOT that (barring, e.g., unique tattoos). I apologize for the emphasis, but it's a bit of a touchy subject on my end. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Imo, while the idea of doxing grade AAA assholes isn't something that would get me in tears over, I honestly believe that this isn't our responsibility nor our business to expose their personal lives, because this goes into tier 3 ad hominem territory and you pretty much lose any debates and credibility you have when you stoop to that level to call them out. Don't set examples for the opposition to do the same either. If there's someone who really needs to get dirt done up, that's what law enforcement and authorities are for (and of course they come with their own brand of racists and supremacists and have their own set of problems but that's another story for another day). БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fight fire with fire, just make sure nobody notices. — Dysk (contribs) 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're not only right to dox them, you're obligated to do so. These dudes have a track record of harming themselves and others. You should warn people for their own safety. 2600:1:F541:7E2A:0:11:4BF8:F701 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
How did some fundie schools get alternative medicine mixed into them?[edit]
There are a few fundie schools that offer degrees in Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, now knowing that AOM is based on Chinese philosophy while Christianity is radically different. How did some fundie school mix them together? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Where are you finding out about this? My guess is that it's not really fundamentalist Christians, but "New Age Christians." Two very different breeds (amongst the thousands of different sects of "Christianity.") All of the fundamentalist Christians I've ever known would consider AOM as probably, if not certainly very naughty stuff (read "evil.") Scottperry (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not finding anything through Google either. Off the top of my head, I know that a few fundamentalist sects have made inroads into Korea (both in less cult-y forms, more cult-y forms, and the embezzling preacher megachurch variety we all know and love), so if there is a connection, I'd suspect that the cultural blend happened there first. No Google hits so far. I was able to Google an American Korean Christian school that offers acupuncture, but being Presbyterian it is not "fundie". Soundwave106 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's also Georgia Central University, which until recently had an entire school dedicated to "acupuncture and oriental medicine." However this place seems to be moving more towards being a missionary school and dropping the woo. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not finding anything through Google either. Off the top of my head, I know that a few fundamentalist sects have made inroads into Korea (both in less cult-y forms, more cult-y forms, and the embezzling preacher megachurch variety we all know and love), so if there is a connection, I'd suspect that the cultural blend happened there first. No Google hits so far. I was able to Google an American Korean Christian school that offers acupuncture, but being Presbyterian it is not "fundie". Soundwave106 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Crank magnetism? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)