RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive322

This is an archive page, last updated 3 September 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Tardigrades, or Water Bears, on the Moon

I don't know how long ago it was, but I posed a question about how much it would take to preserve humanity in the grand scale of the universe. Would it take literal humans spreading in an interstellar exploration, or could it be just as effective to send androids? I made a joke, saying wouldn't it be just so human to send out Tardigrades, just to confuse other lifeforms in the long run about how Tardigrades might launch a ship? Wouldn't that be a good human joke to play on the universe? Now we've spilled Tardigrades on a lunar lander that crashed just because we thought we could try it, and my joke sucks because of it. I'm not terrified of the implications or anything, but this is a really frustrating setback for the best of the best when it comes to going off planet and we can't accept a lunar crash just because an experiment involving an absurd lifeform is now off the rails. I'm sorry, I didn't foresee this reality of tardigrades on the moon. It was a joke I made without foresight, it was always intended to be an absurd joke, and that should show just how deeply stupid I am. I can see now how something like this, if it were to actually be attempted, which it was, can get out of hand and inhibit/confuse future science. I LOVE science, even if I am not always very good at it. I cannot promise I won't make a stupid joke in the future, but I promise, I really understand that my joke about tardigrades in space has been proven worthless as a joke. We did it, this is a time to reconsider what is absurd, it's time to update the joke. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not stupid - just extrapolating from 'the current range of scientific and cultural etc possibilities' - and we all make 'predictions' based on such, some of which are promptly developed by others who are in the relevant line of business. Anna Livia (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I really do feel frustrated that private scientists blew a lunar landing and spilled tardigrades, and now we can't get the results, that part is honest. I was also playing with the influencer apology script, kind of for my own entertainment, but I messed it up because I really have opinions about things. And I did make a joke about sending tardigrades to space, it wasn't me making anything up. I do not feel responsible for this mishap. Thank you for caring about my sanity, and I am prone to feeling bad about things I don't have control over, so good read there. I'm sorry for any confusion I caused. But I can't tell my "let's send tardigrades out there as a prank on aliens" joke anymore, somebody else will start telling that joke now. The frustration over that is also very real. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible for a emotional/psychological contagion to reach pandemic levels?

By this, I mean like Mass Hysteria and Suicide. Weird question I know. You could call this a thought experiment. As for a fairly well known phenomenon, there is the Werther Effect in which when one person kills themselves, more follow suit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Aren't we already in pandemic levels? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean, like this?

--Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think he means more like this.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt It's she btw. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Full apologies. I will henceforth refer to RationalZombie94 as "she." Really, though, my bad, miscommunication, I was responding with the original post and I do jokes when I panic. Thank you for the information and I'll be mindful of that from here on, I promise. Being said, yeah, we are on pandemic levels. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt No I meant me, I thought you were referring to me as "he" lol. Sorry. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyeana That's a little bit of the struggle here. Communication through writing, I'm still trying to figure out what Derrida was on about. I was making a joke first instead of just addressing the point, I know RationalZombie94 is a he. I wasn't calling you a "he" but also, I didn't miss that you told me to call you "she." A lot of this could be implied by "don't worry, I've got it" but that still lacks all the context that includes me being concerned that I've been misread, attempting to re-construct the original messiness of my statement, and laughing too. This is wildly off topic, and I think we can agree that pandemic rates of suicide is the real issue here. If you let me off the hook, I'll let you off the hook, and we'll have an easier time getting back to the topic at hand.

A link between guns and suicide rates Now I have a serious complaint with the idea that there is supposedly faulty language here. Gun ownership does not exactly CAUSE higher suicide rates. Gun ownership ENABLES higher suicide rates. Because guns are very fast and reliable when you want to kill a human, even on a misguided whim. So is it a cause when you consider that more suicides happen in homes that have guns? Yes, out of all the causes that might contribute to a suicide, the means of suicide also becomes a cause when it is as reliable a method as a gunshot. It's like saying "guns don't kill people" except, well, that's also what guns do, pretty much any time you point them at people.

So, if guns don't "cause" suicide, I get the semantic argument, but it is a consistently successful method. I know it sounds a little heartless, and believe me, I care about suicide. But if suicide is not 100% preventable, and the best outcome of an attempt is failure, shouldn't we also ask what the means of suicide have to do with the actual success statistics?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Learning from failure.

So, according to multiple statements the ACA has turned into a hate group. If your wondering why it took me this long to talk about it or condemn them, it's because (for some reason) I still naively hoped that they would turn things around and admit their errors. They have not. Thus, it is our duty as a community to pick up and hold up the ideals they have tossed aside so causally. We should condemn them, and use our megaphone to reveal the dirty truth of their actions. Further, we should learn from their failure, learn what they did wrong, and learn why and how they have fallen. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's damn sad to see what "movement atheism" has devolved into over the last decade or so... but honestly, I'm not surprised. I'm of the opinion that the initial failure — the "original sin", for lack of a better term — goes back to the 2000s when the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism became some of the leading spokespeople for irreligion. At the time, they served a useful purpose for demonstrating that atheism wasn't just the domain of libertines and communists on the left, that one could be an atheist and still be a red-blooded, patriotic American (or Brit, or what have you), and that it wasn't even incompatible with conservatism. The Christian Right's usual red-baiting attacks against atheists didn't work on them. But at the same time, their confrontational style also attracted a crowd of edgelords who were into atheism almost purely to offend people. It was an "atheism" as shallow as the "anarchism" of a left-leaning teenager (and many of these edgelord atheists were teenagers — speaking from experience) who's just skimmed Howard Zinn and listened to a few Rage Against the Machine songs, the "Christianity" of a newly born-again teenager who wants to tell everyone about his or her "amazing" youth pastor, or the "Islam" of a teenager from a Muslim family who's just been pointed to Inspire magazine, but it was still the zeal of the convert. And it was that crowd that took over "movement atheism" in the 2010s, recoiling from any attempt to get them to examine their own prejudices — because they knew the truth, which was that everything wrong with the world was religion's fault, so they've gotten rid of their illogical prejudices, which meant that the prejudices they still did express were totally rational. Eventually, even opposing fundamentalism, the force that movement atheism was originally born as a backlash against, took a backseat in favor of making common cause with conservative Christians over shared anti-progressive attitudes. KevinR1990 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a self-defeating issue; that every organization based around an idea has to have a base. I think the main failure is that the ACA is afraid that they will lose potential atheists if they don't stand up for a base and have a central ideology. They don't recognize that they will not lose members, they are scared they will lose POTENTIAL members. But atheism doesn't need protection, or centralization, and if the ACA can't accept that, they are doing the self-defeating thing. No atheist is going to withdraw their support of atheism over a trans argument. While I don't agree with either side on every argument in this deal, the fact that they are centralizing and not addressing, and implicitly would ask two people who hold diametrically opposed positions to come to a singular position that they cannot be sniped by religious conservatives over before they are allowed to come together under the ACA banner is a limiting factor. It's self-defeating. If entrance into the ACA requires only atheism, but also you can't argue with their golden boys, I see it as the ACA holding an untenable and unrealistic standard for athiesm and actively not welcoming the argument in order to protect an institution that protects atheism, which would survive without the ACA. Nothing to cancel the ACA over, but facing up a little bit would not only help, it would show some dedication to the idea that doctrine is self-sealing and should be avoided. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

i've said it before, i'll say it again. atheism is a ridiculous thing to hang your identity on. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that.Machina (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

it means exactly what I said. its a ridiculous thing to hang your identity on. its a ridiculous thing to form organisations on. I am an atheist. I do not wake every morning pondering my lack of faith. I do not have to think about it. I do not need to discuss it. I do not expect every atheist to think as I do or share my opinions on anything other than a lack a faith. I do not wish to form or join an organisation based around a lack of faith, to discuss a lack a faith. what the fuck for? I am an atheist and one of the best things about that is I don't have to do that shit. I do not wish to replace religion with something that has all the trappings of a religion. I do not care for religion and I do not care if others do. I do not seek to dissuade others from their faith, I do not seek to build a community based solely on not believing something. I am an atheist. it means I don't believe in god. that is all it means. you want to build a community around that? an organisation around that? you are building it around nothing. or worse, as seems to the case in every such community or organisation, a lot of stuff that has nowt to do with a lack a faith, a lot of stuff that is not specific to it nor absent from religions. its rebranded as positive atheism or atheism+. be a humanist if that's your thing. they do it better, and they aren't as obsessed with religion nor do they attract the sort of pricks who make atheism their defining feature. atheism tells us what you don't believe. it doesnt tell us what you do. why would it? why should it?AMassiveGay (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they are a hate group, I just think that people these days are so sensitive and defensive that you can't introduce anything that contradicts what they might believe without being burned at the stake. So much for open discussion in this day and age.Machina (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That is the problem. (resident nihilist here) Not wanting to deal with a made up problem, made up by the other people that exist in this world (resident nihilist here x2), not wanting to Gish Gallop, not wanting to address every little issue can be shown as proof that you as an individual don't want to address any problem, and it really does not matter whether you want to deal with it or not. Which is fine to have to answer to when you are speaking for yourself. And it can be implied that any issue you want to postpone is a non-issue in your opinion, and that is the difficulty of personal responsibility. I think it is important to stand your ground when you've been Gish Galloped or trolled, but less important to say you must have been correct in the first place to postpone the issue, as opposed to getting on a topic. With all the brilliant minds backing the ACA, you would think one of them would be able to step forward and say "hold on, I'll work on this transgender issue." And I still think they can, again, I don't think this is anything to really cancel the ACA over. They should just definitely show interest in the argument. Nobody has to be tossed out over it. Both sides just have to admit "I wasn't listening to you." Fuck the ACA if they think they are the ones who don't have to say that first. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Spud's second RW Spanish translation is now in mainspace

I have just moved my translation Halloween (español) out of draftspace and into mainspace. Other Spanish-speaking editors are, of course, more than welcome to correct any mistakes I might have made, rephrase anything I wrote that they think could be phrased better and generally do whatever they like to improve the page. Spud (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Very nice. Not that I speak any decent amount of Spanish. :| — Dysk (contribs) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I know a few words. I know, for example, what puta means. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It's nice work. My Spanish is nowhere near fluent, so I can't help much with editing, but I feel it would be incomplete not to touch on the Mexican (and Mexican American) holiday of el Día de los Muertos (The Day of the Dead -- really, it's not a zombie movie), at least in passing. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@CogitoNotStirred The Spanish page does already touch on the Mexican Day of the Dead briefly and in passing because the English original does too. According to the fifth paragraph, the one and only reason why Halloween is associated with death nowadays is because American Halloween customs were influenced by Mexican Day of the Dead ones. (And apparently, it says that in a book published by Oxford University Press. So it must be true!) Still, if you, or anybody else, would like to add a bit more about the Mexican Day of the Dead to our Halloween page in English, I will then very happily translate that into Spanish (and Esperanto and French). Spud (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spud Thanks, if I get a chance I will expand slightly to explain the importance of death-themed treats and decorations in Day of the Dead and its possible links to Hallowe'en...probably not much more than that to add. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Where's the Irish Gaelic translation?151.160.4.39 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd start it tomorrow if I could speak Irish. But I can't. Spud (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Syrian Refugee Crisis

Do you think Angela Merkel's decision to admit a whopping one million refugees was a good, or bad idea? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this the earlier decision or a new one? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a new one? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoss That's what I was asking. I'll take your response to mean that you are referring her original decision instead of some new version. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple factors on this being a good or bad choice. One is that many innocent people are out of danger and are less likely to be radicalized (a pro). The second is angry citizens in Germany who might use extremist tactics against innocent people (a con). This could be used to promote compassion and diversity (a pro). Not an expert on international relations but I would assume that there would be many other factors to consider before saying it is a good or bad choice. I am for helping people who need it. Problem though, the issue is not cut and dry. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Three Arrows had a video (that I can't seem to find at the moment) on the subject from his perspective as a person living in Germany both prior to and during the decision. In summery he basically views it as a decent decision made for bad and/or lukewarm reasons (Merkel covering her ass was one of the examples he gave), which sounds about right to me. Ultimately however, I personally think it was the right choice. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's harmless. You can call that a "good idea" if you value treating suffering people well at all. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to Accelerationism

There recently occurred a complete replacement of the content of that article resulting in large changes in meaning. The current state of the article defines and conceptualizes accelerationism in a way dramatically different from the state of the article before the change. It refers to accelerationism as defined by the old state of the article as "pseudo-accelerationism" and characterizes it as misrepresentation. Though it seems quite possible that this change brings an overall improvement in the article's accuracy, it seems advisable to direct some additional attention toward it to assure the accuracy and quality of the new state of the article. This new state seems to have primarily been created by a single user, seemingly prompted by a talk page edit by an IP user with no other contribution history. 138.51.250.49 (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks problematic although I'm unsure about the older version. The user deleted the entire article lede without justification. The first half of the lede was entirely uncontroversial. The older version was itself a bit questionable in my opinion, as it went on about "Immanentizing the eschaton" in religion, which isn't the common meaning of the term accelerationism (contrast Wikipedia's accelerationism which is focused on Marxism and similar ideologies) - one of the references for the Christian version isn't online and the other doesn't mention accelerationism at all. It may be that "immanentizing the eschaton" is the same as accelerationism, but I've no way of confirming this. So I'm not sure if the article should focus solely on Marxist-style accelerationism (pushing capitalism to the extreme to make it flip) or also cover immanentizing the eschaton but explain the link more clearly. (Declaration of interest: I had a run-in with the same user who made similarly drastic changes on other articles: they seemed to feel entitled to delete anything they disagreed with.) --Annanoon (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems that we may be talking about at least slightly different revisions of the article. I do not see references to the religious concept you mention in the versions just preceding the changes. Additionally, the series of changes I was talking about replaced a lot more than the lede section. Almost the entire content of the article was replaced, as evidenced by this diff between the states of the article before and after those changes: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Accelerationism&type=revision&diff=2106453&oldid=2084266 In what revision did you find the reference to the religious concept you mentioned? Sorry if I am simply confused due to lack of experience here. Also, during these events, another user with no other contribution history made an edit inserting a note which seems to make potentially uncritical use of the concept of autogynephilia: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Accelerationism&diff=2097788&oldid=2097331 70.30.77.1 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)(I am the same user who made the first post under this heading, now editing at a different location.)

Kritiks

Admittedly a hobby of mine is online debating, and lately I've been seeing a lot of K's from religious nut-jobs (claims like the "unborn" are human and women are not... always with a healthy dose of Word Salad). Would this be a good topic for a page? Perhaps detailing the different types used by crazies, and how to counter them? Ragnar (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit, I don't understand the "k" reference here. Kencolt (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So, you want to create yet another page about people generally talking bollocks on the internet and call it "kritik"? Well, Google's predictive text assumed I wanted to know the meaning of a Hindi, Bengali or Telugu word. And Google then turned up one actual result for "kritik", from Urban Dictionary and written 13 years ago. So on the whole, creating a page called "Kritik" really isn't looking like a god idea to me. Spud (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I also don't think it's a good idea to create a page based on a word that also exists on Urban Dictionary. Just looking up "RationalWiki" on Urban Dictionary should say enough. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Kritik is a type of argument used in high school policy debate courses. It's a philosophical argument as opposed to a policy argument. In my humble opinion, they're almost entirely absurd, but I've never encountered anyone who takes them seriously. It's just a cheese strat to beat scared freshmen. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to know more: read this. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. And yeah, I agree that they're almost entirely absurd, like creationism and other BS. Ragnar (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"Kritik?" I haven't seen that since high school. I guess I'll give my thought on them, just based on my experience on the debate team:

They can be useful. Examining why you are arguing something in a certain way, or why there is only a certain paradigm in which you debate is useful. But too often it ends up being a sort of Gish gallop, where dealing with theoretical minutiae and rules lawyering distracts from the issues at hand. In retrospect, I think I should have used them more carefully in my debate days. And yes, I think what you are talking about is a certain case of the latter. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your daily dose of bullshit

Old video but still- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhawRXNAhYw

Somehow drugs, demons, witchcraft and zombies are completely related to each other. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course they are. You see, drugs are created by demons. Demons were made via witchcraft. And witchcraft also created Zombies. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!! Tinribmancer (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, a more linear chain would be that demons grant power to witches, who make zombies using infernal drugs. So, pretty much Voodoo myth per Hollywood. Kencolt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No fair giving 3 different great Buffy the Vampire Hunter episode ideas. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

^I don't know how to this post. But this post.^ Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am Molag Bal, the Lord of Domination. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A new study suggests ingesting fluoride during pregnancy lowers your child’s IQ - were the conspiracy theorists right?

I heard about it from this article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/fluoridated-water-during-pregnancy-linked-to-lower-iqs-study-published-by-jama-pediatrics-says, here’s the study. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0. Should fluoride be removed from water across the globe? Should we all avoid fluoride or should only pregnant women? At the very least this warrants a mention in all the articles on this wiki on the subject of fluoride. Christopher (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If your going to JAQ off that hard, wear a condom. Revolverman (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

IQ is a racist bullshit measure of intelligence.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Having a lower IQ is objectively a bad thing, and IQ is a decent measure of intelligence especially with children. Certain racial groups have lower IQs because of increased rates of poverty, poorer quality schools, etc, due to historical and continuing racism, not because IQ itself is racist.

Did you actually read the articles or just see the word IQ and write a knee-jerk response?

What is your explanation of these results, if IQ is bullshit? Christopher (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The explanation is that this is an interesting result, indeed. But it is just one study. I agree with one criticism that the fact that it affected boys and not girls doesn't make too much sense to me. To be cautious, limiting fluoridated water while pregnant might be a good idea until further studies clarify the effect. Do note, however, that the same applies for several other food sources -- tea, black tea in particular, is known to typically contain fluoride in significant quantity. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"The fact that it affected boys and not girls" is not a fact. It's a [quintessential example of P-hacking]: analyze the data from a bunch of different angles until you find one that shows a "statistically significant" result. Pyro (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Right in that article, there are those that criticize the study and call it flawed. It's worth following those links. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you also going to state that fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So... we're talking about the Full Scale IQ test administered to 3 year olds(such tests are notoriously unreliable at such a young age), across communities(which to be fair is a necessary condition for such studies) finding only negative correlation among boys(heck, the girls have the opposite trend line), the overall shape of trend lines tend to be dominated by outliers on the mg/L scale, with the predictive gap between 10th percentile and 90th percentile of 2 points? It's worthy of following up, but yes you're a conspiracy theorist to start with an absurd conclusion and scrounge for any evidence that even marginally bares out your worldview. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sexist & Transphobic game devs

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-08-19-ion-fury-studio-apologises-for-sexist-and-transphobic-comments-from-staff

Back story, the developers of a game called Ion Fury (this is supposed to be the spiritual successor to Duke Nukem 3D Atomic Edition) made some sexist & transphobic slurs in their game and on a discord channel. Fans found out and called them out on this and later on, the devs called these people "SJW's".

If this was 2015, they'd definitely be supporting GamerGate... Tinribmancer (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Something I don't really understand about the social justice stuff is that they have stuff like the 'slut walk' which I thought was about the right to not be harassed for how they dress but then if you portray women dressed the same way you get shit for it."

Do these guys not understand the concept of agency and context? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No, they don't understand. Like me, the US education system probably failed them. If it's no trouble, can I bother you for a cup of understanding this concept, neighbor? Zponk (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucks that 8chan isn't online anymore, rite? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

4Chan still rages on (though with "greater contrast" than 8chan, /pol/ exists there but /lgbt/ exists too). Generally speaking, the people who are making SJW type comments are the exact reason why "slut walks" are a thing, so I'm not expecting them to get it. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not surprising if you know that 8Chan was founded by people who hated 4chan's "dictatorship". Wouldn't be surprised if many 8Channers (if 8Chan disappears permanently), would return or migrate to 4Chan. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The comment section at IGN is also pretty... eh... Tinribmancer (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

first the ooblets drama and now this. What a time to be an epic gamer.--Yay for me, 🎄RightyBlueLuigi!🎄^{(Not a Mod)} 01:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

How are these kinds of transphobic comments tolerated still? And so much persecution here. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/GarrettFrizzley/status/1163596820791980032

So, it seems people on Steam have been downvoting the game "en masse", for "bending the knee to bullies"...

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this (yet) on GOG, since most GOG users are still angry at Beamdog for the whole Baldur's Gate thing (they literally downvote every single release from them, including the Neverwinter Nights remake, into oblivion.). These are the only 2 comments (for now) on the game's comment page.Tinribmancer (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So it's fine to bully people, only if they get to bully trans people or "weird" people, but if people apologize for their transgression, then it's the victim bullying the devs. That sounds about right. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Buddhist Detachment

https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/detachment-doesnt-mean-indifference-redefining-letting-go/

I'm sorry if this offends Buddhists (ironic I know) but no matter how much they try to describe detachment as not being indifferent literally all the examples they describe is the definition of indifference. If you don't mind it's presence or it's absence then that is indifference. How is that a quality to cultivate?Machina (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indifference is the state of not caring, detachment is a heightened state created by mental effort. I'm not sure how you could consider them the same except by having an overly shallow viewpoint. — Dysk (contribs) 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Except the entire article literally mentions the definition of not caring. If you don't mind the absence or the presence of something then that is indifference or detachment. You can't care about something and be detached.Machina (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but just because you don't care about something doesn't mean you are indifferent. These are not synonyms in a spiritual sense. Albeit that they may be so in plain dictionary English. — Dysk (contribs) 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indifference is a temporal concept. Here is an exercise: Say you do not like to eat apples. Your master sits you down and puts an apple down in front of you. Your task is to sit there in that spot and gaze at the apple until you become indifferent to it's presence. Remember, you hate apples. Soon, after gazing for 24-36 hours, the apple may not look so bad. When you decide to leave, the master will instruct you to eat the apple. If you like the apple you not indifferent.If you do not like the apple you are not indifferent. It is not so easy to pass this test. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a rather idiotic test that is fighting biology. Every person has different tastes, especially when it comes to something spicy. You don't have control over whether you like or dislike something, or whether you believe something or not. It seems like these masters don't understand the brain that well. Plus it just sounds like a way to turn someone into a rock more or less. Without likes or dislikes, or any sort of value then you wouldn't do anything. Even the act of teaching students is a value judgment. It's not really passing a test so much as conditioning someone like pavlov's dog.Machina (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Also indifferent is literally the same as not caring. If you don't mind the presence or the absence of something that is literal indifference. It seems rather contradictory for them to also talk about compassion and virtue while talking about non attachment.Machina (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you are determined to make excuses for not understanding. It is fine to not understand. Getting comfortable with your own ignorance is very important. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's more like pointing out the obvious flaws in their philosophy. Not to mention that test sounds like some torture experiment.Machina (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really, the flaw is in your understanding, not in the philosophy itself. — Dysk (contribs) 01:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the excuse they always make for Buddhism when people question it. Like how detachment is not compatible with love and wanting liberate people from suffering.Machina (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean based on what they say you should not care about anything because it isn't going to last anyway. From what I see detachment just leaves you like a rock and frozen, like a balanced scale. If you don't give any side any weight it doesn't move.Machina (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair metaphor, and I think you're doing a fair job of, ahem, weighing in? Let me straighten my bow tie real quick. But again, you don't have to necessarily care about anything to add a rock to the scale. I, personally, enjoy my scale being balanced. However, my personal endeavors in keeping my own balance must occasionally require me dropping something heavy onto somebody else's scale, when their scale seems extremely unbalanced but also functionally includes me. I don't think we'd say that's unfair, but working the same metaphor to talk about two different ideas doesn't help. So can we at least agree to the dangers of speaking in metaphor to describe metaphor? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well the metaphor is just to show how you can't really live a life unattached. The example he mentioned with the apple just sounds like the cruel psychology they did with conditioning, telling yourself to not enjoy the apple or to not dislike it. I didn't expect them to go that far.Machina (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Though if I am being honest I didn't know about that part with the apple. That was news to me. Though much of Buddhist practices seem more like building a certain type of human rather than seeing reality as it is. As for detachment, I'm sorry but the common excuse of "you just don't get it" doesn't fly anymore because all Buddhists throw that one out when backed into a corner or pressed on certain aspects of their works. They blame the person to dodge criticism. I'm sorry but detachment doesn't seem compatible with their values on love and compassion, and it makes it even more baffling how some Buddhists who preach this are married. It's indifference and no amount of cognitive dissonance is going to change that.Machina (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Detachment is a high ideal, just like forgiveness. The world doesn't change much by one person who chooses to/fails at existing detached from it, or by anyone who chooses/fails at adopting a forgiveness model. They are lofty perceptions that contradict the human experience, and not being able to detach from or forgive that contradiction is pretty human too. My opinion is it is so important to do either of these whenever you can, but so difficult in practice, that the action looks/sounds/feels/ hell, tastes and smells deistic when you see somebody get it or when you come pretty damn close yourself. At least, that's what my honest interpretations of the base ideas of the words detachment and forgiveness must forgive and detach from within their intentional meaning. So when you're told "you just don't get it" well, maybe you do, maybe you don't, it's really hard to weigh because the metric is intangible for both parties. I know it's frustrating to see hypocrisy in an adherent or zealot or tourist of an ideal. But in my opinion, we call them the ideals because they are within our reason to comprehend but beyond our functional grasp, the pure definitions kind of require a state outside of the human experience to achieve. Which is not to say they are inaccurate, but that they are a little less than tangible. I mean we have words for guilt and regret, too. But, of course, try explaining that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Our Clinton Pages

Why are both of them under the Pedophile category? Lewinsky was fucking 18! Tinribmancer (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer I thought I reverted that nonsense, I'll go fix it... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Old guard Christopher put them under this section on the 11th and 13th of August. He also put Trump under said category. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Gonna guess the Epstein connections BOTH of them have. Revolverman (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not without merit, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut you know, living people, obvious libel, two tastes that taste even worse together. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well essentially we can't go saying everyone from Trump to the Clintons, even Prince Andrew was um, purveying certain services from Epstein until someone actually proves it in court or they confess. Which will probably never happen, sadly. — Dysk (contribs) 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Chances to prove such things in court were destroyed in the suicide. There's not going to be a single trial related to Epstein. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. Not worth it to step into that mud pit, honestly. Revolverman (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Presumably Katie Johnson knows if it's true that Trump raped her when she was 13[1], but she doesn't seem to be talking any more. It's certainly a stretch to add the category to Trump at the moment, but maybe some day the truth will out. --Annanoon (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Monica was at least 22 years of age at the time of her involvement with Clinton. Clinton claims to have met with Epstein only while accompanied by his Secret Service security detail, which would have followed him everywhere, and should know the identity of anyone capable of being in Clinton's physical presence, from January 21, 1993 until from now on. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah but if you look at the Clinton body count you will see that all the secret service agents were assassinated too! Er, I mean, they committed suicide. And all the journalists that knew as well! And a few dozen completely random people that just happened to have died, because, um, they had dirt on the Clintons too!! It's a conspiracy!!! Wake up sheeple!!!! /s — Dysk (contribs) 01:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith This seems like your kind of "case." — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah but @RobSmith, have you looked into Trump's involvement with Epstein? — Dysk (contribs) 08:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. (a) There are no known accusations of child sex against Trump. (b) Virginia Roberts Guiffre was employed at Mar-A-Lago where Epstein met her. (c) After Epstein's 2008 conviction, Trump banned Epstein from all Trump properties. (d) Guiffre and other victims' lawyer publicly stated that Trump was the only person willing to give information on Epstein, as the 2008 documents were sealed until recent months. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 23:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact you're willing to vote for a literal sexual predator speaks volumes, Nobs. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No. The fact Rationalwiki has an Epstein apologist as Mod speaks volumes. I'm expecting a severed cat head on my lawn next. [2] nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 17:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Bongolian (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan

— Oxyaena ^Harass 22:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, a person ranting at a camera about their opinions. This is a video that's worth my time and energy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes but please waste your time talking about some dude not liking an upcoming video game.151.160.4.39 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Beau is one of those so-called redneck anarchists and is also a journalist. Fuck off with the sarcasm. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

>Redneck

>Anarchist

>Journalist

The novelty of these three all being descriptors of one person. :P — Dysk (contribs) 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not care for this kind of video. It does not influence my opinion as to the views and nature of the person making the video. My sarcasm remains warranted. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a strong response to something you don't like. And I get it. I didn't really enjoy it either, I wouldn't ask anyone to be influenced by it, but whether the points are sold in a way that you want to consume or not, and whether the points are necessarily true or conjecture, there is an overarching point, and while we can agree that the choice of media isn't something we enjoy, throwing your hand over your forehead and draping yourself over a chair because it is just. so. tedious. doesn't mean you have a point to contradict the content. That is, when interfering with force, there must be a moment where you can admit your force isn't conducive to what you actually want out of the situation. And the longer you do it, the harder it is to admit you're losing sight of what you wanted and should have just stayed out of the game you didn't want to play. Like playing WoW, are you just going to give up on your free trial level 10 character because you don't like the game anymore, or are you going to start paying that monthly subscription to keep that character alive?

And don't get me wrong, I'm with you and admit to being susceptible to media that strikes me. The mmoRPG format is not appealing to me, I would hope it isn't to anybody, it's a grift. But I will occasionally spend way too much time or money on a thing I like, if the format is something that I'm amenable to, even if it doesn't mean anything. I'm not confused about how small a 9x12 is, but I probably would have dropped $80 on this if I could have. The painting doesn't mean anything special to me, and I don't have a collection that I could add it to. Probably would have still thrown the $80 at it, and I can't explain why that is OK, probably because it isn't. The points in this video here took 8 minute of my time and honestly, whether I like the format of ranting longform at a camera or not, had a few things in there that were totally worth the 8 minutes to hear out.

I don't think any huge revelation or secretly informed prediction is made here. But I don't think any super jump cut made-to-be-sold video was made here either, I think this guy is speaking openly and if you don't want to hear it, it's not your prerogative to complain about the format exclusively. There's a ton of content on YouTube. All of it can't be the worst thing you've ever seen. And again, you don't have to enjoy the media, you don't have to enjoy the content, but being frustrated about one aspect doesn't seem like a good place to start criticism. Similar to enjoying the media and being a little too uncritical of the content. I ain't mad at ya. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Who the hell fucked with my video link? — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool it. It was probably me. I don't know how to wiki. I do my best, but I fuck up like, every time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Conflating anti-Israel sentiments with being antisemitic

This is blowing my mind. Why is it so fucking difficult for the GOP to understand that being anti-Israel does not necessarily make one antisemitic? This conflation is such a basic breach of logical inference that I'm genuinely amazed how widespread it is.

Like, I get it. Israel, on the world stage, is unique in the fact that it's a religious state, and the exclusive religious state of Jews. But it's also unique for about a thousand other different non-religious reasons - so if you have an issue with any of those other reasons, it doesn't mean your opinion was formed out of antisemitism.

I keep hearing people calling to condemn Tlaib and Omar for their antisemitic views but I just, genuinely, don't see it. And if it's a subtext thing, why aren't they holding Trump to the same standard? TheUnderOver (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Once upon a time I thought long and hard on the Israel/Palestine matter. Then I came to a conclusion, both sides suck donkey cock for all the bullshit they've pulled. Thus I decided to support neither. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally, when I hear "fuck Israel!" in the left commentary peanut gallery, it seems to be more "fuck Netanyahu's Israeli policies!" than anything else, Tlaib and Omar included. Phrasing could be better in some cases, but such is usually nothing like the genuinely anti-semitic drivel you hear and see on the white nationalist / fascist side of discourse. If Trump wants to know why American Jews are drifting towards "disloyalty" (in his ugly words, eg, towards the Democratic party), he could start by looking in a mirror, then by looking at some of his biggest fanboy boards where his biggest fans complain about (((globalists))). (In fact I would bet some of those "on that side" are a bit pissed that Trump is friendly with Netanyahu...) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have opinions about Jews as Jews. I do think my own government ought to stop enabling Netanyahu. And IME the biggest Israel boosters of my acquaintance are not Jews but self-proclaimed Christians who believe in end times prophecy and magine that Israel's existence is an omen of the End Times. That entire belief system is treason. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 14:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You think they don't understand it, rather than being purposefully dishonest? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I 100% believe that the people orchestrating these campaigns are being purposefully dishonest. But I guess I prefer to argue against them on the assumption that they are also arguing in good faith - because otherwise, there isn't even really a discussion to be had. You tell people "You know, that pundit you're listening to is lying to you on purpose" and they don't listen to you because that sounds ridiculous to them - you have to argue on the assumption of good faith to make any ground. TheUnderOver (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we're all fucking doomed. If disbelieving shitty, purposely dishonest assholes on awful overproduced cable news channels is a line that can't be crossed, there is not reasoning to be had. The other side of that line just has to be your enemy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Generally speaking people criticizing Israel are not being anti-semitic, however a lot of criticism of Israel can stray into anti-semitism very easily, and the line is very fuzzy. It's pretty common for the far-left to advocate for Israel to not exist and their opponents to claim this as anti-semitism. And even more moderate people such as Jeremy Corbyn have been involved in massive scandals over perceived anti-semitic sentiment. Obviously the only solution to this is for the US military to intervene to deport all the Palestinians to Africa, and establish Greater Israel under the control of the King of Israel Emperor Donald J. Trump, the self proclaimed second coming of God.^[3] — Dysk (contribs) 16:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing against Jewish people. The ethnic group does not bother me but the Israeli government is nuts. There is a difference between not liking a group of people and a government. I don't like the idea of my government dumping money into Israel. Free Palestine!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you maybe 3-4 years ago about the gray area, Dysk. Now I see far more open "kill the jews" nazis on the unabashedly pro-Israel side than against it. Mostly because they like the ethnostate that has been established with first and second class citizens as a model for other countries, and a lot of them are happy to have a place they can fantasize about deporting American Jews to. It's win-win for genuine antisemites. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes a solid proportion of modern white ethno-nationalists are very happy for other ethic groups to have their own non-white ethno-states as long as that means there are no non-whites in their own white only ethno-state... — Dysk (contribs) 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In brief, this is the same category error that is made by practically everyone. That is, widening the definition of a term to suit the current situation. Terms that are over-used may become ineffective. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It is true that some criticism of Israel is simply veiled anti-semitism. That being said, I rarely see or read that these days. I'd say about 95% of the times people accuse those critical of Israel related anti-semitism, there isn't anything remotely anti-semitic about the criticism. "The Palestine wall is evil" which is met with: "You are an anti-semite. We have the right to defend ourselves". As though the only way Israel can defend itself is by being a religious state totally separate from Arab-Christians and Arab-Muslims with a wall in between. My criticism of the state of Israel is based solely on the fact that it is a religious state, which I find abhorrent, just as I find the Islamic Republic of Iran and Myanmar (a virtual Bhuddist state) and the Vatican as, a concept, rather offensive to humanist sensibilities. Judaism, Islam and Bhuddism are religions. A group of people with a set of ideas. Not a race. None of them have any right to their own singular religious state regardless of the immense suffering and diaspora over the centuries. None of this is anti-semitic or Islamophoic. It is an objection to the use of religion at the state level which invariably leads to excessive injustice as it does in Myanmar as much as in Iran and Israel. Their right to exist, for me, is only based on the fact that they are now an established nation, not because of their homelessness and vicious persecution in Europe. If that were the case then saying the Xingjian muslims of China don't automatically have the right to their home state would make you an Islamophobe. Which is ridiculously absurd. So while I agree with their right to exist, that doesn't give them the right to exist as a singular Jewish state, separated along ethnic and linguistic lines, with whatever territorial boundaries they desire, committing some seriously excessive injustices in the name of "protecting themselves", precluding the possibility of a single state solution and so on and so on. Despite none of this being anti-semitic: just about everything I've said here has been, is being and will be labelled anti-semitic. Even though it isn't. ShabiDOO 00:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Is sexual desire false?

http://www.buddhism.org/?p=435

Apparently they say that sexual desire is false because it disappears as soon as the object of the desire is gone, but how the hell does that make it false?Machina (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The simple answer is no. The complex answer is, well, complex. Sexual drive is the result of sensory input and per-existing psychological inclinations interacting with hormonal surges. This results in arousal which is generally relieved by either orgasm or cessation/reduction of blood flow and input. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

So the linked article is wrong then?Machina (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism's whole shtick is "temporary things aren't real", I thought you would've noticed by now. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:4525:F1E7:FFA1:897 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What does "false" mean? If you define "false" to mean "impermanent" then the statement is true, which seems to be what Buddhists are doing. This is not the meaning of "false" in formal logic, although if you look up "false" in a dictionary it means loads of different things, including in some contexts "not essential or permanent".[4] --Annanoon (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I can attest to having sex with a person, and then believing with everything you've got that they are the smartest, most attractive person on the planet. It becomes complicated the first time you hook up no matter who it is. It is kind of a trait of hooking up, how we interpret partners after sex, but it does not line up with how we have to work with our partners. That is the harder route. If it's not intentional, it's not worth much, and if you knew as many people with kids they either don't get to see or pay child support for, you'd get what I mean by intentional. And getting out of the relationship sometimes requires a bit more than the angry breakup we see in movies and on tv. Sometimes you have to explain the breakup for days, sometimes the relationship happens again after a couple of years, sometimes you can't explain the relationship even if you tried. A lot of this is self-criticism. Buddhism, come at me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone uses the definition of false as something that is temporary, we just call it temporary. But the logic is that if you recognize it as temporary then you won't try to fulfill it or chase it because it will vanish in time (the desire). If have tried to apply that to being gay, but it hasn't worked out that well. Probably because I just started.Machina (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck. I can say with pretty good certainty that I'm heterosexual, because I've had two explicit homosexual encounters, both of which ended in the middle of the erm… expliciticy with me saying "I'm sorry, I'm just not into this." So if the question is about lust, I think lust can give very mixed signals. If the question is about preference, well, as I've gotten older and wiser, I've kind of fallen into giving more attention to preference, yes, even in heterosexual encounters, than I did when I was young dumb and etc. Best advice is to protect yourself, even if I hear STDs are called STIs now, and you don't have to get a cotton swab up your urethra, you just have to pee in a cup. How. Fucking. Pleasant all that sounds.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

its more blood tests and swabbing ya throat and arsehole (best to use separate swabs) for check ups, on top of the container of unpleasantly warm fluid. ive not had cause to shove anything down the end of my cock, for medicine nor pleasure. that theres progress. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

So I skimmed through that rather rambling screed and it doesn't make a great deal of sense. The thrust seems to be that we need to overcome both sexual desire and sleep. And while we are about it, eat next to nothing. All I can say is good luck with all of that. For me, I'm quite happy putting up with with eating, sleeping and sexual desire. In any event I suspect that the alternative is being dead.Hubert (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well he mentions how sleep and sexual desire are merely products of this false sense of self that we have.Machina (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, at least after you die, they might tug your hair a little bit (see the instructions on how to handle a dead person further down). Seems like hardcore Buddhism really wants to use life as an opportunity to simulate death. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

is that not one of the primary reason for any religion to exist? to give comfort to grieving relatives and/or make us less fearful of our own demise? funeral rites are not for the dead. similarly, buddhism is little different to many other religion in that you are advised to forego worldy pleasures for some kind of gain in the next life. unlike some religions I can think of, it seems to be a lot more chill about that advice. it does seem to be advice, not commandments, with strict adherence only expected of those with a monastic bent. I doubt the dali lama expects many to achieve nirvana after skimming some articles online, but even without the trappings of religion, the 'all things in moderation' vibe you are left with is not the worst advice you could take. 09:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The primary reason for religion to exist is as a toxic byproduct of humans skill in speculating/inventing explanations for things they don't understand and the accompanying slow ability to change cultural knowledge/attitudes/rituals (which has its uses). The benefits are obvious (sometimes the speculations are right, it's better to attempt to understand than never try, cultural continuity has immense advantages in social bonding and dealing with, as you allude to, the traumatic events of being human). The downside is: RELIGION! A toxic monstrous vicious overbearing relentless controlling machine that limits humanity greatly. The death part is just one of the cogs. As is sexual desire and reproduction.

Yes a lot of bhuddist advice you hear is far less corrosive than the Abrahamic religions creed...but just look at Myanmar, Tamil occupied Sri Lanka or the Tiberian countryside and you'll see bhuddism in all its soendour. ShabiDOO 17:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I zero confidence in humanities ability not to organise itself around some absolute bullshit. If some how all that can be called religion vanished, by the end of the week we'd be stoning people over whos the strongest Pokémon AMassiveGay (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And what of the claim made by the link?Machina (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

what of it? the article is about how to avoid falling asleep during meditation or getting distracted from said meditation by boners. its not really a claim that is explained in any detail, its not the point of the article, which seems to have the sexual desire section as an after thought anyhow. its vague buddhist boilerplate serving only to say don't think sexy thoughts while meditating. don't dwell on it is the advice.

if you want to question that particular statement, take a look at an article where it is discussed, take a look at is place within buddhism in general, and in a specific context. as it is, you can expect only the most shallow understanding when you take a claim of out of context, especially when with article's context is intact, its a claim that was lightly made, and vaguely explained. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Mu.

The thing is I never saw it anywhere else just this one. Everywhere else they just say to refrain from sexual misconduct and then just talk about that. Lay people can have sex and all that but I never heard it being called false. But for me it just these little obsessions that because a buddhist said it it must be true. That he said sexual desire was false and therefor it must be false. Which I thought makes sense since sex is more like falling for an idea we have some someone than the actual person (especially when it comes to kinks and the like).Machina (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Truth and falsehood are only meaningful in response to a claim, which is a complete sentence. "Sexual desire" is not a claim, it's just a noun. It's like asking of Michael Jordan or Aspartame are true or false. You could potentially ask if sexual desire is real or not, or you can ask whether it's useful or not, or you can even make a stab at asking whether sexual desire is a part of your true self. But asking whether sexual desire itself is false is a TypeError. Pyro (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that's the argument being made, that sexual desire is based on the false conception of a self.Machina (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

When we should know a false conception of self is actually based on sexual desire, i.e. Catholicism. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Like the biggest issue I take with this is whether my sexual desires are false or just the result of a false construct known as the self. Such a thought or idea is pretty damaging to me.Machina (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The Squad

Likes: 2.821 Dislikes: 31.899

The mayority of youtube's community seems to be Trumpist/Republican... Tinribmancer (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The more I explore the internet, the more it seems to become apparent that most organic online communities are intensely Right-leaning due to the speed at which their style of rhetoric spreads. However, a big part of being a successful Right-leaning online community is constantly complaining about how their opinions are actively being squashed and censored by the authoritarian Left despite the fact that these communities fester unrelentingly like a goddamn cancer. So despite the fact that they've slowly taken over the internet, they'll always feel like they're the ones fighting against the tide. TheUnderOver (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a certain segment of the "right wing" ala Gamergate that dramatically over-represent themselves online. It seems that this lot has have nothing to do with their time other than shill mobvote things they perceive to be Wrong With Society. Communities like r/The_Donald were never the most popular on Reddit, but were always some of the most heavily trafficked. So this clip probably attracted some meme somewhere in right wing shill communities (indeed, Googling the clip URL brings up links from 4Chan and gun forums. To borrow their language, apparently The Simpsons TRIGGERED THE CONSERVACUCKS LOL!) That being said, I will say, the Simpsons has not been relevant since Season 8 or so. (But I could say similar about right-wing darlings like South Park, for actually a much shorter season span.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree that the Gamergate community is way smaller than they appear to be, but I see the same style of false Right-wing persecution, despite all evidence to the contrary, on websites with communities that are very clearly not affiliated with the GG controversy (though I don't deny some sort of contamination effect). My own state's biggest news website (NJ.com) is a prime example - every single comment section is a massive Right-wing circlejerk yet they're also always complaining about how they can't express themselves because of their opinions. It drives me nuts. TheUnderOver (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the case of old media commentary sections, I think that's more the retired Boomer sect that also has have nothing to do with their time other than moan about things they perceive to be Wrong With Society. "Back in my day" the fashion was writing letters to the editor and (to borrow a joke from the tail-end of when the Simpsons was actually relevant and funny) yelling at clouds and whatnot. Now they have Fox News. And yes, as the Proclaimers noted in 2001, it seems like everybody in the USA is a victim, those on the extreme-y ends of politics doubly so. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Most YouTubers I met were Centrist leaning left and Liberal. I have not met very many centrists leaning right and Republicans. Then again, the EAS community is fairly liberal and that is the community I am part of. Plenty of LGBT people in it and people who oppose Drumpf. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with being republicans. It's got everything to do with being really fucking unfunny and terribly written. What the fuck are you on about? People hate it because it's got no charm. People hate it because it completely sterilizes the fairly complex political messages of those women to be "women who scare trump haha". People hate it because just listen to how badly acted it is. People hate it because it's not even a good parody of "In America"(which was a better takedown of racist american culture than this is tbh). People hate it because it's New Simpsons and it sucks ass. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't watched any Simpson episodes for atleast 10 years or so, but seen a recommendation video a few months ago on Youtube (for some reason). The title was something like "This Is What Killed The Simpsons" and was 25 min. long. What's the difference between older ones and newer ones? Tinribmancer (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic if simple animation that was hand drawn vs flat animation that's cheap to produce with computers that has no thought put into it, writing with charm vs infinitely recycled visual gags, people who care vs complete apathy, progressive values defining the emotional core of the show vs no emotional core at all, stand alone conceptual episode ideas vs just constantly hinging on "special guests", shades of character depth vs extensive flanderization, a word quite literally invented to describe the kind of deterioration The Simpsons went through, "jokes" built entirely of "[character] has [trait]" that stretch on for literal minutes.

I had the unfortunate joy of taking an international flight recently, and they had new simpsons episodes on their netflixlike service. And man, the stark reality of what I saw. 30 years is just too long for any comedy to last. Simpsons was one foot in the grave when you stopped watching a decade ago. Now it's a zombie, with the face of a once loved one, groaning and hostile. This graph is a pretty good summary. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm as liberal as they come. Donald Drumpf is my second least favourite person alive (after my boss). But if I were forced at gunpoint to give that clip either a thumbs up or a thumbs down, I'd have to give it a thumbs down. And that's for all the reasons that Ikanreed has already stated so well. Spud (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your boss is worser than Trump? How? Does he want to make his company GREAT again? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer My boss is a she. Well, actually I have two bosses, a husband and wife, but the wife is the one I hate. Some editors may remember that nine months ago my younger sister suddenly died at the age of 42. When I told my boss that, the very first words out of her mouth in respone were, "That's probably because she ate badly, like you." I could give other examples that show what kind of person my boss is. But I don't think I have to. Spud (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

as a probably baseless observation on my part, I suspect the reasons for an apparent rapid spread of right wing rhetoric of the more unpleasant side of things or rapid growth of similar online communities is that is so easy, to understand and to spread, it requires no effort, no coordination, no planning whatsoever to be effective in stymieing any kind of progress from left causes or simply bring things down completely. all that is required is to be a prick. to be a troll. to spread all manner of lies and bullshit and inane memes, noisily and disruptively, with no thought or planning. just be a disruptive prick. and the more 'wins' it gets, the more effective it becomes. what is difficult though is building stuff. gaining support for complex issues, implementing anything that does more than sabotage what you don't like, maintaining momentum, cutting through the torrents of shit and misinformation, building consensus, meaningful action, goodwill - that's all hard work. it requires effort and thought and planning. memes cant convey anything worth while. fighting fire with fire is no good when the right are better at the vitriol and scapegoating, and when such things make it near impossible to move forward on anything worthwhile the left wants, its plays into right wing hands. in short anything on the left of things takes time, energy, and consideration. anything on right takes a mere fuck you, i'm all right jack. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

DAVID KOCH IS DEAD!

Proof https://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-koch-died-conservative-donor-and-philanthropist-dead-age-79-2019-08-23/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/politics/david-koch-dead/index.html

One down, a lot more to go Tanker One (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem is not that of individuals, but of groups. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it, But its still a victory, however small Tanker One (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

how the fuck is some ones death a 'victory'? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Because he personally has funded more agit-prop that actively hurts humanity than literally any other person alive or dead in human history. It's theoretically possible to overstate the harm an organized, well funded campaign of misinformation centered around climate change denial has done to the world, but it's really fucking hard to do so ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Twain sums up my thoughts pretty well: "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." TheUnderOver (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The man may be dead, but his ideologies and assets are alive and well, continuing to push in his interests. A hollow victory, at best. 173.71.126.28 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How long do y'all think it'll be until Charles dies too?Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

aside from his death not really achieving anything, aside from the repugnance of celebrating anyones death, 'victory' would imply that this was somehow planned, rather than fortuitous accident. its both repugnant and bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

its the same level as this AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Death has its uses as propaganda. During the second world war, Yammamoto was shot down and killed was declared a "Victory", even though the Japanese still had most of the Pacific. When FDR died, the Nazis declared this a "Victory". A victory is not just we won, it can be propaganda as well, by declaring victory as they have lost a important figurehead.Tanker One (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tanker One your name combined with your statement is worrying. Commie Lib (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Comeie Lib Are you implying that I am a Wheraboo or a Neo Nazi?Tanker One (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the Nazis did it is a really good reason to not do it.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, But I was making a point in that some cases victory doesn't have to involve you planning it, and you can just say that it's good for us and bad for them, claiming victory. But I agree, you should never do what the Nazis did. Or really any fascists. Tanker One (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

we gain nothing from such crass celebration and inane propagandising. we just look like pricks. well done us. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I ran into this today from my Q guy. What a fucking worthless meme. "Oh, I've seen some people saying 'I didn't agree with him and fuck him he should be dead' and some people saying 'I didn't agree with him, but he did some real good donating to cancer research.' What a world we've arrived at where we celebrate somebody's death." Yeah, keep patting yourself on the back for being above being relieved about a guy you know nothing about, died of natural causes, and who was kind enough to donate to cancer research while spending his whole life doing real fuckery running think tanks that worked to disprove the correlation between pollution and cancer, corrupted the political system for decades, paved the way for massive corporate tax theft (that somehow only pisses these people off when Bezos does it), and oversaw irreparable environmental and social damage so he could get paid more, so he could spend more, so that the world could look more like his ideal kingdom, with anyone less than a profitable business owner scraping at the feet. And keep agreeing that the people who are breathing that final sigh of relief over his death, exactly, are "a bunch of losers who think he's better off dead." No, WE ARE ALL BETTER OFF with him dead, and it's not like he was murdered, he had a full life of fucking amazing escapades in screwing people over for his own personal benefit and now he, like any other king or peasant or vagabond or saint, is dead. And if you think that's petty bullshit to feel like "yes, it's happening, the old people in power are starting to die from the same shit they acted like they were above," I will accept your assessment, and I will take on the mantle of being petty, but I will not hide my relief at seeing the ridiculously dangerous old guard beginning to truly age out. I'm going to die too. My grandpa died from cancer, I've got another grandpa also dying from cancer. I love them both dearly but I accept that cancer gets a lot of us, and they did not go around undermining democracy for their own personal benefit under the guise of constitutional libertarianism.

Call it crass celebration, I wouldn't necessarily be against that. It's not like the job is done, it's not like this man's death undoes all of the deregulatory bullshit he entertained himself doing. And that's another thing I don't get about Q guys, they think the book is finally being thrown at the bad people, while the books are being burned and the regulations are being gutted by their heroes, but it is a moment to say "Let us not let another David Koch fuck everyone like the last one did. Let us not give pause to the agenda, just because our neighbors claim their feelings are hurt because a man they barely paid attention to died." I know progressives are very prone to empathy. This death is not the death to make a middling point over just because we empathize with death, pain, and loss, you are getting unintentionally gamed by people who are buying the bullshit of the best in the business at spreading empathetic messages to project their selfish ideals. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel more sad for the crickets and black widows spiders I killed yesterday than this man tbh. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 02:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey now, take it easy, he's a hometown boy. https://ourfuture.org/20120309/Koch_And_Native-American_Reservation_Oil_Theft_ Don't go spitting on his grave before I get the chance to. Koch brothers and Dole ruined the entire state of Kansas. No taxes, except you know, only because we're broke, everything should be funded by toll roads and nothing should be funded. Glad I don't live in Kansas anymore, Jesus fuck what a judeo-libertarian nightmare David Koch left as his legacy.

Quick prayer. May David Koch's soul not exist, letting him die forever like the rest of us. May no one choke to death on their food while uttering his name and may Wichita some day become a healthy city that has never heard of David Koch. This is where I would spit on his grave, if I was in the physical vicinity. You guys are clear, hock those loogies. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I rather pee on his grave followed by a healthy dump. At least pee and poop are biodegradable. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

At one point I mentioned a guy who got nicknamed "Abortion Guy". Here is the details of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jim_Pouillon

In all honesty when he was murdered, my thought was "good riddance". Dude was fucking insane. I remember his annoying and disturbing protests considering that he protested abortion outside the middle school I went to. He held his gory (and inaccurate) signs showing aborted babies. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Candidates

So, who has a chance to beat Trump? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's Bernie, But the politco poll shows Biden in the lead with Sanders behind in second. Tanker One (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the poll really. For one I wouldn't trust any sponsored by corporate filth. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard is my favorite, Bernie is fine, his platform is great, but seriously, there are health issues involved with age, physical/mental health can decline at a staggering rate, I mean, I wasn't happy with how old Trump was when he got elected as a point (also I didn't vote for him). Unfortunately, Mrs. Gabbard only has fringe crank support, which I guess says more about me than her. But her points echo Senator Sanders' so I don't get why people are so quick to glom onto Sanders now, of all the many years he has been alive and a viable candidate, other than he got burned last time by a base that supposedly believed it was Mrs. Clinton's turn.

It's not Senator Sanders' turn, it certainly wasn't Trump's turn. It's Sanders' push to the left of insane American centrism (read conservative right by the rest of the world) that registers. He doesn't have to be the literal person and we will bite the Thanos-snap ashes of the Dem Convent superdelegacy again. The American mess has taxed Sanders so hard already, and he has shown nothing but endurance and diplomacy. He wants it, I want it, Sanders is the hero we want. But I worry about him, we've seen the toll being taken from the head of the executive branch, from a guy who lived as the head of executive branches his entire life as, like, I dunno a hobby? I don't want the same questions of "is he just a belligerent, doddering old man being handled by his staff?" to undermine a progressive left president. And I don't want that actual fate to befall a sitting president, which is how I lie to myself to get trough each new executive decision.

I worry Biden is leading because the Dems don't want to answer to anything, and I ALSO think it would be a more conservative play to push an old white chicken-hawk through. And I can't blame the Dems for not wanting to go for the long bomb when they think they are just a little down. I mean, that's how a cold war keeps everyone alive. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

They could pretty much all beat 45. The ones that matter (polling above 2%) could be divided into general baskets:

• Basic Democrat - Biden, Harris, Kloubachar, O'Rourke, Booker
• "Left-Wing" Democrat - Warren, Sanders, Castro
• Flavor of the month - Mayor P, Gabbard, Yang

The nominee will probably come from the first or second basket. Though I think Warren and Harris would run rings around 45, and be excellent presidents, I will vote for whoever the nominee is, unless we find out they are a serial killer and even then I would still consider it. RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's be honest. There's no way it's kloubachar, orourke, or booker. Harris would be the ideal choice for the party if their goal, as it seems to be, is to make Sanders fans mad. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If Biden falters, Kloubachar will probably pick up the support from white voters. Where black voters go is the question, because coalescing around the best black candidate would make sense (Harris), but black voters tend to support candidates they think can win, and with Biden gone, I think Warren would be seen as the new frontrunner. Bernie stans will only support Bernie, they don't care about the process, and the worst of them especially hate any female candidate.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally support Warren, but I'll vote for the nominee in November. It's just too important not to. I just hope the hardcore Bernie-or-bust folks will vote for the nominee even if it's not their guy. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 17:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You think black people just generically like other black people, with no concern for politics? Why do you think they're on biden(but moreso sanders) not harris currently? That's weirdly dehumanizing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In general, black voters tend to be monolithic compared to other groups. They also tend to support known quantities over fresh faces. Look at poll numbers, though there is a generational gap, support among black voters is the only thing that hasn't really had any flux. Don't get me wrong, it's not a guarantee, support for Obama in '08 didn't come until the primary was in full swing. Looking at the trends and polls is dehumanizing, but that helps avoid letting bias be a factor. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo delisting kiwifarms

Has this been confirmed by Yegg? Are we sure this is being done by DDG and not just Bing doing it and DDG is just inevitably having the same thing happen to it? And does anybody know why only some people are seeing it? I tried searching for kiwifarms and it showed up, but some other people today are reporting that it's not there, so I'd like to know what anybody knows about it.

Also, lol at the butthurt kiwis complaining about how DDG "claimed to be a freeze peach platform." No, actually, I've read their ToS, their privacy policy, and significant parts of their marketing copy. They never claimed to be anti-censorship. They claimed to be anti-tracking. Search engines are inherently content curation platforms, and have to engage in choosing which sites to return as top results and which one to filter out. Pyro (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No one wants to host a forum filled with creepy, sad, pathetic stalkers who have never accomplished a remotely successful thing in their life. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 02:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Duck Duck Go is good, it's still my search engine of choice. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Not delisted by DDG on my end. DDG piggybacks some on Bing I think, and Bing *has* apparently delisted them. A search on Bing brings up not the forum link... but the Wiki on them, plus the RationalWiki entry, Encyclopedia Dramatica entry, Know Your Meme entry, and Lolcow Wiki (!) entry. Also a link to my local grocery chain, should I be interested in some tasty fruit. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

RW problems

What happened?

Earlier RW was unavailable with some sort of varnish problem.

Now at the top of the saloon bar is a message 'Error creating thumbnail: File missing.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That happened with the creationism side bar with me. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The backend webserver, apache4, was down for about 45 minutes (11:13-11:57) due to a hardware issue, described by Linode as emergency maintenance. Then there was a configuration issue which caused the host to stay down for another 10 minutes or so after the hardware issue was resolved. While I was fixing it, there was a brief period (about 5 minutes) in which the site was up but the images volume was not mounted, causing uncached images to be missing, and image thumbnail creations to fail. If you see missing thumbnails, using action=purge should fix them. -- Tim Starling (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's possible it actually went down as early as 09:30 UTC, I only checked the status of the site when I saw the email notification at 11:13. At 09:30 there was an initial "emergency maintenance" period imposed by Linode, ending at 09:52, but as I say, there was no way the host could have been successfully rebooted since its /etc/fstab was broken. The broken fstab was a mistake I made during the server migration I did in July. -- Tim Starling (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I need something amusing, with having to look after a couple of obscure wikis, and some of the fanfic. Anna Livia (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken images?

Michael_Coombs images have vanished. Dinosaurs (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

See the section directly above, the site was affected by a Linode outage. — Dysk (contribs) 15:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders on Twitch?

https://www.twitch.tv/bernie_sanders

Is this his account? For real? Because I keep finding dumb memes about him becoming a video game live streamer or something. Also, this pretty woke comment.

Turns out I'm a commie, it seems. Thanks, really bright person. Now I only need to find a sickle, a copy of "Das Kapital" and start bitching about the Proletariat, the bourgeois and get a serious hatred towards anyone that owns a property and has money, including lottery winners... Tinribmancer (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitter! Bongolian (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait, that's a lot of info to take in and I'm confused. Are China's internet restrictions actually a proper, unrestricted form of capitalism? Am I a communist for playing games that I like longer and harder rather than dumping more money into their available microtransactions? Did you win some kind of lottery? Because if you won some kind of lottery, come on, dude, we're all communists here and I've got this Rocket League goal explosion that I'm dyin for.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Landlords can rot in hell. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What I think is the biggest problem with Libertarian idealism

So, there's this ideal behind Libertarianism, that within any capitalist society, if the capital was exclusively used responsibly, a more fiscally responsible culture would inevitably arise and survive over a fiscally irresponsible culture.

That gives way to the idea that, rather than paying taxes, anyone with an amount of capital should be insulated from having their capital moved around towards something they may not immediately want or need, and the capital would rather be theirs to do exactly what needs to be done for themselves or whoever else they choose themselves. Fine enough. However, on the way towards pure Libertarianism, the larger the amount of capital, the larger the potential for taxation, so somehow the more justified it becomes to vanguard large amounts of capital against taxation towards ideas and policies that don't align with the, I don't know, let's call them the adjudicator's intention for the capital; the first person who gets to call the shots on how the capital underneath them is to be applied to the world around them.

If everyone was a pure Libertarian, this isn't a promise that anyone would be responsible or irresponsible morally, just the idea that being an irresponsible Liberation would involve using your capital to allow somebody you disagree with to have more capital than you. And the longer a push towards pure Libertarianism takes without being successful (which it can't be if you want a purely capitalist economy where a currency is the sole metric of value), the more ground it makes for people to accumulate capital through trade of currency for goods and services. Without being irresponsible under the nightmarish Libertarian ideal that power is based on capital and giving up personal power is a self-destructive move (which in pure Libertarianism, it is) how does one mete out their wealth of currency responsibly? It must have the end game of amassing yourself more wealth than any one else may ever earn from you alone, or you are being an irresponsible Libertarian.

Basically, what I think, is this zero taxation, zero regulation ability to amass stagnant capital reality of Libertarianism is a hypocrisy. Either everyone has exactly what is in front of them to trade and stacked capital is a game-breaking advantage, or everyone is inherently worth some amount of capital, which they must be apportioned first so that they can trade for earned capital and add to their value. But trying to have it both ways is against the Libertarian ideals of equality, self-actualization, and self-governance. And it's been played out. That's how America got robber barons and mafias and Madoffs. Crying that every little thing they don't agree with equates to all taxation being theft and all regulation being oppression. Yeah, leave that up to the citizens to do to each other, that historically plays out better for us, the workforce, excuse me while my eyes roll so hard my optic nerves seize.

This isn't an endorsement of pre-currency trade or late-stage capitalism. This is me accusing Libertarianism of wanting the best of both, and it absolutely will not work that way. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't decide what my biggest problem with libertarianism is, but my second biggest problem with it is definitely every single libertarian. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why pay attention to libertarians? It seems to me that there really are not many idealists claiming to be libertarians. There is more of a cafeteria smorgasbord of people not wanting to be associated with other groups, saying "I'm kind of a Libertarian." I have said it myself, once or twice, before realizing my mistake.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's nuts to me, I've lived in the Midwest my entire life, so many people identify as Libertarians and if they don't support the Republican party outright, they want the Pauls to be their candidates or really want to talk about Atlas Shrugged, and would never vote for the Democrats, who are always worse by some kind of whataboutism. Like, seriously, there is a street right off my little warehouse district that I work in called John Galt Boulevard. At a bar, I have met a really talented musician who worked as a pizza delivery guy, who was also wearing a shirt that said "who is John Galt?" And when he started talking to me about it, I recognized he was drunk so I just told him the three things I think a society should never privatize are healthcare, education, and prisons. And his response was "we haven't even tried it yet." I first said "Yes, we have, and it's always fucked up." But then I tried to change the subject, and wound up just leaving, because that is the silly shit people in the suburban crawl believe. While they also complain that their roads are always fucked up and their public transit system is trash and benefits no one. You hear things like "it would cost less to buy everybody a car in this city than it would to keep the busses running." And I really think it's the church coffee discussions perpetuating it. There's like, five entire people I know in town who were born in town that don't have a specific family church, even if I'm one of like, the hundred or so that would not ever go to a church in their adult life. Why pay attention to Libertarians? They are literally, physically surrounding me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Am Kansan, can confirm: Libertarians are friggin' everywhere in the Midwestern US. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean these folks don't call themselves libertarians. They surely do. I suggest that they probably are not idealists. The ones supporting Trump clearly are not idealists.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not true scotsmen. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean for god's sake, they put sugar in their oatmeal! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what's wrong with sugar in oatmeal? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A common demonstration of the no true scotsman fallacy is "No scotsman would put sugar in his porridge" I thought it was the example we used here, but I was wrong. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, jeez, I did try to not True Scotsman the thing up, which was why I closed with a snarl with a snarl word and left the onus solely on myself, 'accusing' Libertarianism as an ideal, rather than the people practicing it as being a faulty premise, not just having faulty aspects. I followed up on the claim that Libertarians aren't real but only a fringing influence by citing personal accounts with Libertarians and Libertarian efforts. It's not to call anybody true or less than true Libertarians, it's to argue that Libertarianism has a huge political influence where I'm at, as an ideal. As a driver of policy, it is also self-defeating in late-stage capitalism.

I guess I did poor job representing my claims by not stating explicitly that while I think Libertarianism is hypocritical in and of itself, and I do not believe it is a defunct political affiliation, hypocritical or not. The people I have met who claim Libertarianism are not ALWAYS dedicated ENTIRELY to the hypocrisy I laid out, but usually not really keyed into it. But I will blame that on me needing to have a quick angry-cry and not realizing people didn't know that self-described Libertarians existed. I will try harder next time. It's my fault, I was too localized, I wasn't making the case like the whole world might see it. I wasn't thinking "Oh, somebody might think Libertarians are just boogeymen." They aren't. They are my neighbors. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, generally idealists think hypocrisy is a bad thing, Scottish or otherwise. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. There's no libertarian you can show me that fits your impossible standard. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who criticized the idealist consequences of libertarians. Your bs argument is not my responsibility.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I keep wondering if it is possible to reach a space so small that you end up in a parallel universe of dimension

I know it sounds odd and I am no physics expert, I am wondering if it is possible. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Good news, those words used in that order do not mean anything in physics.

Now, to answer some similar questions.

If you were very very tiny, the quantum behavior of matter would be so alien to your Newtonian experience you could imagine yourself in a parallel dimension. (Once you get past the problems like how to perceive anything when your eyes are as small as photons)

Parallel universes are still considered a plausible but unproven conception in physics. If they exist, we don't know how they interact with our universe if at all. They can't, however, plausibly explain the unusual wavelike nature of particles, due to the invalidation of the local hidden variables hypothesis. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this a question about the particle in a "one dimensional box" or infinite well question? If so, the colloquial "you" translates a little closer to "anything," and I'd take the answer above as a fair response. A parallel universe of dimension is a little harder to gather what you're asking about.

So, multi-dimension theory and multi-universe theory read a little different from each other. And dimensional theory gets really weird when you apply math to it. One of my favorite places to go when I want to feel really, really inadequate at understanding math beyond trig (which was the last math subject I got above a C in) is sphere packing. Like, it gets so difficult to keep up with for me that sometimes it's important for me to just go take a breather with the urine therapists, and remind myself that I aced bio and chem. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sphere packing is conceptually essential for error correcting codes, and pseudo random number generation in computer science. I don't have anything useful to add, just that it's not actually terribly hard to understand in those contexts. For some reason, practical application always makes math a bit easier to get your head around. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to figure out how much it costs to ship boxes. Of all sizes, it is a constant struggle. Usually, under the best scenario it's not me packing them myself since I'm in charge of a ton of other shit in the business too. But I do have to get the tape measure out and figure out dim weight and what is worth the risk of less packing material. We have our own box maker, no joke, so we can make any size box we want.

Both FedEx and UPS have a dimensional weight calculation that goes (L x W x H) / 139. So I kinda figure anything that fits L x W x H would be reasonable to calculate the charge by 139. I have checked 10 x 10 x 1, which is a box size that would never be built, but as an equation it comes out to being charged for about 72% of its size. For the life of me, I cannot tell what unit they mean by that 72%. And if we beat that unit in density, and it's heavier than that 72% charge, they charge you for the weight instead. I still haven't figured out how much each unit (3 dimensional six sided cube) has to weigh to be defined by the /139 metric against poundage. But the stuff we ship has to have packing material, or it gets banged up beyond function, it's not like we can just slap a shipping label on any of it. And getting destroyed by being charged like a 72% density at best sucks, and I'm kind of on a personal mission to figure out what that exact unit of space sizes out at and weighs under the /139 measure.

Wish me luck, I'm not good at 3 dimensional math. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Like Ant Man? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini That's exactly what I was thinking of when I read this! --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Prototype lab} 18:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sanders/Warren merger

Is it inevitable that Sanders and Warren will essentially merge their campaigns before spring rolls around? Once one emerges as the victor (however slim) in their fight for the progressive Left it would be ridiculous for them to not shake hands and join forces. They are self-described friends and on each others' sides. They'd both be shooting themselves in the feet if they didn't do it. I'm imagining around a 40/30/30 Biden/Sanders/Warren split near the first primaries, and it would be a historic fuck-up if they just let Biden take it like that. TheUnderOver (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No. It's not inevitable at all. Let's take an overly simplistic analysis of VP choices to frame it. You might get a Sanders/Warren ticket, but if warren wins the primary there is a 0% chance of a Warren/Sanders ticket happening. Traditional electoral strategies of picking some nobody state official from a weak state will be the rule of the day. "The Party" wants Sanders forgotten, and Warren is willing to play ball.

That's where it's at, there's a populist movement in Sanders, and it isn't the same or even similar thing as a slightly more left leaning party movement. Also a 40/30/30 vote split would in fact result in a decision by brokered convention, not the person with 40 winning. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Even though they "appear" to occupy the same lane, Sanders support is generally static and diverse, while Warren's support has been consistently growing and mostly college educated white. Warren and Sanders also have very different opinions of political and economic systems, where Warren very clearly sees the need for a course correction while Sanders wants total reform. Warren would likely want to be joined on the ticket by some of her other Senate colleagues (Booker, Harris, Klobuchar or Gillibrand), while Sanders would need to go deep into the moderate pool to appease some Democratic donors/voters (Imagine Claire McKaskill or Cheri Bustos or a member of the CBC)

Warren definitely benefits most from the field winnowing. As voters begin to search for new people to support, they tend to support her or Biden. Sanders really needs the field to be larger, hoping his voters enthusiasm allows him to win pluralities. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

One small thing, sanders doesn't need to appease the donors(voters are entirely different group who are far less garbage). He raises far more money with none coming from major donors than his opponents do with them, consistently. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@TheUnderOver Just out of curiosity, do you use the RW Discord server? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed In a primary sure, but you can't raise the $1 Billion dollars necessary to run a presidential election without major contributions.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

He's raised several hundred million. Execute the rich donors. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But that's the reality of a presidential campaign. Sanders raised $228 Million in 2016, and he's on pace for around $100 million (to be fair that's based on the first full quarter, as the race narrows, the money will go to fewer people). In 2016, seven of the largest Democratic leaning donors kicked in $209.6 million. If Sanders secures the nomination, he'll need to raise money from them if he wants to survive the onslaught from Trump, who currently is sitting on $190 million.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

KiwiFarms

Idiots over at KiwiFarms still bitching about Ryulong and RatWiki's "fall from grace." — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh noes! Different people and ideas exist! Boo hoo... Whiny little brats... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

KiwiFarms will continue to say we have fallen from grace until we join them in the land of doxxers and fascists. I think it's best if we pay their opinion of us no heed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Just had a lot at the the site and their thread about this one. They seem kind of whiny and insignificant. Is there some reason for this site to care about their opinion? (Edit) So I've been going through some of their threads - there are some truly epic levels of casual stupidity! it's true gold if you are bored! Hubert (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we'll be better off not talking about this site. I don't want daily/weekly/monthly updates about their opinion of us. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably yeah, I agree. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The more KiwiFarms gets mad at us, the more we know we're on the right path. Revolverman (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

They still don't know that Ryulong left? And that he got critized by our own members aswell? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New here

I was reading an article and noticed a paragraph that I couldn't make sense out of. In my attempts to find out how to ask that it be looked at I really didn't find a simple way to do that. I looked at the help page and the suggestion to bring it up on a talk page wasn't hyperlinked. I also looked at mod's pages but didn't notice anyway to contact them. So, this is the only page/way I've discovered to being up a suggested edit.

On the page for Claire Lehmann the following paragraph is confusing:

"It should be pointed out that for variation within populations, blank-slatism has been thoroughly falsified. However, Lehmann as a proponent of HBD controversially argues against the blank-slate hypothesis for differences between populations in IQ, which is dubious (e.g. Richard Lewontin provided an example where within two populations, heritability is high, but "the difference between the two groups is due entirely to an environmental factor"."

I've read this about ten times and still don't understand it. Hope this helps. ^{— Unsigned, by: Lord Les / talk / contribs}

You can find the talk page at the top of the page in question by clicking on a button labeled talk. You can contact people by posting something on their on page or using the ping template which looks like this, {{ping|Oshawottalot}}. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages and the saloon bar by putting ~~~~ at the end.Osha^wottalot 03:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Just make sure you have correct sources when editing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)