RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive323

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 13 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>, <322>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, (new)(back)

New Manufactroversy[edit]

HALP S-JEWS ARE GONNA RUIN SYBER PUKE 2077 2066! 68.0.189.224 (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I been hearing about this game for so long. Is it actually a big deal? Is it actually a game yet? Will it be like Fable, where all the promises are kind of half coded and the pictures are not actually of working release gameplay? Like, personally, I don't have time to wait 3 years for a game to drop, because I'm still working through my library. I'm stuck on the Sims. I've beat it several times, and I have a copy of the Sims 3, but I can't find the Sims 2 anywhere and I don't want to skip ahead in the story. I'll be attempting to speed run the Sims this weekend, check my Twitch, all donations go towards me finding a copy of the Sims 2. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure that GOG's biggest CT trolls are bitching about it on the forums... Tinribmancer (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Your time reading the forums, my time speed running The Sims. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I have a counter article from non-insane people. Normal people view this as a non-issue. I'd also like to point out the self refuting logic of complaining about a minor change for a small percentage, after all, it's a small percentage. (Also gay and bi romance/sexy times were part of the game from the start, so this is a meh.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, not politics in cyberpunk. A genre that was founded to have absolutely no opinions about the nature of humanity, corporate greed, corruption, decadence, urban decay, or other social issues. ikanreed

🐐Bleat at me 15:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Having played and loved the original RPG, the only thing that I miss of that game are its Internet. No Ihara-Grubb transformations with computers that next to the ones of today look like toys. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sheckels[edit]

If someone on Youtube uses this in a video that isn't even a far-right video, would this person be a de facto antisemite? — Unsigned, by: Tinribmancer / talk / contribs

Not necessarily: Shekel is used as a slang term for money (in any currency) at least in some parts of the English-speaking world.[1] So it might be used innocently. Or in a discussion about Israeli economics, it may or may not be innocent.
Also On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.. --Annanoon (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to do that. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a few contexts where I'd be inclined not to think so, but mostly yes. The phrase "30 sheckles" would most likely imply a biblical reference, rather than neonazi meme, for example. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Same where they are using it in a historical context. Given that shekels were actual currency that people used, some people have to use the term. Just look at the context in which it was used. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Just like with all other dogwhistles, context is everything. "He sold us out for 30 sheckels": probably innocuous, it's a biblical allusion. "Politician X has earned their sheckels": probably racist, it's a reference to the International Jewish Conspiracy. Hannasanarion (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Uh, no, I'm going to assume antisemitism if I hear "sheckels" in any context other than talking specifically about the money itself. CoryUsar (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to look up the video where I heard this, since people are divided about whether it is or isn't. It's basically a livestream from 2018. Where Matthew from The Game Theorists mentioned this to a guy called Chris, who was going to get a promotion and earn more salary. And since he's, apparently, good friends with another youtuber who recently came out of the closet, I wouldn't be surprised (hence the reason why I decided to ask this, since most people here can smell them from miles away). Then again, nothing that happens on the internet surprises me anymore. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BC86ExLsPY. Start at 2:50. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Those Witches are not real, but Communists are (Quote from a former communist party member)[edit]

I would like some rational thoughts on this video, for I believe it does expose some information that is unfortunately overlooked by the wider populous. Not that I agree with his final analysis that "Mccarthy was right". I do think it's worth mentioning that it's highly suspicious that the "Disney is racist" did not emerged until he dared to oppose a communist thug. (Which is something that would repeat many, many times.) I reminds me of a certain other movement that was about "ethics in journalism" but was smeared as racism merely because it challenged the status quo of "journalism". but I really want a rational take on this.151.160.4.39 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Troll harder.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an argument Or not? No you don't so please go back to your cult that says reality has a liberal bias151.160.4.39 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
You posted a shitty rant by a alt-right youtuber. The counter-argument is: it's still a fucking stupid conspiracy theory and contains no actual evidence. It doesn't warrant further response. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know there were tinfoilers that thought Hollywood was Communist. I've heard alot of dumb and stupid shit involving Hollywood, but this? This is comedy gold! Tinribmancer (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The Rageholic is an idiot and a shit source. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I listened as long as I could stand it. He sounds like Alex Jones, only much crazier. This kind of pseudo-historical conspiracy theory seems an anachronism. I mean why? The Soviets shit the bed. Who cares?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I think I've dogged this guy before. He likes Arpaio, right? I'm pretty worn out after this week. Somebody is related to this guy, like a brother in law or something. I can't watch the video and meet the promises I've made for tomorrow, so I will just say, I'm pretty sure I've dogged this guy. Arpaio apologist, I think. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I See no one has actually watched the video, no one actually tried to thin critically. They just saw the title and laughed it off. The Crucible was a bad movie, it's themes were based on a false premise. It's not a witch hunt if the group actually exists.151.160.2.151 (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean I didn't, but that's only because I'm not a complete loser with no life. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
ikanreed's razor: if your only source for an argument is a youtube video, you're wrong. and annoying. The content of the video is immaterial. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this nigga still going on about this? No one gives a shit about wild screeds from YouTube "Personalities". There is never anything remotely similar to valuable sources, it's just twisted interpretation of history to fit a narrative they find convenient.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I was gonna, but this is a video claiming communists... You know what, I can leave it at that. What kind of self-respecting communist would spend 50 years not having a God damned effect on American politics or economics? Let's say Hollywood is a communist hotbed, who cares if they are so monumentally ineffective at it that we're still arguing about social security and giving our money to everything Hollywood churns out? That's not communism, that's capitalism. I'm pretty sure Hollywood convinced more teenagers to smoke than they did to turn anyone on to communism, and I'm willing to also say that means absolutely jack shit about the intentions of Hollywood outside of advertising funding films to drop brands into scenes. Again, not communism, capitalism. Have some applesauce and take a nap, this guy is throwing a toddler-level fit, until he can stop crying we can't talk about which movie we want to watch. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Rageholic[edit]

After GC mentioned his name in the above topic, I looked up his YT account thinking "maybe we can wipe up a page about him if he has more "enlightened" stuff". So, I found this playlist on his account.

Here are some video's, for those not bothered to click the link (haven't clicked them myself, since dumbshit always give me brainfarts due to the stupidity. Also don't wanna have any recommendations from YT):

Why We Need THE WALL: A Rant PedoWood: The House Of Cards Crumbles The War on InfoWars: A Rant Charlottesville 2: ANTIFA Edition (A Rant) The EU vs DANK MEMES - A Rant ...And Then They Came For Crowder 007: The Woke is Not Enough

Is he on mission (he has 222K subs)? I want to add him to the "To Do List", but I wanna know whether he's on mission or not (I personally think he is). Tinribmancer (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he's on mission. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Please pretty please make most or all plain links? It's killing the page's load time. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 17:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Better? Yeah, I've seen load issues in the past aswell when Oxy decided to post several video's a week. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely better. I think maybe you should show the title of the video so people can get quick impressions of them without having to click the links. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you should watch the video, but I guess that would require intellectual honesty.151.160.2.151 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Great another hit piece worthy of a lawsuit. Didn't you guys get bored of spreading lies about Styx?151.160.2.151 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello again TDM2. Don't throw stones in glass houses. Bye again! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I already know why my poll has 3 neutrals & 2 downvotes... Tinribmancer (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The RZ94 Official Donald Trump Check List (mostly social satire)[edit]

  • Racist
  • Homophobe
  • Sexist
  • Crimes Against Humanity
  • Traitor
  • Draft Dodger
  • Science Denier
  • Making a mockery of the highest office in the United States
  • Ego the size of a blimp
  • Brainless Idiot
  • Conspiracy Theorist
  • Birther
  • Pathological Liar
  • Asshole

Anything I miss out on. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

He's a Birther too, iirc. And a Conspiracy Theorist (he was on Infowars and praised Alex Jones for his "awesome" work). Tinribmancer (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thin-skinned and whiny. Just look at his Twitter. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
His tweets are much better when you add the "Make Trump Tweets Eight Again" extension to Chrome or Firefox. :P Tinribmancer (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Transphobe, anti-vaxxer, climate crisis denier, etc. A lot of that could be covered by "science denier." Also, a pathological liar (continually claims his father was born in Germany, and used to claim he himself was born in Sweden). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You forgot "puppet." Tyrian (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Puppet? oh yah? Whose pulling the strings? nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 20:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Russia. They're the only ones who have something he wants- and the only ones who've done so for any extended period of time. Tyrian (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

we do like a list here don't weAMassiveGay (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Look up the difference between 'a cad' and 'a bounder.'
He has power - but does he have responsibility (and a nod at the Stanley Baldwin quote). Anna Livia (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Let us not forget "Openly Corrupt" with his pay-for-play deals that require corporate or international relations to stay at his overpriced resorts/hotels and which redirect U.S. government officials to his resorts/hotels even when it's not a good travel option, funneling millions of dollars into the pockets of the Trump family. Zipperback (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there an Absolute Reality?[edit]

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Absolute-Reality-and-Empirical-Reality

Personally this absolute reality seems like nonsense since all we have to navigate reality is out own measly senses (not measly but not perfect either), so how can people know or talk of some ultimate reality then?Machina (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I can only perceive the world via my own imperfect senses, on their own or inconjunction with some tool to gauge what I cannot ordinarily perceive. the world exists whether I am aware of all that is in it or oblivious to all or to parts outside of my vision. it is only nonsense to believe we know what is absolute or not to recognise our limitations. it also makes no practical sense, in our day to day existence, to think in such terms, or to doubt your reality without good reason. a bus will still crush you beneath its wheels, with no regard for your existential angst. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Imperceptible reality is just a state of mind; imagination is a social construct. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 21:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh do shut up.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-problem-of-evil/ Well while it's long winded it does mention this sort of "absolute reality", but it says that we can't live there because it's stasis and we have to come back to life. Much of it just went over my head.Machina (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Resident nihilist here, absolute reality is a good place to start. I've been thinking a lot about the difference between what I would call the "moment" and the "timeline." I have no conclusions, so I would like to explain myself. Can you see why linguistics are fun yet?

Anyway, the "moment" must be dialed down to the shortest time frame that can absolutely not hold a pattern. Maybe it can't be measured in time. The timeline shouldn't necessarily be predicated by moments either, but that necessarily doesn't change what we perceive. Woah, look out, it's broke, I'm clearly talking out my ass here. But the idea is that the moment does not indicate a pattern, and the timeline has to follow a pattern, and somewhere in between the two a strong enough pattern emerges that we must be here.

I mean, does that make more or less sense? If you keep asking about these Buddhist babblings, how much sense does it really have to make?

So

Sorry, what were you having fun with?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

America[edit]

What does non-missionary mean, anyway? nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 08:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Doggy style. Oxyaena Harass 13:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Sex in a position other than with the woman flat on her back with the man flat on top, often with the lights out and under covers. CoryUsar (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Nobs calls himself a 'Christian' but has to ask the most basic of facts about Christian sex. Is he a secret Satanist? Bongolian (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Go to Pornhub and type it in over there, nobsie. Never had Sex ed? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If scientists were...[edit]

...to dissect Trump's brain after he's dead, would they learn something from it? Something like a Darwin Medal award or is it just going to be a bunch of black tarish goo? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. It would just be a common human brain — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F168:4D5:6FA:9928:18D8:CAD5 / talk
Potentially not. After all, we have no evidence that Trump actually possesses such an organ. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Ha! You LIBCUCKS just don't realize that MY PRESIDENT GOD BLESS Donald Trump actually has the BIGGEST and GREATEST and BESTEST brain anyone has EVER had in the history of brains!!! He might look stupid to you BRAINWASHED FOOLS, but he's actually playing a long game of 34-dimensional chess that will end with him getting EVERYTHING he wants!!!!! Trump is the CHOSEN ONE appointed by CHRIST HIMSELF, and if you don't like it then leave this country!!!!!!!! He's MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! :D :D XD XD XE XD XD XD XD GOD BLESS TRUMP FIRST AND AMERICA SECOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You could tell if he had Alzheimer disease, or tertiary syphilis, or a giant sentient tumor riding his cerebral cortex like a frog on a beetle, but the most likely conclusion would be evidence that he's not brain-damaged, he's just bad. --Annanoon (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
If scientists cut open Trump's chest, they would find an object like a black hole instead of a heart. LOL!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Now, you're just being silly. If scientists cut open Mr. Trumps chest it would prove nothing, and nothing unusual would be found. (However, a lot of problems would be alleviated...) Kencolt (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps Trump's brain would be a terrific example of syphilis damage, but more likely would be the first example of CTE from someone without a history of playing any contact sports.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate[edit]

Night in the woods developer, Alec Holowka, is dead. Zoe Quinn accused him of abuse a short time ago. We all know how this going to go down. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

GamerGate 2.0? I knew it was a sleeping volcano...
Also, why isn't he on the GamerGate timeline (along with Russ Pitts leaving The Escapist after another squabble with Zoe Quinn.)? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
It's GamerGate 3.0, Tinribmancer. Sargon of Akkad killed GamerGate 2.0 back in 2018.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 02:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was Cernovich that killed Gamergate. Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Wait, when did 2.0 started? Also, what did Sargon do to kill 2.0? Is it because he joined UKIP? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Alec's family told people who would use his suicide as an excuse to harass Zoe to fuck off btw. Oxyaena Harass 22:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
As a developer, I am so glad I never got into the world of gaming. Not just because work conditions in the gaming industry are much shittier than the usual code monkey job, but also because the social aspect of the gaming community has become such a toxic dumpster fire lately. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a travesty, Alec was genuinely trying to rehabilitate himself, I think Zoe's accusations may have done him in, now there's no chance for rehabilitation and the misogynist hordes are just itching for an excuse to harass this poor woman. Oxyaena Harass 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Stating your case about how you've been mistreated doesn't "do" anyone "in". That's a terrible way to put it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Idiot whines about tone[edit]

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

Why can't RationalWiki criticize politely but must often insult? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F168:4D5:67E0:D7D2:5F27:7181 / talk

Why do you care? Why should we treat grifters, loons and bigots with anything more than scorn? And why do we have to re-hash this conversation again? They're idiots and don't deserve respect. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Because it's more fun this way? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 06:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Nobody pays us in cash for toiling here, so we get paid by the insult. Bongolian (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm polite to every asshole I meet. Kill 'em with kindness. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 08:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
'Verbal exuberance and insults' and 'Rationalwiki' belong together. Given that elsewhere in the Wikiverse and user-generated-contributions websites one has to be (reasonably) polite RW provides a form of relaxation.
RobSmith - it can be amusing to see how annoyed 'the nuisances and trolls' get when one is unfailingly polite to them and treats their comments as being serious rather than 'trying to get a reaction' - they may even cry LANCB if you are patient enough. Anna Livia (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Our resident pest has returned. Oxyaena Harass 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Who? UT? Morris? Lomax? Logicnsuch? Mike? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Morris, and there're two others as well, EiK and Smith. Oxyaena Harass 22:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Our resident troll, Nobs, has come to warn off competitors that he will not tolerate them. Bongolian (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Lying again, eh Nobs ("I'm polite to every asshole I meet. Kill 'em with kindness.")? Bongolian (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Leave nobs alone. You know he has that brain thing, or whatever. For me, it takes a certain amount of respect to go jabbing at a person. Nobs may not have that intellectual respect, exactly, but he doesn't get scared off when his ideas get shat upon, and I think that's commendable, and I think using his name to just brush off what he has to say is shitty. And he doesn't shy away from a question, even if it opens him up to a real chimpy poo-tossing spectacle. To the OP, try and be a little more like nobs, if you actually have something to say. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Look, @Gol Sarnitt, I was stating a fact: Nobs lied again. 1) I will freely admit I'm an asshole (TBH, everyone is to some extent). 2) Nobs stated, "I'm polite to every asshole I meet." 3) Nobs did not treat me with kindness,[2][3] not that I care. Bongolian (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian, you nailed it. I wasn't really coming after you. I just know nobs can take being used as an example of how to get shit on constantly and somehow not take it too personally to stick around. I didn't mean to call your experience with nobs into question, and I'm sure he was a complete asshole to you, that's kind of what he does. He's not the hero we want, or the hero he makes himself out to be. But just look at him, never harmed, never seems to learn, never pulls a punch. What a unique specimen. I say we keep him, and in the mean time maybe we kick him around a little less. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

ProJared[edit]

https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/dmjared

What happened on the 27th? He's gaining tons of subs. Tinribmancer (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

He made a Youtube video shouting "YOU'VE ALL BEEN LIED TO" and now sexist pricks are harassing his ex-wife. Oxyaena Harass 13:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, so he's pulling an Eron Gjoni, then? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
How lovely. It is always a comforting thought to know that whenever you do something shitty, you can always rally the shitheads of the internet to your aid. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you even watch the video? 68.0.189.224 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes we have. Your point is...?--Yay for me, Rbl sigpic.png 🎄RightyBlueLuigi!🎄(Not a Mod) 17:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have a feeling some responses here didn't. If they did, I'm not convinced. We need to play fair, I'm pretty sure some parts were sensationalized, human memory was prone to being distorted, etc. Harassing people is never fine though, not sure if he called for it, though. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Citation needed on that. Commie Lib (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't get it. He is an adult who recorded himself playing little kid games for views, then he made an account to send him nudes? And there's a real question about the motivation? I can't follow this drama because every time I look at any of it my eyes roll so hard into the back of my skull the rest of my body assumes I'm having a seizure. The dude is gross. He made gross decisions even before he made his grosser decisions. H.G. Wells said "As soon as the magic trick has been done the whole business of the fantasy writer is to keep everything else human and real." Jared didn't keep it, he exploited it. Screw that guy and his never ending fantasy world. Steve is coming back to Blues Clues. Let's be happy about Steve not being dead or a meth head like everybody said he musta been. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gol Sarnitt I can tell you haven't watched Jared's most recent video. His NSFW account was explicitly 18+. One of the underage teens lied to Jared about their age when he asked them, saying they were 18+ when they weren't. Then that same person stated that Jared didn't ask for their age when he did. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, oh man, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that a website couldn't be accessed if you weren't over 18, unless you were some kind of evil genius. ProJared, or SinJared, or whoever, what a smart, good hearted guy to put the "must be 18+" caveat in, to protect the children. Glad he personally cleared that one up in one of his videos, so we know that "one of the" underage teens felt so bad that they admitted to lying. The rest are evil geniuses that were trying to ruin him and deserve what they get. Definitely wasn't his account to manage like an adult. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The nsfw blog was meant to be a sort of body positivity thing. Anon has a point in that it seems you didn't exactly watch the video when you wrote this. It's only 40 minutes of your time, so I recommend watching it because lefty is right in that we need to give him a fair shot. --Yay for me, Rbl sigpic.png 🎄RightyBlueLuigi!🎄(Not a Mod) 03:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
A fair shot at moderating nude pictures, ok. A reasonable assumption that the people who would be sending his body-positive account nude pictures are his fan base, since there are other IG body positive accounts. What would a reasonable assumption be for the median age of his fan base? Of course the deviation would edge towards older, but really, who is sending him nudes, and who is moderating those nudes? So who sees them? This is not a problem with healthy polyamory or healthy open relationships, but doesn't this guy have a real problem with those two concepts? Or is it just his girlfriends? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice regarding videos[edit]

So more than a few videos embedded on this page at once kills the server. If there is more than three videos on the page already, consider simply linking them as urls and not adding them as embeds.... — Dysk (contribs) 14:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think embedding videos on a page impacts the server at all, but it certainly impacts the client's web browser performance when loading the page. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a way to disable all embedded videos on RationalWiki pages through the preferences/settings/profiles, because I don't think I've ever watched one? --Annanoon (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I personally apologize. I get a little amped up about music. I can't see a music video posted that I think is lacking in depth and not post back at least one more step towards the inevitable progression. I take full responsibility, I will check myself in the future. Can I still post links instead of embedding? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, links like that are fine. Bongolian (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Cool. Cool cool cool cool cool. This makes things harder on me, but I'm not against it, if the parameters fit. Can I embed on my own userspace? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I've considered this...
You BASTARDS Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Paranormal games[edit]

There’s many ‘games’ that you can play to, allegedly, bring spirits or demons into your house. They all are based upon some ritual or simple task or whatever. Like a lot of people on here I assume, I do not believe in the paranormal, demons, ghosts whatever; however I do enjoy listening to creepy tales and suspending my disbelief. Whilst listening to a podcast that deals with these stories, one story came up about the midnight game. It sparked my interest so I decided to look into it.

It’s the usual, let a demonic entity into your house in the dark and try to survive. There are a lot of stories of people doing it and allegedly being scarred by the experience. One thing that I found interesting, is that no one seemed to have tried to refute it, there are people speculating that it’s hust your mind playing tricks on you in the dark, and I believe that to be the case. Still though, I saw so many posts along the lines of “I was a sceptic until I played this game,” “I was physically hurt during this, here’s photo proof” and all that. Wherever you look online about how to play this game, there are always warnings about not doing certain things, and the game it self having the risk of torturing or killing you.

Of course, all the evidence about this is purely anecdotal, and by pure nature of the game, it would be super difficult to produce any worth while evidence, so I believe the possible causes of this phenomena are:

1) People just lying.

2) People being tricked by their brain based upon what they are ought to expect from this game and believing it to be proof of paranormal activity.

By Occam’s razor, those possibilities are more likely than some entity of unexplained origin torturing you mentally and/or physically. That does beg the question, why is there so little content on the internet of people trying to refute this and so many anecdotes of people “swearing it’s real...”

As a side note, I am sceptical of this game however I shall never attempt to play it as I am a coward haha. Also, lately I’ve been more susceptible to being really freaked by this kind of stuff, but that’s probably due to the fact that I haven’t slept much lately and I’ve also stopped taking my anxiety medication.—WMS (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I dunno what game you are referring to specifically, but the bloody mary game, where you look into a mirror invoke her name, has something of a scientific explanation. probably something a kin to thisw for anything similar. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
[EC] :Sounds to me like a variation on Bloody Mary and similar sorts of children's oral lore. Good to know they are still circulating; the stories and games they make when adults aren't looking are an important part of character development IMO. The classic format, of course, is legend tripping, when the kids go out to a deserted property, cemetery, or similar remote location to dare a ghost or monster thought to live there. In the USA this has been going on since Mark Twain's day at least. If you're too young to drive there's always the Ouija board. As it's usually played this involves daring conversations with evil spirits. Stories told by adults that it will "bring spirits or demons into your house" make that the main attraction. In general terms this kind of ritual play is called ostension, the deliberate acting out of legend material. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Gonna be honest, I at first thought WMS was referring to spooky video games, a'la Silent Hill or Five Weekends at Bernie's, and was confused as to which game he was referring to specifically. Anyways, I think my generation has kind of evolved from that kind of old-school "Bloody Mary" type stuff. When I was a tad younger I was obsessed with "The Tails Doll". Basically he was just a character to pad out the roster in the game Sonic R, however his creepy appearance led itself to a lot of speculation and the idea that he was some sort of malevolent entity. This resulted in the classic Bloody Mary type game, where you were supposed to sing the lyrics to this specific song from the game in reverse at 11 am, while looking at the bathroom mirror with the lights off (HOW?!?) and then he'd come and steal your soul. Of course all of that was complete bullshit but we as kids on the internet didn't have the capacity to understand that things on the internet are often fraudulent, which is why my social email is now constantly flooded with spam emails as a result of trying to download free gift cards. --Yay for me, Rbl sigpic.png 🎄RightyBlueLuigi!🎄(Not a Mod) 17:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There’s a ton of these ritual/games, they all seem to be just different variation of each other. They do make for some intriguing stories though, even though they’re fake. If anyone’s interested, the game I was referring to is The midnight game. I’m curious though, considering that these visual and auditory hallucinations are a product of the brain due to circumstance, environment and bias of what’s meant to happen in the game, could they still leave a lasting mental effect on a person? If someone was convinced that they conjured a demon and it was out to get them, surely that could mess up a person for a potentially long time right?—WMS (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't completely grasp the kinds of fun the creepypasta fans are after. Parts of it seems to be the intriguing task of deliberately creating fakelore and attempting to get it accepted and take off as genuine folklore; that is what apparently happened in the Slender Man case, at least. AAR, once fakelore starts to circulate by people other than its authors it quickly becomes (indistinguishable from) genuine folklore. The Midnight Game seems to be a bit too specific and contrived to have the ring of proper folklore. Then again that page is all I know of it; if there are many variants with different conditions and rules, it would be at least have the ring of authenticity. AAR, it's not that easy to summon demons; for that you need a hoopoe. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Used to play with the ouija board with some friends in my 20's. It often seemed to work but I was always sorta convinced there was some explanation other than demons or ghosts or whatever. (I now know it's Ideomotor effect.)

But there were some of my friends who were really into it. I remember one big brave guy who was white with fear at the end of a session.Hubert (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

My first time at a haunted house, I cried so hard. I was with my dad and my older brother. and my bother's best friend. It was called "The Edge of Hell" in KC. I was probably 8 and I remember every single thing I didn't bury my face into my dad's ass to avoid seeing. I made it through the whole haunted house, brave face up any time my dad or my brother asked me how I was doing. I high-fived a guy dressed as the devil like it didn't matter. When we got done, there was a maze to check out but I couldn't stop crying, I couldn't do it, and that's when my dad told me there were "chicken exits" the whole time that I could have taken. At that moment I was so pissed I didn't get to take one of those chicken exits. But, I also remember specifically my dad bought me a Sprite and sat with me and answered every one of my questions about everything I had seen while I cried and cried and cried. Explained it was all a gimmick to scare people. Explained that I was just too scared, I just didn't get the smoke and mirrors. And when my brother came back from the maze and told me everything he and his buddy saw in there and called me a pussy, dammit, I understood he was kind of right. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

'Tis a pity[edit]

... all the pro-lifers aren't shrieking in favor of some form of gun control. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

That's because they aren't pro-life, not really. They're pro-suffering. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
They aren't pro-life they are pro-birth. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
So if they are pro-suffering they are pro-gun massacres? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Obviously. They care more about protecting access to instruments of death and pain than protecting others. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
And when the gun points at them and their family? Bellum omnium contra omnes and beyond? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
They only care if the NRA lobby cares. Which it doesn't. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, they're aware of the gun control. They just don't think it'll save lives, though compared to outlawing abortion and unwittingly making quality of life worse for everyone. Unlikes the guns, abortion is Kaieling the Babbos, and the so-called pro-lifers bring it up at every opportune moment (yes I've seen so-called pro-lifers bring it up when Donald Trump was attacking the Endangered Species Act in the vein of "you guys care more about some animal but you kill bajillions of babies"; this is borderline fetishization). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's called "single issue voter", essentially. Latch onto one issue, get into a coalition as humans tend to do, and you tend to poo-poo away all the inherent contradictions the tribe offers to your position. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The 'pro-lifers' should be adopting lots of unwanted children (particularly those with life limiting conditions) and supporting Foundling Hospitals etc while living in a high population density area - otherwise they are a load of #### hypocrites.
Does Qiānggǎn zi lǐmiàn chū zhèngquán apply to the NRA? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Self radicalization report by ikanreed. I've decided that "pro-life" is not just a casual hypocrisy, but a consciously engineered one, a tool for the right wing to leverage as they are quite reasonably attacked on moral grounds. "Guns are a major cause of death for 18-35 year olds, approaching car accidents? Well you kill babies." "Cutting food aid and unemployment is killing people and driving drug addiction? Well you kill babies" "We're bombing innocents in yemen and it's a humanitarian crisis on the order of millions of deaths and displacements? Well you kill babies". "We're locking babies in jail cells for no reason and they're dying of typhus? Well you kill babies" It's an infinite reuse escape hatch for every moral argument, and very purposefully ignores the actual ethical questions of forced birth to set a case that can be asserted blindly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Term for religious inability to see sexual innuendo?[edit]

Ray's banana video is one case, but I'm sure we can all think of others. (For me, the URL joelstrumpet.com reads "Joel Strumpet dot com.") Has anyone coined a word or phrase for this phenomenon? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

TV Tropes calls it Entendre Failure, although without being specifically religious. --Annanoon (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Some things are cylinders for practical reasons. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks: good old TV Tropes. And, sometimes a banana is just a cigar? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, sometimes human beings re-engineered a round fruit into a curved cylindrical one because it was more economic to produce bunches that way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
But wouldn't that lead to asexual reproduction outside traditional Veggie Tales marriages? Think of the children! CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I REACHED 500 SUBSCRIBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

Yes I am gloating. I am happy about it. Didn't think people would actually like my content. Sorry if it seems like advertising. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't wait for you to start e-begging on Patreon. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a pretty spiteful take. Let the guy be happy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 16:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
trigger warning airhorn PEWWW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEWWWWWW Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Can I write my university essays on Rational Wiki sandbox?[edit]

Hi all. I'm the type of person who loves editing Wikipedia too much, to the point that I cannot concentrate on writing anything on the Words. I have my university essays but I cannot focus if I'm writing them on the Words and the deadline is approaching, so I want to write on the Sandbox of RationalWiki. As soon as I finish writing, I will delete them all. Would there be any copyrights issues? Would plagiarism detector find out about the written material deep down inside the Fossil record of RationalWiki? Thanks a lot :) Dogeatsdog (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

that doesn't at all sound like a made up problem that no one has ever suffered from. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You can easily create your own wiki. It doesn't have to be the terrible fandom server. Wikidot offers better conditions. It's extremely easy to use etc. I can't really understand what the problem is just using a word processor, but if you must use a wiki, I don't think rationalwiki sandbox is the best place. It would be ever so very very slightly disruptive, especially with it showing up in the recent changes and other reports/logs. ShabiDOO 13:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I see, never thought creating my own wiki is that easy. I think I'll try to get used to using Microsoft words anyway. Thanks for responses :) Dogeatsdog (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You can user your personal user space for such, @Dogeatsdog. Oxyaena Harass 13:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
No wait, don't, your work will be added to the plagiarism database if you do, @Dogeatsdog. It'll detect the writing as being from RationalWiki, don't do this. Oxyaena Harass 15:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Crap, what happens to the material I already deleted, but still technically accesible through the Fossil record? Dogeatsdog (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll send direct message to you @Oxyaena, I assume its less of a concern for public now. Dogeatsdog (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Also you should know that legally you are granting everyone in the world the right to re-use and freely change any essay you post for any purpose as long as they attribute your work to you. And deleting it doesn't revoke that right. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I saw the 'original content' template on every essay pages, and that was the moment I thought this might be not so much a perfect idea... Dogeatsdog (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I would strongly advise against this since web crawlers will keep your work in databases and plagiarism checkers may detect it and flag an issue. — Dysk (contribs) 16:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Twitter mentality[edit]

I really hate twitter, there seems to be a mentality of “guilty until proven innocent.” People don’t need evidence, they just require someone to say that something is true and people will believe it. I believe that any accusations of sexual misconduct, physical, emotional or mental abuse should be taken seriously and investigated, however, they shouldn’t be assumed as being true or false right from the get go. I understand that evidence in some of these cases is very difficult to obtain, but automatically discarding the accusations as false or accepting them as true is, frankly, irresponsible, damaging and potentially life destroying.

Critical eye, objective point of view and looking at the facts is vital to avoid any potential harm, despite that, people don’t seem to realise that, and I don’t know if the world is insane or me coming off my meds is distorting my view of reality but it seems like people will just go with whatever anyone says as long as they are the first ones to say it.

Of course, this was sparked by the recent case of Alec H. as of writing this, no further development has came out regarding the accusations: they may have been valid, they may have been false; the simple truth is that no one’s knows for certain aside from the parties involved... Whatever the case may be, I hope the truth will come out.

How many times does stuff like this have to happen for people to learn to 1) wait for more information to come out to make a judgment and 2) not harass people?

I’m not the only one who thinks this right? I just wanna know if people think what I said holds any validity because, to me, what I said does make sense from both a logical and ethical standpoints.—WMS (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I hate "social" media (Twitter, facebook & YT's community (I've seen too much shit in the past 13 years, even getting harassed on FB when I played a game called "mafia wars" by 3 people above the age of 40 back in 2009-2010)) in general. Good luck in trying to convince anyone on Twitter with the above. Politically incorrectness is the newest trend on Twitter (One of our university teachers, Marc Van Ranst, who hates Far-Righters, got reported by Young Flemish-Interest on both FB & Twitter. This ended in Marc getting banned from Twitter and suspended from FB for 30 days. Makes me wonder whether the Twitter & FB staff is Far-Right or not...). Tinribmancer (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem with social media, especially Twitter, is the same as the problem with poorly used compression. So, compression is useful, and while it's great to see everybody have a voice, the channels that get blown up don't necessarily mean anything when anybody gets a say in turning up their favorite voice's ratio. As opposed to being moderated, just getting turned up because a lot of people like that part of the conversation, over-hyping a point because you only like gotcha moments works well for social media. But it hurts the overall discussion, by incentivizing attack and ratio over recognizing threshold, and I'll drop the metaphor now. It devalues the hard work it takes to even get something into the conversation, like civil rights, gender equality, and sexual expression, and makes it even easier to just say that shit is new and different. That shit is like, 50-60 years old. It's like that primetime lineup rerun, "If I haven't seen it, it's new to me." These are things that started before social media. I'm not the type of person to just drop a bomb on it and say "there you go, tards," because I'm bad at putting my opinion in a chain and having it come out right too. Social media is a great way to communicate and express ourselves, however, social media as a marketplace of ideas encourages our basest tendencies, to group up, to go to war with the other, to only value the sickest burn on an aesthetic level. I don't think it was intended to do so, but it is really good at enabling it, and I don't think major social media sites have a problem with the traffic that creates. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Twitter is a shit fest. If it dissappeared right now, the world would instantly be a better place, nothing would be lost, everyone but social-media creeps would win. Having said that, I don't really think your problem here is with twitter per se. That is just a new forum for pointing out the enormous amount of sexual harassment and rape that has gone until now pretty much unreported for centuries. It's the public accusation that mostly men have extremely strong emotional reactions to. For a variety of reasons. Fear that they might be wrongly accused. Fear the may be rightfully accused. A default position of doubt when women accuse men (you'll notice that when men accuse other men of rape there tends to be zero outrage of "judged before trial" or the default skepticism you see towards women. Same when women are accused of sexual assault, it's generally not doubted. But if we were to take your "logical argument" seriously we'd have to compare it with other related accusations which could have equally devastating results if falsely accused. For example child abuse (physically slapping around your children), corporate fraud, attempted murder etc. While there are also cases of false accusations that can totally destroy lives, there seems to be little online outrage about this. It cannot come down to the fact that it happens less (which may be true) because there are still enough examples of false accusations to destroy lives to make them quite relevant. And yet you hear no one ever saying "hey now wait, lets not just believe he beats his kids until we have evidence and the whole story". That would be the same as with Skrelli who was under the rumor mill of accusations of corporate fraud, of which few doubted it and next to no one said "hey lets be fair...we should wait for a proper investigation and trial". Remember, these false accusations also thoroughly destroy lives. And they aren't rare. And of course lets keep in mind the rate of false accusations of sexual assault is also quite low. So unless you are proposing that we limit all our judgements of all serious accusations, hold our opinions and shaming of it, perhaps even not make such claims publically but deal with all of these directly with the police...then its hard to take it seriously. It reeks of men showing an irrational fear of false accusations and a broader general skepcticism of these trouble making women and their "allged" accusations. If your argument was broader about the general injustice of online shaming, I'd maybe be with you (if you could propose an actual policy or law). But focusing specifically on sexual harassment/rape (almost always women accusing men) tells me there is almost certainly an underlying bias or irrational or exaggerated fear/skepticism behind it. ShabiDOO 04:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I am right in line with this. And as a caveat, I am a straight, white, cisgender man. I hope this wasn't in response to me, but if it was, cool, I've got all the trappings. I don't need to qualify myself as an ally. I would hope my words and actions would explain what I'm saying, as I really believe there are abuses and power imbalances, and I truly believe that the work done to get Twitter to its battleground state was hard, real, and worthwhile. I'm not saying everything that drops on Twitter is weak or not worth listening to. I'm saying that the compression is so high that bad ideas and good ideas get the same level of amplitude. And you don't have to believe me, but I am very empathetic towards people who have experienced a greyout to get through abuse but realize that the shit was straight up nasty later, and I am very much in favor of them having a platform. And I believe it happens, honestly. Social media gives a unique platform, but it is the same loud platform shared by the people who think it must be a fantasy. Like I said, it's a good concept, but the compression is so high it devalues legitimacy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I should have worded my original argument a little better, my focus was on accusations of assault be it physical, mental, emotional or sexual as that’s what I’ve mostly heard about. But I agree, whatever the accusation may be, be it corporate corruption or whatever else, the same process should follow. If you think that by that post I was meant to encourage doubt in regards to women accusing men, that wasn’t my original intention. If it’s woman accusing a man, a man accusing a woman, a woman accusing a woman, a man accusing a man, I don’t think that the accusations should be dismissed automatically or accepted automatically, I just wish that people didn’t jump to conclusion straight away like. Like you’ve pointed out, this shouldn’t be limited to just accusations of sexual misconduct, and i whole heartedly agree, I should have made that more clear and I’m sorry I didn’t. As mentioned previously, I think that any serious accusations should be taken seriously, but jumping the gun and assuming them to be false or correct based on nothing but whim is just unfair to the person either wrongfully accused or the person who has genuinely went through a traumatic experience. On top of that, the harassment that ensues any case of of accusations is just down right sickening.—WMS (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I hope that this post didn’t make me seem like some angry MRA, I’m not that and I’ll never will be, at the base of the argument I held fairness and rationality as the core. I hope that it didn’t make me seem like some angry sexist or something and if it did, I do sincerely apologise at my misguided argument. I hope no one thinks less of me, if someone could please clarify if my belief is wrong or immoral please let me know and I’ll adjust it to be more morally sound; as of right now I’m here freaking out thinking that I may hold a belief that is really damaging and that I’m a bad person. I apologise if that’s the case and I’ll be sure to improve. Just someone please clarify if they can, this feeling of doubt and being afraid that I’m a bad person with an awful belief is killing me. I’m really really sorry if I came across that way and I hope you guys can forgive me.—WMS (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The idea that SJW Twitter lynch mobs have any real power is laughable. All they can do is drive someone off Twitter, which is a mercy. They can't stop people making films or appearing on Fox or getting elected. --Annanoon (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a certain sort of person who is Moral and Absolutely Right and everyone else is Absolutely Wrong, and that type of personality applies to *way* more scenarios than the whole MRA vs. SJW smackdown on Twitter (though it certainly applies to a lot of "Twitter Wars"). If you are the type of person who, in the past, would write countless letters to the editor to your local newspaper complaining about all the various sins of the world, or would complain about some media being Against A Religious Belief without actually seeing it, or watch such televised justice circus shitfests (such as the Nancy Grace driven "tot-mom" Casey Anthony spectacle) secretly hoping for lurid storylines and guilty verdicts, you are probably on social media complaining about something these days -- it's a "letters to the editor" without editorial filtering, frankly, these days. On this specific subject, as has been the case for a *while*, some "feminism" (usually the more end described as "radical") I see seems no different from the "Church Ladies" of the past, in that the advocee's goal is to more to prove that they are morally superior versus advancing the cause of human rights. Bar a few legit cases where the paradigm of society gives men the short end of the stick (think divorce custody), I in general find the "men's rights" movement much more laughable though, the executive summary of 90% of the MRA movement seems to be whining that they can't hook up with a supermodel like they "deserve" to or something. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
PS: To WMS (can't find the reply email function so I'll do it here) -- if you are not making an argument in bad faith, then don't worry about being accused of being an "MRA" by somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about. In general I would say to hell with anyone who brings up snarl words like "MRA" or "SJW" in an argument. There are people who are quick to rush to judgement in this world (which is what the above little rant was about). For the most part, their opinions can safely be ignored -- anyone who uses a snarl word in an argument has in general lost the argument from the get go. I'm not going to think that you're an MRA just because you believe in the principle of innocent before proven guilty. I think anyone who *would* think of you as an MRA for that is, frankly, a fucking idiot who is bucking at least three centuries of common understanding of what is morally proper in a legal system. (Social media mob mentality is actually one of its huge problems, morally speaking.) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mate, that put things into a perspective and I appreciate the reply. Sorry for going off the deep end, as my user name suggests, I’m not all that when it comes to anxiety :P.—WMS (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Now that we're on the same page, let's address something real quick. Being outraged by somebody who assumes straight white men are MRAs is a nutso backwards stance. Being able to say "Well, I get that, but I think you got me wrong" is a step you have to take if you want to engage an argument directed at you that isn't about you. If you don't want to take that step, you don't have to. Because MRAs aren't made up, racists aren't imaginary, and being scared of racism or misogyny is a default position for people who have spent their entire lives existing under a majority curtain, having every single idea beat down as abnormal. They may not have the right to be indiscriminately upset, but do you get it? Anybody might turn around and tell them that's not the way to think? Being scared or offended at being misread on sight alone is something we have to actually deal with, and as unfortunate as it always is, we have very few spaces to complain about it without being made fun of. It does not matter how many societies in history have had slaves or been racist or sexist or subjugated one type of person or the other, this is our society. The history of mistakes does not justify anything. But it does also matter. Nobody should subjugate themselves over these ideas, and you can believe that, and patiently stand in the face of false accusations and wait for your turn to say that, because we know that being a straight white male doing nothing antagonizing is the most protected place you'll ever be. If you don't want to be called an MRA because you're a cis white man, well, that's out of your control. Your best defense against being labeled an MRA is to recognize the anger and get over it, not call it stupid or misguided. There is a revenge-porn aspect to hating white men going on, but you'll find most people don't actually hate people they talk to, so give them a little space, validate their very real frustrations, and talk to them. Don't fucking go all in on "SJWs are cancer" or "The patriarchy is the secret manifestation of the white man." Like, fuck, why do people still talk to each other like that? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Very well put, I do wish people would engage in a more civilised and respectful manner, but as you know ad hominem is more frequent than we’d like it to be. The reason I got so anxious about that is because I always dealt with the fear of not being a good person, mixed with mental issues on top of that, it creates a really paranoid and depressive mindset. I just got a bit freaked out that my argument may have been misinterpreted as being sexist (which I hope it hasn’t) and I got freaked out that I made a very poor judgment call and people would hate me. But like you said, if someone misinterprets something we did, there’s most likely a history behind that and all we can do is respectfully address the concern.—WMS (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
If you could only see me in my day to day life. White male culture is moving in a few directions right now. The one I've chosen is the walking safe space. But the fact that I get to choose is straight up my privilege first, and I'm not always right with myself over it. I couldn't even convincingly tell you what happened in my world today, there's too much backstory, there's too many pages. A swallow was cut down in cold blood in my warehouse with my airsoft rifle by a 2x state champion rifle marksman, but then he didn't want to pick it up off the floor as it lay there bleeding out. I said "I'll put on some fucking gloves" and another guy, who I've known for a long time said "No, I've got gloves on, I'll do it." The boss, who explicitly wanted the bird dead over it tripping his alarm, paid the guy 20 bucks as promised to kill the bird and said "I really like swallows. They eat a lot of bugs." and I, being the guy in charge of the fucking warehouse, cleaned up the blood. I heard its death song, it told every other swallow to go away, because there's danger here. But when I was Lysoling the blood streaks off floor and said "Few creatures get a dignified death, I'm sure they'll make more Swallows" everybody got a little awkwardly happy. These are people who spent around an hour of their time chasing this bird around throwing shit at it, because they thought that would chase it out. In the end, for 20 bucks, one guy hunted it down and it got shot, it died. I been there 10 years. First bird to die in our warehouse. I made the joke that "Well, if it hadn't been shot, me and my environmentalist friends would have killed it with a windmill." Didn't lighten the mood. Couldn't have helped that I was cleaning its blood up off the floor. Killing something that can chirp and sing and get confused sucks. [User:Gol Sarnitt|Gol Sarnitt]] (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah so no I don't think you need to be paranoid about coming across as an MRA because there is a huge difference between what you typed and the worst kind of interpretation that could be taken from it vs. the kind of vile stupid shit they post all over the internet. I'd recommend when dealing with issues involving race/class/gender or subjects that touch on it, to be quite mindful of the words you use. Better to just discuss the topic in general (like judging crimes before they've been tried in court) than to use an example which is contentious and ripe on the internet for toxic discourse (victims of sexual abuse/harassment). I think all of us have written countless sentences that with hindsight could have been worded a LOT better. But back to the twitter mentality: yes it is horridly toxic. I wish there was a nuke button for online commentary. I'd press it a thousand times and feel good knowing I made a good difference in this world. ShabiDOO 20:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I’ll keep that in mind mate, thanks for pointing it out that by the way, it will help me be more conscious and mindful of how I word my arguments in the future, and be sure to use speak more generally when dealing with these kind of issues in the future, I really appreciate that mate :). But yeah, I wish there was a button to just nuke all that kind of toxic commentary, would make the world a much nicer place.—WMS (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Because the world was a nicer/kinder/more understanding place before the broad exchange of ideas was available to everyone? It is exactly as cruel and cold and warm and human as it always was, outside there in the world, regardless of the easy pickings social media has to offer. Just not so many different people willing to explicitly weigh in with their opinions when there's no weight behind it. Personal interaction is much messier, but people who are not psychopaths tend to treat physical social interaction in good faith. Nuke all social media isn't my preferred way of dealing with it. I mostly just stay off of it, since I understand how it personally affects me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)