RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive326

This is an archive page, last updated 12 October 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>, <324>, <325>, <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)

'Islam is right about women': Odd signs spark confusion in local town

4chan strikes again... https://www.boston25news.com/news/-islam-is-right-about-women-odd-signs-spark-confusion-in-local-town/987837653 ^{— Unsigned, by: 2620:7:6001:0:0:0:0:122 / talk}

A), that story doesn't say it's 4chan and B), so what? Why should anyone give a shit? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What's with all the BoNs posting random outrage-bait stories in the Bar? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 19:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

They miss shitposting on 8Chan. Tinribmancer (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Contributions/2620:7:6001:0:0:0:0:122 exactly what is the point of the post? At a loss here. By the way, please put a signature. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Poor BoN is just as confused as the poster's sense of purpose. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Graffiti on street signs is not something anyone normally gives a shit about apart from the defacing aspect. (Although this is the Boston area.) Online, the only people that seem to care about this story are places like Kiwifarms and Bitchute (and since that side of the Internet pond also doesn't give a shit about women's rights, their concern is rather ironic.) Soundwave106 (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Bitchute? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The other wiki has a bit on Bitchute. Essentially it's a decentralized video platform. A fair bit of the alt-right and conspiracy dweebs who have been deplatformed from Youtube I guess have flocked there. Currently, the home page shows a bunch of climate change denialism bullshit, a video on some "nano chemtrail fibre" wordsalad, an Alternative für Deutschland vid, a video with the description "pack of n*****s attack a white couple", Trump praise, Putin praise, "white advocacy is not hate"... that sort of thing. There are a few more normal videos sprinkled among this lot but I wouldn't want to advertise there. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably just someone with 4 wives. Or a similar number of mistresses. Unless it's the bit in the Quran where Mary says she'd rather die than go through the pain of childbirth[1], which would have solved the world a lot of problems. --Annanoon (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Has UT returned from the grave? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

32 Hour work week.

Labour has announced it as part of their platform. 32 hours seems a little too long to me, no? ShabiDOO 13:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

all platforms are fantasy until Brexit has been resolved. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Brexit will not be resolved. It will fester forever. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It was once said, "There's no future. And England's dreaming." Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's not underestimate the human ability to create another drama. If something's going to end, it's not going to be the drama. I imagine the average number of hours people must work is dependent upon the average number of hours required to produce a surplus. So 19th century.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

considering that no less than 4 out 5 authors of 'Britannia unchained' are in government, a tome that complains the british are the worst idlers in the world because we don't wont to work over 50 hours a week and we would rather retire than work till we drop, for whom the prospect of low taxes low regulation and zero workers rights has them cumming in their pants, Brexit will make all their dreams come true. the 19th century would be an apt comparison if not for the fact that was a period that saw unprecedented growth and the zenith of empire while our future holds nothing but decline and the break up of my country. these people are scum. they offer us nothing except lies and delusionAMassiveGay (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It's almost like Tories are the problem, not brexit itself. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The only reason there's been no marked loss of productivity in the UK in recent years is people are working a lot of upaid overtime. Prepare for repeated references to Blake's "dark Satanic mills" in the near future. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick American drop in, I took up a position that requires me to work around 45 hours a week still paid hourly, time and a half if/when I go over 40. Unpaid overtime sounds like a salary issue. I would never take a salary offer in my current position. Does hourly pay work different in the UK? Maybe I'm lucky? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

When I worked in the UK I had five different kinds of contracts. One was hourly, and overtime was time and a half after 40 hours of a 35 hour work week. So I'd try to cram all the over time into one week to go over the 40 hour mark, which most other employees did. My other contract was paid weekly, and when they asked me to do overtime they were shocked that I would say no and all the other employees were either jealous or resentful as none of them said no and when I left at 1700 hardly anyone said goodbye. My third contract said "overtime as needed" which turned into a one or two hours of overtime every day (needed) and that job didn't last very long. Fourth kind of contract had a strict no overtime clause and I'd stare at the clock counting down to 1700. My very last job was however long it took to get the job done each day. Started at 8 hours or more a day. And then I found an extremely easy way to automate most of it once I discovered keyboardexpress, macros and other pretty simple shortcuts. I'd say my job became 3 hours of work and 5 hours of goofing off, browsing the internet, brushing up on languages and finding a good postgrad school after prospecting a few hundred universities around the world (which was a good investment of time as I did a masters that cost 150€ a year. So the result is: "it depends" in the UK. Having said that the UK has generally okay labour rules with mediochre holidays. Better than most US states. Nothing like Scandinavia. But certainly ready to be obliterated after leaving the EU. Cause, meh, who needs job protections when they get in the way of precious gold, lots and lots of precious gooooooold. ShabiDOO 04:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour week sounds more reasonable. Even when you really like your job. ShabiDOO 04:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty bold. While I get that if your job is to get a few limited tasks that don't leave clutter behind finished, like data entry, it is better to only work at peak efficiency. But that's not how the sausage is made, not every job is sitting at a desk and staring at a computer. A storefront needs to be open. A receiving dock intakes a ton of trash and recycling, quality control creates a lot of returns and scrap, and not always at a constant pace. And a small business that needs to maintain fewer than 50 employees, provide health insurance, PTO, sick leave, maternity leave, and keep running in a competitive market that it could not compete in can't do 24 hour full-time employment. It just wouldn't function. You'd have people showing up to closed or understaffed shops with all their extra free time and money. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh. Medium and large sized businesses in Western democracies could easily handle 24 hour work weeks if the policies were right and corporate big wigs took a cut on their obscene Christmas bonuses. But we cannot get our fair cut or better working conditions until we demand it. Just as it wouldn't be wise to double the minimum wage over night nor should we do 24 hour work weeks overnight. If done gradually there's no reason we shouldn't have a much higher wage and work less. We are stinking stinking stinking stinking stinking rich. The GDP in Western democracies is astronomically enormously unbelievably plentiful. And the economies will still be roaring when people work less and get livable salaries. ShabiDOO 05:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I'm saying doesn't work. If the corporate big wigs can employ more people even at fewer hours than a small business is allowed to have employees, it only serves to push that small business into a tighter corner of competition. As much as I am for socializing 4 things, 100% of the time; healthcare, education, criminal justice, and internet access, there are private sectors that are set up to both override the niche and survive extra regulation. Like how Wal-Mart puts out grocery stores, or on a big fish level, Best Buy critically wounded Sears, and then Amazon destroyed Best Buy. Which, I guess, if everybody worked a big-box store job... I guess maybe I'm a little confused about your point. At what point does wealth supplant labor?

It could just be culture clash here, I have a favorite Mexican place that I can spend 8 bucks at and get all fucked up on good food, or I can spend 4 bucks at the Taco Bell half a block away and get all fucked up on food. Both are luxuries, but one place is run by people who I think might actually live there. I really support regulation, and again, socialization on key public utilities, but the more it's focused just on medium to big business, the more it cripples small business. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If you live in a country with a livable minimum wage, have decent government social services and haven't been out of work for too long, then a fast-food restaurant visit should NOT be a luxury. Fast food should be and can be easily afforded by nearly everyone in Central and Northern Europe. In a few countries, even those out of work for years and have to take lots of medication should be able to have hamburgers outside without counting their precious pennies. The point is, in a wealthy country with a stable functioning economy...it is VERY possible to make a livable wage and work less. A couple scandinavian countries are actively cutting down on their work weeks. I believe Ireland is contemplating the same thing. America, for example, is filthy filthy filthy rich and could, if there was the will...easily handle livable wages. But a chronic sociopathic liberterian bent, rather unique to the developed western world...prevents it. Where even modest changes are seen as radical communist policies of destruction. Luckily a few states do have something approaching a livable wage. And hopefully some states will cut down on mandatory working hours. It's simply not necessary. Other countries thrive with more humane policies and no, everything doesn't go to shit. I don't think 24 hour work weeks are outrageous. Especially with automation coming, it very well might be enevitable, at least in the EU. ShabiDOO 04:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I took an allergy med, but I'd still like to reply to this one. I didn't really mean to imply it would all go to shit, just that it is short sighted to shoot for a 4 day workweek. I am a laborer, I understand that capitalism works by devaluing my labor, so that the product I put out is worth more to the owner of the means of my production than the labor I put in. Being said, I also agree strongly that something like a social healthcare system in the US would actually take that cost off of business, no matter the size (and the closest we've got, besides medicare/medicaid is an age allowance to stay on your parents' health care until 25, which is great, but also kind of ass, since it favors kids whose parent have good full time employment and good health insurance for full-time with a waiver to health insurance over kids whose parents don't have a good insurance policy). Socializing health care, let's do it, I'm 100% for it. However, I still think dropping the full time prerequisite from 40 hours a week to 32 hours would incentivize business to further avoid full time employment opportunities, to justify low wages and continue scheduling part time fewer hours in order to never meet full time hours (which gives part time employees fewer hours) and to continue to complain that it's socialism that is the problem.

Again, not trying to say it will all go to shit, but from what I can see, it is a bridge... Very, very far. Some might say too far. But I'm a nihilist. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried and tried but I cannot seem to find Master's thesis's from people who went to the Institute for Creation Research grad school.

My motive: a possible separate article for the ICR Grad school itself. I am suspecting that it would be like Kent Hovind's....."doctoral dissertation" where the thesis is not publicly available. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Heck, I can't find any faculty below administrators. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing left to do but enroll. Aight, I put on my Q shirt and MAGA hat. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That might not be the best of ideas. Sure, the MAGA hat's a good bet. But the Q shirt could be mistaken for your endorsement of the Q gospel theory, and since that would have been written in Greek or Aramaic, that suggests that you're not endorsing the King James Only assertion, which I suspect is a requirement. Kencolt (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Master's theses are generally harder to find than Ph.D. theses because they are considered of lesser quality and consequently usually not worth of academic citation. If you can find it via web searching, try Worldcat (https://www.worldcat.org/), the world catalog of libraries. I know for a fact though that Worldcat is not exhaustive because I've visited an international library that is not in Worldcat. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a cool visit. What I think is missing is a little bit of context, in that I doubt the Institute for Creation Research is 1. accredited or even respected outside of Creationist Evangelical circles, or 2. willing to accept "students" that don't work very hard to credit Creationist Evangelical ideas. But I haven't seen the papers either, so I don't know, they could be harboring mind-blowing research on any subject. Oh mercy, that sounds like fun.

What if the Institute for Creation Research proved that gravity on the moon works the same as on Earth, just God wanted to watch astronauts bounce around?

What if the Institute for Creation Research proved that dinosaurs buried themselves underground, under the influence of Satan, to help future scientists because lizard brains are fundamentally more susceptible to Satan? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that these theses are generally unavailable to the public, and hence can not be said to be influential in spreading Creationism, is there any reason to bother with them at all?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a rubber stamp affixed to apologia to make it seem more credible. It probably works toward that end. The difference between pseudoscience and regular lies is all in the branding. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not talking about an audience that respects academic credentials to begin with. Furthermore, as Bongo pointed out, these papers are not generally respected original research, even in real scientific fields. I see no problem with exposing them. I just wonder if they are worth the bother.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

RZ has an interest in dealing with fundie schools. It's not really too weird as a focus for skeptics, makes more sense than being another bigfoot debunker. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I also think the intended audience is homeschoolers. So maybe it's a little bit of piling on to poke fun at the idea, but the "accreditation" can work in sustaining Creationist beliefs in textbooks suggested/approved for Creationist or really any Evangelical homeschooling.

You can throw up your hands and say "Ugh, some nonsense" or you can really get a feel for what college is like, even if you were homeschooled. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, my master's thesis is in Worldcat, so when a whole institution's is not, I would also ask the question "What do ICR theses even look like?". CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I read from The Encyclopedia of American Loons, it seems to be akin to a high school book report to an undergraduate thesis. Don't know how true it is. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

BitChute

Soundwave106 already dropped the name a few topics above. After reading it's wikipage, I'm positively sure that it's on mission if we had a page on BitChute aswell. Plus, it seems that several people we have pages on, are active on BitChute. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a small blurb in the social media platforms wannabes section, for now, feel free to correct / enhance. More might be needed later as it seems like it is the current choice of any reactionary who gets in trouble with Youtube (and unlike what I see with, say, Gab, this stuff seems actively promoted by the company... within the first 10 or so posts, the official Gab stream for Bitchute contains shared videos from at least five people with Rationalwiki articles).^{— Unsigned, by: Soundwave106 / talk / contribs}

BitChute now exists as an article here EK (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment

What effect does this have on Trump? Can he get kicked out of the white house?

And does this have an effect on Joe Biden? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's about time Pelosi grew a spine, and fuck Biden to an early grave. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, if Biden got the nomination, would you refuse to vote for him in the presidential election and help doom us to 4 more years of Trump? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 23:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if impeachment fails, it has impact on the confidence to govern. Both times when impeachment proceedings were tried on for Clinton and that Johnson guy, they had a chilling impact on the administration. I'm relieved Pelosi can move forward to it, but the Senate, which is filled with those more spineless than an elephant ballsack, is a different story. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I must say, an elephant ballsack with a spine would be quite a find. Up there with a crocoduck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

To answer the questions - it's just another dog whistle "poor me" moment for Trump, and yes, he can get kicked out - but it requires the House of Representatives to bring charges by a simple majority, and the Senate to convict by a 2/3rd super-majority for that to happen. right no with both houses split totally along partisan lines the first is likely, the 2nd is unlikely.Aloysius the Gaul 02:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about feasibility of it, but impact might be damaging to the presidency regardless of the consequences. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed you are - and hence you are not answering 2 of the 3 questions asked - so I covered the gap. Aloysius the Gaul 02:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not optimistic about any cooling effect. First, you've got boomer voters who are so far past caring about candidates over policy that the parties have them locked down regardless of policy. Secondly, you're got firebrand youth on both sides who are so distant from where the policies used to matter that they are at each others' throats for entertainment. I am more worried about the age of the front-runners. We've got Trump at 73, Warren at 70, Sanders at 78, and Biden at 76. The median age here is 74 going on 75, this is not the age range you want a dynamic, flexible, progressive leader to be in. This is the age where you let them nap out wherever they are so that they don't go crazy and spout their 1970s bullshit. But the boomers won't vote for anybody younger than themselves. I mean, this is fucking royal fealty, it looks like a succession battle more than anything else. I remember when people used to demand there be an age limit on driving. Running the country? Which is not to say I'm totally optimistic about Gen X getting seated, I think the Gen Xers who bought into the power structure are the ones ripping reality apart for votes, both sides. It will be interesting to see in 2024, if Trump doesn't have a coronary by then (and if he does, that's a civil war catalyst), if the third party option gets brought up again like it was in 2016. Currently, 3rd party is a moot issue, and that sucks. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There are two ways this can go: (1) wrap it up quickly and say fuck it, it's not worth it, we made a mistake, or (2) drag it put until next years conventions and make it an election year issue for all 435 member of the House and 34 Senators running. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 03:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This would have a deranging effect on Trump. No telling what the imbecile would do. Try to start a war maybe. Trump could be removed were the Republicans willing to remove him. The question presents itself, "Does it matter which democrat is chosen to run against Trump (or Pence)?" No, not really, if Trump continues as he has. What matters is who controls the Congress. Sanders, for example, would have a hard time doing anything unusual beyond rubber stamping standard liberal legislation. Red districts, should they elect democrats, will choose moderately conservative democrats. Many pundits predict Warren would lose to Trump. I doubt it, but have been wrong before.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Gol Sarnitt: I find it a little weird you're focused a lot on the age of the voters and on arbitrary generational boundaries, like this is a boomer versus everyone else problem. The boomer we all have in mind (e.g. white, age 60+, Protestant) are a shrinking minority and were around for the past several elections. We got a ho-hum candidate, Hillary Clinton, to contend with another hugely unpopular candidate, Trump, that not only energized the far right base but we got some that wouldn't vote for Trump to stay home because Hillary was that unappealing. Anyhow, while Warren, Sanders, and Biden are pretty old, the ideas they share still jive really well with a lot of younger voters so IMO what the idea they offer matters more than their age. It would be nice to have younger candidates, but that's not a huge deal for me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, we should arrest both biden and trump. I can't prove biden committed any crimes, though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump I think miscalculated, thinking the the Impeachment effect from 1998 would be the same, as opposed to 1974, when once the inquiry started going, public opinion went from not favoring removal to eventually supporting Nixon's removal. Additionally, the only evidence of the effect of Impeachment on elections seems pretty obviously to be against those being targeted. Republicans were wiped out in the House and Senate in '76 and didn't really recover until '94 in the House and '00 in the Senate. And Clinton's Impeachment certainly didn't help Gore in '00. Aside from the purely political calculation, this Ukraine thing is clearly an impeachable offense, the Mueller investigation revealed at least ten impeachable offenses, and emoluments thing is definitely an impeachable offense. I'd hazard that Pence finishes this term, and also Barr also gets impeached.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Republicans set a really desperate, low, and silly standard for impeaching Clinton, mind you, which was probably the reason Clinton, alongside a strong economy, got more popular. I don't know about his popularity ratings (didn't follow politics, was like 5 when he left office). I don't think impeachment here is quite the same as the Clinton one since the Mueller report is already out and is pretty damning to read about. Clinton doesn't have that equivalent. Regardless, the public is pretty ignorant of all this and we'll see if they "wake up" and realize the sorts of foreign influence Putin crap Trump and his cronies allowed themselves to benefit from. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a difference, presidential no-no wise, between a blowjob / marital infidelity and lying about it, versus attempting to blackmail one of your political allies in order to get dirt on a likely opponent for the next election. One involves the world stage and national interests, the other doesn't. The Mueller report showed anyone with a brain that Trump plays dirty with democracy but this report is so damning in an extremely direct fashion, I think it's much harder to ignore. So aligning the impeachment impact based on the Newt Gingrich experience is, at the moment, wrongheaded. I don't think he'll get out though unless the nearly universal support he has among anyone who calls themselves Republicans starts caving, and I see no signs of that at the moment. Although it seems like Hunter Biden didn't do anything wrong from the early reports, I think it is possible that this further dampens Biden's chief appeal ("electability") and helps the current candidate in 2nd place, Elizabeth Warren. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to forget that what Clinton did was unforgivable and a fatal breach of trust with the public and an extremely unpresidential thing to do. Despite his charm and handful of good policies, and being completely open to the fact that his Republican opposition had already become the dirt bag shithead game players that they are now, doesn't take away from the fact that he lied to investigators. He should have been impeached. It set a precedent. That a president can fragrantly break the law, and get away with it. And even gain votes afterwards. Which tells you how much Americans actually care about leaders and the law. It will always come down to a popularity contest and partisan lines. ShabiDOO 22:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not the same thing, not even remotely the same thing. Not even the same area code. Look, lying about an extramarital affair is bad, and to be clear Clinton was impeached, he just wasn't convicted and removed by the Senate. Also Clinton didn't benefit electorally from the investigation, he wasn't on the ticket again. This is much closer to '74, and I would argue, close to Andrew Johnson's impeachment as well. Trumps' actions were explicitly for his benefit and threatened the security of the US, as well as being a campaign finance violation.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't care how much worse Trump is (he certainly is). If there was any sense of justice then Clinton would have been booted out. At the time, congress and Americans in general didn't give a shit about the law and a President overflowing with perjury. I do not understand how anyone, with a straight face, could support Trumps rightful impeachment, while dismissing Clinton's admittedly far less severe, yet still seriously illegal actions. I don't know any other Western country where a leader wouldn't be nearly instantly booted out of parliament or a presidency for perjury. ShabiDOO 22:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So, when is the impeachment resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry scheduled for a floor vote? nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 22:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You hyperbole is sadly typical of the polemic these days, and less than useful....I don't know of any country at all where any politician would get booted out of anything "instantly" for perjury - one of the pillars of western liberalism is presumption of innocence - even for a politicians. Another is right to a fair trial. Start messing with those for anyone at all and you're no longer a "Western" country in the sense I think you mean it. Aloysius the Gaul 22:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment resolution is months away, probably need to form a special committee as well. Also impeachment is inherently political, so why Clinton perjured himself is important.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/25/congress-should-remove-trump-from-office-but-let-him-run-again-228228 Also this is a great idea.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Give me a break. Clinton was caught red handed. He blatantly lied to protect his ass. If the Canadian Prime Minister, or German or Spanish one got caught with perjury he'd resign (has been done). Otherwise he'd be thrown out by his party (easily done and has been done) or through no confidence motions (not sure of any such case but has been done for other reasons). It's clear that the focus of many peoples support for the impeechment is how much they like the President and their policies. If one cared about Presidents following the law then they'd support both of them being booted out, which should and should have happened, I don't give a damn how much worse one was. If you can come up with a case where a democratic European leader was caught in perjury and stayed in office more than a month, I'd like to hear about it (though it may have happened in Hungary or Poland...also places where leaders and following the law doesn't matter). ShabiDOO 23:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, in the abstract, yes I agree with you. I was only 7 when Clinton was impeached and 2 when he was elected. And the more and more time goes on I like him less and less. And him resigning might have actually helped Gore in 2000. But lying about an extramarital affair is very low on the things that make politicians bastards.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It takes a vote of the full House to begin an impeachment inquiry. So, there is no impeachment inquiry. Fake news. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 00:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement for "a vote of the Full house to begin an impeachment inquiry" - dunno where you invented that from - an inquiry can start from a committee, as Nixon's did. Calling others for "fake news" might not be your cleverest move here. Aloysius the Gaul 01:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Once an impeachment resolution passes the full House, a committee or committees are vested with certain subpoena powers which only a vote of the full House can authorize. That's how Nixon's recording devices and tapes were discovered. Without the powers of an impeachment inquiry, a committee is limited to it's oversight powers. It can subpoena people and documents, but an administration can also claim Executive Privilege which will stand up in court. A vested impeachment inquiry can get around Executive Privilege in court. Defying a court order than itself can become an impeachable offense. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 03:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Most people in the United States do not understand how federal law operates. Their experience with democracy comes from the state and local level, where city council and state legislators abide by the same rules. At the federal level, legislators coming from 50 states experience is from 50 different sets of rules. So they have to thrash out among themselves what the meaning of different legal terms is.

In Minnesota, for example, DUI checkpoints have been ruled by the state's Supreme Court to be in violation of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches, yet DUI checkpoints exist in other states. In Arizona, if a minor is caught drinking in a licensed liquor establishment, the liquor establishment looses its license. In Wisconsin, the minor is charged and the liquor establishment is untouched.

So federal legislators don't even agree on the legal terminology they use, let alone legal concepts, such as "lying under oath," or "obstruction of justice." In my state, a judicial ruling remains on the books that says bribery is a customary and "accepted practice." When a state auditor asked a Wall Street bond dealer for a bribe to sell state bonds, the New York broker explained under New York law his phone was tapped, and the New Mexico treasury official told him it's ok, it's legal.

So trying to get D.C. legislators to agree on "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a near impossible task. I thought Bill Clinton discussing blowjobs at press conference in Moscow with Boris Yeltsin was mis-demeaning the Office of the President, but neither Republicans nor Democrats agreed with me. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 00:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

there is pretty widespread understanding that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever the House chooses it to be for the purpose of impeachment - the term is nowhere precisely defined and of ancient origin, so it falls to the House to make of it whatever it will. Aloysius the Gaul 01:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Here at RationalWiki, we aim to please. You aim too, please. Nobs, you missed again. Wipe that non sequitur off your feet. Bongolian (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

My point is, federal legislators have agreed upon the definition of "impeachment inquiry", and what it takes to open an "impeachment inquiry". Pelosi's announcement is not an "impeachment inquiry." It's fake news. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 03:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong on so many levels there is no point in even refuting you.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

An "impeachment inquiry" requires a vote of 218 members of the House. (a) No such vote has occurred. (b) No such vote is scheduled. Where am I wrong? nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 20:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

False. That vote is for Articles of Impeachment. An inquiry can be requested by a member or non-member of the House (this is mostly for the Judiciary), the complaint is referred to the Judiciary Committee. That's where they investigate (ie, inquire) about the complaint, and determine Impeachment articles. Though individual articles could be voted on by the full House, they could also just vote on the Judiciary Committee recommendation.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

They have no subpoena powers beyond ordinary oversight powers, which can be defeated by Executive Privilege. Only an impeachment resolution passed by the full House authorizes Congress to issue subpoenas that cannot be thwarted by executive privilege.

Therein lies the definition of "high crime"; the full House passes an impeachment inquiry resolution; Congress issues subpoenas which cannot be covered by Executive Privilege; the Supreme Court issues an order to comply; a president defies a Supreme Court order. The Senate ultimately decides. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 23:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. The full house passes an impeachment resolution - not an "impeachment inquiry resolution". The impeachment resolution is what comes AT THE END of an impeachment inquiry - and is the formal referral of the process to trial in the senate. This seems appropriate advice for you. Aloysius the Gaul 00:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. The full House passes an impeachment resolution authorizing a committee of Congress to begin and impeachment inquiry and draft articles of impeachment; the committee subpoenas witnesses and documents with enhanced powers that a court will override a president's claim of Executive privilege. Defying the court than itself becomes an impeachable offense.

Right now, Nadler and Schiff can do nothing when witnesses claim Executive Privilege - weather in a failure to appear, or in testimony. They can try and sue in Court to get 3 months free publicity, but ultimately they fail. Only after 218 members authorize a resolution, then they have enhanced powers to compel compliance. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 06:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Two votes are needed: one to begin the inquiry, and one to ratify the Articles of Impeachment. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 17:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Bill Clinton might've lied in perjury but I find it a stretch to then think that this poses a threat to democracy. The severity of the lying, especially given the very sensitive context of someone's sex life doesn't match with impeachment. I'm not going to deny that lying to the enforcement or whooever is a very bad thing, but it's far from an impeachable offense; there are so many other ways to enact consequences for breach of trust. Anyhow, I think trying to make a false equivalence about martial affairs and inviting foreign influence to election are two really different ? Blocks and the latter is clearly more of a threat to democracy by trying to manipulate the votes. There's also Trump obstructing justice several times. I'm still going back to my point though, that Clinton doesn't have that equivalence: he doesn't have historically high disapproval ratings, the economy is starting to falter, Clinton hasn't tried obstructing justice, Clinton doesn't have a corrupt administration the same vein as Trump's administration, Clinton didn't win the electoral on razor thin margins in a few swing states while losing the popular vote by millions, and even if the situation are the same, if the voters don't like impeachment, it's not like Clinton's impeachment helped Gore, and Clinton was definitely affected by impeachment where his influence waned faster than normal lame duck shenanigans. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a long list of appologetics for something that should be a no brainer. I don't know in what universe perjury is an okay offence for the leader of a country if, say, they haven't been nearly as corrupt as a really bad leader, or, say, happened to get a lot more votes than some other leader. Perjury is excusable if you have higher approval ratings. I'm not making a false equivalency. What Trump did was a lot more horrifying than what Clinton did. And if I only had to choose one person to be booted out, then it would be Trump. Of course. But the fact that he got away with it, because of a list of excuses similar to the ones you gave, and they are nothing but excuses...tells us about people's attitude towards leadership and justice. It's about your fondness for the person and the platform they represent. Not whether they did something seriously terrible. ShabiDOO 01:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Politics is *never* about complete logic, it's all about culture and tribes. You are incorrect about European leaders, it depends. François Mitterrand's affair with Anne Pingeot (an affair that conceived a child, a much more serious situation than a mere blowjob) is but a footnote in Wikipedia and (from what I can tell) a small scandal in France in 1994, but not one that was fatal to his political career. (That would be cancer.) And that certainly wasn't his only affair! (His successor Jacques Chirac supposedly possibly had some extra-curricular activities as well, but none that I can confirm as proven with quick Google searches.) The many "bunga bunga" style sexual scandals of ex-Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi are *not* just a footnote on the Wikipedia article about him. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Lefty, you haven't studied the case. At the same time Clinton, the Commander in Chief, was charged with lying about having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, a General was busted down and drummed out of the military for having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. The Senate chose to follow the Federal Election Commission rules that say a candidate can lie and pay off a lover to avoid embarrassment to his family, which Trump has followed the precedent. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 06:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Those are very different processes. There is no standard of conduct in the executive branch, unlike the military. And Lefty's point still stands, lying to protect the nature of an extra-marital affair (Obviously Mrs. Clinton was a victim, but Ms. Lewinski has had an anything but normal life as well), is not anywhere near using the Office of the President to pressure the head of a foreign country to launch a bullshit fishing expedition seeking information on a domestic opponent and their son, to help in an upcoming election, promising a WH meeting and the release of military aid to said country.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That kind of blanket standard for whatever lying the president did can set precedents. You just shouldn't be impeached for lying about martial affair, it'll give the green light to impeach a politician for.... lying. I'm not trying to argue apologetics, that Clinton should be excused. I just think the punishment is disproportionate to the crime, and saying "well the president lied to high people in court" is stretching "high crimes and misdemeanors" (historically that would be defined as a serious breach of public trust that endangers the democracy). Note that Republicans at the time hated him for not embracing social conservative values at the time. And the impeachment wasted energy by putting Clinton on the defensive and prevented him from addressing foreign policy problems and other things which in the end hurt us. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It is the job of the president to see that the laws are faithfully executed; it is not the will of Congress that foreign aide they appropriate goes to a corrupt regime that bows to bribery and extortion.

Lefty, I agree with most all your points. At the time, Republicans believed that Clinton would follow the Nixon precedent and resign. It was Clinton who chose to fight, which had a divisive impact on the country. That was the miscalculation the GOP made then, and Dems are making now. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 17:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Clinton going defense on impeachment is an odd way of casting blame on Clinton for dividing the U.S. The Republicans are the ones that miscalculated by vastly lowering the bar of impeachment but they got what they wanted: diminished power on Clinton's side. We as voters also lose because as I said previously, this drained Clinton energy from addressing vital foreign policy problems. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That was the miscalculation the GOP made; GOP was intent on impeaching Clinton since day one (he won with 42% of the vote). These things follow precedent, so a Special Prosecutor was needed. That took two years. Following the Nixon precedent, the GOP figured a Special Prosecutor report, along with Articles of Impeachment was all that was needed. They didn't imagine it going to trial.

The public however, which elected a GOP House in 1994, and re-elected Clinton with 49% in '96, was never focused on impeachment until after the Articles were passed.

Today, the Special Counsel found no conclusions of a crime (as the Ken Starr or the Watergate prosecutors did).

IOWs, James Comey made the same miscalculation that House Republicans made in 1998: they figured by presenting the President with embarrassing sexual innuendo, as Comey did on January 6, 2017, that would cause the president to bow and and submit. Comey and the other coup plotters neglected to realize that Trump and Clinton were friends, and Bill Clinton briefed Trump how to survive embarrassing sexual innuendo after he left office, which only encouraged Trump to aspire the presidency. The Clinton's wanted this, figuring Trump would be the easiest Republican to beat. And Trump employed Clinton's precedent in civil suits in the Stormy Daniels case and others. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 17:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-ukraine-impeachment-timeline.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

So, Giuillani & Barr are also involved? Tinribmancer (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Involved in what? Investigating Ukrainian collusion in the 2016 elections? This January 11, 2017 Politco article was published the same day BuzzFeed released the pee-pee memo. The Barr/Durham investigation is ongoing and old news. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 19:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblower's identity

Apperently, it's a CIA-Agent. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently his name is Michael Barry. [2][3][4] . nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 17:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

↑This is actually dangerous and threatens the safety of the whistle-blower and whoever is being accused of being the whistle-blower. Considering dictator Trump is suggesting we execute the whistle-blower, you should hold on the accusations.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

He's already been invited to give testimony before the Judiciary Committee in such an important case. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 19:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That isn't the same thing.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) report yet? (pages 6-7 but the whole thing is worth reading).

• "The complainant describes a hearsay report that the President, who is not a member of the intelligence community, abused his authority or acted unlawfully in connection with foreign diplomacy.....it does not follow that the alleged misconduct by the President concerns “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority” of the DNI because the allegations do not arise in connection with any such intelligence activity at all." nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 20:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't because that quote is from the OLC memo. A memo written by the DOJ, that determined it wasn't urgent, which reading the complaint, is bollocks.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well duh, it's the OLC bitch slapping ICIG for doing a piss-poor job. OLC has oversight of the IG. And if you're uncertain about the authority of OLC, read yesterday's WaPo.

To summarize briefly: The ICIG misused, exceeded, or abused his authority. Now some take this as bait, to get Trump to fire the ICIG, like he did Comey. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 06:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the ICIG is a Trump appointee. Also the OLC is housed in the DOJ, which is run by Bill Barr, who is named in the call and the complaint. And it's not remotely suspicious that it came to the conclusion that the president attempting to interfere in the next election wasn't "urgent".SMH-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

BFD. Michael Flynn was a Trump appointee, too. Maybe the ICIG was involved in Flynn's kidnapping plot that you allege. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 02:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears as though at least the ICIG has some respect for the constitution. Also he was Senate confirmed, Flynn was not. Also at least there is evidence of some sort of plot rather than you wild theory about the intelligence agencies conspiring against the executive branch. RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. I encourage you to make clear your support for a leftist totalitarian police state that does not respect civil liberties. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 17:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes because a Trump appointed, Senate confirmed IG is definitely a leftist. Also to be totalitarian, you kinda need to control the executive, and the Democrats don't even have full control of the legislature. You're deep state conspiracies increasingly reek of desperation and general insanity.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It so happens ICIG Michael Atkinson was the Chief Counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord of the DOJ-NSD who wrote and signed the Carter Page FISA application, before he was appointed ICIG - meaning he's up to his eyes in deep shit in the Horowitz FISA abuse investigation. We'll have to wait for the Horowitz report (ETA 2 weeks, according to latest leaks) to make any sort of informed response. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 02:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Deep State is not a real thing. Conspiracy theories are not evidence. The investigation will reveal nothing of substance.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Yes indeed. You got me on Berlesconi. Italy is certainly another country with a general disinterest in leadership and law...and the more south you go the scarrier it gets. Though to their credit they did boot him out in the end over a sex scandal, political favors and covering it upc. Italy is one of several political circuses at the moment...along with the perrenial US and UK. It makes Trudeau's black face seem like a non-event. In a just world he'd also be out the door. And reading apologetics for him certainly shows the hypocracy only North of the border. It's okay to do unpardonable things that would be unaccepted for most politicians as long as you have a progressive agenda and say sorry. Anyone else in the country would probably lose their job. Trudeau will likely see little backlash. For most people who do black face...the fact that it was years ago doesn't matter...they suffer the consequences (and rightly so). For the darling Justin...it's simply a humbling learning experience. ShabiDOO 20:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

alternatively it's pardonable to have done stuff years ago when "it was acceptable", and be sorry for having been part of that culture then. Not really seeing any great hypocrisy here......apart from conflating having done stuff years ago that yo uare sorry for and still being doing stuff and doubling down..... Aloysius the Gaul 00:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, I have two questions.

1. How can I write essays? Is there a certain command or tag I would need to add?

2. How can I write changes without showing it, to save my work?

Tanker One (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

To create an essay (or any other page), type "Essay:Why I am a genius" or whatever your title is into the search box. You'll see a red link saying click to create the page. That'll take you to the edit page. If you want to save your work without being visible to other users, you can't do that on here: you'll have to copy it and save it on your own computer. If it isn't finished, you can keep it in your sandbox or elsewhere in your user space (User:Tanker One/Sandbox) but people can still see it.

There should be a help page on this but I'm not sure where it is. Wikipedia's help pages will assist with technical things (but not site policies). --Annanoon (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There should be a help page but I don't think any have been written for yonken. The nearest is prolly this You can use 'Draft' space, which again postdates most if not all Help pages. even in Draft space (Draft:Why I am a genius) it will still be visible. Scream!! (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Help finding a book...

Hi. I'm brand new, and KINDA an idiot...I actually came in because I was reading the featured article on Racialism...and want to contribute. There is a VERY nice book I'm trying to find, that dealt with disproved scientific theories. Unfortunately, I can't find the bloody thing, so...I'm gonna ask here. Other books on refuting those kinds of things would be helpful. User:MitchellTF

Do you know any more details about the book? When it was published/when did you read it? Was it focused on fraud or honest mistakes? Was it serious or light-hearted, pop-science or textbook? Do you remember any theories/discoveries it discussed? Was it essays or a single text? Was it written by a scientist, a journalist, someone else? What was on the cover? It could fit a lot of books: Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies (or maybe other of his books), Robert Park's Voodoo Science, Broad and Wade's Betrayers of the Truth, Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, Joe Schwarcz's Is That a Fact?, multiple books by John Grant, some Stephen Jay Gould, at least two books called The Scientific Attitude, or lots of books on specific theories (there's a few on cold fusion, Piltdown Man, Lysenkoism, climate change denial etc). --Annanoon (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

AronRa has one called The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism (published in 2016), but I doubt that's the one you're looking for. Is it possible you're looking for the one by Sagan called The Demon Haunted World (published in 1995)? — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Specifically for debunking racialism, there are also books by Adam Rutherford, Spencer Wells, and many others. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I haven't foudn it yet, but I'm getting closer. It was one book, paperback, and it was a chapter on each one. Close to Fads and Fallacies. It deals with a different thing in each one I THINK...or focused entirely on Racialism. It was about 5-10 years ago. Pretty much...pure white text, I think. It dealt with three reasons racialism is fake, one of which was that the head thing is completely ridiculous, and it pointed out that one famous person had a REALLY small head size. There was a graph, that there is only a 1% difference in head size. User:MitchellTF 9:20PM, October 1st, 2019

Was it D. H. Thomas' Skull wars? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I chose a hell of a day to make that prediction about the piss tape

Journalist Ashley Feinberg put out a write up about the video on slate this evening. Her opinions about pretty much all the evidence mirror mine. Where the fuck did it come from? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

My guess, either George Soros or Vladimir Putin. They have the resources to make a deep fake. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Piss on you, I'm working for Mel Brooks!" Bongolian (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me as "fake" about this footage is that the camera footage looks *handheld*. It bobs and swivels unsteadily, you won't even get that even with tripods. Hidden cameras normally are fixed mounted and will move / zoom with precision. I don't like some of the "deep fake" bullshittery going around in the news because making "deep fakes" via AI is relatively hard at the moment, particularly for video and audio. (Pattern-matching stuff like the "fake nudes from bikini photos"/"DeepNude" app are more the type of things you can expect with current tech). However, fake videos via look-alike / sound-alike actors has always been in the realm of possibility since forever. Particularly if you shoot blurry / grainy video, which allows you to get away with a lot more for those who believe. (See: UFOs, Bigfoot / Nessy, etc.) The only reason to suspect Putin in this case is to explain the shooting location if they used the Ritz (and it gives a plausible reason given that he likes to troll extremists for political discord purposes), but I'm not actually convinced it's necessarily the same room (for the walls, why is the shading of the square panels so different than the dividers between it in the blurry video?) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

As she notes, those swivels are caused by it being someone using a cell phone camera to record a computer monitor showing a high def version. Which, as she also notes, could be an intentional attempt to obfuscate details and create an unprovable fake, as the kinds of details that experts use to detect fabrications would be all but impossible to find. If you stabilize the video, it definetly shows a fixed camera angle of the actual recording. The lighting bit hit me like a truck, though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Interlock Systems for Operating Vehicles

I did the bad thing and drove while I was drunk, like 2 year ago. Thankfully, no accident, no casualties, just got pulled over for a very-not-good lane change at 2:30 in the morning on the interstate with nobody else around, ok, so I've been sour about it. I went/spent through the courts, went through probation, and I have a short while left on my interlock system. The way the interlock system works is, you lose your normal license, you get a special interlock permit, which means you are only legally allowed to operate vehicles with interlock devices installed. Interlock devices make you test your BAC before you can start your vehicle, then (at least mine) the device makes you test at 5 minute intervals afterwards while you're driving to make sure you didn't get somebody sober to just blow you home. I actually don't dislike my interlock device, after I got in trouble I did the general AA and testimonial guided behavioral adjustment sessions. And I was cool with it, I kinda got it. But then [I literally saw a kid dead in the street killed by a drunk driver] which I didn't know the details of until the next day. Kid from my high school, drunk driver came from a bar a ton of my friends went to or worked at and got shithoused, I was just moving some furniture from my parents' house with a buddy since I couldn't legally drive the moving truck myself. Huge wakeup call about operating machinery. If it were possible to outfit every vehicle with an interlock device that would prohibit anybody unfit to operate said vehicle, but not cost a bill every month to said operator, I would be 100% for it. I have my interlock device for a little while longer. I have invested in a personal breathalyzer to make sure I'm a fit operator of my personal one ton potential death machine. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they don't make interlock devices for people who may have age-related impairments, people high on one or more of a multitude of drugs, etc. Glad to hear you're on the up-and-up though. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Now... if only we could have an interlock for posting. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember a couple aquaintences bragging in highschool that they drank and drove, and that just about all of us thought they were stupid dipshits and that there was nothing funny about it. That was in the 90s and I had imagined that attitudes must have changed a lot by now. Have they? ShabiDOO 18:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Drinking and driving isn't cool in my generation (I'm born in the mid 90s) as far as I know. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have 2 convictions for DIC (as it was then) from the early 1980's when I as young and stupid - from one of htem I am reasonably lucky to be still alive :( In a general health and safety sense - yes, operating heavy machinery whilst under any influence is a pretty bad idea, and whilst interlocks are not common certainly random substance testing is in many workplaces - I recall a crusty old helicopter pilot telling me several years ago about being asked to pee in a bottle when he landed at a Shell Oil onshore facility his company had a contract with - when he expressed some outrage the H&S guy just told him it's a contract requirement - no piss, no job, no pay. Aloysius the Gaul 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Drinking and Driving was never appropriate, but I've done it more times then I care to admit. Not something I'm proud of.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a universal interlock system would be a good idea. While it is true that a lot of road deaths are from drunk driving, the fact of the matter is that the super minority of people actually do it (30% of Americans don't even drink alcohol once a year), and only during the vast minority of times people drink do they drive. It would be a very expensive and broad solution to a very targeted problem. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

America is a big country, and there's a huge difference in how rural, urban, and suburban citizens get around not only on location, but on state, municipal, and practical levels. Would it be better to always have a municipal public transit system? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

And what about the problems that might arise: eg there is an emergency and the only possible driver is someone who has had slightly too much to drink (and 'driving conditions are good'? Anna Livia (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is a good question. And uncomfortable as I am saying it, I would venture to say the drunken hero only-available-option driver is less likely a reality than the T-bone prone drunk driver in a meaningful sense. It's 2019, maybe an emergency button override, then you can explain yourself later at the risk of pushing the emergency override under false pretense? Maybe that's a little clunky since new cars are all about wireless unlock and button ignitions. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There are various scenarios imaginable where the combination of a 'not-completely competent' driver (eg 'car-only licence' and 'a large vehicle') and 'emergency situation requiring a vehicle' occur, so there is a case for an override system and 'appropriate permissive legislation (with a suitable statement as to "other circumstances of a similar nature").'

Legislating for 'the fuzzy areas' (eg those cases where a pilot is needed and there happens to be one as a passenger) is always difficult. Anna Livia 10:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

just how prevalent is drink driving I the us? in absolute terms 18000 a year are killed through drink driving. might be statistically insignificant I dunno. seems a lot even if it isn't. I doubt many intend to drink drive these days. 1 glass over the limit, maybe they thought they had less. or drove to pub intending cab back, but a few beers, and your not that drunk, its not far, your wrapped round a lamp post. or your still half cut from the night before. maybe its a one off, maybe its happened enough with no consequeance, you've picked up a bad habit. its like speeding. speed limits are advisory, for poor drivers. your in a hurry and you drive better fast. you are a good driver. everyones a great driver until they are being cut from the wreckage and will be pissing in a bag for the rest of their lives. or talking on the phone can distract you enough that people die. these are things you can do and get away with unless there is someone there to see you, or you total it. a fine or you lose your license and its just busybodies, just following orders I bet, aren't there any real criminals? I can be holier than though about this. ive never driven. I don't cycle because I would die in traffic. I don't drive because other people would die. you all drive 4 tonne bullets where a split second loss of concentration from you or anyone someone else and lives are ended. I don't like cars. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would guess it changes. But the more rural or suburban, the less available a public transit system and the more expensive a private transit system is. I doubt it's as big a problem in NYC or LA as it is in KC or OKC. While also technically less likely to smear anyone else but yourself under the conditions of fewer drivers on the roads, I think it might be considered a gambler's fallacy. I mean, pared down to its best case, driving on a two lane road in both lanes really only proves to be a danger when, after all those times getting home safe, another driver is on the same road going the opposite direction. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment 2.0

How likely is it at this point? Hearings begun, but I remember both the senate and the congress being hopelessly republican dominated right now. Spoony (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment is likely. Removal is unlikely. RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

House had D majority, Senate held by R’s. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Count the number of safe Democrat districts. Then count the number of purple districts. Then count the number of kamikazes in Democrat purple districts. If it adds up to 218, its likely.

I doubt Democrats have many kamikazes left; 60 of them got wiped out when Pelosi ordered them into action in the in the Obamacare attack. But the far left keeps demanding that they take on these suicide missions. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 06:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a suicide risk to impeach a "president" who is guilty of treason to this country? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, it probably is.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason we start impeachment is not to realistically remove the president but to finally expose him of corruption, and I think it can be political suicide for Republicans to continue supporting Trump despite clear evidence of treason and other high crimes. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The big irony in all this is Biden probably won't be the nominee anyway, so Trump may have shot himself in the foot for nothing. Or it could all blow over and be forgotten about in a few months. I'd probably be richer than Trump if I got a pound every time I heard the phrase "the Trump Presidency is finished" over the last 2.5 years. --RWRW (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It should've been over a looong time ago. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless the U.S. has some serious intelligence community reform quickly, this will become a regular pattern: the IC chooses the President; the President uses the IC for domestic political surveillance; the Congress impeaches the President; the Senate fails to convict; wash, rinse, repeat.

America is no longer a two party state. It's run like the Chicago City Council. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 23:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul Ryan has reportedly told Fox News execs to prepare for the post-Trump era. Impeachment is almost inevitable now. Will the senate convict? I'm not as certain that they won't any more. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If it does then we will have a double take out. It happens so rarely we ought to savour the moment. When two collosal fuck-up dumpster-twats walk around invincibly owning the place toxifying everything...and watching them fall down in the most embarassing and humiliating way. Borris gets heckled every day and doubles down on his stupidity. I swear I have the equivalent of a bowl of popcorn every time I read the news...as something utterly helarious will go down with Borris. I think the same thing happening to Trump is, for many people...a once in a era wet dream. ShabiDOO 02:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll never get two/thirds in the Senate (67 votes), from a party that controls the Senate whose base supports the President 92%. The hard left, childish left, is having a temper tantrum cause their pet issues like transgender bathrooms are put on hold. Americans see all this. And that hard left will pay a price for being so divisive.

What do the Democrats wish to prove? What? That racism in a President is not a high crime? All these other bullshit charges, beginning with Emoluments, obstruction, bah blah blah will be swept away. Way to go shooting yourselves in the foot. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 07:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess holding the president to consequences for seeking and benefiting from foreign influence in our election and obstructing justice nine times are childish temper tantrums. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In your wildest wet dreams. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 23:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You sound concerned. You should be, with a character no wiser than Chauncey Chance as president.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok Lefty, you convinced me. Firing a prosecutor is obstruction of justice. Now that Biden confessed on camera to doing just that, what are we going to do? nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 11:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The fact that rob went from deep state, to it doesn't matter, to "so what" in one thread, is hysterical.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So apparently Mugabe died a few weeks ago.

GOOD RIDDANCE!!! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49604152 Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but the reason Mugabe was ultimately overthrown is problematic in and of itself, since apparently China orchestrated the coup because Mugabe was threatening to nationalize Zimbabwe's diamond mines. China's just as imperialist as the West is, fuck tankies. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Now that Chinese's access to the U.S. market is somewhat restricted, you can expect China intrusions into Africa to expand, if it's going to maintain an activist foreign policy. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 13:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Africa is a literal goldmine of resources, China's making moves to secure them for herself of course. In a better world African countries would no longer be victims of neocolonialism, but that's not the case, they're merely exchanging one colonial power for another. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this goes to show that the lesson former victims of colonialism learn isn't "colonialism is bad and we must stop it," but rather "colonialism made our enemies powerful, so we need to do it ourselves ASAP." It's a sad world. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

its a little simplistic to lay the blame on china in this matter. the Zimbabwe army profited as much from the diamond mines as much as china, a some 40% share. I don't think they needed any prompting to launch a coup, particularly when Mugabe was seen by in his own regime as liability. ands that's aside from china's policy non-interference in politics. its a little simplistic to be criticising china for its role in African markets. is wrong for china to invest in Africa? do the African countries it invest in not benefit from that investment? Africa needs investment. it needs trade. why is china meeting this need make africans victims or china the villain? its not without issue, but talk of neocolonialism and without context is nonsense. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Zachary K. Hubbard page?

I'm thinking we should dedicate a page on this wiki to Zachary K. Hubbard. For those who don't know, Hubbard is considered the leading light in much of the nonsense you read about on the New gematria page. Anyone else think this should be a page, or would it be unnecessary?

Regards- Aaron ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:6C56:7C08:27A:BC01:8CBF:2D8C:3752 / talk}

Proposal: Kill the countries navbar [RESOLVED]

Most of our countries pages don't have the country navbar alongside, and the ones that do look like hot garbage. That's because the country navbar is always wedged in under the demographics sidebar, and it then becomes ugly and redundant. Perhaps replace the navbar with a dropdown menu like all the US presidents pages have on the bottom? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a better idea to convert navbar into a horizontal navigation template, yeah. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I went and did it. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The Intellectual Dark Web

An article is long overdue. Someone needs to get the ball rolling and write an article about the intellectual dark web and how it almost immediately slid into an echo chamber that funnels young people including many atheists to the alt-right. Sam Harris interviewing Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, funding Dave Rubin, and telling his subscribers that the other intellectual dark web people are wonderful people. I am not much of a writer, and am more likely to write a paragraph or a citation than to start the necessary essay. Hitchensiniraq (talk)

Excellent idea for an article, and very needed. I can contribute, but the subject matter is too far outside of my comfort area for me to be the primary author. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 22:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hitchensiniraq @DuceMoosolini Already in progress. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

One problem would be none of those people associate with white supremacy, the alt-right, or any of its mimes. None are Trump supporters, as far as I know. They do tend to oppose some kinds of leftist politics admired by some on this wiki. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 "...none of those people associate with white supremacy..." Come again? Rubin and Shapiro are deep in the business of laundering wing-nut reputations, Lehmann founded Quillette for fuck's sake, and both Peterson and Harris have openly flirted with white supremacist rhetoric. Hell, half the idea behind the IDW is they aren't allowed to spout their bigotry in Academia proper! And now they've invited Molyneux into their little club! Open your fucking eyes for fuck's sake! Not only is your statement not true, it ignores the central point of their whole gig! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "Openly flirted with white supremacist rhetoric" is a little bit unclear for me. Also, as far as I know, there is no "club". The IDW is more of a hashtag than an actual group. I have listened to many hours of Peterson and Harris speeches. Never heard praise for the alt-right or anything suggesting they might be good people as such. Peterson brags he influences people away from the alt-right. I think that is as likely to be true as not. He advocates some views which are inconsistent with white supremacy. Molyneau is a lunatic. No club is crazy enough to have him as a member. It's not as if we can prevent or subvert it, whatever it is. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

When you have Harris openly advocating for racial profiling I know you're full of shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The self proclaimed Intellectual Dark Web is neither the Dark Web nor intellectual. Bunch of whiny middle class white men moaning about being unable to say offensive things without being called out as arseholes. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, for more on Harris do include this https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable and my favourite place on reddit having a boilerplate response about why they dislike Sam Harris https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i89pc/whats_wrong_with_sam_harris_why_do_philosophers/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft page seems to have been languishing indefinitely for many months. It should be a high priority considering how much the intellectual dark web is talked because it is prominent in the culture war for many internet atheists. It's like not having an article on #Gamergate while people were being doxxed. 2A00:1DC0:CAFF:153:0:0:0:D2C7 (talk)

Whatever else one may say, what happened to Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying was frightening. No comment on anyone else in that sphere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I for one REALLY want to see the article. As it's a huge thing that appears to tie into a lot of stuff. And the situation is really interesting. MitchellTF (talk) 9:39PM, 1 October 2019.

Spud has done another Esperanto translation

I'd like to announce that I have just moved Pulva konspiro, my Esperanto translation of Gunpowder Plot, out of draftspace and into mainspace.

My next planned translation is a French translation of Santa Claus on which I hope to start work at the beginning of November. Spud (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Fall is weird this year. I, for one, appreciate the contribution. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And I appreciate your appreciation. I think. I'm not sure if your saying I've made the autumn weirder. Not that I mind if I have.Spud (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A photo from a Whatsapp group of my neighbourhood, India

–

Teerthaloke101 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Send this Whatsapp group a link to our Reiki page. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sir. I will do that quickly. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Teerthaloke101 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why does the old German Anthem "Heil dir im Siegerkranz" sound like a german version of the British Anthem "God Save The Queen"? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It was probably stolen rather directly because all the European royalty was related: Norway's Royal Anthem uses the same music too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p389RW0yOoc CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The American version is "My Country Tis Of Thee". (Wikipedia) (We also typically graduate to another English patriotic tune, and our national anthem came from a London gentlemen's club of amateur musicians. Funny that.) Soundwave106 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing unusual-- or for that matter, particularly political-- about this. Until fairly recently in history, the concept of copyright didn't really exist as such. This was especially true of melodies-- big name composers such as Brahms or Bach or Salieri or the like had their names attached to their works, but the tune to a popular ditty, well, that kinda just floated around from place to place. One single tune could have dozens of sets of lyrics, and a tune that had a "patriotic" ring to it would wind up with patriotic words for it almost by nature.

Heck, the US national anthem's tune is, after all, based on an English drinking song-- a rather dirty one. Kencolt (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Even the Russians used to have a version as theirs.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prayer_of_Russians It's really nothing special.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

And It turns out that the "Worker's Marseillaise", sounds alot like the French Anthem. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's like saying "The Star Spangled Banner sounds alot like the American National Anthem". The Marseillaise is the French National Anthem. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

According to this video, the "God Save the Queen " music has been the national anthem, or something like one, of 17 different countries at one time or another. Although the Wikipedia article dismisses the claim that it was originally written in France as "Grand Dieu sauve le Roi" as probably just a joke. As Oben am jungen Rhein, it still is the national anthem of Liechtenstein. Spud (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

it would save a hell of a lot of time at Olympic opening ceremonies if they were all god save the queen. as aside does any one know the words to their own national anthem? when footballers at internationals don't seem to know the words, there will always a snide comment from someone about how indicative it is of great national failing. its a nonsense and all, I've never known more than couple of lines of the anthem, never bothered to try to learn it, never been asked sing along (or stand for it), never felt a shamed of not knowing the words. I suspect its football fans at internationals who can belt a few verses out with no prior warning or any reference. no one else needs to, and it is very a dreary droning tune. thank fuck its short, for those few times you have to listen to it. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I know I read somewhere about England playing Liechtenstein at football not so very long ago. The two national anthems were played before the game, of course. Which meant that the exact same music was played twice.Spud (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It reminds me of a sign I saw on a Canadian government building (such signs have to be bilingual): "Information/Information." (Renseignements would have been more idiomatic and less idiot-omatic.) CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Donations

Can the donations bar be revised as the goal has been reached? Preferably something tasteful (eg another bar of a different colour). Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Gold, perhaps? Tinribmancer (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Whatever 'more bigly more beautiful' design suits RW. Anna Livia (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Zachary Hubbard

Hello folks, I'm back: this time I've created a new account so now I don't have to sign with my IP address. Anyway: that's it, I've studied up on him some more and have made up my mind: Zachary Hubbard DESPERATELY needs a page on this website. For anyone who doesn't know, he's this idiot (and possible fraud) who claims that major sports are rigged and can be decoded with this bullshit system he invented discovered called gematria (if he didn't outright invent it, he is, at the very least, the internet's leading warrior on this conspiracy subject). Normally when I see a crank like this I would just laugh and move on, but you guys would not BELIEVE how many supporters he has. Granted, we critics outnumber them 1000:1, BUT STILL. You go to his videos and there's hundreds of deceived people praising him as an actual savior when in fact he's the definition of a false-prophet. TBH, it's terrifying, it's terrifying to see so many people mislead by his work. Even Flat Earthers aren't this scary (though they're not too far behind). At least the flat Earth is easily falsifiable. On the other hand, people are actually believing Hubbard because his work is filled with so many half-truths that are clearly designed to convince uninformed viewers. For example, he has his own Patreon page of all his "successful" sports predictions here: https://www.patreon.com/zacharykhubbard. However, he conveniently leaves out all the false predictions that haven't come to pass to make it seem like he's more accurate than he actually is, and people are actually falling for his traps.

Oh, and that's not all. He even has the AUDACITY to say that he's done more positive contribution to this world than anyone in history, and that his information is more informative than ANYTHING you'd learn in a university. I'm not making this stuff up (believe me, I wish I was), he actually says that in this video he made, where he whines and complains that Wikipedia keeps deleting his page: https://youtu.be/I2Ia00X71UI. That's STILL not all: he actually claims that God placed him on this Earth on the exact day he was born just to teach people about the deception of gematria. You have to keep in mind that this is NOT a video from The Onion, this is a REAL video. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS. I have to admit, I'm not an atheist myself (no offense to atheists here, of course) and even I find myself CRINGING at this bullshit. Usually, people like Hubbard I don't even think are worth dignifying with a page. I make an exception here ONLY because of the massive number of people he's deceived with his half-truths and smoke-screens. And although he claims to be making no money off of this, he recently released an 800 page book on the subject he could, very possibly, be milking off of his deceived audience. That's why he needs a page. I have several saved links from his own blogging website of just some of the false predictions he's made. By creating this article, we can (hopefully) show his audience just how deceptive he is: then again, since gematria is such an non-falsifiable argument, some may also just look for ways to explain away failed prediction's of Hubbard's. But if we can show even a few people his deceptive tactics, that's worth it for me.

So, unless anyone objects, I will begin working on a draft page on his this afternoon. Aaronmichael5 17:01, September 30th 2019 (UTC).

Hello and welcome, @Aaronmichael5. You don't have to be an atheist to be a rationalist, and I've met irrational atheists before. (In fact, nobody I know is 100% rational or irrational.) You may want to have a quick look over at the QAnon page because they're pretty heavy into that too, so there may be a little overlap, I'm not sure. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lol, I appreciate the kind words. I will go check out that page. Aaronmichael5 15:10, October 1st 2019 (UTC).

Ugh

Someone I know wrote a piece for Quillette.

Would you

• ignore and feign ignorance if they mention;
• ignore unless they mention, then explain reservations; or
• tactfully bring it up when an opportunity arises, along with outlining Quillette's problematic nature? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I would report the piece to their superior.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If the article says anything defamatory against race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. you could probably report it. Otherwise, they haven't done anything that would be considered legitimate discrimination to a workplace. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it's not directly reportable for any of these. It's more a Just asking questions piece. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

But is it JAQ'ing off about race/gender/religion/sexual orientation? Because generally that leads down a worse rabbit hole.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I know quillette does a lot of that, but their whole game was to mix the nazi bait in with perfectly legitimate analysis, to give a facade of credibility. Don't assume every piece written for them is written in that context. Sorry about your right wing pseudo-intellectual acquaintance, Cogito. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ikanreed, and good initial thought, @RipCityLiberal -- just one of life's sad write-offs, I guess. I've lost people closer than that to Alex Jones and Mercola. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Political ads on youtube

just on youtube and an ad started talking bout how antisemetic the BDS movement is. cant comment on their message, but is it usual for ads on youtube to be so overtly political? ive not seen a single other advert of so political in nature, and it strikes me as problematic. in the uk, political parties have to be given equal air time for fairness (I think they need to meet a minimum membership requirement) and its usual for one party's ad to be followed by anothers ad shortly after. I can't imagine youtube has a similar policy. also in the uk, there is a need for the ads to clearly show that they are party political broadcasts. this advert though obviously political in nature, it was opaque in whose ad it was (I didn't think to follow its link, might be a youtube channel- this is all an after thought). considering all the issues surrounding social media being used to game the system in various underhanded devious ways, is this something to be concerned about? is it all significant that the target was the BDS movement?AMassiveGay (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, political ads are normal and an election is coming, and AIPAC spends a fuck ton on American elections. And I can comment on the actual message: get fucked, advertiser. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 23:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought Youtube said that they were going to remove political ads from their platform? Tinribmancer (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer Clearly they lied, again. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What I love; Youtube: This content is unsuitable for ads, because it's political. Also YouTube: Yeah, we're running these fucking right-wing political ads before your videos, even if it's at total odds with who you are.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 04:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why I started using an adblocker 11 years ago. If I want to see a commercial, I'll turn on the TV and watch 5 min. of it (some TV stations over here have commercial blocks between 5 & 8 min.).. Tinribmancer (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good god, I live in Kansas, and political ads on tv are so fucking bad here during election seasons. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Besides an adblocker you can also get an app like Video Blocker to block whole channels or users. When researching nuts and cranks for here, my suggestions go nutty and cranky too, unless I block certain channels. You can also use a different browser than you do for anything else, or private mode, or you can auto-delete your history and cookies upon quitting, to help stop this happening. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to adverts per say, as long as they are not excessive or intrusive, just the political ones and the lack of oversight or regulation on something like youtube AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

and this anti bds movement on is the only ive seen AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's suspicious. At this point, Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and who knows who else all seem to be using social media manipulation, and with known Cambridge Analytica/Brexit links, I'd be surprised if an advertisement attacking BDS wasn't based on some sort of targetting (geographical or other profiling). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

if it helps, the ad appeared before a video about a penguin visiting the man that rescued it every year. are penguins noted Zionists? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Penguins are on the long list of things I know almost nothing about. I know a tiny little bit more about Zionists, but still can't see a connection. They may just be bombarding your constituency based on IP, if they think it's a close call. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows that the Penguins are out to throw us in the Freemason Death Camp that are being build on Greenland. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought Trump was going to buy Greenland, and build an ice wall, and have the polar bears pay for it? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

But that's exactly what they want you to believe. The truth is that Trump is a penguin in a human suit, trying to push the penguin agenda forward and force Penguinism on everyone by sending them to the Greenland School and enforce Penguin Bolshevism into their minds! Also, Trump is a Polar Bearist! Tinribmancer (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a good place for the fallacy of novelty here (a converse of the argument from incredulity). You know, the one that goes "you can't make something so ridiculous up, so it must be true"? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Richard litlejohn's 'catchphrase' was you couldn't make it up. he usually had. or someone else hadAMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If not for making things up, the Daily Fail would be a mite thinner. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis question

Hey, I’ve just been wondering (due to anxiety) the effects that cannabis may have had on my brain. I first smoked it when I was 15 and I’m 18 now, I have smoked it a total of 7 or 8 times (today being the 7th/8th time) and (due to anxiety) I’ve read so many news articles on research that shows that smoking of cannabis can cause significant damage to a developing brain and IQ can be lowered. Essentially what I’m worried about is that I’ve permanently screwed up my brain to the point where I may have damaged my own intellect. What do you think guys? Thank you.—WMS (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to imagine smoking a dozen times over a few years would do notable long term damage. Unless you are very very unlucky and are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects or there were some very toxic extra drugs added to the marijuana. My brother smoked his brains dead. But that took daily usage over years (several grams a day for a decade). And there is a family history of substance abuse linked with mental problems. So he was both susceptible and a collosal pot head. And throughout the whole experience he denied there was a problem and is still unwilling to admit its true effects despite being diagnosed. You show actual concern which makes it very unlikely you've smoked your brains into a stupor making it difficult to recognize how lost you are. If you are truly worried ask some friends if they've noticed any changes or go to your doctor. S/he might laugh out loud and roll his/her eyes unless s/he has some reason to be concerned. I would say it is extremely unlikely...and I wouldn't hesitate to smoke occasionally, especially using reputable weed. If you are really worried about unknown additives or smoking really strong strains of weed, go buy it in a government shop in Canada or Colorado or grow your own with seeds from gov shops or very reputable sellers. I honestly wish many of my friends would smoke up once or twice a year. Zheesh do they need it. ShabiDOO 01:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As per Shabidoo, tell your doctor everything. Never lie to your doctor or your lawyer. Your parents, your bosses, your teachers, police officers, siblings, snitch ass friends, my suggestion is lie, lie, lie, and if it sounds like you're in a corner, lie one more time. But never to your doctor or your lawyer.

I officially fell out of love with cannabis when I was about 23 or 24. I wouldn't be concerned about your brain being affected, but for me, even on a nightly safe-space basis, it only aggravated my anxiety and it took me a long time to be comfortable just taking a short hit or passing when I found myself in a circle. It is sometimes cool, but it's not for everyone. And you don't have to feel bad about it. I can maybe twice a year drop acid or chew down some boomers and have a good time, but those are under VERY specific circumstances that I have to spend a lot of time planning for. THC comes up more often. I'm comfortable around it, and I'm comfortable not wanting a puff or a hit or a bite, but it took me a really long time to get comfortable with that aspect of it.

I don't think you have an injury caused by smoking pot. Not to say I haven't met some really dumb people in my time who are outspoken about the benefits of smoking pot, but that's just baseless correlation compared to the number of smart people I've met who habitually smoke pot and the number of dumb people I've met who say it's the devil's influence. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You guys are primarily speculating when there is actual evidence about potential harmful effects of cannabis. These have been summarized on our cannabis page in the toxicity, mental health, and risks sections. Bongolian (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I’ve read the page, but didn’t find anything regarding severe brain damage due to occasional use. Like I said, I’m in my late teens and I smoked it only a few times over the course of three years (never excessively) and I just want to know if I have permanently damaged my brain significantly. I’m aware of potential risks, but there are so many articles on the web saying stuff like “even if you only smoked pot once, you have permanent brain damage” and well it just got me worried that I’ve significantly damaged my intellect (especially worried cause I’m in college and I really want to get good grades)—WMS (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No. The "just say no to drugs" movement has had a tendency to greatly overstate the risks of most illegal recreational substances (never mind that the latest drug epidemic in America was started by completely legal pharmaceutical drugs), and I speculate any "one use = brain damage" page is tied to that. Certainly I doubt you could find a scientific reference to "one use = permanent brain damage". You would probably have a far greater risk of "permanent brain damage" from, say, attending an automobile race in the days when they used leaded gasoline. Cannabis is not without risks to the brain, but it mainly comes from schizophrenia / psychotic angles with heavy use. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

don't smoke spice sold as weed. that shit will wreck you AMassiveGay (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay so I can rest easy knowing that I haven’t permanently damaged my brain, intellect or IQ due to the very few instances I smoked cannabis :). Thanks all for replying, and helping reduce the anxiety I felt, there’s just so much out there regarding the confusing and some inconsistent studies regarding cannabis that it scared me to the point of obsession (and no that isn’t the effect of weed, I was anxiously obsessive before I first smoked). Still, weed isn’t something for me, I smoke it rarely and I don’t intended on increasing the use. Again, thanks all for replying, really helped out :).—WMS (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

you could just smoke meth like a real man AMassiveGay (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sheit, you’re right, Imma go buy some meth right away.—WMS (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Maybe the answer to your question is "the dose makes the poison". You've not used cannabis very much, so your risk is relatively low. The other thing to keep in mind is that available potency of cannabis products has noticeably increased over the years due to both refinement practices (e.g. "shatter" and other concentrates) and breeding practices. If you want to minimize some of the cannabis risks, try to avoid the highly-concentrated forms and try to avoid those varieties that are very high in THC and low in CBD. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only assume you live in a locale where weed is legal. the only choice you get elsewhere is whether you buy what your dealer is selling or not. and strength is determined by how high you is how high you've gotten. certainly in the uk, all weed is skunk that you would feel ripped off if you just run of mill weed. and you'd only really know if you'd been sold spice after the first few puffs put you on your back and you wonder if slow deep breathes or a call for an ambulance is the way to go. fuck spice. its been awhile since ive see any resin. this is the problem when purchasing illegal drugs - quality, strength, purity are unknown quantities with your only gauge the effects it has after ingestion. depending on the strength, its adulterants, what your chosen poison is and if it actually is, long term effects wont be an issue. your probably fine with weed though. probably even spice. probably. fuck spice AMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm in the US and I've heard before that UK weed is mostly shit but I guess I just discounted it, is this really the case? It just seems so strange to me. 206.53.88.85 (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually haven't had any cannabis in ages, since before the legalization trend in the US. As I understand it, the Dutch were initially responsible, after it became legal there, for making cannabis more potent. Even before legalization in the US, there were informal (and probably unreliable) varietal names that gave some indication of potency and origin ("Maui Wowie", "BC Bud"). Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

the problem with drug information based on anything but medical research is that it all come from the most unreliable of demographics. the more expert that someone claims to be on drugs, the more likely to be an absolute fucknut. there was never any kind of variety of weed out in the sticks when I smoked it on a regular basis. everyone scored the same stuff until everyone scored the same stuff from the next batch. you'd think it fine wine sourced from the best vines with best vintage, carefully chosen for its best quality, discarding poorer options instead just buying whats available. may be with the legal stuff, that kind of thing is more realistic. its even more ridiculous when people start talking about meth the same way. im never sure if they telling they have immaculate taste, they have the best contacts, or this particular meth they are smoking really is significantly better than average quality. i can only ever tell if its noticeably shit. or maybe they are just making conversation. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So, studying rabbits may lead to understanding female orgasms.

I could not make this up if I tried. And it looks to be legit. Seems that even now, why women reach climax is a mystery-- as is it's purpose. Kencolt (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Women face the horrific end of the human sexual condition.A history of women being habitually denied a fair share of pleasure in the bedroom (in many cases none at all). An expectation of doing things in the bedroom they don't particularly want to do. An enormously high rate of sexual abuse and the cripplingly traumatic effect they suffer for life. And on top of that they have to suffer pregnancy, labour and the difficulties of termination. Not to mention menstruation and menopause. As though that weren't enough, on top of that you have a more complex and barely understood route to sexual climax. You'd almost think that God was viciously cruel when he transformed Adam's rib into the female kind. But alas, he is all good and all loving and only when we join the lord in the glorious heavens might we understand the divine plan, as we grovel and praise his mightiness for eternity. ShabiDOO 05:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Um... I was just pointing out an article about evolution and rabbits? Sorry, I didn't mean to offend! Kencolt (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I always thought women get orgasms because there's a positive relaxing effect which sounds obviously evolutionary advantageous. How the ability to get multiple orgasms is supposed to be the "horrific end of sexual condition", I don't know. Also, women don't have what looks like a veiny blind worm with an overstuffed face sticking out their groin. Dude, don't be so goddamn dramatic about women. It sounds ridiculously patronizing and it makes me really uncomfortable to read like I'm an inferior being that needs to be protected or my sexual function is so fragile and dysfunctional. We have abortion and birth control; sure, not all of us do but modern technology makes it painless and gives us an equalizing effect. Menstruation and menopause are manageable. You men have your own set of problems like losing your hair and growing ton in places you don't like; I'd rather get menstruation than hair loss. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Being bald = no more barber shop visits. I wouldn't care if I went bald. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

LMAO no offense at all. You can discuss an article while at the same time make a commentary about the unjustices relevant to the article. If men spent more time reading serious articles about female sexuality it would be a major gain for everyone. ShabiDOO 08:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Objective Reality

The idea here being that it is empty of everything we think it to be and our judgments. So in that sense nothing (and no one) is ugly, or beautiful, or smart or dumb, etc, because these are in comparison to other things but that in isolation everything and everyone is inherently empty. I got this from Buddhism (more or less), but the thing is that we live in a social world and nothing exists in isolation. I mean plenty of things are "built from" previous things that came before them, like how life on Earth came to be. So while a rat might be stronger than an insect it certainly isn't stronger than a hawk that eats them,or many other things really. So I guess I'm trying to say that does it matter what things are in "objective reality" or isolation when they inhabit the web of a subjective world?Machina (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Before human beings (or sentient beings in general) came along was there even really such thing as a planet? Forget things like "beautiful" and "tasty" which are, for me, almost certainly entirely human (or sentient beings) constructions and not "real". But what about planets? If we all died out today, would the "planets" cease to exist and be nothing more than gazillions of lego pieces that they, in fact are, outside human experience? This is not particularly Bhuddist and I think most texts that you read on the subject of "Bhuddist philosophy" will be highly simplified and westernized generalizations of what various Bhuddist texts have said over the centuries because the Bhuddist texts I've read don't really touch on the subject as we are framing it here. European civilization has touched on this ever since the pre-socratics recorded it, for example the atomical view (we are all just a bunch of pieces of lego and the forms exist only in agregate). All the way to some forms of post-modernism: which can take a radically extreme form in which some claim that "cancer didn't -exist until it was labelled and subjectively understood as cancer".

I personally have no doubt that the universe is the equivalent of an enormous sack of the equivalent of lego pieces and that every single object we perceive and discuss are totally subjective human experiences of it (as lego pieces experiencing other pieces). And that even the lego piece analogy is likely a highly human mischaracterization of the universe. Does that mean that there are actually no planets? I'd say there are certainly many examples of that pattern of lego connections all over the universe, and most likely those lego pieces have been connected, at least partially, in the way they are with some regularity...however a "planet", the human concept of it. It's features, qualities, visualization, very incomplete knowledge and perception of it and many many arbitrary boundaries placed on it...are purely human and will dissapear once we do. Beauty and taste will no doubt dissappear once we do because even the assembly of those lego pieces that involve the human experience of beauty and taste won't exist any more. That doesn't mean parts of a certain pattern of lego connections will cease to exist, but without us (even with us) it's all just lego pieces and there is no actually form "planet" nor are there even any specific "planets" as well as beauty and taste. However, we cannot possibly function or even survive if we try to percieve things that way. If we exist as though there is no such thing as a human or sensory exerience or food or "movement" we'd die pretty quickly. Imagine abandoning labels and trying to percieve things as lego pieces? So yeah, for us it definitely matters in our lives that there be an objective reality unless you want to lose your mind and become a brain dead vegitable until you perish. Does it matter outside human experience? Very unlikely. The universe doesn't care. Cause the universe is just a bunch of pieces of lego. It doesn't even have the capacity to care. Does it matter to me whether I, the human being shabidoo, obectively exists outside human perception. Intellectually I'd love to know the relationship between human perception and objective reality if humans could ever access it (and I don't see how). But I could care less if I don't really exist and I cannot image why it would really matter. To religious idiots it does. Cause they have a LOT banking on it. I don't think it will make any difference in my life if I knew the answer, unless I let myself get spooked by the possibility I don't really exist and start imagining what the spiritual or cosmic ramifications are, which is a very stupid thing to do. And I don't think you gain very much wisdom from this, beyond the simple realization that "it's all just human experience and a lot of relativity". ShabiDOO 07:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Postmodernism is right about everything, except all the things it's wrong about. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Yes yes yes. ShabiDOO 23:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So is this true?

The "inevitable" demise is the illusion itself. There limitation of having only those "options" is the illusion - the notion of "utility" is what is samsara/maya. When the man realizes that he is neither the doer of action, nor the enjoyer of the strawberry, has no volition nor efficacy and that he is the tiger himself as well as the strawberry as well as the man - then he has metaphorically climbed up and killed the tiger. You are right in the sense that it is not an "option" - killing the tiger is the reality, the true reality, beyond the "options." It is scary because it is not meant for the faint hearted, However, on a tangible non spiritual level you are correct, however if after reading this you still believe that you exist as an individual conscious being in between birth and death and have to get "the most you can" out of "life" then I have not done a good job with this, and have failed you. Truth is you don't need the strawberry, never did - and yes you can "win" against the tiger. But don't take my word for it, try it yourself.

https://anandbhatt.skyrock.mobi/3289760168-The-Most-Misunderstood-Buddhist-Story-The-Tiger-and-the-Strawberry.html?success=1 Or is what you are getting at far different than this?Machina (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

He is not the tiger himself. He shares a continuum with the tiger, that when thought of in the abstract means all is one and one is all but that only works when you refer to everything, not dealing with two defined objects. He isn't himself the tiger. He is himself or he is everything. Not specific objects. Which also makes this a very bad translation cause using "himself" implies agency, and I refuse to believe that any human is also a tiger with agency, regarless of the concept of non-division. ShabiDOO 17:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I grasp what you mean by that.Machina (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

So, carefully, the tiger is an analogue, the mice are analogues, the strawberry is an analogue, the vine is an analogue, and I am still a nihilist. The problem with a parable is it really refuses to recognize the ratio it implies as long as it demands to be considered a parable as opposed to being an analogy. You asked this before, I feel really bad that I wasn't up on this. The idea is that there is death above, below, and holding on doesn't save anybody. But there is a strawberry there, that nobody who wouldn't be chased off or stuck on a cliff could enjoy. Cool, I agree with that, it is a very positive way to look at inevitability. I'm still the one who has to break the news that an analogy is limited by its ratio? Gol Sarnitt (talk)

https://www.lionsroar.com/5-questions-that-help-us-wake-up-july-2010/ This article references something similar like how often we usually add more distress to a situation or how the story that we make up about a situation causes more pain than the actual event.Machina (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Three months

to the new year.

Start cooking your Resolutions. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a good one. Spud (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll probably fall back on my go-to, that calendar dates are frustratingly arbitrary and I'm not that resolute on anything. I mean, every day is the first day of a new year if you want to be an asshole about it. Maybe I should start planning for a tattoo instead, I should have one of those by now. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do some people on here

continue to support bigoted fucks like Richard Dawkins of "Muslima" fame and Sam Harris, who supports racial profiling of "Muslim looking people"? It makes me question my involvement in this community. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We try to be fair. Our condemnation of Dawkins in our articles are strong but some people think that while a major character flaw, he still advanced good points for others and has a net positive in the atheist movement. Same with Sam Harris. They're both on a darker side though but I can't say any sizeable amount of people actually are enthusiastic about the two on here? I'm certainly not, especially with their anti-feminist froths. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Dawkins recently endorsed an Evangelical hate conference against social justice people. The negatives far outweigh the positives with these bastards, and any goodwill I had for them vanished long ago. They're total hypocrites and sellouts. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have enough intellectual capability to figure out what is good and what is bad about his statements and positions. He's turned into a bit of an idiot, but many of his positions remain perfectly reasonable IMO. YMMV - in which case get over it. Aloysius the Gaul 20:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As an atheist borderline Satanist I never heard of any of these guys until I started trolling this site lol.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We owe them a debt of gratitude for removing much of the taboo of criticizing and even lampooning religion in the Anglo-sphere, popularizing atheist ideas and expressing well the general criticisms against religion, often in very entertaining ways. Only a few of them have done and said stupid things since. I don't think Harris has been that bad, though he's certainly said a few ridiculous things. But at least they were consistent. Dawkins on the other hand has gone bezerk many times. He would utterly rail against the abuse by the churches, the opression and suffering that comes from it and then trivialize womens discomfort or attempts to make things more just and reduce discrimination. Yeah, he is a dip shit, though he commitment to the "general" principles of the open humanist society are there. Unfortunately he is still somewhat of a relic from his generation who cannot progress beyond a certain boundary...despite he himself scathingly criticizing people and churches for not doing so. I don't think anyone here supports Dawkins bullshit when he does so. I don't know what you expect from us. Should we scrub him from the website and disown everything he has done and said about religion? ShabiDOO 00:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

we are not entitled to have perfect role models - ain't no such thing as a perfect human being and anyone you admire today has already dome something less than admirable..... or is going to do so sometime soon. Whether you know about it or not. So stop trying to see anyone as being always the good guy - the world doesn't work that way. Unless you're a believer of course. Aloysius the Gaul 02:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

He's not perfect but he is right about all religion. Commie Lib (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If you have legitimate criticisms of anyone featured on RW, you're entitled — nay encouraged — to add those criticisms. There is already a substantial amount of criticism of Dawkins (for example), but if there's something missing that you can substantiate, feel free to add it. Bongolian (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I am not personally upset by Dawkins, I understand why he has grossly offended some people. I admit there are some things one should not say about other groups. I don't defend him. Whatever is said here cannot mitigate his influence because his presentations are usually scientific. Though he is an atheist he is not regarded as a moralist. I am wondering if this wiki's mission statement should be updated. We criticize the moral etiquette of famous people, often having little to do with science, pseudoscience, or fundamentalism. We are evidently advocates of a new morality. It seems only right to say so.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit authoritarian though. Just a tinge. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

New morality? Common decency is a new morality? We are opponents of assholes, Dawkins is an asshole, and a racist one to boot. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, there is no reason why we should scrub Dawkins off of this website: respectfully, that's kind of ridiculous. I'm not a Richard Dawkins fan and I don't agree with everything he says, but he does make some actually very valid points about religion. You don't have to be an atheist to agree with that (there's a difference between being an atheist and someone who just doesn't practice religion). Aaronmichael5 19:20, October 2nd 2019 (UTC).

Oxyaena, by what you seem to be proposing, we cannot fulfill RW's mission of "Documenting the full range of crank ideas" (by exposing racism, etc.) We have to document Dawkins, and Dawkins is multiply missional (evolution, atheism, bigotry). Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It harms RW's reputation when people see random Dawkins quotes floating out in the void, trust me, I get mixed reactions when I say that I`m an editor for RW. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

So we've (or at least I've) been talking about the Dawkins page, which is something like a RW consensus on Dawkins, but you've been complaining about individual unnamed RW editors' quotes and/or views of him. That doesn't seem quite fair, Oxyaena. If you've got complaints about an editor's views on Dawkins, bring it up with them or to TW as a whole if necessary. Bongolian (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not "an editor" it's many quotes sitting at the top of many pages put in by many editors. Like it or not, Dawkins was a famous person in this movement, and he's kinda shit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a case to be made for not having so many Cquotes from Dawkins on the site? Absolutely. But I hesitate to remove them without quotations that are at least as good to replace them. We may have to dip into Asimov, Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Bierce, Twain, Voltaire, etc., and many non-book sources. I'm all for it, but it needs a lot of us to give it some welly, as the English say. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I can understand cutting down on Dawkins quotes (if and ONLY if you can replace them with equally good and relevant ones). But wiping them out entirely is, to say the least, overkill. Dawkin's is a dipshit, but he does not remotely enter the "villainous" zone and I think those who resist reading this website because of a few Dawkin's quotes here and there, are ideologically extreme and nothing short of scrubbing him of the site would really please them...and I wouldn't enjoy RationalWiki if that starts happening. I rarely say it (and usually criticize those who do) but in this case, this really enters the grey zone of censoring and safe-spacing. Dawkins text is not only very quotable, but they also make for very strong concise arguments against a huge amount of topics. And I don't think a quotes white-out is a reasonable reaction to him saying some dubious offensive stupidities from time to time. He is a committed humanist after all and for the most part actively committed to justice for minorities, LGTBQ+, anti-colonialism and female genital mutilation. ShabiDOO 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like most of us are on the same general page. Not a saint; still useful for quotations; if you can do better, go ahead. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I am honestly disappointed, Dawkins is most definitely NOT committed to social justice. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have read his work and followed his activism and still think that, then there is no point discussing this with you any more. You clearly seem to think that unless someone dedicates themselves perfectly to every argument of "justice" correctly, then they aren't committed to justice at all. Which is an extremely disingenuous, toxic and counter-productive way to look at things. No one person or group has a monopoly on what "justice is" nor has the right to dismiss someone like this when they don't reach your idiosyncratic standards. A human being can have a few stupid or even reprehensible opinions on some elements of justice but still be committed to most of them. I'm LGTBQ+ and I am grateful for what Dawkins has done to limit religious based homophobia. I'm not impressed with your disappointment. Judging us because we don't judge others as ferociously as you'd like us to? ShabiDOO 07:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You're what's wrong with today's liberals. Dawkins is perfectly willing to promote Evangelicals of all people since they also oppose social justice. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

He isn't promoting evangelicals, he's siding with them on one issue. He is as anti-church and anti-evangelical as you get. You cannot even keep your basic facts straight. Must be fun shitting on people your friends tell you are the enemy of the week. I did that kind of stupid shit when I was younger. It was actually fun and empowering to be right about everything. But it's also malicious and toxic. Hopefully this phase of yours won't last long. Suddenly at some point those annoying things like facts, details, the larger-picture and doing your own homework and background checks become important. Good luck ShabiDOO 18:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Dear, Muslima....." — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you give a link to Dawkins ""promot(ing) Evangelicals ... since they also oppose social justice"? Maybe it's in the text but I missed it. Thanks. Hubert (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here you go. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As much as I love her videos, one characteristic of them is extreme hyperbole. Dawkins was supporting Boghosian and Pluckrose. They are atheists not evangelicals. They certainly have equally stupid opinions as Dawkins does. But at no point does that mean they advocate spreading the word of Jesus, kicking those fags out of christian schools or any other evangelical insanity. She also completely mischaracterises their peer-review stunt, which reveals a stunning level of bias in her videos as well. Her over all point is clear and I think we can all agree on it. Dawkins says stupid things sometimes. But to then rack it up a level and say his enemy is social justice, is a gross exageration, blatant lie and shows incredible ignorance about the guy, his work and his own advocacy. But hey, don't just take the arguments of someone who is LGTBQ+ and their opinion about his advocacy on one of the most important issues of social justice seriously. Just go ahead and shit all over the guy. We are all aware of elevator gate. It was a stupid ridiculous lunacy on his part. And I'm all for cutting down on quotes by him. But wiping the site clean of his quotes is as extreme as the hypergeneralizations that girl makes in those videos and as over the top ridiculous, and even offensive, as you are being oxyeana. ShabiDOO 07:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Said peer review stunt was also a massive failure, and I am LGBTQ+ myself. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Another total falsehood. They proved their point. Some genderstudies and queer-studies journals will publish absolutely anything if it furthers their agenda, regardless of whether it makes sense, is littered with several blatant falsehoods and contains errors that a kindergarten student could recognise. And some journals reacted with a commitment to fight for social justice even harder. Their categorization of these journals as "grievance studies" is beyond stupid and is offensive...but their aim to show that some (and only some) content in very post-modern journals is total babble...and that is objectively the case and we shouldn't try to defend people saying whatever stupid shit they want to further our cause, cause that's the same kind of thing Trump supporters do and we don't hesitate to call them out on it. And even if it were a failure (which it wasn't) what does that mean. Should we scrub rationalwiki of content involving Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose? Would you like us to delete the grievance studies hoax article? While we are at it, shall we take down Sam Harris's page and all quotes by him? ShabiDOO 10:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Only a small amount of the journals they sent papers to accepted them, the others rejected them or they were still in review. Not to mention their utter hypocrisy by accepting a fake paper into their journal as well. "We just don't have the money to conduct a proper peer review." And yes, take down Sam Harris' quotes, unlike Dawkins there is no excuse to highlight such a blatant racist in such a way. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena You miss my point. I'm not asking for something where other people quote others saying what Dawkins said. I'm looking for a link to something where Dawkins himself explicitly says: "I promote Evangelicals since they also oppose social justice".Hubert (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course you won't find anything like that, he promoted an Evangelical conference that opposes social justice. You'll almost never find something that blunt. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You are helarious Oxyaena. You are my new favourite. ShabiDOO 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh I`m so flattered. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

His actual words or text though would be interesting.Hubert (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah!. I see it. Something he tweeted about a conference and then deleted. Doesn't sound like a really ringing endorsement of Evangelicals.Hubert (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, I feel like giving up on humanity (but don't worry, I haven't).

Well, most of you probably know by now about my great quest to bring Zach Hubbard's idiocy to the light, and to, hopefully, get his gullible audience members to realize that what they're being spoon-fed by that crank is bullshit. Anyway, I just finished a brief conversation with one of Hubbard's supporters on his blog site (blog post titled "Jimmy Carter turns 95-years-old, October 1, 2019"). I brought up some very simple questions like Why the so-called New World Order would ever be stupid enough to leave behind clues that the world is scripted and all that bullshit. This guy kept dodging EVERY SINGLE question I asked him, and eventually he just came back with what boils down to "I don't care what the facts are, I'm still right" and then said "On to the next topic, good-bye". You've all seen it before I'm sure: shutting down the discussion because they have no good comeback. Honestly, this conspiracy trend is absolutely terrifying. I never thought I'd say this, but it's actually WORSE than the Flat Earth conspiracy. This is exactly what motivated me to join this wiki (and essentially, become more dedicated to rational thought process), because there is so little being spoken against this bullshit, at least right now, which is why currently so many people believe it. The Flat Earth at least seems to be dying out (most Google and YouTube searches are either debunking or parody videos regarding the flat earth), hopefully this NWO bullshit will die out soon, because sometimes I can't believe what humanity has come to. Aaronmichael5 19:31, October 2nd 2019 (UTC).

• shutting down the discussion because they have no good comeback.

Tell me about it. nobs^{I'm dumbstrzok!} 21:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's no better than the fallacies you engage in.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean RCL?Aaronmichael5 21:38, October 2nd 2019 (UTC).

Sorry @Aaronmichael5 I wasn't referring to you.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobs is kind of a shithead and never acknowledges any error, and will go through great and extreme mental contortions to do so. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Good luck on the "New World Order" nonsense. This can broadly speaking be filed under "people in power" conspiracies, where the complex world of politics, leadership, and power is simplified into simplistic good vs. evil archetypes by the naive, often tagged with mystical and tribalism oriented elements. This form of crank has been around for *centuries*. Unfortunately for this one, there are legitimate conspiracies concerning governing bodies (MKULTRA happened for instance) and corporations (the Libor scandal happened for instance) and the like, so it's not 100% bullshit at a certain level. Generally speaking though, conspiracies that bring in mystical mumble-jumble or tribalism-style racism/sexism/othergroupism is bullshit. (As an example: To take a random tweet from this guy, I have *much* qualms about the influence of AIPAC and it's policy schtick in United States politics, but why the fuck would this usual political wheel greasin' need ancient numerology junk ("gematria")? Oh, and AIPAC and its policies != all Jewish people and their opinions, Zionist conspiracy dum-dums. Anti-semitism and mystical numerology oogie-boogie all in one tweet, (sarc.) good job!) Soundwave106 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Soundwave yeah I get what you're getting at. I certainly don't believe our government is completely free of corruption: pretty much everyone believes that regardless of which political party they're from and all that. It's specifically this gematria bullshit. It's a serious understatement for me to say that they're stupid, they make stupid people look like Albert Einstein in comparison. @ikanreed I see. I'm kind of new here, as you might have guessed, so I still don't know anyone here all that well, lol. Aaronmichael5 23:51, October 2nd 2019 (UTC).

https://freetofindtruth.blogspot.com/2019/10/25-44-45-52-79-103-187-218-four-killed.html?showComment=1570134704532#c173552953694342881 Okay be honest, who won this fucking comments debate? Aaronmichael5 02:28, October 3rd 2019 (UTC).

The Pats win streak most certainly will not end at four. The Washington team stinks.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Joker

Regardless of your opinion of whether this movie is needed, or whether the masses reaction to Joker the character is unhealthy, I think I have compiled the definitive list of Joker performances:

1. Mark Hamill in Batman the Animated Series and various animated DC movies and videogames
2. Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight
3. Jack Nicholson in Batman
4. Cesar Romero in Batman the Movie
5. Zack Galifinakis in Lego Batman
6. Whatever the hell is happening in Gotham
7. Jared Leto impersonating Riff-Raff while wearing Joker Makeup in Suicide Squad

Fight me.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow. 9.4 on IMDB. 74% on rotten tomatoes. While those two scores don't dictate what I see, they're usually close to the mark per my own reception/enjoyment per film. A 9.4 is crazy high. There must be something people seriously adore about the film. I imagine this should be a "see in the cinema" experience! Just have to wait until it comes out in my part of Spain. ShabiDOO 23:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm cautious, unfortunately getting a Fight Club style vibe from the critical reviews (in that it gets a boost on IMDB from the "angry young men" segment of society, but it's a somewhat intellectually bankrupt movie overall, so don't look too deeply). I'm pretty sure it's a better Joker than Jared Leto though. :) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm also getting Fight Club vibes from the reviews, for the same reasons you are. I thought it's been known for a while that IMDb's demographics, and those of movie-ranking sites as a whole, aren't representative of the average moviegoer, and that they're heavily skewed towards... well, let's just say the type of person who might have gotten really hyped up about Joker from the moment the first trailer dropped. Personally, I think it's an issue that goes well beyond IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes and encompasses a wide swath of film geek culture, particularly the folks who rose up in the '90s and early '00s through sites like Ain't It Cool News, SlashFilm, and JoBlo and displaced a lot of the old "New Hollywood" film journalism establishment (Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael) that rose up in the late '60s and '70s, who failed to adapt to the rise of a new breed of film geek that was unashamed about liking "nerdy" things like fantasy, science fiction, and superheroes. Since then, that crowd has gone from the rebels of film journalism to the new establishment; their opinions decide what the critical and box-office darlings of modern Hollywood are, and they now enjoy the same close relationships with the studios that Entertainment Weekly and People do. (If David Fincher were to make Fight Club today, I guarantee it would win critical acclaim and be at least a modest hit on the strength of film geek sites praising it to the heavens.) On one hand, they were the ones who largely overturned the scourge of "Oscar bait", films designed to pander to the tastes of the Academy's aging voter base (which got really bad in the 2000s), and helped usher in the rise of superhero movies and geek culture in general to a position of mainstream respect; these days, shaming people for liking the Marvel movies, Game of Thrones, or Star Trek just because they're "for nerds" isn't the domain of the cool kids, but of old farts who are out of touch with society. On the other, they themselves are falling into the same trap that those "old farts" did before them, fixating on old-fashioned tropes and stories that younger film geeks are increasingly critical of. I wonder if, in the next ten years, we're gonna see a seismic shift in film geek culture as big as the one we had in the '90s. KevinR1990 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

im not really sure what you are getting at here. for one thing, fight club was critically acclaimed at the time. not universally so, but that was mostly down to controversy of the subject matter, though as a film it had it faults. and im not sure what you mean by a seismic in geek culture. that's already happened. a while ago. they've been making marvel films for over a decade now. they make all the money. geek culture is the mainstream. people aren't criticising them or the likes of star trek because they are for nerds, they are criticising them because despite being fun entertainment, critically speaking they are pap. formulaic and shallow. they fun and all, I like em, but lets not kid ourselves as to what they are. the money they generate ensures they wont be much more than that, so much money in fact its drowning out everything else. with that and the subject matter is limited to what can be done with it. evermore spectacle, but not much else. it gets a little boring. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I get what he's saying -- prior to the 00s even your better sci-fi / fantasy, or even simply popcorn swashbucklers, was considered a second tier platform by the artiste crowd, and the "Oscar movie" tended to be overwrought dramas, which sometimes won over better pictures. (See films like 1985's Out of Africa, which is okay enough if a bit draggy. But who remembers this film compared to Back to the Future or the Goonies, released in the same year? I'd even pick The Color Purple, which was actually nominated that year, as a better film.). Someone like Steven Spielberg, who made *numerous* popular bombshells (ET, the Indiana Jones series, Close Encounters, Jaws) never won an Oscar for Best Picture or Director until he made Schindler's List and satisfied the Oscar overwrought drama note. The geeks, of course, have won much in the last 20 years. Fight Club received positive-mixed reviews from top critics (79% Rotten Tomatoes) with criticisms coming on whether or not the critic thought the violence overshadowed the satirical intent (many thought this was the case) and whether or not the "twist ending" felt like a gimmick or not (many thought so). The movie is #10 on IMDB's top list though. I have seen Fight Club -- while I don't think it's a bad film, it's not a great one either for many of the reasons the critics point out, and it's not as intellectually deep as some of its proponents think it is. It's not #10 of all time by any means. Likewise, Joker is #12 on IMDB right now, but the critical reviews are even more mixed (69% Rotten Tomatoes) with many critical reviews seeming to point to an empty story behind all the nihilism. I have not seen this film yet. However, films dealing with machismo oriented angles, from what I see, tend to get a bump on IMDB at this time (probably due to IMDB demographics), similar to how there's a downvote brigade on any film that triggers the MRA crowd. It may be an okay film in the end, but #12 film of all time is probably questionable. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

most sci-fi/fantasy still is second tier (b-movie is the relevant phrase) in terms of artistic credibility, and that's not going to change anytime soon, and if anything it will likely worsen. what they currently enjoy is mainstream appeal, and only for a very limited. before the marvel films came along, or maybe x-men made them profitable, success of such effects driven flicks was limited by technological limitations of making the effects work. too costly for still ultimately poor results with few exceptions, so no one beyond the roger cormans of world made them - cheaply made trash for a niche market. no one took them seriously then, and now effects have pretty no limit (still costly mind), they are still not seriously. the profit they make is taken seriously, but costly productions make it so only the biggest studios can take advantage. they are not going to take risks. it is all lowest common denominator. and the nature of the business now, and with Disney owning everything means these b-movies have been promoted to the main event but still bmovies just with better production values. they'll not win Oscars outside the more technical categories. this is a problem for the Oscars, always more about industry back slapping than artistic excellence, as it is for the movie industry in general and the viewing public. the Oscars have long been struggling for relevance. people don't go to the cinema for films any more. they go for spectacle. for star wars, for the avengers. almost everything else you watch on Netflix. its not always even possible to watch other films at the cinema when at your local 10 screen multiplex is showing the same big blockbuster 24/7. so we have the situation of whatever is the darling of the Oscars in any given year becoming even more likely to be something few people will have seen.

obviously, something like artistic merit is an ethereal concept and I am not saying it is necessary for a good film, or the likes of the avengers is devoid of any. the point I was making is the nature of these films in the film business and what makes them successful today makes it ever more unlikely. that it is this and not the make up the academy judges that deny these movies Oscars or credibility as was suggested, and that there will be no seismic shift will likely change this. I don't feel it is out of touch or intellectual snobbery to be suspicious of the relative merits of a multimillion pound blockbuster.

as for internet film ratings - they've always been suspect. ratings are always suspect. its difficult to just read reviews of one or two critics whose opinion you feel you can trust these days when you just have an amalgamation of a subjective ratings from many disparate sources and so easily gamed. combined with the immediacy and stridency of some fans making more of impact than they have any real right to be with risk adverse studios.

I am though quite sniffy of comic book movies and comic book in general. that's not to say i'm not a fan or don't see their worth, just they have their limitations. but that's another argumentAMassiveGay (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh my God, Jared Leto Joker was absolutely horrible, as was the rest of that awful movie. Aaronmichael5 00:02, October 3rd 2019 (UTC).

I think Jared Leto's performance wouldn't make the top ten of most Batman aficionados. They'd rank the performances of several voice actors from various video games higher. Spud (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on this Joker ranking is controversial. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Cesar Romero was also the Joker in the campy TV series.[5] Bongolian (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Cesar Romano... doesn't exist, at least not as an actor. You guys are thinking of Cesar Romero, who was a noted actor not only for his role in Batman (the television series and the eponymous movie), but quite a few previous roles in television, and before that the cinema. Although it's not to be denied that he was best known for his role as the "Clown Prince of Crime" in said series. Kencolt (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I just assumed it said "Romero" without looking properly. Spud (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

My bad, just fixed it lolRipCityLiberal (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel better, grinding up some poor schlub and sprinkling him on pasta like a hard Italian cheese is pretty much the sort of thing the Joker would do with the name... Kencolt (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"Every teenage boy who watched the Dark Knight and stole his sister's makeup for Halloween" should come ahead of Jared Leto. --Annanoon (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Heath Ledger, despite the fact that his performance has been imitated to death. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

2 comments: 1, the Riff-Raff callback made my choke on my coffee. Excellent work Rip! 2, I believe #8 has to be Cesar Romero's mustache 'hidden' under a layer of white pancake. Almost as chilling as them CGIing out Cavill's mustache in Justice League. Semipenultimate (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

i'm not sure I will be bothering with this film. I just cannot muster enough enthusiasm. I like comic movies. I like them as popcorn. they are too patently ridiculous to be anything but popcorn - the dark knight, as gritty as it was, was still popcorn. and the joker, as a character, I find wearing at this point. even without the more histrionic depictions, he only really works in opposition to batman and as such his comic book ridiculousness is inherent. baked in even with the heath ledger version. as I understand it, this flick is leaning to the grittier side of things, that it could work as film in own right without the association with the comic book - the trailer makes it appear distinct enough a vision that im sure if I watched it, I could enjoy it untainted by all the previous incarnations. but it is a film about the joker, and from the trailer, even though highly stylised, removed from other versions, it doesn't shake off for me the associations of the past versions and where those versions took the character, that it is just another grotesque. im sure if I gave it a chance and watched it, it would be great. the trailer was not awful. far from it. but it is the joker, and I dunno if i'll bother. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, no one Riff Raffs like Richard O'Brien Riff Raffs (The Rocky Horror Picture Show). Bongolian (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Being a Calvin and Hobbes fan, I found their laconic assessment of superheroes apropos. I'll never interfere with anyone's enjoyment, but I'll also never understand the appeal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't seen the movie or cared to engage in the hype, I have a single point. DC villains have always been the most interesting/engaging part of DC stories. Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow, sure, way to go Batman, figure out a way to find and defeat them. But Bizarro? Luther? Grundy? Is Superman worth a story without a really good villain? I think DC is finally taking notice of their only chance for a niche, and they are taking shots at it from every angle, which has to be Batman centric, because nobody likes the other guys. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I know of many comic aficionados who'd disagree with you on that. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Batman has the best rogues gallery and there is no competition.RipCityLiberal (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the comic aficionados, if they have a complaint, they have to understand that cinema does not always translate stories well, it works on them quickly. Take Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind as good starting point for what a graphic novel can describe versus what a cinematic feature is able to relay. And then you get into the retcon/retelling world. I mean, I'd totally welcome a disagreement on that. I practically blew a load when Warren Ellis got signed on for a Castlevania storyline with the Frederator team. I loved the weird camp of SOTN dialogue, and I loved the trashy out of time, purposely bad punchline delivery of Ellis, Adventure Time is way up there on my list. It came together, and it was definitely a cohesive thing. It was also, pretty good. I mean, I felt affirmed on many levels, but I wasn't watching it just to geek and it wasn't the best thing I've ever seen. Transmetropolitan is my favorite graphic novel. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is always poking at my favorite game. The Joker is one of my favorite villains. Todd Phillips has made generally good comedies. I imagine by the time I get around to watching this movie, I will probably like it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No I mean that no other franchise other than Batman is good, or that people read DC for the villains, not the heroes. Also Lex Luthor is badass. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

that hasn't translated in to the movies though where batman is the only dc show in town. and the rogues gallery hasn't really translated well either. lex luthor has been little more than a dick in cinema, and the its the joker who is the only show in town. you need more than comic book fans to justify 100 million dollar investment in a movie that for anyone not a comic book fan wont already be getting from a marvel movie. what do dc really have to offer if you are not already invested? what short comings the marvel films have at least they are fun. their reliance on batman makes it so dc cant even manage that. a moody batman might be great when going for grit, but looks ridiculously po faced when you add mermen and a flying man who shoots lasers from his eyes into the mix. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Spoiler for an old bad movie, I was also very disappointed when they made some really weird timeline adjustments for Batman vs Superman and had Lex Luthor end up in Arkham, bald suddenly. I mean, it's Lex Luthor. His name is supposed to evoke the word ruthless. And the movie was so wildly not canon for anything. It got panned because it deserved to get panned. DC needs to get their shit together, and they can't do it until they have draw. This movie isn't necessarily canon. But it does have draw. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

it just occurs to me that batman vs superman lex Luthor really highlights the limited scope of dc and the reliance on batman to carry it all. one the criticisms of that portrayal was lex wasn't lex at all, but a poor joker knock off. thinking about over batman movies too, most of the villains not joker were joker knock offs in someway in their portrayal. theres not been that many batman flicks so probably only two or three max, but still AMassiveGay (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Desire

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-doors-of-liberation-may-2014/

Is is really good to be aimless as he says? I mean if we didn't have desires then we wouldn't get anything done right? But then they reply with "why do we have to do anything"? After that I can't really answer.Machina (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Doing stuff is useful if you want to eat. Buddhist monks have traditionally begged for food, but that doesn't work if everybody does it. --Annanoon (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What ethical framework are you using? Starting with the conclusion of what is a "good" action then working to decide why is quite backwards, even for a deontologist. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I am mostly trying to get at the root of what he is saying in the article. I don't think being aimless is true, the thing about the self I can see an argument for (even though we aren't born blank slates), but the bit about desire and death threw me for a loop. I'm guessing the argument here for desire is that "why do we have to do anything" when someone replied that without desire we wouldn't do anything.Machina (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You would certainly still piss your pants when your bladder was full, desire doesn't enter into it. 206.53.88.85 (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

But until then it would be a desire until your body does it. Eating it also a desire and so is a bunch of other things. It would be impossible to live life without them.Machina (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

One study shows that those who had a clear purpose in life, lived longer than those who didn't. The same goes with having a meaningful job (linked of course to better income but also healthier life). A study that reveals a gene is linked to happiness and optimism also muddies up the picture meaning this ought to be taken into account when doing a controlled experiment (of which very very few exist). Aimlesness kind of worked for me in my 20s and not at all after my 20s, but that's just me. I think these kinds of Bhuddist hyper generalizations covering the full range of humans (with their anxieties, ability to handle loss, obsessions, unfulfilment etc) are very unhelpful. We're simply lacking too much in data. And heading towards untested spiritual advice is extremely dubious at best. In my experience it can be counter productive and even toxic. ShabiDOO 07:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to agree because being aimless in my life now doesn't make me liberated in any way. Ironically I was more "liberated" when I had a goal I was working on or a focus. Life was better then than now.Machina (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Rod Dreher

Hello. What has to be done to this article before it can be moved back from Draft space to article space? Droxygen (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Needs more content and analysis, but you're definitely on the right track. Also, please use this guide to format your citations. Good work! DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 14:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Singularity article

The singularity article has a paragraph that proposes that the transhuman singularity has already happened. Then for some reason talks about patents and modes of transportation which completely misses the point that the singularity would depend on RSI from a strong AI. I didn't want to make such a large change without consulting the mob but no one respond on the talk page. Commie Lib (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Have a go at it. The whole section is lacking references and some of those assertions seem a bit dubious. Example of what seems dubious to me: 1) It seems to conflate computer speed increases with numbers of individuals using computers. 2) There are at least two possible increases in computer speed on the horizon, one incremental (carbon nanotube-based chips) and one radical (quantum computing). Bongolian (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Intelligence is a property of living things that has evolved in every living species. In order for an AI to have insight into human nature, it would require an actual model describing a complete profile of human behavior and the mechanics of the human mind. The reason a very fast machine cannot develop into a super intelligence by itself is connected to the relation between scientific knowledge and discoveries in experimental sciences which cannot be artificially accelerated. In the first place, a very fast computer could design a more advanced program to replace its primary operating system if some entity provided a set of criteria to test the advantages of the next generation of operating system. These criteria would represent the genetic basis of an advanced AI. Thus, in order to develop a super intelligent AI, one cannot rely upon random processes, but must already possess the basic constructive principles from which a savant AI might emerge. Lastly, without perfect a priori knowledge of the physical world, the AI would have to acquire knowledge by the real-time methods of experimental science.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It would also have to rely on human knowledge somewhat. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RSI - Repetitive Strain Injury? Anna Livia (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RSI -Rescursive self-improvement. It is most probably impossible. There is a link to a Lesswrong Wiki page to it Teerthaloke101 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

'Recursive self-improvement' and 'repetitive strain injury' strike me as two ways of naming the same thing. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Up voting on WIGO, BIGO etc.

I myself was confused the first time I upvoted. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to up vote because I thought it was a worthwhile article to read or if I agreed with the message of the topic or based on my emotional reaction. And from time to time it seems some up/down voting is inconsisten enough to suggest there is confusion over it. I know this has been discussed before but is it worth considering putting a small note at the top: "upvote if you'd recommend the article/story" ? or "upvote if you find the artice/story a good read" or something of the sort. ShabiDOO 07:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I try to abstain from voting emotionally and try to vote based on whether the listed article contributes to helping the User find out 'What is going on in the world?'. If its not relevant, it gets downvoted. If it is, it gets upvoted. If I'm indifferent about its relevancy, indifferent. Additionally I downvote based on whether it has a misleading text. Say for example a 'scientific article' is linked titled, 'Proof Climate Change isn't real.' While this article is relevant, it's not rational and doesn't belong on Rational-Wiki, so it gets downvoted. This I believe is appropriate. Cumulus ^Discuss 09:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Similar here. I upvote if I think something fits RW's mission (the sort of thing that might be added to or form an entry), and if the linked source seems reputable. I downvote for the reverse. I indicate neutrality for partial reliability, tangential adherence to misison, etc. I definitely don't view it in the same way as a Facebook "like". CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I downvote if the wigo misrepresents the actual story in some or I find the wigo is to insistent that I draw a particular conclusion in an obvious, over the top, and entirely unnecessary manner, or in some other waythat I find 'off'. I tend not upvote too often as its never really apparent what it is I am voting for or if there is any consistency. I very occasionally upvote something if it seems to be getting a lot of down votes, and its a story I think has particular importance. I might even enquire why on the talk page. and my own wigos. i'd upvote them with bots if I knew how.

we have this conversation a fair bit. whatever reasons people have for upvoting, that is broadly indicative of that wigo being well received and justified in in being posted, I'm not really sure the specific reason for an upvote matter too much, and if some was vitally required criteria it would be unenforceable. downvotes on the other hand, one would expect for anything too egregious it would be taken to the talk page to complain or to clarify something. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that stories that get the most up votes tend to be both relevant to our mission and goof news. "Trump jailed" would get loads of them. Spud (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You find it conufing because there's no rule on upvoting. People upvote whatever they want. I think adding a note at the top saying how to upvote would be helpful.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sensate

https://www.getsensate.com/

Can we whipe up an article about this? A newssource in my country did some research on this "device" (it's supposed to "hack" your nerves) and it turns out to be quack, but does get promoted by The Daily Fail, because why shouldn't they? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

WTF most of those "testimonials" are anonymous Aaronmichael5 19:20, October 5th 2019 (UTC)

WTF isn't really a proper reaction to that. Anonymous testimonials are far from uncommon on sites (and in reference to products) like this. Heaven forbid that you actually track down one of them to their source-- assuming the source exists outside of the Marketing department. Kencolt (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Weird. Reminds me a bit of the God helmet while trying to take advantage of the Wachowski sisters' Netflix show Sense8. (You know, the siblings who did The Matrix.) CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)