RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive324

This is an archive page, last updated 20 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>, <323>, <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>

, (new)(back)

Favorite games

So, I know this is, on paper, off mission, but that's what the bar is for, from my understanding, and this shouldn't crowd it with youtube links. The only two games I'm officially willing to admit to playing are the Sims and Flight Simulator 2. But I'd like to list some really good games and see the games you guys like. I think it could be a cathartic experience. I would just ask as little geeking as possible (i.e. don't explain what your favorite games are about or why they are your favorite games, short-listing 1 - 5 games, and only smugly judging others' taste in games silently to yourself.) I get to go first (that's a siblings-sharing-a-controller joke).

1. Super Mario World

1. NieR: Automata

1. Guilty Gear X2

1. Arcanum: of Steamworks and Magick Obscura

1. Grim Fandango

Ok, yeah, I'm pretty happy with that list. Couldn't get the number thing to work right, but they are all kinda number 1s in my book, so whatever.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I like Super Mario World but imo I don't see how it's superior over the more modern Mario platformers and that includes the remake that adds a bevy of improvements.

Super Smash Bros. Is a beloved series for me, been playing since I was roughly four or five. Recent games have chock ton of content.

I play games with mods. I sometimes make mods. If you play Left 4 Dead and search for Mario mods, chances are you'll find mine.

My nonMario library is stupidly small but I surprise people.

I like Mario because I love the character for sometimes reasons I don't understand sometimes but I also love the pretty cartoon world and it's devoid of egregious violence or overly abusive and complicated politics. The gameplay is ridiculously simple and easy to learn, and it's really fun for kids and adults. It's also a huge series and a huge source of geeking out and I can tell you everything about Mario like that Mario is a 24 year old chap who enjoys new wave pop according to some mid 90s character bio, and he tipped over the Empire State building in some German comic. Luigi is also a twin, not just a younger sibling. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, I said no geeking. But I will say that Super Mario World was the first 2D platformer that included a little kid crutch (Yoshi) to finish the game in a linear fashion, but also encouraged stage exploration in a way that really nobody in the SNES era could follow suit with. I was like, 3, when I started playing the game. I was like, 6 or 7, before I realized you gotta ditch Yoshi if you want to not be satisfied just beating Bowser. Find those hidden levels that are on the map, the hidden exits are pretty high concept. And it's not like I had the internet teaching me how to find them, it was 1994, I was 7, I had no concept of a walkthrough. Star Road was a good way of showing the exits aren't always the right exit. The first time I messed up and went under the ribbon on Cheese Bridge screwed me up bad. I found Soda Lake after a couple more tries, and I checked if I could go under every ribbon in the game. Cheese Bridge was the only place it worked.

I will also admit that I am terrifyingly bad at 3D platformers. I recently played through Trover Saves the Universe, and I can't tell you how much I appreciated the little indicator that shows where on the ground you are in relation to where your character is in the air. Every 3D platformer needs that indicator. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is all just silly. its been scientifically proven that super Mario kart for the snes was the best video game ever created. if you disagree you are worse than hitler AMassiveGay (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Super Mario Kart was a pretty fun game at the time, but it kinda sucks a bit on polish and hasn't kept its age like super mario world did. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The Mario games are the best franchise, for sure, but if I had to pick one game I'd choose Bubble Bobble in a heartbeat. They invented alternate endings, after all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If I'm ranking games I've never played based on how much their music is stuck in my head, bubble bobble is a clear winner. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Super Mario Kart isn't that great especially when Mario Kart Super Circuit has all its tracks and controls better anyway. Super Mario Kart has a really weird and archaic item box, the screen is weirdly split in two, the CPU throws one type of item at you constantly, boosting has no feedback, karts feel super slippery, and Choco Island is just the worst thing. It'll be second to last or last on my ranking of Mario Kart (rivaling the unplayable Mario Kart 64). I can't see how any Mario Kart is superior to Mario Kart 8 in terms of track design.

I like the secret exits and while World did it most extensively, I'm not fond of backtracking in places and there's no reason to grab Dragon Coins since the original SNES game doesn't record it while the GBA remake does (and it adds Dragon Coins in castles and ghost houses). In Cheese Bridge, it's easier to just ditch Yoshi under the goal gate, but I did it via flying with a cape. I reckon you found the Top Secret Area with the free powerups in Donut Plains?

Anyway, the first serious Mario platformer I did play was New Super Mario Bros. And I enjoyed it way more than Super Mario Bros. 3. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That was one of my favorite things to do in SMW: Cheese the game with the cape/yoshi to get access to secret exits you shouldn't normally be able to reach yet. (I know quite a few required activating the switches first) Being able to get to the final level in about 20 minutes is also super satisfying to pull off.--Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 21:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy, this oughtta be a fun list:

- Sonic the Hedgehog 3 & Knuckles: amazing game that proves the "Sonic was never good" argument dead wrong. Mania is also pretty good.
- Super Mario World: Timeless classic! That end-of-level jingle and iris out never gets old.
- Rayman Legends: underrated 2D Platformer that is one of the most gorgeous looking games I've ever seen
- The Binding of Isaac: This game is like a curse, I hate the shitty RNG and everything it stands for to death yet the addicting gameplay and replayability keeps me coming back, can't wait for the new DLC.

--Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 21:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have the Sega collection. I've played Sonic 3, it's definitely a conduit to the earlier Sonic games. Whichever Sonic was on GBA, that's the one that was really built to choose between speedrunning and exploring levels. Going back from that, it's like "Either I suck or the game sucks." I still can't get anything out of that pinball bonus shit, and I completely understand the concept. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

SNES Mario Kart was everything to me when I was a kid. When Mario Kart 64 came out and there was no brake and no Koopa, I was hurt. I was hurt bad. And yeah, the NPCs always had the same item to throw out. But when you're playing with your little cousin, it's very cool it has a co-op mode. And when you're playing against your little cousin, it's very cool you can shrink your guy down, I think by holding Y and tapping B 5 times. Which I didn't find out about for a while. It's also funny to me that DK Jr. is the guy in the game. But it doesn't earn a spot, even if I loved it, because no racing game is ever going to get a spot on my top 5. I like some racing games. I prefer flight simulation over anything else in the vehicle genre. SHIT, I should have swapped out one of those for Red Baron, that is one of my favorite games. It was a WWI flight sim where you had to fly WWI missions with WWI planes. Guns would jam, one hit might make you bleed out, and if you flew your plane too hard it might flat out break from the stress of your maneuvers. No restarts if you didn't save right, pilot is just listed as deceased. Great game. Man, this is why I said no geeking, now I'm out of control. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's my list if anyone cares

-Metro Redux

-Battle Academy

-Wii Sports Resort

-Halo Reach

-Dust, A Elysian Tale

Tanker One (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Woah, hold on, I haven't played any of those games but I've heard about a couple. Let's see if I have it right. We've got an FPS horror, an RTS (or is it a turn base?), a casual/brilliant use of peripheral controllers, a no-gimmick FPS, and a side-scrolling action game? Very cool choices. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I will have to try Dust out, I might look at Battle Academy, but I never finished Advance Wars. My favorite iteration of a side-scrolling action game was Castlevania: Harmony of Despair. The gameplay matched PS2 and beyond, but you got to slam old Castlevania maps as a team (and I found a Richter exploit) with your homies. That was way more fun to me than just playing Symphony of the Night or Bloodstained. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to play a match on Battle Academy, DM me at anytime. I never heard of Advance Wars, I would to check out.Tanker One (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I see all your immersive multi-mega-epic stuff and raise you Sensible Soccer. Avida Dollars^{her again} 09:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

sensible soccer was fantastic and I don't even like football. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

My all time favorite, City of Heroes, has been recently revived. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

And in something of a departure from the present lists, mine would be--

Sonic 3 and Knuckles (The final, and to my mind near perfection, of the Sonic franchise, with one possible exception)

Sonic CD (The abovementioned possible exception. You needed a Sega CD unit to play it, though. Which I had.)

Lunar Eternal Blue (Now, THERE was a magnificent RPG, only to finally be surpassed by...)

Final Fantasy VII (Literally why I bought the original Playstation, and have never regretted the choice)

Final Fantasy IX (Vivi, my boy. The heartstrings still are tugged by you. Although I swore that Kuja was a girl throughout the entire first disc until he turned around to face the camera...)

Final Fantasy XI Online (Yes, there is a trend here.)

World of Warcraft (What can I say? Mists of Pandaria finalized that one for me... kinda fell in love with my deadly panda people.)

Yeah, kinda into the RPG thing a bit more than most here, and these days it may be fashionable to dump on WoW, but it's still better than any other MMORPG out there-- except possibly FFXIV Online, and I don't play that nearly enough for it to take it's place. Kencolt (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried Sonic Mania? It's pretty much on par if not very slightly better than Sonic 3K --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 17:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Man, you guys got the Sega/PlayStation mentality. I sometimes really wish I could like those games. I can't get into Final Fantasy, I played too much Baldur's Gate. I can't get into GTA 3 or beyond. Or Fallout 3 and beyond, I played too much Fallout/Fallout 2. Skyrim was just an exercise in making a stupid strong unarmed character, which is bull, because Oblivion actually had unarmed moves you could pull. Why make the numbers bigger and also remove the mechanics? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Undertale changed my life in ways games don't usually do. For that, it has a special place in my heart. Honorary mention to Dwarf Fortress, Civilization series, Europa Universalis IV, Rimworld, FTL, and Nethack for being my otherwise-favourites, neither mentioned by anyone above to my surprise! Dark Fire (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

i'm a big fan of the gears of war games purely because there are so few games these days with decent couch coop, especially of that type. played though 1 to 4 with my nephew, probably do 5 as well at some point. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's the better part of a game. I really liked Monster Hunter: World, even if one time early on I had a guy add me as a friend just so he could tell me I was trash and wasted his time. I got better at the game, he wasted his own time in the long-game. Couch Co-op is the only reason I played Halos 2 and 3. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The Walmart Weapon situation

https://i.ibb.co/NrLt9ZS/Walmart-weapons.png https://i.ibb.co/wQdBJQz/walmart-weapons-2.png https://i.ibb.co/7SMWZJK/walmart-weapons-3.png https://i.ibb.co/kDmn0tf/walmart-weapons-4.png

Seriously, why not do this from the beginning instead of removing video games from your shelves? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The point of such moves is free advertisement. Wal-Mart cares exactly zero about shootings, mass or otherwise. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I expected exactly nil from Wal-Mart so the fact they plan to stop selling the ammunition used in semi-auto short barrel rifles and handguns deserves something. Not like a medal, or thanks, or even Twitter praise, but may be like an quiet exhalation muttered at a computer screen?RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought they just removed the advertising and demos, not the vidya themselves. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Cuckservative: OH NOES muh largely defensive weapon oF gun! HALP PLS! 184.181.12.187 (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You're using cuck unironically... I mean, I get it, but... Maybe you should read Tartuffe. It's a play, it's a lot easier to read than a book, it's only dialogue. And it's funny. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt What is the point of this? 184.181.12.187 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

People typically read as a means of gaining insight or for entertainment, often both. Plays are a form of writing that are designed for actors to present on stage. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I see, you think I'm stupid because I said "cuckservative." Well fuck you only 7% of goats like your fucking dumbass. 184.181.12.187 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no non-condescending way to reply to you, sorry. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's honestly hard. I'm tryna help you. Do you really think I would reference a 1664 play because I don't support your opinions? Let me be blunt. In 2005, I took a World Literature class in high school, and we read Tartuffe, and I learned what the word "Cuck" meant. In like, 2014 or 2015 people started saying "cuck" pretty casually. Now, if I learned it in high school, and you learned it from the internet, I would call it a fucking wash. But if you missed it in high school, and let's say in the most unlikely scenario one of my trash classmates introduced it to the lexicon, and you picked it up and just ran with it, you are still missing out. So do you have time to explore a snarl word you clearly have no problems throwing around? Do you think I've done no reading between 2005 and today? Why do you think I'm calling out your use of the word cuck in a portmanteau? You could look that up, too, iffin yuntu. Crap, there really isn't a non-condescending way to do this...Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy Founder Comes Out^{[No, not The Onion]}

Okay, the title is a little misleading. He's actually the founder of one program the homophobic Truth Ministry, which, as you may have guessed, is one of many conversion therapy "ministries". He has also come out and apologized.

I didn't know which WIGO space this belonged in, so I just put it here. G Man (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Haggard's law strikes again. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's real, it's news - it's in the World WIGO! :) TBF I didn't notice this post - you beat me to it, and thanks for link to Haggard's Law - was struggling to remember what it was.Aloysius the Gaul 00:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I already added him to Reparative therapy#Relapsed. Bongolian (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A lot of gay people don't like Haggard's law because it kinda ends up blaming homophobia on gayness which is, itself, kinda homophobic. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the Haggard's law because it's simply not true. Go to just about any locker room and you'll hear the word fag mentioned about 1,000 times. While there are certainly more gay people in that locker room than most people would realize, its certainly not nearly the entire locker room. I'd say it's pretty much the same in a texan evangelical church where nearly the entire congregation is obsessed with gay hate. No doubt some of them are closeted (and living in hysterical fear) but again, I doubt nearly the whole church is gay. Since no one has ever done a study on the topic...this is nothing but pure speculation (slightly malicious speculation at that as all it does is cast LGTB in a purely negative way when it isn't necessary). ShabiDOO 22:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad to help, Aloysius. ;) G Man (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Follies: Boris Johnson edition

Let's be honest, he's the UK version of Trump isn't he? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"Part of the same failed cloning experiment" is the way I've heard it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnson at least has some semblance convictions, and isn't openly corrupt.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

he has no convictions. he has nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

He has hair that is allowed to express its natural state. Aloysius the Gaul 00:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't believe it when I read that British politics has a way for their leaders to just send politicians off. Disagree, well, the boss says you're not allowed to be part of the political party, then. Holy shit, that's nuts. And maybe it's just a little more transparent in the UK, but shit, man. Shit. I'm reeling over here. This is not ok, this is not good governance. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

of all the things that is wrong in uk politics right now, some tories having the whip withdrawn is not high on the list. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

and since they've voted against a general election, it makes no difference to those tories - they still have a seat (and they ae still tories, its just the whip thats been withdrawn). its only a big deal for them in elections where they get to find out if there constituents voted for them or the party. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Its funny, I quite often see Johnson described as 'far-right. Prior to 2016 Johnson was widely regarded as being one of the more liberal members of the Conservative Party. If supporting Brexit makes one far-right then someone needs to inform George Galloway and Dennis Skinner. --RWRW (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anyone suggesting he is far right. Just that he's a moral-free opportunist with no convictions other than self-interest.Hubert (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just an observation on something I quite often see. --RWRW (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

whats more is that moral free opportunism has him siding with right of his party, with his cabinet full of the cunts, and no less than 4 out of 5 authors of Britannia unchained in cabinet positions - people who feel that thatcher was a wet. boris lack of any kind of conviction, morals or plan puts him on the far right by default. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Plus his meetings with Steve Bannon[1]; his circle jerk with Donald Trump[2][3]; Islamophobic comments[4]; allegations of misogyny[5][6]; use of inflammatory language about traitors/treason/war etc; and his rejection of one-nation Conservatism, compromise, or conciliation. Whether you call him far-right or hard-right (perhaps a better term), since quitting as Foreign Secretary, he's definitely reshaped himself from a fairly moderate Mayor of London to an extreme nationalist who's trying to pick a fight with pretty much everyone to the left of him. He may not believe any of it, but that's little comfort. --Annanoon (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

When Reality Proves You Wrong

Dip shit Tweeted this earlier in the week. It was so incredibly wrong, NOAA had to let the world no, in fact Alabama wasn't under any threat.This made Trump all hot and bothered about being called out for being totally wrong, that today at a press conference about Dorian, he showed an old projection WITH MAGIC MARKER ADDING A SPUR OVER SE ALABAMA. How can he be so thin skinned, and also bad at this. WaPo analysis is spot on.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This would make for great comedy if it weren't for the fact that this clown is in office. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I fought against the Keystone Pipeline hard and strong. When the argument was against the pipeline going through the Sandhills, our Republican Governor Lee Terry met with TransCanada and put out a new map, an acceptable route, where the pipeline didn't touch the Sandhills. Yeah, all it did was shrink the Sandhills like 150 miles from its original eastern border in order to maintain the route of the pipeline. This is an old tool in the corporate wheelhouse, fuck with the map all willy-nilly, because citizens don't have access to the maps. They haven't caught up with the times yet, and it shows. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Or do whatever you want, put a paper thin lie overtop, and enough people are republicans that you get away with it. The 21st century is the era of "nuh uh" politics. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I really like the trump map story, mostly because I have now found out what a "sharpie" is. I had always wondered but had never been sufficiently motivated to look it up.Hubert (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Those are not the facts as I recall. CNN mistakenly labeled Alabama as Mississippi in the hurricane path. When Trump corrected their error, CNN and the communists PIDOOMA'd criticism of Trump, as usual. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 19:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Jesus you are so inept. CNN fixed their error almost immediately. Trump has spent THE LAST FIVE DAYS trying to justify tweeting out a statement based on three-day old information from when he sent the initial tweet(it's also incredible that this particular image is not from NOAA, and even states that it's to be ignored if NOAA produces a map), then going 1984, having NOAA send an internal memo about not correcting the WH, then sending out an unsigned document supporting Trump OVER THEIR OWN SCIENTISTS . What does it tell you about the conservative movement in America when it will support a man who's statements on Twitter regularly threaten the lives of Americans and the ability to believe the government.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Dysk left

Welp. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What? Why? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal reasons I'd rather not disclose. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

so why mention it at all?? ಠ_ಠ Aloysius the Gaul 01:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is there a complaint though? I mean, he dusted his page. But the fuck, are you mourning or gloating? It doesn't make sense, are you just breaking news? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is about the incident with the raw shrimp, tell Dysk I’m sorry and that I promise not to use shellfish that way ever again. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 02:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sort of mourning, sort of breaking news. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

When I joined the menagerie, Dysklyver, I think, could be remembering that spelling wrong, was pretty active. I don't edit mainspace, because I'll never, ever be good enough to, but I'll sort of mourn the loss too. Be less stressed, wherever you land, D. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Was it because of the Uncyclopedia thing? They felt more distant after that debacle. Commie Lib (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sort of, just a lot of shit too complicated to get into. I too have become more distant and less active, I probably won't be leaving tho. They've become more distant even with me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm sorry to see him go. He was a good editor. Bongolian (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia? Have I missed something? What does Dysk have to do with the light version of Encyclopedia Dramatica? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Dysk got involved in some kind of drama on Uncyc and a bunch of trolls chased him back here. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, them. Dysk is enby. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Enby? Also, is this the reason the bar became a trollfest some time ago? Tinribmancer (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Enby = NB = non-binary. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Who was dysk on uncyclopedia? I don't remember any recent drama involving him unless it was all discord stupidity. Oxyaena are you an uncyclopedian? Duce? ShabiDOO 22:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Dysk was the piece of shit that forced Wikia to cease hosting Uncyc over a petty SJW disagreement of his/hers. Then his/her friends from 8chan spammed the site and discord for weeks harassing the users and admins. Fucking good riddance and you should have banned him/her sooner 192.241.246.22 (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Fairly sure it was Uncyclopeida being fucking shit, and a waste of server space, actually. Revolverman (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You forgot this --> ^{[citation needed]} --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 03:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah Revolver. You can be sure that all uncyclopedians will go home and cry their eyes out from the shattering news: someone on the internet doesn't like uncyclopedia's sense of humour. I'm so devastated I don't think I'll sleep for weeks. ShabiDOO 07:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)}

Dysk was angry at Uncyc's content, which included heavily racist and sexist screeds passed along as "irony," and so he organized an army of trolls from TAOWC to take them out, they waged a hugely successful campaign, even getting Wikia to shut down its Uncyc branch, however the trolls took it too far and started sending dick pics to Uncyc mods, something Dysk now deeply regrets and is ashamed of. As for me, I am no Uncyclopedian and my connections to Dysk are my business and no one else's, sorry. The ultimate reason they left isn't solely due to Uncyc, I'll say that much, but let's just leave it at that. They want to be left alone and we should respect their wishes, Dysk was an important member of this community after all, we owe them that much. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It reminds me a lot of Chef from South Park. Isaac Hays. He participated in a show which put out offensive no-limits hardcore content every single episode making fun of everyone and everything. I believe Isaac Hays spent many a season voicing a character who made endless offensive comments. But then when his religion was lampooned (and it is all too easy to lampoon scientology) it suddenly wasn't acceptable anymore. "Hey...stop making fun of scientologoy or I'm out of here" to which South Park responded with one of it's most beautiful espisodes which clearly parodies the hypocracy of Isaac (or at least the people manipulating him) and his hissyfit voicing all his lines by badly cut and splice Chef lines from other episodes only replacing scientology with a dirty old men travel club. Not a shred of dignity is left when Chef craps his pants at the very end to prove that yes, after all the vertical fall, stone crushing and lion eating his face off...did actually kill him followed by one of South Park's most eloquent speech by Stan on how cultish behaviour can warp otherwise reasonable people. ShabiDOO 15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As has been lately said: everything is funny until it happens to you. In the latter part of my life I have been trying to make myself as small as possible, so not much really happens to me. At least I can laugh about it. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm late but I'm disappointed Dysk left. I wish the best for them, and I hope I didn't go so hard I scared them off the community. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I trust that we all kind of think that way here. But if Dysk left because this is an unhealthy space for them, I think disappointment is the wrong place to start. I get it, it's semantics, and I agree with you, just I would put it as a major bummer for us, and an honest loss. Losing Dysk really sucks, but it's not Dysk's fault. Hopeful for our friend is enough to explain our sentiment, and a good way to talk to ourselves, because if there's disappointment, it's us first and them second. It's not like we know better than them, what they need for themselves, as a person that we like and care about and trust. I like this place and the people here. I'm not bothered by being ignored or shut down or called out on this site. If they have been, well, fuck us, and fuck me too. ….We do get a little semantically charged around here, don't we? Leads to dismission, but I think it's by accident. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The guardian and bias

British political print journalism is utterly abysmal. The ideological manipulation in headlines (and/or opinion columns) reached something of a very ugly climax yesterday. The guardian, the paper I have enjoyed reading the most, because it aligns with my own socialist views, has also been getting worse in the last years. It's headlines have become more and more malicious towards the conservative party regardless of the context and defending Corbyn even when he does something ridiculously stupid. I no longer read it unless I'm curious what kind of headline they come up with when something really notable happens. The UK is unique in this sense, I know of no other country with newspapers which are so utterly ideologically bent (and manipulative or full out lie factories). I am not ashamed of the left leaning newspapers in Canada or Spain or Belgium. I am totally embarassed by it in the UK. My questions are: to what extent are people in the UK aware of how drippingly biased, manipulative and propaganda-driven the newspapers are? Does anyone here staunchly defend the political headlines and opinion pieces that the Guardian comes out with? Why is it the UK cannot have a more balanced newspaper (even the independent paper which is less biased in headlines and articles have extremely biased opinion columns)? ShabiDOO 22:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Because it won't sell, if it ain't biased. Don't know if the US has biased newspapers, but they do have biased news sources. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian seemed to be rather good reporting on US politics from 2015 onward. I haven't paid it much attention regarding UK politics. Historically, most papers in the US have had a bias, but traditionally they have generally tempered this by having at least a token opinion writer from the opposite side of the political spectrum on the staff. Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fox news is similar to the daily mail or Sun in terms of bullshittery if that grounds you. Same owner too. Weird that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Spain has five national news papers. Some lean left and others lean right. As everywhere they have their ideologies and bias but the papers aren't utterly soaked and dripping in it. There is nothing remotely approaching the kind of full out manipulative lie fests that UK papers spit out (and not just the tabloids)...let alone the sensationalism and vicious commentary. The same goes for Belgium and Canada. Again...one question I have is: do most UK readers even realise this? ShabiDOO 07:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Print journalism in the uk is dead. the guardian has to compete on line were everything is hideously biased. thank fuck for the beeb AMassiveGay (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Opinion columns are opinions, they are supposed to be biased. The Guardian actually has several right-wing opinion columnists, most prominently Matthew D'Ancona and Simon Jenkins. Also the Independent is part-controlled by the Saudi government, and part by Russian oligarchs, and in no way should be considered unbiased.[7] --Annanoon (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I hate to be such a snob. But yes, I think that most readers of The Guardian are educated enough to realise how biased it is. Ditto The Daily Telegraph with its right-wing bias. The tabloids, however, are a different matter. Spud (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it may be unfair to suggest that the guardian uncritically supports Corbyn. For example here is "Corbynism’s greatest liability is now Jeremy Corbyn himself" which is pretty critical. I can't imagine Fox running something similar about Trump. Or the Telegraph about Johnson.Hubert (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

any article that doesn't portray him as dead weight is uncritical support for Corbyn. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay It's kind of a nightmare scenario; Johnson seems to be reeling and potentially in freefall, but I can't imagine anyone stepping up to replace him because Corbyn has been busy pissing away his political capital and dithering over Brexit until it was too late. Anyone wanna take bets on an independent Scotland and unitied Ireland in the near future? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGayYour biased evaluation of an article about Corbyn is not evidence that the article is biased :) Aloysius the Gaul 21:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth - only a fool takes bet on certainties.

@Aloysius - what you call bias I call accurate information. its been 3 years since Brexit, and Corbyn in that time has done fuck all, only deciding to take a position in the last week or so when its probably too late already. taken with the fact that during Brexit, when traditionally labour area voted leave and his voice might have made a difference, he went on holiday. hes the leader of the opposition and he has provided none on the only issue that matters, opposing a government that has been an open goal for 3 years and he hasn't even hit the crossbar in that time. hes as much responsible for brexit as the tories are. dead. weight. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

and I wouldn't put much hope in Corbyn coming good in a general election. this is the chap who was beaten into second place by Theresa may. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay it doesn't matter what Corbyn has done, or where Labour MIGHT get in an election - it is axiomatic in hte Westminster system that the Government is held to task for what IT does - the opposition OTOH pretty much gets a "free ride", can promise all sorts of stuff, heckle, jeer, and generally be a bunch of nobs - because that is their job! whining about Corbyn because the tories are screwing it all up all on their own isn't "accurate information" - it's just whining. Aloysius the Gaul 02:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

none of what you have just said is true in the slightest. what Corbyn has done, or the lack of doing anything, is one of the reasons we are in this mess. is he the primary reason? no. is the sole reason? no. but he is as responsible as anyone. he was AWOL during the defining vote of a generation. part of the westminster system requires that opposition to be effective. to hold government to account. to provide a viable alternative. Corbyn is neither of these things. his inadequacy has allowed the tories for over 3 years to bicker and squabble and provide nothing, taking us closer to brink, and has offered nothing in return. if we do get an election, I doubt his chances of getting elected as a result. that means more tories. and this current batch will use the no deal Brexit that is all but inevitable right now to really fuck us. its what they have been preying for.

and let me clear up a misapprehension you appear to have. criticism of Corbyn is in no way support for the tories. if you think I am any more forgiving of those cunts, you haven't been paying attention.

the UK, my country, will not exist much longer and there is a lot of blame to go around. everyone f the fuckers deserve every ounce of criticism. they deserve more, but i'd end up on some watchlist if I voiced what they deserve. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like the government, you look to the opposition. I am looking and I know we are fucked. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It isn't my place to have strong opinions about UK politics, though from what I can tell Brexit is a self-inflicted wound worse than anything we've done to ourselves in the USA. I do read the Guardian; its website is accessible, easy to navigate, and doesn't require the private window, Javascript off kludges required by most US newspaper sites. The biases that stick out like a sore thumb to me are the constant drum-beating for veganism and teetotalism, lace doily issues that suggest they're doing a piss poor job of representing the working classes. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

piss poor job of representing the working? what do you expect, its the guardian. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So, The Guardian hates the working class? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

no. the working class is not the target audience. no broadsheet has the working class as its target audience. I can tell you now, working class folk are not all reading the telegraph. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's time once again to let this classic clip from Yes, Prime Minister explain who reads which newspapers in Britain. I will point out that the Morning Star (not to be confused with the Daily Star) is a communist newspaper and that explains the reference to "another country". I won't say anything else to explain the joke. Spud (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The text is here - and not all the papers are included The Daily Express is omitted and The independent was too new to be included. The Daily Star could be included with The Sun. Anna Livia (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the Daily Express was a bit conspicuous by its absence. But I think it could be lumped together with the Daily Mail, at least it could have been in those days. I suppose that the Daily Express now has a slightly better reputation than the Daily Mail. But considering the terrible reputation that the Daily Mail has nowadays, that's not saying much. Spud (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

have you posted this here before? I feel like I remember this, particularly the crack about sun readers. it is funny and all, but is just a skit from a tv show. it isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Yes, I've posted a link to t before. And I'll probably post it again the next time the topic of British newspapers comes up. Point taken about it only being supposed to be a bit of fun. But it does list most of the major national newspapers in Britain. Not all of them. But most of them. Spud (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnson's taste of his own game playing

So you all know that Johnson was shown what it's like to be on the recieving end of an attack rant heavily aimed at ridiculing their position. It's something the Torries have been doing endlessly towards the EU since day one over breixt. Boris has accused the EU of every disgusting horrid abuse in the book. And while babbling off these lies doing so with a bemused straight face. And the EU grits its teeth. And now of course, the Torries are furious that Luxembourg's Prime Minister showed Boris for the utter fool that he is adding to his clown pagent of a Prime Ministership being consistently heckled everywhere he goes. At the end of every evening I get some Pims cookies and a drink and enjoy them while reading the helarious bufoonery of Boris as the culmination of his Brexit master-plan and, I'd say utterly evil game, has him at times speechless, dumbfounded and shockingly not the beloved Prime Minister he was expecting, you know, waltz into parliament and through charm and the art of the deal clean up the UK as though he wasn't even trying. Embraced by conservatives. Respected at the level almost every other Prime Minister has been respected. It is helarious to watch him fail. Of course it isn't over and he could prevail but it is still one of the only times I've enjoyed watching someone suffer...cause it's just so utterly funny. In any case, the headlines illustrate the bias in british newspapers (and the BBCs best attempt to be boring and objective as at least one media group should at least attempt to do). Words in brackets are mine and are how the articles showed the Lux PM.

• Guardian, Mirror: Boris humiliated by [exasperated] Lux PM
• Independent, FT: Boris walks out
• BBC: Boris no show
• London Times, Telegraph, Star: Conservative fury as Boris is ambushed by [villainous] Lux. PM

Leading global warming scientist ordered to pay opponent’s legal costs in libel suit

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/leading-global-warming-scientist-ordered-to-pay-opponents-legal-costs-in-libel-suit ^{— Unsigned, by: 2A0B:F4C1:0:0:0:0:0:6 / talk}

And I'm reasonably certain this counts as a troll. The above was unsigned, links to a wildly inaccurate article, and said article speaks of "warmist scare". (Which is a new one on me. "Warmist"? Wow... Kencolt (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

LifeSiteNews is a site run by a strongly "family values" oriented Canadian Catholic group (Campaign Life Coalition) and has... questionable accuracy reputation. That's what you get, folks, when you mix politics and religion... the above article is linked in from the ever ironically named American Thinker, which is one of the more clog-y American conservative web sources out there and also typically questionably accurate. Would these Catholics even care about climate change had Koch and Exxon and whatnot told social conservatives what false studies to read and what evil environmental boogeyman to fear? (And are they going to listen to Koch and Exxon instead of what the current Pope says?) Soundwave106 (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as this lawsuit goes, I guess it is this one (which was partially settled out of court already). I have not seen the details on this case. Tim Ball has "won" libel cases before and it does not mean that the offending article in itself is not bullshit, as the judge noted in this case. I guess climate change deniers think winning a (probably poorly conjured up) libel lawsuit = TOTAL VICTORY AGAINST THE CLIMATE CHANGE ELITE CONSPIRACY!! or something? Soundwave106 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The new 8 chan

Browsing through some chansites, I bumped into this:

08ch[dot]net/

Like wtf? Isn't there a court case still running? Also openly admitting that they're sharing CP.. Tinribmancer (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not touching that site. But yeah, report it to the authorities. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this will help. After reading their wikipedia article, it seems that they moved to TOR on the 5th of August... Tinribmancer (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Retiring

It's more accurate to call it semi-retiring, I did state I would remain as an editor, but I won't be involved in the community as a whole anymore. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, anyone else thinking about leaving the site...? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you take a break. Hope you can come back soon! Gods know I am trying. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena, you've been great. Thank you for your contributions! And no, I'm not a prude. Bongolian (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do I have to keep saying goodbye to my favorites? Is this a discord issue? I wish you the best, honestly, I've had the most fun with you. I get it, and I hope you and everybody else comes back, but moreso I hope y'all take care of yourselves. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't she get banned from the discord several months ago? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but glad you're not leaving entirely. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but who gives an honest shit? You're just looking for attention. FurryDogTomato (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, no one knows who the fuck you even are and also shut up. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"I don't mean to sound rude."

Translation: "I'm going to be rude to you. Don't be mad at me." G Man (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Well that didn't last long. You came back faster than that time Blair White said she was going to quit YouTube. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And you are still a dick that cares about some drama. Wonder what that is like. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Cancel culture

I have realized that cancel culture has now been picked up by conservatives after events such as the Projared, James Charlies, and Slazo situations gained a lot of internet traction over the past few months leading to more awareness of the term. 67.249.180.13 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That is 100% inevitable. Do you think "Virtue signaling" was invented by the fucking right wing dipshits? Fuck no. It was some left-leaning guy concerned with companies using positive pro-social behaviors as branding while not actually doing anything of value. The whole rhetoric of the modern right wing is to assimilate every concept and use it in bad faith. No exceptions. If something is a good idea, and people recognize it as such, they'll assimilate the style and not the substance. If something is a bad idea, they'll smear their opponents with completely incoherent versions of it. The only consistency you can expect is bad faith. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

On the bright side, American comedian Brent Terhune satirizing wingnut cancel culture is fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbHk2i8mHmQ. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So a joke I worked on for almost a year just wouldn't land, and it's not timely anymore. Fuck it, y'all can just have it. "First, this quarterback won't respect the national anthem, now he's getting free shoes? ...I hate this country..." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Walsh

So, who is he? I just saw that he's running for president for the republicans.

1. Is he better or worser than Trump?

2. Can he beat Trump?

Tinribmancer (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

1. He's a Sacha Baron Cohen co-star. [8]

2 I thought you were going to ask a serious question.

Being that he looks like Jeffrey Epstein's twin brother, he could get invited to DNC fundraisers. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 21:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I could get behind voting for Bill Weld, anyway. As I'm registered as a Republican I'll sure vote for him in a primary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Really? You think Weld will achieve ballot status? Weld is a deep water swamp creature. He's up to his eyelids along with Papy Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bill Barr in Mena drug smuggling [9] and was on Whitey Bulger's defense list along with Robert Mueller. [10] nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 01:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Better than what's president now, at least he has some shred of actual knowledge and basic decency. Plus, New England Republicans are a different breed, much closer to Eisenhower than anywhere else in the country; he led quite the Republican government, if it worked then it should now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

John Durham (lawyer) is the guy who convicted an FBI agent in the Whitey Bulger case. Some people say he didn't go high enough in the U.S. Attorney's office where Mueller and Weld worked. Durham now is investigating the origins of Trump-Russia. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 03:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

None of the GOP challengers stand a chance considering some of the state parties have decided to suspend voting completely. The purpose of Walsh, Weld and Sanford is to play spoiler so conservatives have someone else to vote for if they can't vote for the Dem nominee.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

At least in Connecticut you can only vote in the primary you're registered with, so at least I'll get a chance to protest vote. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to piss ya off, like I'm pissed off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dbdHqRDm-E

^{— Unsigned, by: Gol Sarnitt / talk / contribs}

Who posted this? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

thats very talking heads AMassiveGay (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep the excessive videos off of the Saloon. Thanks. Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Is yoga really all that?

https://www.baptisteyoga.com/

It just seems to me like the testimonies for it are so vague as to apply to just about anything. But like any other spiritual practice I have done it seems like it only works if you believe it does, either that or it creates something rather than reveals. I also chuckle a bit at how they say you don't need anything but then go on to sell you their classes. I took a look at the prices and just bulged at it, I had week long vacations that didn't cost that much.Machina (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The spiritual aspect is, of course... questionable. But there is something objectively beneficial to practicing stretching, breathing, and paying attention to how your center of gravity shifts depending on your form. I don't do yoga, myself, but if I didn't work on my feet all day or camp or go on walks, I might take it up out of boredom. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Western yoga / yoga as exercise / vinyasa yoga really isn't terribly spiritual to be honest. It is not that old (early 20th century origins), and is not very Hindu (although some was borrowed from ancient practice, a fair bit was borrowed from Western gymnastics as I understand it). Nothing wrong with exercises and being mindful of breathing etc. Unfortunately western yoga does have a few annoying leftover "spiritual nuggets" that have become par for the course -- unnecessary "om" chants and occasional talk about stuff like chakras etc. Such seems like watered down selective Hinduism (just like you see in the "New Age" movement) and I would personally be happier if that part of Western yoga stopped. (Although it is amusing that such offends the fundie Christians, so there is that). That Baptiste Yoga looks like it falls in the self-help / motivational claptrap industry and for some reason people pay a lot of money for that sort of thing, despite being an industry heavily known for its scammers and rube fleecing. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I used to do yoga, of sorts. of the more physical, more secular, types popular in the west, its generally an effective exercise, akin to callisthenics. its cheap as well, costing no more than any other exercise class or just a decent book, requiring a bare minimum of equipment and can be done anywhere. I aggravated an existing injury, stopped and never went back to it, but before I had terrible posture, and lower back pain. I credit yoga for my now perfect posture and ive not had any back pain since. I go for a more callisthenics approach these days. scratches the same itch without some of the limitations that I found yoga to have.

its pointless to question the spiritual aspect. you either open to that nonsense or you are not. its not difficult to ignore that side of it if that's not your thing. yoga just lends itself to new age types because for a lot of people yoga is a part of holistic approach to health and fitness, with the added spiritual (mindfulness for the more secular) aspect that is absent from the more macho world of the gym. i never bought into the whole chakras and energies nonsense, but did get a lot out of the more meditative practices. hell of a lot cheaper than the gym too.

do your research if you want to try yoga though. any physical activity (assuming you go for the more physical ones) is rife with woo and scammers and just shitty teachers, and there is a lot of scope for injury. and as with any physical activity, consult your doctor first. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's exercise. Exercise is good for you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Like Jogging. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I was actually in a Bible study group in high school (girls can make you do strange things) and during one meeting we listened to a cassette tape of a guy talking about his visit to India and how dangerous everything from India was. I'm old, but I'm not so old that in high school if an adult is playing a cassette, you know it's irrelevant. According to the guy on tape, Yoga was designed to invoke demonic possession, people cured STDs by raping babies, and everybody ran to the Ganges to Hindu-style baptize themselves in pollution. I don't think this cassette shook a single one of us kids in this particular Bible study, but I think the youth pastor really expected it to turn us off to everything Eastern. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Also took "Cross Training" as my first PE class in high school. I thought it would be a stamina building thing, turned out I was one of 2 guys in the class, and it was like Zoomba before Zoomba was a thing. Very socially messy for my freshman year of high school. We had like, 2 weeks that were all meditation and Chakra bullshit, but it made me pay attention to each point of my body in relation to my spine. And I did barely make the varsity triple jump team my freshman year. I was literally the worst in the district, my best jump was like 5 inches shorter than anyone else anywhere on varsity, but I was third best at my school, and we competed in some lower districts with varsity kids who couldn't even make it to the pit. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Constructing Loneliness

https://kadampalife.org/2014/04/02/why-do-i-feel-so-lonely/

I’m not really that sure about the loneliness comment here. I mean we are all connected in one sense, but I think the loneliness here is that of a social one not really atomized. We are fundamentally alone in our experience of the world around us. I mean we are born of it but each individual’s experience is their own. I don’t think it has to do with attachment to self, it’s just the consequence of being a social animal. What I can say is that there might be some merit in believing their words to help you.Machina (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Where do you find this shit? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And why do you keep looking for it?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, Machina is lonely? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Because I’m convinced that Buddhism is right and that only a Buddhist can negate whatever another Buddhist has said: https://kadampalife.org/2014/08/10/why-do-i-have-no-friends/Machina (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So Machina, what animal/person do you think you will reincarnate as after you die? What do you think you were before?ShabiDOO 22:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

will reincarnate as an attack helicopter DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 23:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a fucking lonely spot to not believe something the same way your heroes and peers do, don't go discounting that. I don't think Machina sidestepped that at all. And so what if he is lonely about it? Yeah, he's pretty convinced of something I absolutely do not believe in, but would you rather go about arguing with every single person on the street for the first time and not somebody you know has heard you before and at least trusts you enough to pose an important philosophical question to? I don't think he's shown any of the same talking points to meme him with the attack helicopter gender deal, that's pretty bad at getting jokes. I hope that strikethrough was self-inflicted and reflective. And the question of "what did I reincarnate from" or "what would I like to reincarnate as" is dismissive and not a good place to start. The Buddhist principles around self-actualization, as I've said long before now, is that you don't get to choose, you just have to be as good as you can at what you are born to do. So a better epistemological approach would be to ask, HONESTLY

What is negation, in that definition? I would like to know if there is an example of something a person CAN create that another person MUST negate, as in, is negation a necessity? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No Gol Sarnitt it wasn't dismissive it was a question that ought to be answered. Machina made a fairly bold claim "I am convinced that budism is right". I asked the question to see if he is buying the package, which includes a lot of misguided ideas and some pretty ridiculous ones, or just picking and choosing a few concepts that he happens to agree with or not. When asked a question like "what will you reincarnate as" it forces you to actually think about it and ask yourself about if you can really take reincarnation seriously or not (assuming you sort of do). It's like asking a God believer to explain how they communicate with their invisible friend in the sky. They often find they can't really do it. And once in a while a person will realise there's something silly about it. The helicopter thing...is there more meaning to this? I have no idea what that references. But yeah, do take this reincarnation question seriously and answer if you can Machina please. ShabiDOO 09:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

its an odd statement from machina since virtually every thread they start seems to disagreeing with some fundamental tenet of buddhism. I was under the impression they had tried buddhism and found it lacking, not convinced of its rightness. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and this is not the Buddhist hotline.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm more looking for a critical examination of Buddhism and I can't do that at a Buddhist site or location because they just assume that the end conclusion is right. It's not really true that I am convinced it is right, it's more like I just don't have any responses to their arguments or words and haven't seen anything that refutes it. Meanwhile I can't help but see some truth in how they slowly dismantle what I love and treasure by say it's a lie or illusion. That much of what I take to be "out there" (love, attraction, inspiration, etc) are just me and not something I connect to. Inspiration doesn't come from an object or a person but from me, if it came from the object or person then everyone would have the same reaction. And I don't know, it just makes life seem less magical or fantastic and more like I'm just living in some dream and taking it to be real. It's sad, and I don't have an argument against it.Machina (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, that take of what is "out there" is probably a rough place to start. I take it you mean you feel love/attraction/inspiration and are not convinced of the idea that it could only come from within yourself? No points here, just trying to read it, please correct me anywhere I'm wrong. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

IT's more like I thought I was touching on something great that was beyond me but i'm not, it's all my imagination.Machina (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"Just my imagination." It's not mutually exclusive that your imagination exists as both a real thing and positive thing. (resident nihilist here) Recognizing it takes a lot of time and practice. It's also not promised that your imagination isn't a negative thing. So, imagination is linguistically about an image manifesting. I like linguistics and etymology, I really like how words work and how they work on us. I also like religion, how religion works to take a reality that we can't control and put all the onus on bad actors that we can't control, for the sake that it can give us hope to forgive each other and do better. Because really, sometimes we, as humans, do some stupid shit to each other or to ourselves. I would guess you're challenging your imagination, which is what everybody has to do every time they admit they are wrong about anything, it doesn't mean every part of the person you call yourself is wrong. It's a harder road, I totally understand that. But you understand what is bullshit, I hope you understand what is good, you definitely have every right to take the ethics and morality with you even if you don't subscribe to the shit you understand to be made up. "We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once - Nietzsche We can take that at face value or we can guess that maybe he meant we should always immediately consider our thoughts after we use words to describe them. Still working on Derrida, is that worth my time? I'd say sure, why wouldn't it be? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what it good because good just seems to be for the deluded or ignorant.Machina (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bolton gone

For someone who knows all the best people, the Tangerine Fuckwit sure does fire a lot of people. Still, I'm sure nobs will be along to tell us it's all Obama's fault. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure he's going to tie it with the Clintons... somehow... Tinribmancer (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time blaming trump for firing Mr. Never Met A County He Didn't Want To Bomb. I fault him for hiring the fucker in the first place, but the only problem with firing him is that it wasn't out of a cannon. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Drumpf keeps firing people like it was going out of fashion, but if ever there was a guy he absolutely needed to fire, it wass that walrus of mass destruction. Coigreach (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Bolton seems to have been fired for not wanting to meet with Rouhani and objecting to meeting with the Taliban, two things I think are fair to think are stupid. Bolton also convinced Trump to support Guaido in Venezuela, which doesn't seem to have worked. I'm happy Bolton is gone without causing too much damage, but at least he told Trump no sometimes, which I cannot believe the new NSC head will do.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The madman strategy, I guess. But it's putting the US pretty far behind when it's constant misdirection is as much against our allies and enemies and own citizens alike. Like, who latches on to patriotism and supports an administration that constantly elevates and fires people? Revolving door politics has breached the executive level with the most useful idiot possible in charge. "I bragged about cancelling talks with the Taliban because this guy told me to and now I'm in trouble and he's quitting FUCK THIS GUY I FIRED HIM." It's insane. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Rip, starting in a couple weeks, the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are going to be younger than the war, do you think it's maybe time to start considering diplomacy as a resolution instead? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I absolutely support diplomacy, even with the Taliban. But don't invite them to Camp David, the week of 9/11 especially if even they don't want to come to the US. Afghanistan is such a complicated situation, especially if we view it as a nation-state, with defined borders, when it might be better to allow it to have smaller autonomous governments. It is definitely not lost on me that children will soon be fighting there that have never not known war with Afghanistan.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be disingenuous to invite the leaders within* a country that WE are willing to recognize to a meeting in a spot on our own territory to legitimize their specific roles in leadership. I mean, we do that shit all the time, sure, and this is a group that has a broad reach across Afghanistan. But it doesn't make sense to pressure, invite, pressure, cancel, and then say "oh, no, that wasn't what we were trying to do." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

What exactly do you think the Taliban's relationship to 9/11 is? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Support of the act at the time it was committed? That's a broad question. I'd hate to answer inexactly. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This is Trump reaching out to Iran. You could see it coming when Trump started making nice with Macron and the global elitists at the G8 Summit. The game plan is to have a Kumbaya moment with the Ayatollah between the convention and election day, and the world will live happily-ever-after. Bolton served his purpose of tearing up the Iran nuke deal. Time to move on. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 04:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That kind of rule makes the US an objectionable enemy we should never talk to on 9/11. The main extent of the material support that Afghanistan granted Al Qaeda was basically "not arresting them for being in the country". I could genuinely understand that that might be a valid justification for a war, but making the Taliban an eternal enemy of all Americans is just... the same fucking nonsense hysteria of the days after 9/11 extended well past its expiration date. The Taliban government was shitty, completely antithetical to liberal values, violent, and not aligned with the US. But they weren't Al Qaeda. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed That's fair. I think their support goes a bit further than not arresting them, but the Taliban have always held a political objective of self rule, even if I find their legal interpretations of the Qu'ran a bit extreme. Nobs, the Ayatollah will never, ever meet with Trump. If he did, I think that might finally be the thing that breaks the conservatives backs. I personally think diplomacy needs to be used more effectively in regards to Iran, and I would never consider the President meeting the Ayatollah to be an option. Especially for a news conference.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It was always going to be stupid and petty

But it sounds like the thing that made trump get rid of bolton was a rumor that he was the one to leak the thing about nuking hurricanes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That makes it even better lol -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Chocolate Milk diet?

So, I saw someone on Instagram claiming that you can loose several kg's with chocolate milk.

This is BS, right? The product is called "Prevail". Tinribmancer (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You can loose weight by eating just one thing but with nutritional deficiency and not safely. A diet of 10 tomatoes a day means losing weight yet also having minor ailments and eventually serious problems. Pure dairy diets are bad for lactose inteollerant and people with digestive problems. The sugar level wouldn't be good for you. The best response is: Yes you'd lose weight but you'd be stupid to do it. Find one of many less dangerous and physically taxing method. ShabiDOO 11:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

you might wish to provide a link for chocolate milk thing. all I can find for prevail is a meal replacement product that is not chocolate milk (and many these products are lactose free). actually don't bother - its Instagram. you are in trouble if you base anything on information found there. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

did find this though its not chocolate milk instead of your usual meals, but in addition to them. dunno about the science though. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The thing I'm seeing more of is people pushing the (debatable but more realistic) notion that chocolate milk is a good *post-workout recovery drink.* That's the actual assertion, for instance, in one of the top links you can Google for "chocolate milk diet", an article from Oprah Winfrey's site. There is at least a limited study backing this, though it of course (like most health oriented stuff it seems) it is much more limited scope compared to the hoopla in mainstream news. However, I don't think any "recovery drink" is needed at all for 90% of us who exercise, eg those who don't really exercise at super intense levels, so... Soundwave106 (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Fundraising banner

Could there be an occasional 'Moar goat'/'Feed the goat' version? Anna Livia (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I wanted it to say this, "We have 200 long-eared jerboas. We will put one in the blender every hour on the hour until you make a donation to RationalWiki. Give us some money now or the beasties start dying!" Spud (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Donations?

Man, I thought I'd be the first one to donate! I kicked in $25 ... and a while later, it still says "$0" ... must take a while to update. Indy (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's manually updated, so whenever the person gets around to it, it will be updated. Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are people in comment sections so stupid

And why do I always feel the need to engage with them even though I know it will go nowhere? It feels like I have a disease. Some highlights of the past week: Someone arguing that we shouldn't use *rates* of violence when we have absolute numbers - because comparing Alaska to California that way totally makes sense. Someone linking to PragerU to support his argument in a scientific debate. Even more people pushing the claim that Nazis were Leftists and that fascism is actually a Leftist ideology. I'll say it again, why are people so stupid? TheUnderOver (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I got into a pretty silly "argument" a couple of weeks ago. Choice quote from the genius on the other side: "I don't need proof if I'm right." 2001:BB6:92E5:5C58:E5DB:DE15:868:FFCA (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also I have an account now. *party horn noises* Adamchess7347 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this is a great time to reiterate; On the internet, no one knows that you're a dog.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And distinguish between 'newbies and others unfamiliar with RW and its culture who wish their ignorance to be enlightened' (some of whom may have poor typing skills) and 'just go away, so the collective 'analytical IQ' of talk pages can be raised 10 points you solipsistic ####'. Anna Livia (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Besides some excellent points above, it never hurts to mention Pommer's law. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The principle I've been falling back on, when I feel like engaging someone even though I know it will be futile, is the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle - the idea that the amount of energy is takes to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude higher than the energy it takes to produce it. So when I see a comment that is just so insane, and it's getting upvoted despite clearly being bullshit, I need to ask myself is it really worth the effort? It's exhausting to refute true bullshit. TheUnderOver (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CogitoNotStirred - are you referring to all relevant previous contributors?

Generally - asking questions may highlight whether you are encountering 'wants ignorance enlightened', 'someone with a strange sense of humour/willingness to engage creatively (but mostly harmless), and 'the ####-ers' (add words of choice). Anna Livia (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia No, not referring to the comments above, but to the comments on Yahoo! Answers, newspaper/TV sites, etc. I looked at some of those, once, a decade ago, and still haven't got over it. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You feel the need to engage because hearing stupid shit can be infuriating and even harder to ignore. And depending on the context, its sometimes bad to let bullshit fester. It's also sometimes pointless to respond anything more beyond "no that's ridiculous" and if the person is malicious "...fuck off". It's totally natural to want to react to them and sometimes it's worth responding. Especially if the enquiry is sincere and not melevolent or with an ulterior agenda. It's hard to know when that's the case sometimes. So many people are so super stupid and turn out to be total jackasses. ShabiDOO 21:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Late response but welcome Adam to our humble little wiki. Please, grab yourself a drink and make yourself comfy. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 22:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't help but feeling that the simple concept of GIFT is being overlooked here. It does explain a great deal, I think. Kencolt (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Was ist 'GIFT' in diesem Zusammenhang, bitte?

Sometimes 'feeling a sense of justifiable superiority' is a useful boost or amusement. Anna Livia (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

GIFT. Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Basically, it's kinda this--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Arcade#/media/File:Greater_Internet_Fuckwad_Theory.png ^{— Unsigned, by: RightyBlueLuigi / talk / contribs}

and later supplemented by replacing "Anonymity" with "Consequences", and "Fuckwad" with "Total Fuckwad", which may be more applicable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Arcade#.22Greater_Internet_Fuckwad_Theory.22 ^{— Unsigned, by: RightyBlueLuigi / talk / contribs}

That's the temptation I have every time I scroll through social media posts. In fact, I made my own little rant about it below. Lol G Man (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nationalism

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

Talking to MAGA shits only reinforces this quote further. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Orwell was anticipated by Samuel Johnson who in 1775 said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."Ariel31459 (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Or even by Oscar Wilde who said "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious". Though I like to separate patriotism from nationalism in the way of Finnish poet Eino Leino, who wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that "patriotism is loving your own country, while nationalism is hating others". It's easy to see which these MAGA clowns are and which they aren't.Coigreach (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Patriot Day

We will never forget 9/11. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 01:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Old enough to fuck vote. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie and the 50,000 dollar check

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/11/pewdiepie-biggest-star-youtube-waged-war-against-his-critics-when-he-tried-make-peace-his-fans-rebelled/ The nazis want their guy back. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Something we can use for his page? Tinribmancer (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like due to "fan backlash", he has rescinded the donation. A rather bizarre episode where the "optics" are that Pewdiepie depends on antisemitic gamer support, I suppose. :p (The ADL is not without its issues, but their issues IMHO are far less severe compared to the toxic issues in certain gaming cultures right now.) Soundwave106 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll bet said subcultures are going apeshit over the non-binary character in this game, which launched today. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

hes got over 100 million subscribers and he shits his pants at the loss of what would most like a fraction of that. what a poor fragile dear he is. or not genuine in the first place AMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The Trolley Question

I'm asking this relic of a question, which means I'm not going to answer it. I do not want to load it.

There is a train moving along some tracks that split into two paths, Track A and Track B, both equidistant from and leading to the same destination. The train's current path is to travel along Track A. There is a switch to move the train from Track A to Track B. There are people on both tracks who cannot avoid being hit and killed by the train. Track A has 5 people on it. Track B has 2 people on it. The train cannot skip the tracks or stop. You are aware of this information. You are able to hit the switch only once to change the train's path from Track A to Track B. Do you hit the switch? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is the trolley question a thing, you should obviously hit the switch. A more interesting version would have 2 of the 5 people on Track A be Nazis and have everyone else be innocent. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You are aware of the information that 5 people are on Track A and 2 people are on Track B. You do not know if any of them are Nazis. Do you hit the switch? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. 68.0.189.224 (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If the trolley goes off the tracks it should be able to kill all seven. --Yay for me, RightyBlueLuigi!^{(Not a Mod)} 05:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a classic and in a humanist open society most people would say "yeah the lesser of two evils obviously" and they'd be totally consisten with 21st century western thinking and I'd agree. But that doesn't address the issue of "responsibility" or if you killed someone or not.

The point of the question is to come to terms with responsibility for someone suffering. If you do nothing and could have easily done something, did you kill those people? Did you murder them? If doing nothing involves a difficult choice, could you still say you killed those people by doing nothing? If you claim that no, you didn't kill someone by doing nothing (especially if you are just passing by and see this quick event roll out in front of you) what does that say about actually putting yourself into the scene. By hitting that switch you've still directly sent a train to kill two people (let's forget for a moment that it's the lesser of two evils). In one sense, you absolutely did kill them (even if it wasn't you who drove the uncontrolable train). And yet most people will find it unfair to say you killed someone under these circumstances. And even if we take a firm stance on the issue, if you personally hit the switch you will struggle for the rest of your life, emotionally, over whether or not you killed those two people and if you are responsbile or not even if you were forced to play God. There are many responses to this question but few answers really define the terms of responsibility and killing and even fewer are consistent and well explained. ShabiDOO 10:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of a shame that the trolley problem has overshadowed the various questions/accounts on the issue of moral responsibility. That topic is much more interesting and complex than the debate between different schools of ethical philosophy. --Mabian (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

what would the legal consequence be of hitting the switch? also, its probably a lot easier to make a decision detached from actually having to make it. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

also, disappointed this thread is not about this AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this "philosophical question" is taken to semi-hilarious extremes via Cyanide & Happiness. TheTallMass (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove the organs from the one guy and put them in the five people and then let the trolley hit the five people. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Can the switch be moved to an intermediate position (possibly by jamming the proverbial MP's Bradshaw's) so that the train or trolley gets thrown off both tracks? Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought questions like this are implicit that there is no other options. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You've now killed 50 people riding the trolley. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

they killed themselves by choosing to ride a communist mass transit system. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Black book of trolleys. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is the inequality of the choice. Do you push the switch and take responsibility for two deaths, or not put the switch, which is a choice in itself, and take responsibility for five? Obviously the proper answer is to replace the switch with a second trolley, then you don't have to make a choice and everyone dies equally. _{I never claimed to be nice.} Kencolt (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This is without question the most disturbing take on this thought experiment, and honestly I'm here for it.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The details of this problem also make it intractable. To act coherently one must predict the future. Certainly if you know everyone is tied to the track by a villain and all access is blocked so rescue is impossible, the choice seems clear. This problem is a weak version of events that actually have occurred: consider ordering a flooding compartment sealed to save a ship while sailors are still inside.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

IS this a suitable response? Anna Livia (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

How about teleporting off the trolley? — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that a referendum should be held on the question. That would resolve it once and for all.Hubert (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

the real question is why this train line has such appalling safety measures or procedures and guidelines to deal with this kind of thing. in the uk, you get told in school not to play on train lines, and you'd have to climb over fences to even reach the line (except level crossings). the fact that everyone instantly start adding the original question, shows just how far removed it is ever being a real situation, that ethical conclusions from a situation that has likely never happened in this form with only 1 definite needing to made and whatever the 'right' decision you come to would still leave anyone making it needing years of therapy.

I have heard a similar question over something that is reasoned to be very probable in the near future, which could supplant this old chestnut with something more 'real'.

it concerns ai of driverless cars - at some point in the future, a the ai of a driverless car will have to make a decision as to whether it should save the life of a pedestrian its about to hit, but killing the occupants of the car, or save its passengers and flatten the luckless stroller AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Since we're all just willing to say we will hit the switch without extra information. And maybe that's the good thing about humanity. The more you tell yourself you will be brave, the more likely you are to be brave if the situation comes up. It's still being addressed as the 5 to 1 question, I tried to load it less. I think that was missed. Of course 1 person isn't worth 5. But as soon as you give that 1 person a buddy, the fuck do you do? I'm not asking 5 PEOPLE versus 1 PERSON, I'm asking 5 PEOPLE against 2 PEOPLE. I'm a little disappointed nobody caught that, but I did kinda blow smoke all over it so that's my fault.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What if the switch you must operate is controlled with a remote in your possession and you and your significant other are the people who will die? Does it make a difference? (admission: it does to me)Ariel31459 (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should nuke the trolley to stop the damn Chinese from using it to move their troops into Korea. They're killing our boys out there, but that goddamn coward Truman won't let me win the war. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 03:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha, the dangers of handling a relic. I encourage you to keep going, but I encourage you to remember any additional information changes the situation. And yes, I do believe the ratio of 5:1 versus 5:2 would reasonably make a significant difference. But I'm not sure of it, I could be wrong. I really didn't want to have to weigh in here. The OP has all the information, please go off that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted recently added Portuguese articles for being machine translations

The person who recently added several Portuguese translations has just admitted to them being proofread machine translations. That was the same deal as the Italian translations that I deleted a little over a year ago. And at least the people who added those could speak English and could compare them to the originals (even if they didn't do a very good job of that). The person who recently added the Portuguese translations has said he doesn't speak English. I really feel that relying mostly or entirely on things like Google Translate to create new pages here is wrong and should not be allowed. Spud (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur (as I implied here: User talk:Spud#New Portuguese articles). Bongolian (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Embora seja brasileiro, eu também concordo com você. Mas não esqueçamos que toda wiki do mundo tem uma comunidade que tem diferentes costumes e regras. Mesmo se algum usuário souber usar código HTML ou wiki, ele deverá se adaptar ao seu ambiente. Por exemplo, quando eu estava escrevendo/traduzindo um artigo específico, ninguém me avisou que o namespace Draft existe exatamente para artigos inacabados. Na Desciclopédia, adicionamos algumas predefinições (templates) para marcar um artigo como um esboço. Veja que o modo das duas enciclopédias é diferente. Quanto mais a RationalWiki se espalha por diferentes idiomas, mais pessoas leem nosso conteúdo, certo? É de extrema importância que haja mais e mais artigos em outros idiomas, para quem sabe talvez novos projetos do RationalWiki apareçam em outros idiomas (seguindo o exemplo dos russos). Este é o nosso objetivo aqui.

Although being Brazilian, I agree with you too. But let us not forget that every wiki in the world has a community that has different customs and rules. Even if any user knows how to use HTML or wiki code, they must adapt to their environment. For example, when I was writing/translating a particular article, nobody warned me that the Draft namespace exists exactly for unfinished articles. In Uncyclopedia, we have added certain templates to mark such an article as a stub. See that the mode of the two encyclopedias are different. The more RationalWiki spreads across different languages, the more people will read our content, right? It is of utmost importance that there are more and more articles in other languages, so maybe new RationalWiki projects appear in other languages ​​(following the example of the Russians). This is our goal here. Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 17:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a stub template here too - it was one of the first created.Scream!! (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Smalkade Well, you know about draftspace now. And you'd only created two pages before I told you abut it, so there's really no harm done. Mind you, I think that shows the benefit of lurking on a wiki for good long while before you start to edit it. That way, you get an idea of how the wiki and its community functions without mucking anything up. I lurked on this wiki for an entire year before I started to edit it. (Mainly because I was intimidated by just how clever and funny all the users were back in those days.)

And I don't think any of the regulars here are in any doubt about my enthusiasm for pages in other languages. Spud (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Totally disagree. This discourages users from all over the world who are really interested in the goals of RationalWiki but do not have an advanced knowledge of English. This about users being forced to know English, unfortunately, reminds me of Conservapedia. - JPLSilva (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@JPLSilva That wasn't what was said. Simply put, Google translate isn't very good at large scale translations, not to mention the fact that several users are wary of over-reliance on translation programs. At no point did anyone put forward a requirement for users to speak English. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You certainly don't need an advanced knowledge of English to contribute here. However the current consensus among our community seems to be that all articles in other languages should be translations of articles that already exist in English. That does, after all, help to ensure that all articles are missional and don't put forwards points of view that we don't want in mainspace. And to translate a long text from one language into another, you have to have a good understanding of both languages.

I want to see as many articles as possible in as many different languages as possible. But I want them to be done by actual thinking human beings. And speaking as someone who has translated 13 articles and hopes to translate many more, I want them to put some actual time and effort into the process. I spent several hours on each translation. To have somebody else then claim on their user page that what are little more than machine translations are their own work strikes me not only as lazy, but also dishonest.

And Conservapedia doesn't allow articles in any languages apart from English and its administrators have deliberately tried to make it as difficult as possible for non-Americans to edit it. So, no. We're not like them. Spud (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Analisemos a situação com mais calma, galera. Veja: @JPLSilva veio de boa-vontade para a RationalWiki com o objetivo de traduzir artigos, assim como eu. Ele não está errado, sua intenção foi ótima. Mas fez de modo errado: traduziu automaticamente (machine translations) seus artigos, o que é desonesto. Por outro lado, @Spud deletou os artigos, porque está zelando pela qualidade da RationalWiki e quer que os usuários se esforcem em seu trabalho. Ele também está certo, sua intenção foi muito boa. Mas também fez de modo errado: deletou os artigos impulsivamente, não esperou JPLSilva tomar uma atitude e melhorar seus trabalhos, o que foi muito rígido. Mas isso nem importa mais agora: o que realmente importa é que cada um aprenda com seus erros, inclusive eu mesmo.

Let's take a closer look at the situation, guys. See: JPLSilva willingly came to RationalWiki to translate articles, just like me. He is not wrong, his intention was great. But he did it wrong: he automatically translated his articles, which is dishonest. On the other hand, Spud has deleted the articles because it is watching over the quality of RationalWiki and wants users to work hard. He is also right, his intention was very good. But he also did it wrong: he impulsively deleted the articles, did not wait for JPLSilva to take action and improve his work, which was a very tough attitude. But it doesn't even matter anymore now: what really matters is that everyone learns from their mistakes, including myself. Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 13:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I don't use Google Translator. I use a translator that I consider reliable and that does good translations. And Spud himself demanded that I know English here. - JPLSilva (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Smalkade As I've said earlier, eleven months ago there were two users who created ten articles in Italian. I noticed a strange mistake in one of them that a human translator should not have made and that together with the fact that they created one new article every week made me suspect they were machine translations. I wrote about my concerns about those articles here in the Saloon Bar. The community agreed that if they were machine translations, they should be deleted. The users then admitted they were machine translations that they had proofread. The consensus of the community was still that the pages should be deleted. So when somebody else admitted that their articles were proofread machine translations, I didn't hesitate to delete them because there was a precedent for what I had done. And then immediately afterwards, I came here to start this thread about what I had done. I didn't try to hide the fact that I deleted those Portuguese articles, I was very open and honest about it. If any other user wanted to speak out against what I'd done, I helped give them that opportunity. If any other sysop wanted to restore the pages I'd deleted, they could. And if anybody wants to start translating those particular pages into Portuguese again, they can. And they'd be better off starting from scratch than building on what was already there. It's not as if I deleted all of JPLSilva's hard work because, as we've established, he didn't do any hard work.

@JPLSilva The fact that you used a different machine translation from Google Translate is irrelevant. You used a machine translation and that's unacceptable. Besides which, the pages you produced were almost identical to what Google Translate produces and that was what first led another user to think something was wrong. So that other machine translator can't be vastly superior to Google Translate after all.

Other users might disagree with me. But I still think that users here should know some English, even if they only edit articles that already exist in their first language. That's so that other users can communicate with them effectively and so that they can fully participate in the community. But again, they do not need to have an advanced knowledge of English to contribute here. Anyway, it now appears that you do know enough English to communicate with other users, so what I said earlier doesn't really apply to you anyway. Spud (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, the best way to solve this situation is to continue our work. Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 11:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spud The fact that you say without knowing that I had used an online translator that I know enough English to communicate with other users seems controversial to me. And without wanting to intrude on your conversation with Smalkade, I don't know how the relationship between users (mainly administrators and/or bureaucrats) is here at RationalWiki, but one thing I learned at Lusophone Uncyclopedia: an administrator and/or bureaucrat undoing an action of his colleague generates fights, discord and confusion (even if they are in a wiki of humor), unless they reach a consensus. And know that I dedicated (and wasted) my time formatting and reviewing the translated articles to ensure that there were no errors in them. - JPLSilva (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

And I even forgot to write that while we're arguing, the neo-Nazis of Metapedia and the creationists of CreationWiki are spreading around the world. I'm beginning to believe that this bureaucracy of yours is what keeps RationalWiki from spreading around the world and refuting these ideas that are contrary to our world. - JPLSilva (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I frequently spend a lot of my time correcting bad translations and the worst cases are when they are just a google translation with a change or two. That being said...a lot of good professional translators these days do use good computer translators and then carefully proofread the text afterwards (usually using a sophisticated program with all the changes marked up etc). In theory, there is nothing wrong with using a translator. When a user wants to translate an existing english article to another language (and yes, there is absolutely zero doubt that you need at the very least a proficient understanding of English to do this well) they should create it in a sandbox or userspace. Paste the computer translation into the article. And then edit it while doing the proofreading. That way anyone can easily tell, by looking at the differences between the translation and the final version after proofreading (which is easy to do) and pretty quickly confirm that it has been properly proofread. Even with the best translators you still have to make numerous small corrections, lots of reworked sentences and some substantial changes to several paragraphs (for example). A barely edited machine translated article is not useful to anyone. ShabiDOO 23:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@JPLSilva For the last time, all of this has a precedent. In August, September and October 2018, ten pages in Italian were added that were proofread machine translations of pages in English. In October 2018, the community consensus was that those pages should be deleted. So when you admitted that the pages you had added were proofread machine translations too, that's why I didn't hesitate to delete them. But then immediately afterwards, because I want to be open and honest and because I don't want to do anything that doesn't have the support of the rest of the community, I started this thread to give anybody who thought I did the wrong thing the opportunity to say so. Apart from you, nobody seems to think I did the wrong thing. My advice to you now is to not complain anymore. Accept what happened and move on. As has already been pointed out to you, you haven't been blocked, you haven't been banned. If you still feel you can make positive contributions to RationalWiki, you're welcome to try. Spud (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spud It's funny the way you talk so much about honesty, and then you want me to shut up. - JPLSilva (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@JPLSilva I'm asking you to stop complaining about your pages being deleted and about the community standards we have here that led to those pages being deleted. I'm not asking you to shut up completely. And even if I were, I don't see how that would make me dishonest. But fine. If you want to keep going on about it, go ahead! Write an essay about how RationalWiki is making a huge mistake by not allowing pages heavily based on machine translations to be posted here. Write all over your user page about how RationalWiki is unfair to people who don't speak English and how I personally have been unfair to you. It won't do you any good. Spud (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I speak Portuguese

I am of Brazilian heritage, but I have been living in the States for most of my life now; so admittedly, my Portuguese is a bit rusty. However, I believe I still know enough to help translate some articles. Initially, I wanted to keep a fairly low profile on this wiki, but I did not realize how many international users there are here. I thought this was a primarily English-speaking site. Lol -- G Man (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

But RationalWiki is mostly Anglophone. :P - JPLSilva (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Spreading RW to other languages is great if it's done at least tolerably well (though I operate mainly from the converse position that it's useful to introduce Americans and other English-speakers to foreign cranks, extremists, gutter press, and rationalists, because the Anglosphere tends to be insular and monolingual). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bom, é o que falei anteriormente. Quanto mais idiomas a RationalWiki incluir em seus artigos, mais gente poderá visualizar o que estamos tentando difundir pela web, ou seja, o ceticismo. Porém, como você disse, tal tarefa deve ser realizada com qualidade. Achei ótimo que nossos colegas anglófonos nos apoiem nessa. Muito bom! Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 00:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Ballot or the Bullet

You know it just occurred to me that the biggest reason the Civil Rights Movement was so successful in the first place was because it was backed by force. Look at it this way, on one hand you have MLK (well, before his latter years anyway, when he started becoming more radical due to the lack of any meaningful progress), and on the other you have Malcolm X. You know, it's as he said, it's the "ballot or the bullet."

The full speech by Malcolm here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The Armalite and ballot box? [11](For some reason the I can't sign posts) ^{— Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs}

The Troubles rears its ugly head once again, eh? — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

With the BREXIT mess that is certainly a possibility as a hard BREXIT does break The Good Friday Agreement. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs}

The GFA is one of the few things keeping the Irish militias in line. If the Brits break it.... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

since the back stop will likely move ni closer to the roi the troubles can still flare up from loyalist agitation. there is no good Brexit possible (and no deal is more and more likely everyday) AMassiveGay (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@RWRW. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Gamer Schadenfreude

[12] AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

IIRC a few European countries (Netherlands, maybe a few others?) already legislated or issued decisions that loot boxes are gambling, and therefore illegal to sell to minors, as well as illegal to sell without lottery licensing. People complain about the military-industrial complex but the entertainment industry is far bigger. (Just, you know, the bombs are digital.) CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

My country called them gambling aswell. EA's response? Suing the government and demanding that we change our laws. The outcome? EA lost their own court case.

I've been hoping for years that I get to withness EA's demise & bankruptcy... Maybe that time is finally nigh...? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I solved the problem long ago on my end by simply not buying or playing anything EA produces. Not because of any moral or ethical issues with loot boxes or whatever, but for the simpler, more visceral reasons that EA hasn't produced anything but crap for a decade and a half anyway. Kencolt (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

its not just ea though and that's not really an option if you like any of their sports game. they have the official licensing after all, and as stated in the vid, they are rated for ages 3+. its also notable that the reason why many of their games are trash is directly because of their monetisation. my nephew still wanted the last star wars game despite knowing all about the loot box shit, and his sister has been playing the sims for 10 years, spending a lot of her cash on it, knowing full well its a rip off, but she likes the game. they are kids, and these things are marketed to kids by people knowing full well that kids don't make the best decisions and their impulse control is not great. and bad habits learned as kids are bad habits that take a life time to break.

its not simply the size of these companies and the money they make either, its that technology has outpaced legislation, allow these fucks to get away with so much shit, in the same way google and facebook take advantage of their users, ie. everyone, in ways no one had thought of before. along with the fact that there is the old assumption these are just harmless kids games. its interesting that when politicians scapegoat these very same games for other societal ills, it works in these corporations favour, as we all go out of our way to state they really are just harmless kids games. they should just be harmless games. for kids or adults. these fucks make profit by purposely making them harmful.

I think the best thing about this recent development is the way mps have basically called theses studios lying fucks, with the ea exec getting special mention. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

and this is all without going into the ways I keep hearing that these corporations exploit their own employees. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not EA. Activision, the mobile market (Nintendo is notable), etc. Activision is worse, they skirt the in-app purchases labeling on physical copies by releasing a paid premium game without microtransactions but making the game very grindy only to include microtransactions in an update, which lends to the question of why we can't include blood, gore, and sexual content in later updates for E rates games. I wish the gambling commission looked into this too along with the predatory fee to pay (aka paid games with microtransactions). The "player choice" bootlick defense, I really really hate it as well as "it's just cosmetics!" This is when these companies cry about piracy, games being expensive to make, and skin trading while they dodge the tax man. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

it should be noted that the linked vid and and the report it covers, is about more than ea and loot boxes, and does address some the things you mentioned, and the vid mentions the report covers a whole more not mentioned here. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

i'm not sure if the report is officially out yet though. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

seems it isAMassiveGay (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the report. Not sure if it's just that I read it in the car and probably reading in a car was a bad idea. Yeah, I figure microtransactions in general are really manipulative and predatory, there's the testimonials in the report, the Runescape being really disgusting as well as Epic Games engaging in some victim blaming with """"individuals responsibility"""" (they're responsible too, Epic Games has engaged in morally repugnant loot boxes that encouraged kids to bully others for "defaults" as well as forcing developers under sweatshop conditions, don't talk to me about "individual responsibility"). I really hope this sheds a light on how truly awful the industry treats its customers (and it's particularly galling, again, how the industry talks about how piracy is the worst thing in the world when at the same time they abuse paying law-abiding customers). But still in the report, they didn't mention the recent blitz with Activision introducing microtransactions in Crash Team Racing well after release and after the reviews settled, which is a slippery, mucousy, appalling, revolting way of skirting labeling at least on physical copies as well as exploiting and betraying trust of people that buy their games.

A little tangent, but is anyone else alarmed how arcades have gambling machines in them? The most recent to Dave & Busters, I saw fucking Wheel of Fortune, flashing pyramids, the infamous fish games, and digital slot machines in there, along with kids walking around and some try to play with those machines, and it made me feel so disgusted, I don't think I'll feel anything less than visceral gagging any time I have to visit it again. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

they've always had slot machines and one armed bandits. they generally very low stakes, from pennies to a few pounds jackpot. there are arcades with nothing but slots in them, but they are akin to bookies or very very low rent casinos rather than video game arcades. ive taken my niece and nephew to arcades by the London eye and they loved winning a few coppers and watch the machines spit out reels of tokens that you need hundreds to earn a pencil eraser or a penny chew. its more like a fair ground and only once in a few years, not everyday and all day in your face like to in pc or console gaming. its the ubiquity that's problematic.

as with this report, its a great validation for people who have been talking about this years and all, but this one is dependant on the british government taking action, and at this time the british government cant even guarantee our food supply. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is that I will not be able to buy funbucks to unlock a season pass with the sole purpose of levelling enough to earn the funbucks required to buy the next season pass. My minor concern is that I maybe actually want those season passes enough to spend money on them. My new major concern is why am I buying funbucks? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

6 weeks fetus picture

Which image is accurate? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

They both might make for amazing caviar. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

one of these is clearly from Alien. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Pro lifers have speculated that taking the neoteny out of the image will make a mother feel less guilty about abortion. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the right one, the left one is from more developed (maybe three months), that plays with scale to look smaller.

I'd also not be surprised at all if some pro-lifers think a fetus in the womb looks like a baby from pretty much fecundation, and simply grows up in those nine months. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Japan May Dump Radioactive Water from Fukushima in the Ocean

They are expected to run of storage space within the next three years, and a minister recently suggested consulting a panel of experts to decide how they can safely dump it into the Pacific Ocean.

I can understand why local Japanese fishermen and the Koreans may be upset with this, but everyone else in the international community is raising hell about it in social media. Radiophobes who don't understand chemistry or physics are losing their minds, like it's the end of the world or something.

Do they have reason to fearmonger? According to Forbes, it's perfectly safe, if done right. Are they correct? Discuss. G Man (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's safe if done right, and that's their only option at this point, I don't see many other alternatives. Let's hope they don't fuck this up. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

'perfectly safe if done right' - i'll take your word for that, i'm no scientist. and neither are the people who will just see 'radiation' 'contaminated' 'dumped in ocean', and think twice about buying seafood around the local and wider area. I cant see much in the linked article about 'everyone else in the international community'.

and heres the thing, we've been told for the years that we've been poisoning the ocean with everything from mercury to plastic, and now this and we are told 'ehh, no big deal' - we've been told that before. there are countless examples of people being its perfectly safe even after years of cancer and birth defects, japan has its own tragic history of that kind of thing.

this is the same problem we have with gm foods - it doesn't matter what the science if the way you sell it to general public is dismissive of the fears and suspicions than have been bred into us from years of dishonesty about the very real dangers of too many things by people who insist they know better, from people and organisations with a history that gives us good reason not to trust them.

most people are not scientists. most people know they don't understand the science behind a lot of scary sounding things. telling them they are idiots and they should just do as you say will doesn't make them trust you. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I, myself, am not an expert, either. I'm an engineering student, and I've only taken two semesters of physics, and one semester of chemistry. However, with all this hysteria from radiophobes who have never cracked open a physics (or chemistry) textbook. With the media's substandard coverage of science, it's hard to tell who's telling the truth, anymore. I'm pro-nuclear, but I know there's a great deal of misinformation from both sides. For this reason, I like to keep an open mind. G Man (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's time to redesign language templates

I think it's time to redesign the templates that link articles to versions in other languages. The problem is that the person who designed the current templates only thought that there would be articles in two languages, English and French, not knowing that we'd now have articles in a dozen languages. The idea was that there would only be one template on each page, not five like there are here. So the current templates are much too big and take up much too much room on a page. I really don't think it's necessary to say, "If you're looking for this article in X it can be found at Y", or to include the RationalWiki logo in the template. I think it should be one line with the name of the article in the other language and a flag icon before it. This one for English, this one for Portuguese. this one for Esperanto (of course) and the national flag of the country with which the language is most strongly associated for the others. (So that means the flag of the People's Republic of China for Chinese. I have misgivings about that. But, oh well.) So links would look something like this:

• Halloween
• Haloveno
• Halloween (español)
• Halloween (français)

I'd just go ahead and change the templates myself. But I lack the technical skills. Spud (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to be consistent about assigning flags to languages. Spanish is also fraught: there are more native Spanish speakers in both Mexico and the US than there are in Spain for example. One could assign the 'natal' flag of the language but then most people don't know that there's a flag of England different than the Union Jack. WP seems to have punted on this, just relying on the language name in the side bar. Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My first thought was to just have the native name of the language or the language code (en, eo, es, fr, zh and so on). But I thought that something a bit more eye catching might be better. We could do it this way:

• Halloween
• Haloveno
• Halloween (español)
• Halloween (français)

What do you think? Spud (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

How about... get rid of the templates altogether and just have other language versions listed under "see also"? Avida Dollars^{her again} 07:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Avida Dollars That's the best idea I've heard all day! Especially if I could could put the little flags next to the links. Mind you, I think non-English articles would still need a hatnote at the top of the page to link to the English version. That's in order to stop people who see those pages by clicking on random article from saying, "What the hell is this crap?". Spud (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spud I've been doing that since this place started! :D Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spud I was wondering if it is possible to add links in MediaWiki: Sidebar that connect these articles in different languages. Something like "interwikis". Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 10:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. But I think not. The point of those links is to link to other wikis. We can link to the Russian wiki that way because it is a separate wiki. The articles in all other languages, apart from Russian, aren't on separate wikis. They're on this one. And I think if it was possible to link in that way, we'd do that already. Spud (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spud I like the idea of making a little flag template for other language versions and putting them in the see also. If no one else wants to do it, I'll build the template sometime this weekend. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Thank you so much. You truly are one of my favourite RationalWiki editors of all time. If you could please do that this weekend, I would be ecstatic! Spud (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Looks good, @DuceMoosolini. I like the new flags and the change. Bongolian (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you, @DuceMoosolini. You are great! Spud (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

New Democratic debate

Anything new that has been said? I heard Castro attacked Biden again. Tinribmancer (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen some very negative response to Castro's attack. Like him or not, the Americans are not going to elect a guy named Castro President.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Like him or not, the Americans are not going to elect a guy named Hussein President. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(as an aside, I do not, in fact, like Castro) ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I heard it before, put as a guy named Obama. My retort was, "Obama? Obama? Isn'r he a good Irishman?" Ariel31459 (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The role of trust, as it pertains to political views

I've been thinking about the "spectrum of trust" as a kind of political litmus test/thought experiment recently. On one end, you have someone who only trusts himself and no one else, and even goes so far as to always assume the worst in others. On the other end, you have someone who trusts other people readily, even going so far as to always assume the best in people. In between you have different degrees of trusting only close people, only people you identify with, etc. It can be a little messy in the middle but overall it's a fairly linear spectrum. I won't give away my interpretation of how this might be "overlaid" onto other political spectra (hint: it's not done linearly) but I wanted to spark some discussion because it seems to be a very relevant issue right now even if we don't talk about it. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

One angle I find interesting: lack of trust in institutions and authority can contribute to conspirational thinking – see for example https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/poq/nfz032/5554656 CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nah, "not trusting governments" is a lie conservatives tell you that they don't actually mean. Their voters have huge institutional trust levels(80+%) in things like "The military". One of the most important things you have to understand about modern american politics is that every one of the openly stated values of conservatives is a lie. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I suspect that is true in the US but it's different elsewhere. In Scandinavia, "not trusting the government" is more of a far right-wing position tied to accusations of Eurabia, climate-change denialism, etc. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Outside the US and UK there's a lot of countries with basically sane parties. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak to the UK, but the US mistrust of "Big Government" is exclusively an opinion of the right-wing, primarily supported by private industry. Whenever people are interviewed about specific services the Federal/State government provides, the results are generally positive. But when the discussion comes to opinion of government trust, the results tend to be negative. I suspect that these feelings are fostered by corporations who want less taxes (i.e. the Koch Brothers and the Pew Brothers), but not entirely unrelated to the founding of this country through violent revolution. The military support is particularly interesting considering there is plenty of evidence the military would go right along with killing citizens...RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that's 100% true if you specify big government: but as to distrust of the government, aren't there also moonbats in the US who think the NSA is spying on everything all the time and the CDC is lying about vaccines, and therefore RT and Oliver Stone are right about everything? I suspect this is TheUnderOver's point, that distrust is most linked to those who feel alienated by whatever the establishment is. I don't think there's a contradiction between paranoia being linked to institutional distrust. Koch-backed astroturfing against "big government" I would argue is a related issue which appeals to wingnuts, but not the whole picture. If Americans were right to distrust the NSA after the Snowden revelations, it could push people on the left into Jill Stein/Marianne Williamson territory. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You're onto one of the points I was trying to get at. Distrust of others seems to be a common trait of any extreme political philosophy, but this could a chicken-or-the-egg situation since harboring ANY fringe belief is bound to get you alienated, which would lead to you distrusting those who are alienating you. TheUnderOver (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And also, my original point was about distrust of people in general, not institutions. Not that it's not worth talking about too. TheUnderOver (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between those on the right that distrust the Federal Government and want to see it removed, and those on the left that distrust the Federal Government and want to see more oversight. Because fundamentally the right's argument is "You can't trust big government, but you can trust private industry" and the left's is "You can't trust government or private industry without oversight". Only the absolute fringes of the left want to see the role of government severely limited, and they have more in common with libertarians, than the classic liberal interpretation of the role of government.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

my observations in the uk would suggest trust varies depending on class, ethnicity, whether things are going well in general or personally, how much direct contact you have with with varying levels of government, local and national, how dependant you are on government, level of education, the different levels of government, whose in power, level of engagement. and what you mean trust will vary too, do you mean trust in competetence, honesty, do you trust them to look out for your interests, another groups interests or antagonistic to your interests. if your talking about trust in people, then factors like the community you in, how close knit, how large, its relative wealth and safety, education, ethnicity, all play a factor. do trust those in your community but not beyond? people like you? do trust most folk but not some types? do you distrust people because you yourself are untrustworthy? and again what do you mean by trust? not to rob or hurt you? that you look out for each other? that people are reliable, do as they, competent? or if you trust the government in general but not the people in it? or the people but not the institution? and if government really is incompetent or corrupt, its institutions falling apart, or your all your neighbours really are violent crooks, you are not going to have much trust of any sort regardless of your political leanings or background. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to elaborate and provide examples and such like, but it turned into a huge long rambling post when I can just say its complicated and over generalising obscures the view on the ground. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is really complicated. It will be different for each individual, circumstance and institution. How much do you trust: the government, the political party you are most aligned with, the political party you re least aligned with, the police, the army, your wife or husband, doctors, alternative medical practitioners, dogs, this wiki, Conservapedia, Wikipedia, horoscopes, The Times, The Guardian, The Sun.

How representative are you of the society in which you live?

Is your level of trust the same as it was yesterday? Last year?

This is not something which is subject to any kind of easy generalisation.Hubert (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be safe to say that "Support the Military" is not something that features as heavily in the UK. George Orwell wrote a treatise on the subject, I would think likely still holds some accuracy. With the US, there is also the seeming dissonance of not trusting Congress, but trusting one's own Congressional representative.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump's stupidity knows no bounds

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/trump-s-plan-pay-border-wall-air-force-funds-risks-n1054091?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR10ZKOPpxqSR_CsvEdhVRFbmhSyHPUif0_ckwNU8Ge92wgS_d9QHtur6dE

How desperate can someone be for a fucking wall? Give him some Duplo Blocks to shut him up. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but "national security" is a bullshit concept that is so non-specific to not mean anything anymore. "The wall" is stupid, racist, solves no problems. But neither does National Security scaremongering. The actual risks posed to the US from the Air Force having a haircut of a couple billion are... pretty minimal and very vague? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "stupidity", as much as I would call it cruelty. Some of these funds were earmarked for construction of facilities to be used by service members and their families. Ikanreed is also right that the military spending is bloated, but again, these particular resources is not where I personally would begin cutting. Maybe get rid of some of the insane contracts with military contractors (i.e. mercenaries), unnecessary military bases dotting the Middle East and weapons systems that have low success rates.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It is sad to know that there is a Brazilian version of Trump's stupidity. Smalkade • Contribs • Sandbox • EC 00:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Defunding military schools and daycares and preventing children of US soldiers born abroad from getting automatic citizenship is to me just the latest in a long list of evidence that Cadet Bone Spurs doesn't give a single shit about the people who serve our country. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump claims to be for the military but has consistently screwed them over. Not the only ones screwed over, already a laundry list of people who got screwed. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be easier if we made a list of people that Trump DIDN'T screw over. Tinribmancer (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump trying to kill fake news

Trump is actively trying to make The Onion cry: "Trump blamed energy-saving bulbs for making him look orange."[13] As might be expected, Trump's exact remarks are actually worse than the headline might lead one to believe:

“”The lightbulb. People said what's with the lightbulb? I said here's the story. And I looked at it, the bulb that we’re being forced to use, number one to me, most importantly, the light’s no good. I always look orange. And so do you. The light is the worst.

It reminds one of the Insane Clown Posse's 'brilliant' observation on magnetism, "Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" Bongolian (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's weird the tiny fragments of truth that somehow slip into his ramblings. New bulbs give you a huge range of color options that didn't used to be possible, and some people like redder bulbs as(ironically) they feel cooler to live and work in than the blue ones. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)