RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive329

This is an archive page, last updated 16 November 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>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Who Watches the Watchmen

I'm quite sure that many of you are familiar with Watchmen, the Hugo-award winning graphic novel, and more of you are familiar with the 2009 film filled with Snyderisms loosely based on the source material, and I hope all of you are familiar with new HBO series based in the same universe. After the first two episodes, I definitely needed a refresher which I finished while waiting for flights to and from Las Vegas for work. Obviously it is still masterful, and unusually timely, though written in '86. My question after reading it in my early teens, my early twenties, and now my late twenties, is who is the real villain? Ozymandias is the clear answer, killing three million people, but his actions seemed to end an inevitable nuclear conflict and united East & West. Rorschach isn't really a villain, however his moral justifications for murder, torture and backwards social opinions are very dangerous, and he represents likely the most dangerous part of the American right-wing psyche. Dr. Manhattan, made the villain in the film (which is fucking stupid), seems to represent an extreme of unconcern for human life and indeed society in general. Extrapolating from the TV series, I believe an argument could be made that Nite-Owl becomes the true villain, sharing his technology to be used for a secret police, who's tools clearly violate Americans constitutional rights. What's your opinion?RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for "the" villain I'm quite sure you've misunderstood Watchmen. Every single character is meant to show a way that power corrupts, and the graphic novel as a whole is explicitly meant to be a refutation of the comic book hero. It's also a fun story quite aside from that element, but this subtext is about as subtle a giant psychic mutant tentacle monster. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

What ikanreed said. The original series is a masterful deconstruction of the comic book superhero and paints an unambiguously bleak picture of a world inhabited by "supermen." Watchmen creator Alan Moore did a similar thing in his masterpiece Miracleman series in the 1980s. Another wonderful thing about the original Watchmen series I've found is that I get a different interpretation each time I read it. I'd like to think that's what Moore had in mind all along. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A toxic and despised influence on comic book writing AFAIAC. The basic problem is that writers like Alan Moore consider themselves so much cleverer than the people who actually thought up the brightly costumed and stalwartly heroic characters that he toys with. What they need, as they see it, is to be turned into something dark and perverse. In the rapey little comics written by these archly smug writers, female characters are singled out for special mistreatment; Moore's handling of Batgirl in A Killing Joke is Exhibit 'A'. He assumed that the character had been forgotten, that no one remembered her fondly, and as such he was free to torture her in print. I have no interest in re-reading Watchmen or in watching movies based on it or set in its universe. This goes double with The Boys, based on Garth Ennis's equally smug and hostile twaddle. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, authorial smugness that exists entirely inside your own head, what a good point. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

What Smerdis brings up is a valid point, treatment of women by these writers is extremely subpar, and while their genius should be considered we must recognize the people behind the stories and realize their flaws, rather than venerate them as heroes. They represent a bygone era, so while their works may be masterpieces it doesn't mean they're not problematic. Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns was a masterpiece of Batman lore, but it too contains many problems, such as a right-wing viewpoint on poverty and crime and a not so subtle hint of homophobia laid throughout. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

But Alan Moore is not Miller and the homophobia of say, rorschach, is very clearly written as a character flaw. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön and Wekʷōm teḱs But you have no idea that's what he was thinking. How would you know that they think they're cleverer. It's just as likely that they just thought up a new interpretation of a well used premise of super heroes and wanted to write about it. You can't possibly know what Moore was thinking when he created the killing joke. That comic isn't even about her. It's about the relationship between the joker and batman. You also totally forget that Gordon also gets tortured so your point is totally false. Dio (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

How do we know what's true?

https://www.actualized.org/articles/how-to-discover-whats-trueMachina (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

we have an article on this particular huckster. He's full of shit, and I'm afraid I can't bear to listen to a youtube video of him babbling about barely considered epistimological principles. Tell me when he gets to the induction problem. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow I didn't know they had a page for him. But looking at everything it's clear he has some defect of some kind. He truly believes the hype. The "conversation" with god reminds me of what I thought of as a kid about how people can claim to know god if he is above humans. Not to mention the "conversation" he had with god makes him sound like an egotistical dick, pardon my language. Not to mention it makes no sense why god would make the universe and pick and choose people to "enlighten" when he could just do it himself if that is what he wants. The entire thing feels too scripted to be an actual conversation (though I'll admit I almost believed it). I honestly can't thank enough the people who made it though, he has been the bane of my life for a while. From the first video I saw my instincts told me something was wrong, I should have listened.Machina (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What about the links listed where they say that the new science supports some of his views?Machina (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been a funny Halloween for me so far

I've just had a one-to-one lesson with an adult student. For Halloween, she came wearing what she said was an ancient Chinese princess' dress. She said she wanted me to put on the wizard costume that I wore at the children's party yesterday. So I did. I taught the full ninety minute lesson wearing a long robe, a pointy hat and a false beard. Spud (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

An adult woman wanted to be alone with you while you were both dressed in costumes... DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

While I get what you're getting at, they are still a student of his, and it's widely considered inappropriate to have a relationship with a student at almost any teaching institution. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Her request did make me feel a bit like a man whore, I can tell you that. I don't know what was going on inside her head, of course, but I can assure you that nothing inappropriate happened. We read the final chapter of a simplified version of Anne of Green Gables and that was it. Spud (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree that it's inappropriate to have a relationship with someone subordinate to you. I just found the way Spud described the situation amusing. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 15:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of power is a terrible thing, but giving someone a lesson does not make that person subordinate to you. The illusion of power is a common form of self deception. I hope you both had a good laugh after the lesson.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(ECx2)I'm spiraling out of control, I've spent at least 10 minutes trying to tie the fact that anne of green gables is amazingly boring to the idea of sleeping with someone, but I just can't make the joke work no matter how I phrase it. It's quite frustrating. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 We both had a good laugh during the lesson Spud (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That sort of stuff Duce and ikanreed brought up would've never crossed my head, if that makes you feel better. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Fear not. It's perfectly understandable. A grown woman wearing a costume asks a grown man to put on a costume while they are both on their own in a room together. When else does that happen? As I was putting on the costume, I was thinking that most people would think what I was doing was rather kinky. Spud (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

My Halloween is incredibly windy and the weather is shit. Prospects aren't looking good for Halloween this year. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Windy and shitty weather, that's every other Halloween. My mom is always trying to get me to come home and hand out candy with her. She does a really smart thing, which is, she has two buckets; one for the really little ones full of safety pops and goldfish single serving bags, the other is just one-off rando big bag of candy stuff you get from any super-store. So their house is the baby legend house, not the after dark house. Still, no thanks, I'm not driving 40 minutes to hand out candy after dark for you. I, personally, never found that mystery house that gave out cans of soda or big candy bars when I was a kid. I have been to one of those legend parties. I spent the night out back hanging out with the other "shit, I'm at one of those Halloween parties I walked by as a kid" guys, just enjoying enough that I got invited, but not so confused that I thought I would want to kick in the door and start dancing. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

nope. nothing in this whole thread describes events that have actually occurred. all lies. this is the real conspiracy that all the bullshit around UFOs and q and Russians is there to distract from. there is no Halloween. sure there is merch that appears in the shops around the same time every year, there might be some news pieces about traditions and costumes and about what a great time it is. priming us to think of costumes, trick or treat, spooky parties. I can see through it all. even as im prompted to stock up on candy for trick or treaters, I know, like the year before and all years previously, there will be no trick or treaters. there never has been. ive never seen one not on the telly. ever. in over forty years of existence, I have never heard the door bell ring and been greeted by trick or treat. nor have i ever heard the neighbours receiving such a visit. I have never been trick or treating. I don't know anyone who has. Halloween themed parties involve some cheap plastic bats and pumpkin deco attended by guests whose commitment to the lie only extends to some vaguely spooky make up. no ones convinced. they just going through the motions like good little sheeple. but you'll say, its a big deal in the us. you are british, you will say. just a curmudgeon who the kids know to stay away from you'll say. you are a loser who doesnt get invited to the good parties you'll say. why do you hate freedom you'll ask But you know why I know its all a hoax? its because the most American of holidays, taking place in the land of the 2nd amendment and everyone packs heat, is centred around kids in masks making vague threats to probably armed and paranoid home owners for candy. if it was real, the death toll would be horrific. for american candy. objectively the worst of all candies. where are the dead children in fancy dress, America? where are the good sweeties? i'm on to you. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That.... Would explain all the "left over" candy.... Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Would getting rid of the electoral college allow other political parties to rise up?

I think that is why in other countries more than two political parties get power. I could be wrong but I am open to learning. Happy Halloween and Happy Samhain --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, as the main driver of the two party system is the first past the post (FPTP) Congressional electoral system. This kind of system almost always produce a two party system or something close to it (the UK sometimes being described as a “two and a half party system”) due to the problems with all votes for non-winning candidates essentially being wasted.

When challengers do arise and manage to hang on in an FPTP system without becoming one of the two dominant parties themselves, they’re usually strongly geographically localised parties (e.g. the SNP in the UK), while parties whose supporters are fairly evenly spread across electoral districts without being a plurality in any of them (or only very occasionally being so, e.g. UKIP, or the UK Greens) tend to really get shafted by FPTP. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Outside of the US, "state" means "country", and in the US, "state" would be "province" almost anywhere else. Likewise, a "party" in the US would be a "coalition" anywhere else, and "party" elsewhere would be "faction" in the US. The various factions within both of the major parties are constantly vying for control, and on occasion do split from the party to join the other side; the only meaningful difference between the US and European systems being that the breaking and forming new coalitions happens much more frequently. Ultimately, most countries end up with similar to the US's two party system no matter how much they protest otherwise, because ultimately, most votes are simple majorities. In order to actually have a true multiparty system, you'd have to have some sort of "let's average everyone's proposed budgets to arrive at what we shall do this year", which leads to obvious problems.

The electoral college does not really have any impact on whether a third party can compete, but rather which states have more influence. For all its criticisms, there's two very good, simple reasons for keeping it in place. First, the US is not a direct democracy and never claimed to be, but rather a union of separate states, and as such every state should have a say in it just as much as each say should reflect the size of the state. This is why you need the approval of both the Senate and House for anything to get done, you need both the majority of people and the majority of states. Second, the electoral college was a compromise and agreement between the states in exchange for joining up with the US instead of being completely independent, and unless the states agree to alter their agreement via constitutional amendment, well, it should stay in place. CoryUsar (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm for getting rid of the EC, but that isn't how you get more parties. You get more parties, by adding more seats. The House of Commons has 650 MP's. The House of Representatives has 435. Also the House of Lords has no voting power to stop legislation, but the Senate does. Increase HoR seats to 650 minimum (honestly like 750), eliminate the Senate veto power, and I guarantee you'd see new parties form.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Oddly it's one of the most pluralism-tolerant constructs(in its original vision) of our electoral system. It's nowhere near the biggest obstacle to that as others have said. It is, however, wildly undemocratic and should be burned to the ground and the earth should be salted where it grew. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you figure it is "pluralism tolerant"? Sure doesn't look like it is any different from every other FPTP system from here. Aloysius the Gaul 21:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I think your points are somewhat off the mark: More seats don’t necessarily mean more political parties in an FPTP system unless these new seats can muster a different plurality than existing ones. It also does not lead to significantly more diverse choices in the sense that it simply relegates the choice in certain regions to a different set of two-part options (you can’t vote SNP outside of Scotland, while most Scottish Westminster seats are now simply pro or anti SNP contests). Again, the hallmark of FPTP is that parties have to be geographically concentrated in order to be successful.

As for the US not being a direct democracy, that’s irrelevant to the question of the electoral college, which addresses the question of a federal vs. a unitary state, not direct vs. representative democracy. Thus, FPTP, as well as proportional, A.V. and similar electoral systems, including the EC, are all variants of representative democracy, as opposed to, say, the Swiss system of relying heavily on referenda, something that is actually done in the US at the state (if not at the federal) level far more frequently than is usually the case in most European systems.

The claim that ”the only meaningful difference between the US and European systems being that the breaking and forming new coalitions happens much more frequently” is absurdly reductionist, as is the claim that because you tend to get majorities centred around a few, larger parties in a multiparty system and because parties bargain for one, common budget, that’s equivalent to a two party system. Sure, US political parties tend to be very “broad churches” by most European standards, but I’d suggest that they still evince more intra party solidarity and cohesion than you tend to see among even longstanding coalition partners from different political parties.

If I had to point to one big potential problem with non-FPTP systems, it would be when situations arises in which no functioning coalition can be formed, which tend to be a product of certain parties being considered “illegitimate” by other crucial coalition constellations. In the case of Germany, AfD and Die Linke are both seen as “illegitimate” by the SPD and the CDU/CSU at the federal level (it’s somewhat different at the state level). Thus, after the recent state elections in Thuringia (Thüringen) it has been impossible to form a state parliament coalition because the CDU refuses to join a coalition with either Die Linke or AfD, while the latter two hate each other’s guts, Die Linke cannot muster a majority with the Greens and the SPD, and no one wants to shack up with AfD (and any coalition with AfD would have to include either the CDU or Die Linke to reach a majority anyway). Now, you can have fairly stable minority cabinets as long as they have fairly firm support from enough parties to vote through legislation in most cases (e.g. most Danish cabinets since the 1970s, which have almost always been minorities). However, such a scenario seems not to be likely to happen in Thuringia, unless the CDU is willing to tolerate and tacitly support a cabinet led by Die Linke in order to avoid new elections. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the type of non-FPTP - there are many systems and you can't write them off because some of them sometimes make governments difficult to form - there are many more cases with proportional representation where governments ARE formed, an in any case it is (or should be) up to the ELECTORATE to decide who should form the government and a procedure should NOT be a major deciding factor at all if you want it to be a better democracy. Aloysius the Gaul 22:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I really think the first step is to get more states to take on Unicameralism. I know it looks scary, but it really is better than Bicameralism. If there is a centrist bone in any federal politician's body, it should ache whenever local or state government is solely partisan. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with the fact that some people will seriously defend their stupidity to the grave

I know most of you probably won't read this, but I'm feeling bothered right now and need to let this out. I have this problem... I'll go to comment sections where I know people disagree with me, and I'll do my best to try and prove them wrong. I don't particularly know why I do this - but I'm attracted to it like a moth. It's kind of like a sport, an exercise in faux debate.

Now, there's this one guy who, no matter how many holes I poke in his arguments, will ALWAYS keep going and will ALWAYS have some new excuse. Other people give up or resort to ridiculous tactics not worthy of response, but this guy is straight-up insane with how far he is willing to go. Here's a transcript of a thread we generated this morning:

https://pastebin.com/AQDMp0MX

I know, it's long and I never should have let it go on that long in the first place. But it happened and it's driving me crazy. For the record, he goes off on evolution at the end, and this is yet ANOTHER argument we've had in the past regarding the scientific validity of evolution. I don't even want to get into that because it's a whole new layer of crazy.

So now I just can't shake this feeling that there REALLY ARE people out there who cannot be shook, no matter how hard you try and shake them. No matter how cleanly you spell it out, they do not get it and will not listen to basic reason. These people actually exist in 2019 and they're actually influencing our elections.

Normally I'd find solace in the fact that these people don't matter too much, or that their positions are so flimsy they'd realize after a bit of pressing how irrational they are. But no... Some people are just immune to it. I don't get it and it's driving me insane. The fact that these people exist is going to make me lose sleep. TheUnderOver (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"So now I just can't shake this feeling that there REALLY ARE people out there who cannot be shook, no matter how hard you try and shake them. No matter how cleanly you spell it out, they do not get it and will not listen to basic reason. These people actually exist in 2019 and they're actually influencing our elections. " Yep. They're called idiots. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Call me naive, but I really didn't think this particular flavor of idiot, who apparently doesn't have any sort of stake in espousing these views, actually existed. I get that some people claim to believe in idiotic things, but normally it's because they have some sort of reason to keep "believing" in them. Or there are just straight-up idiots who know they're idiots after a bit of pressing and are okay with being ignorant. TheUnderOver (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Partisanship and Racism are great drugs mane.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the trans-phobic red herring was a dead give away that this person experiences "discomfort" outside their tribe, and basically formed his opinions from media that promotes this angle. I'd let it go in the future. The only way to change this worldview IMHO is personal experience. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The question to ask(as much of yourself as others) is "what would it take to change my mind on this?" and to have an answer. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No don't - the answer will be "nothing can change my mind" - because he's already in that frame of mind. IMO shift the monkey from your back to theirs - eg point out the errors - eg in the pastebin he says something about Trump inquiring after "DNC servers" in Ukraine - which is just bullshit - so point that out. No need to discuss it - just correct the errors every time you come across them..... that's easy and doesn't require YOU to go through mental hops - let him have all the problems instead. Aloysius the Gaul 22:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

He calls himself Esq. PhD.Which tells us everything we need to know. He's not a PhD but thinks he might as well be, which likely means he doesn't have strong critical thinking skills but semi-developed arguing skills. He's willing to lie to make himself seem smarter, have some authority and is willing to use any fallacy and make any argument to be right. Pretty much the most intellectually fraudulant person out there. My question to you is: "is this surprising"? Comment sections are cesspits of intellectual fraud and while there are always exceptions...every minute you spend reading people's comments makes you one minute more stupid. Little to nothing is achieved in comment sections (except perhaps in some some niche news sites) and the BBC is well overdue shutting down their toxic comment section bullshit. Try seeking out meaningful discussion groups or forums where people are capable of changing their minds. You and others will definitely benefit if you also go with the goal of properly understanding the subject as best as possible and being willing to change your own views on topics. It's spectacularly difficult even for experienced intellectuals to not start chasing after the solution to their position rather than changing their position to suit the evidence and most sound arguments made. ShabiDOO 22:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a Q guy, we work together. I like his personality, and after work we occasionally get into buffoonish text arguments where I'm trying to use Occam's razor or epistemology, because I don't have the constant Q feed to keep up. Eventually he gets bored or impatient and just dumps a bunch of Q stuff on me. He's an actual human that I work with, value, care about, and have lots of fun with. I stopped trying refutations on the Q shit around the time we both agreed Epstein did not commit suicide, it was too big a flood from there. He thinks Donald Trump is a long-standing CIA informant and more recently any reference to a dog is a reference to CIA spooks, oh, I don't care, there's just no fucking way I can refute that. But he caught some shit from me over a 2nd amendment argument that didn't make sense. He didn't finish his answer, but we both agreed on his stance and my stance on gun ownership. I didn't need anything more than recognition that my position was careful, rational, and considerate to the arguments. Gosh, it's cool now. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Has your friend considered moving to an Insane Asylum? Also, did you just agreed with him on the Epstein stuff to stop the discussion or do you really believe that Epstein didn't commit suicide? Because if it's the latter, you have no proof for that. Oh, and read this. Tinribmancer (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

First off, my friend does not need to go to an Insane Asylum, please check yourself when you are speaking about my friends, it is not their fault that I referenced them. Secondly, I never thought Epstein committed uncoerced suicide. I also gave a quick Occam's Razor here outlying the possibilities surrounding his death. While I did not come to a firm conclusion, I leaned heavily on "at best coerced suicide, at worst murder, both possible." Now, if you will shut the fuck up about my friend, you will notice pretty quickly that I also do not subscribe to the "pure suicide" idea, even though I am not even a little bit Q. That is my own conclusion and I will address any honest question you have about it. The frustration has been that all scenarios are equally improbable. I don't think the Clintons killed anybody. I'm not ready to charge up the laser beams over bombastic coverage either, I think all scenarios around Epstein's death are frustratingly improbable. But don't talk about my friends like that, I referenced them, that is my fault, my lens, you can speak to me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Gol Sarnitt The example of your friend sounds a lot like a case I came across with an acquaintance (someone I don’t know well enough to call a friend) recently. Your brief description of your friend’s views and a few conversations I’ve had with this acquaintance of mine seem to amount to examples of what I’d call a sort of “general conspiracy world view” or a “Fox Mulder view of history and politics”. It appears to me that people like your friend and my acquaintance, while not necessarily subscribing to any and all conspiracy theories, have a propensity to assume that hidden conspiracies are a key driving force in history and politics, a position reinforced by their selective readings of material that confirm this perception. Arguing (as per Occam) against their views in the grounds of plausibility is unlikely to get you anywhere, because they will basically assume that “the absence of smoke shows that the fire is very carefully hidden” (as Conway and Oreskes put it in “The Merchants of Doubt” back in 2010). ScepticWombat (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am the one posting the rhetoric as I've interpreted it, that's fully my responsibility. I may have a clue into one person's interpretation of the conspiracy, and I may do my best to say "Project Veritas has been garbage every time" but I'd rather not feel reluctant to say "this is the crazy conspiracy shit what which I heard from a trusted friend of mine." Don't get me wrong, I don't buy it, but by the time I say it nobody else but me is saying it. Whether you want to go and pick apart the method of thinking for somebody that I reference or not, you are picking apart my references, who are not speaking for themselves. I am solely responsible for what I post. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Trying to prove free will?

I'll admit I am on the fence when it comes to free will. On some level I agree with the ones in favor of it since I don't choose my likes or dislikes, but part of me wants to resist the notion that I have no agency.

But I am pretty sure that quantum physics doesn't answer the problem of free will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOTjrNhnjDcMachina (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Quantum physics doesn't answer the problem of free will, but there's a theorem about quantum physics and free will: Free will theorem Melody (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

a more useful question to ask is what difference it makes AMassiveGay (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of people, given the explanation for soft determinism (i.e. you are a process controlled by the same laws of physics that govern everything else) immediately take it as equal to hard determinism (your choices don't matter), and I have a hard time understanding why people do that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 12:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That little bit of you which objects to the idea that we have no free will/because some primordial particle 3 seconds after the big bang went (this way) rather than (a marginally different way) we are the person we are (rather than a planet full of FSMs) is what defines 'free will' (and most of us will accept that 'the laws of nature' will mean we stick to decimal numbers and the Base-12 number system lot will never succeed). Anna Livia (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody likes hard determinism. If the past dictates the present, and the present dictates the future, the past has already dictated a hard deterministic role on the future. We can't change the past. Buuuut, if we use language a little differently, and the past informs the present, which informs the future, hope abound! Suddenly it sounds a lot better. It's still hard determinism. That doesn't mean your experience is invalid. The hook is set in everyone's mouth by an angler called time, and the 4th dimension is a direction we can measure at best. Your experience and your effort and all of the other shit is everything, it's not like you're off the hook just because the future is determined by what you do in the present. Sorry if that sounds time-cubey, trying to write poems again. Resident nihilist here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s just when I see videos like the one in the link trying to apply quantum physics to biology I can’t help but roll my eyes.Machina (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not difficult to take a simple little test and find out whether you have free will or not. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok so I got a reply from someone on the site who tried to prove to me that denying free will is denying reality. I am not a philosophy major so I need help here:

> Now to address free will and consciousness (one package). The above is correct because "try to make it wrong" - you'll have to deny either/all: [1] existence or [2] consciousness (that I remind you IDENTIFIES there IS existence: something rather than nothing) and [3] Aristotle's law of IDENTITY (relates to the aforementioned word "identification"). Therefore there is 'right' (and wrong) and I have validated "wholly, absolutely" what is right. By "wholly and absolute" I mean every point in the universe: there is existence, and it is man's mind that * identifies* the identity known as "existence". You said "none of that implies free will". This is an error. The fact that you can freely validate there "is existence" as opposed to lack thereof, means you have the ability to make a choice, to "do" (an action of consciousness: to choose). The entire discussion here is called "metaphysics" (what is reality). In epistemology (how can you "know" the truth to the above or ANYTHING?), we conclusion the known method to use free will in a rigorous manner to reach judgment (truth) is "Reason and logic". indeed we use 'reason" to reach all the above truths. "Reason and logic" does NOT just happen automatically such as a zombie. One must "act/action/do" reason using a known methodology called logic. BTW if you deny existence, consciousness or identity (first paragraph) then you AUTOMATICALLY DENY you are correct in your assertion, because to "be correct ASSUMES" what you are saying is based upon "reality, upon existence; that you can FREELY using free will come to proper conclusions" (such as the above). To state my words are INCORRECT means you are therefore denying you can even reason (does that makes sense)? There is "no way out" except to deny reality, deny you have the ability to make choices and therefore ADMIT you are implicitly incorrect. The above is objective meaning - whether you , a supposed alien anywhere in the universe, or me: we can all agree on "existence" and "consciousness". BTW the triple concept I presented are PRIMARY concepts of existence: so you can not DISCOVER them using science. You can only find them here using "reason and logic" that precedes science-and-math and upon which platform science-and-math is based. SCIENTISTS try to do the opposite and make science primary (scientism) but that leads to errors like "perpetual blithering paralysed" denial (skepticism: but if you skeptic of skepticism then it also implodes as a myth).Machina (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I still see this as a semantic argument. Free will and hard determinism shouldn't clash like this. Freely, using free will (as described), I just don't see how I would be some place other than exactly here. I have tons of directions I can will myself towards, and that's not anything I can shrug off, that is a direction I also have to choose. But by the time I have arrived, there is no use talking about my will in terms of the past. In that sense, it's a harder discussion about "responsibility" or "accountability" and not about free will or determinism. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bioshock?

Why do we have a page on Bioshock? Have I missed something? Are there people who believe that the first 2 games (which take place in an underwater world) are solid proof of Atlantis being a thing? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the series features (arsTechnica article) a Ayn Rand dream world of Objectivism (Rapture), and kind of shows why it'd be a complete fuckin' mess. Now, our article could use some more information as to where it's critiquing Rand/Objectivism, etc...--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 17:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Although it is the interpretation of many, I played Bioshock a long time ago and I never saw it as a criticisms of Objectivism. The main reason of Rapture's collapse was the discovery of some kind of new drugs that made Rapture crazy. If I remember well, the main evil characters of Rapture are Ryan and Fontaine, who both acted against Objectivism. Ryan was authoritarian and interfereed with free trade by adopting some kind of protectionism. Fontaine started a helping the poor program. I'm not defending Objectivism, but just saying that I think Bioshock did not criticize it or, if it did, it was poor criticism. Melody (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

its a video game that had for its time, a relatively well told story. it is neither a damning critique nor a case study of any real worth but a piece of entertain that was elevated a little bit higher than the usual video game fodder that made some gamers feel a little bit more smug than they had any right to be. its never needed its own article. there is literally nothing for it to say that could not be covered by 'was an inspiration for the video game bioshock' on the objectivism page. 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hubbard is FINISHED

I stumbled across this little gem this morning and I thought you guys would get a kick out of it: Hubbard put out what could possibly be his most-bullshit blog post to date (which is saying something). He is claiming that he successfully predicted the 2019 World Series (which, btw, for those of you who didn't follow it, it was one of the best World Series in recent history). This time, even some of his Patreon supporters of his are tearing him apart in the comments on the blog post: http://freetofindtruth.blogspot.com/2019/10/cnn-writes-nationals-shocked-world-in.html. Needless to say, his epic meltdown at the end of the post and the comments that follow are quite a spectacle. Aaronmichael5 14:51 November 1st (UTC)

Who is Hubbard? Anna Livia (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Zachary K. Hubbard. I'd never heard of him either until last week. Spud (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

lol my bad. Guess I should have linked to his page in my original post. Aaronmichael5 15:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So neither L Ron Hubbard nor [this lady]. Anna Livia (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Tabula Rasa

I just saw that Tabula Rasa LANCB'ed. Why? Also, are there more people thinking about kicking the bucket? This is the 3rd person this year that has left... Tinribmancer (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a discord channel. This is speculation. I would never touch it, I'm sure it sounds awful, but I've noticed a couple mentions before people just quit outright. LANCB, as a term, I've figured out pretty easy. I only have one mainspace contribution and it almost killed me to perform. I wouldn't discount that stress either. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything about it on the Discord server. Its too bad, I like Tabula Rasa :( --RWRW (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

They might have been scared off by DMorris. They said something about LANCB out of fear back in July. I should have responded to them but was caught up with my own stuff, sorry. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Moderator elections

Pls note that Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway, and will end on November 16. EK (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Do we live in a simulated reality" revisited

This question appears to be refusing to go away. There is a real connection between this topic and one of the oldest questions of philosophy: Does God exist? There are philosophy papers that actually argue that the simulation hypothesis is more likely than not. I claim that the simulation hypothesis is logically equivalent to the claim "God exists." The details are easy to work out. Our reality is the only reality we could know. The god machine lies outside of it. It created our universe and directs everything in our lives. To accept the simulation hypothesis, one just has to believe in a machine that is logically equivalent to a god. This is a sound topic for an article (or student essay) on proofs for the existence of God. We don't seem to have an article on specious existence proofs.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

IF the hypothesis that our world is a simulation and the hypothesis that there exists a God are formulated in a way that no one can get knowledge of the world outside the simulation and no one can interact with God, respectively, then I agree that they are quite similar, meaning that they are both unfalsifiable. Still, I wouldn't call them logically equivalent.

Anyway, both the hypothesis that we live in a simulation and the existence of God are often not formulated in such a way: one can get outside the simulation or hack it (Matrix style) and one can interact with God, even speaking with him, respectively.

Melody (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The simulation hypothesis, while unfalsifiable, is certainly pretty rigorous as far as philosophical arguments go, and is definitely logically sound at the very least. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe speaking of THE simulation hypothesis is wrong, since there are several versions of it. One talks about a Matrix style simulation, and it could be somehow testable, finding someone like "Neo". Other talk about a simulation where the simulated characters have no way to test if they are in a simulation or not, which is unfalsifiable by construction. Then there are also version with simulations inside simulations inside simulation... and so on. Melody (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Bostrom's formulation seems pretty rock-solid. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If the SRH is not falsifiable, then Any argument in favor of the simulated reality hypothesis is analogous to an existence argument unless you start with the simulation machine already existing. When you assume the god machine exists this is identical to the assumption that a god exists. When you argue, by analogy, that a god machine could exist, that is equivalent to arguing that some day a God could show up in person and thus demonstrate its existence. This concept is a nice example of where analogies lead to fallacies. What is in dispute is whether one can evaluate the probability of the existence of such a god machine. I think that probability is zero. But that is because I am an atheist.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't be the opposite? That is, you are an atheist because you think that the probability is zero. Melody (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You got me there. There are good reasons to believe a non falsifiable simulation has probability zero. One argument I have been musing involves the answer to Hilbert's Tenth Problem. There is no algorithm that will produce the algorithms that will solve any given Diophantine equation. Any machine that perfectly simulates human consciousness does something like that.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hilbert's Tenth Problem

One argument I have been musing involves the answer to Hilbert's Tenth Problem. There is no algorithm that [...] will solve any given Diophantine equation. Any machine that perfectly simulates human consciousness does something like that.

I believe that the last sentence is unsubstantiated. What evidences do we have that the human consciousness solve any given Diophantine equation? I say zero. Actually, we have evidences of the contrary, solving Diophantine equations is difficult for human and we are bad at it. For example, no human knows if x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 114 has a solution in integers x,y, z. Melody (talk)

Yes. You are correct. Remember I said I am musing about it. Think about it this way: if it is impossible for humans to solve a particular Diophantine or, differential equation, then, likewise it would be impossible for a machine to solve them. "A quantum mechanical analogue of the gravitational three-body problem in classical mechanics is the helium atom, in which a helium nucleus and two electrons interact according to the inverse-square Coulomb interaction. Like the gravitational three-body problem,the helium atom cannot be solved exactly." How does a physical simulation reproduce a behavior it is not possible to describe in detail? This is a small problem, to be sure, nevertheless this is a practical objection to non falsifiable simulations.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are making a lot of confusion. Without going into details, I guess that you objection to the hypothesis that our world is a simulation is that there are phenomena that are not computable by a machine and, therefore, cannot be simulated. Is this your objection? Melody (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I admit I have been vague. I don't know that it is in fact the case that a very accurate quantum representation of matter is necessary, however, any argument for an NFS would have to account for all ostensible non computable phenomena. We have no idea if any finite set of rules can recreate all possible quantum events. One would have to begin with a complete catalog of non computable events and who knows if the catalog would be finite. It is for this reason that an assertion such as "The probability that we live in a NFS is is greater than c," can not be taken seriously. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that this objection is faulty because it is based on the assumption that the machine that runs the simulation of our world must obey to the same laws of our world. If, on the contrary, the machine is running in a world with different laws of physics, than it is entirely possible that it is able to simulate noncomputable phenomena (according to our current understanding of computability).

My opinion on the hypothesis that our world is a simulation is that:

If the hypothesis is formulated in a way that makes it unfalsifiable, then, as any unfalsifiable hypothesis, it is of no help in understanding the world and should be discarded;

If, on the other hand, the hypothesis is formulated that it is falsifiable, then it should be tested. Melody (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The idea that a machine could simulate non computable phenomena so that they are non computable is incoherent. Machines compute.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you expand on that? I know you've already said a lot, but IF we are machine parts THEN we perform as such, which I know, I know, I haven't tried coding since the early 2ks, but the premise is that there is something that we would have to perceive (observe and interpret) AND is actually not computable? That's a good start, that breaks my tic-tac-toe game, but I worry there's a disconnect between the ideas of "observable" and "computable" that is forcing the gap a little wider than what you're trying to say. So, really, what is the limit of computation, as you see it? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459@Gol Sarnitt You both are missing that what is "computable" and what is not is far from being a settle problem:

• First, we have the mathematical definition of computable function that (in many equivalent ways) defines computation as what can be done with a Turing machine, which, by the way, is an abstract model of a machine that does not exist in nature (it requires infinite memory).
• Secondly, we have a hypothesis, the Church-Turing thesis, that says that the mathematical definition of computability is the "right one", that is, we cannot hope to do any kind of computation that, at the end, it cannot be done by a Turing machine.
• Third, many models of computations alternative to Turing machines have been proposed, either as abstract tools for mathematical purposes (For example, Turing machine with an Oracle...) or as possible computers of the future. These models are able to compute functions that are uncomputable according to the Church-Turing thesis. Melody (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not certain you are following my argument or what I am trying to demonstrate: non falsifiable simulations are no more likely than the existence of deities. Don't say "there is good reason to believe in such simulations" because there is not. The digital incompleteness of the universe is a much stronger hypothesis.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 I'm not saying that. As I mentioned before: "If the hypothesis is formulated in a way that makes it unfalsifiable, then, as any unfalsifiable hypothesis, it is of no help in understanding the world and should be discarded." Therefore, from my point of view, it doesn't even make sense to talk about the likeliness of a unfalsifiable hypothesis, because I discard it from the beginning.

Anyway, it seems that you are throwing random jargon: digital incompleteness of the universe means nothing. Melody (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't be difficult. The universe can't be represented as a formal system in a digital simulation. It means something.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I interrupted. I'm going to interrupt again, because this is getting weird, this is a difficult concept, and watching you two battle it out is doing nothing to explain the words you are using for the concepts you are trying to deliver.

First, @Melody, is the argument for a simulated universe falsifiable if the math supporting it is hypothetical?

Secondly @Ariel31459, again, with the extra explanation, what are the topmost limits of a digital simulation?

I'm just trying to keep up, don't be mean to me. And full disclosure, I do lean "simulation." Also, I can't get my words right without actually speaking them, so a million edits on my part. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt To be clear, my intention is to present a plausibility argument against perfect simulations of the universe. Simulations are usually supposed to be plausible, yet the details of how that might be possible are glossed over as if technology could solve any difficulty. But that notion is called into question by the solution to Hilbert's tenth problem: There are some technical tasks that machines cannot do, and in that classical case it is determining solvability for the general diophantine equation with a finite algorithm. Now, that is probably as far as one can go with Hilbert's tenth problem in connection with these ideas. I suppose Melody assumed I was claiming more than I could prove. But, it isn't really about proving something is impossible, but rather showing there's no good reason to believe something is necessarily possible.

Godel's incompleteness theorem for formal systems is more useful as an heuristic tool. The models created by machines would all run on programs that would almost certainly depend upon finite formal systems, which are by nature incomplete. If you assume it is possible to generate a perfect replica of the universe from a finite formal system, you are like the starving economist on a desert island who discovers a can of beans washed up on the shore and decides to assume he has a can opener.There is reason to be concerned that facts would be true in a non-simulated universe that would not be true in a simulated one. Remember, even in a formal system, statements are true that have no proof within the system. How could a programmer include the facts about our universe that have not been discovered yet? They would have to already have a perfect knowledge of the universe. This kind of omniscience is usually attributed to gods. When our understanding of the whole universe seems dependent upon many fields of mathematics, from complex analysis to differential geometry, is it surprising that incompleteness might result in a fatal defect to any simulation design? Therefore I conclude, the possibility that we exist in a simulated universe can not be assigned a probability to begin with. Consider that the consequence of living in a simulated universe is: there is a creator aka the program writer. This would mean that god-like figures could, at the creators whim, appear at any time. You could wake up every morning filled with the joy of knowing that simulated Jesus might show up in your life and make miracles happen. This is the trouble I get into when I suppose that the simulated Universe is plausible. I don't have to be an atheist now, because nothing in my total experience in life would lead me to believe that gods can't exist, now or in the future. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Ariel31459 "There is reason to be concerned that facts would be true in a non-simulated universe that would not be true in a simulated one. Remember, even in a formal system, statements are true that have no proof within the system. How could a programmer include the facts about our universe that have not been discovered yet?" Why should he? It seems that you are implicitly assuming that the programmer has to make a perfect simulation of its own universe, while he can simply simulate an approximation of its own universe, or even an universe with completely different laws. Melody (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that it is only approximate opens up the possibility of discovery. As previously observed, we can't model the behavior of a helium atom. A program might be able to approximate that 3 body problem, but it would have to rely on some algorithm to do so. It would seem then, we should be able to discover a model that can't exist. I don't see how such a possibility can be ignored. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean that an inhabitant of the simulated universe could look at the simulated helium atoms and, despite the simulation of the helium atom is only an approximation, deduce a correct model of the helium atom? Melody (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No. If an accurate computer model existed in our universe for the helium atom that would be a paradox. Theoretically, if the god of simulated reality can do it from the outside, physicists can do it from the inside. Something to think about.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is still wild. I'm about to get my ass kicked for this, but whatever, what do we make of an algorithm that does exist but cannot be interpreted? I'm a little lost on my citation here, since algorithms are a buzzword now, still looking, but I do remember hearing about a computer built for the sole purpose of spitting out every single defined algorithm it could. Lets call it a hypothetical algorithm dispenser for the time being.

This stupid hypothetical algorithm machine puts out every functional algorithm it can equate. Not to solve any problems, not to simulate any realities, but just to run as many functioning algorithms as possible. I guess what I mean to ask is, are we so sure anything would be designed to our standards?

I mean, Douglas Adams made a God-tier good joke about perception as a puddle, “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

This joke defies so many constructs but still exists. Is there something that defines a "program writer" or "creator" as something that must care about, mirror, observe, or include us? Don't get me wrong, observation is all we've got, and we should always rely on our best methods of observation. Resident nihilist here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

O' Rourke Drops out, who's next?

To be honest, I'm not surprised, given that he's campaigning in Texas. And I don't think Texas has ever been a Blue state...

14 left, who's going to be next one? One of the moderates? The New Ager? Yang Nam Style? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Texan here. it was a blue state along time ago when the Dems were still full of klansmen but they switched over to republicans and then it became a red state. Beto has made it solidly purple I live in a pretty conservative part of Texas and I saw more Beto for president/senate/congress signs than ones for republicans. the Dems also made state wide gains at the lower levels of government last year. I'm talking about majority white every kind of Christian church on every street corner kind of conservative. Cruz and Cornyn were both rather unpopular and that increased with their kowtowing to trump. if I had to guess of hope Bernie he's just to old and that heart attack probably didn't help his heath much. let the younger generation lead now. Gzstg (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Gzstg

Don't forget Ann Richards, a Democrat, was Texas Governor from 1991-1995 and was state treasurer prior to that. So, it wasn't just Dixiecrats. Bongolian (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yellow Dog Democrat isa term that originated in Texas, and it still exists among white, non-Hispanic non-black Democrats. In fact, most white Texas Democrats are Yellow Dog Democrats. Elsewhere they are known as Rednecks. The Blue Dog caucus in Washington uses "blue" (signifying Democrat for RINOs) cause "yellow dog" has another definition meaning "coward". nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 15:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Job One for Humanity

Source: https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/

What do you make of this source? I am thinking about whether to cover this website, because it seems really doomy. Opinions on the website to my talk page please: recent news has caused my severe depression to escalate. --User4501 (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It has a team of one, so not the best source of information. The team was previously involved in dietary labelling, not the best expert to rely on for climate science. Bongolian (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

8Chan's rebirth as "8kun"

Just saw a news report about this. Here's the wikipedia part from their 8chan (quite remarkable that they put 8chan under their anti-semitism category...) article:

On October 7, 2019, 8chan's official Twitter account and Jim Watkins' YouTube channel released a video that unveiled a new "8kun" logo. In it, a snake (which resembles that of the Gadsden flag) forms a shape of number 8 on top of the logo. The "8chan" name was based on the '-chan' suffix (shortened from 'channel') used by the imageboards that employ the 2channel-like format, but it was suggested that the new "8kun" name is a wordplay based on Japanese honorifics; in that case, '-chan' can be interpreted as the one generally used for young children, while '-kun' suffix is used for men in general. On October 9, 2019, 8chan's official Twitter account posted a notification that instructs board owners who wish to migrate to "8kun" to send their "shared secrets" (a tool that enables board owner to recover an 8chan board) to an email address at "8kun.net".

Brennan has vocally opposed 8chan's relaunch as "8kun", claiming the effort will not change the reputation previously associated with 8chan, and also citing his troubled relationship with 8chan administrators. Brennan has also suggested that the success of "8kun" will depend on the return of "Q" and its followers. The new "8kun" domain was registered with Tucows on September 7, 2019, but a spokesperson from Tucows stated that the company was unaware of the situation until the news about "8kun" broke out, and that it was looking into the matter.

The Watkins family tried to launch "8kun", while Brennan tried to block their effort in order to keep "Q" from resurfacing. "8kun" was set to launch by October 17, 2019, however, the attempt failed as British server provider Zare discontinued support; in an answer to the question from Vice News, the spokesperson for Zare claimed that the team behind "8kun" may have provided false details while registering themselves. The following day, October 18, "8kun" emerged online for a brief time. At that point, the hosting services for "8kun" was provided by VanwaTech, which routed the website through cloud computing services of Tencent and Alibaba.

So, do we need to have an 8kun page now or just add that they've switched names for the moment? Tinribmancer (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer I'd say add a redirect page and mention the name change for now. If they manage to get it beyond the WIP stages then another full article or other measures might be appropriate. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to do this right now (after searching and misunderstanding on how to do this for 20 min.), but saw that you have done it yourself after I typed in "8kun" and checked it's fossil record. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we just give up on climate change?

Everything I read about the environment is bad so what’s the point? Spacehillbilly (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, we still have even more to lose even if the forecast is bad. This is why scientists are still pushing and pressuring legislation to combat climate change. We also have positive effects for still attempting to develop greener technology because oil is only becoming more scarce as every year passes by. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Compared to mitigation strategies, the cost of continuing along the same pathway as society has been doing will have a far greater total cost in terms of finances and lives ruined. The problem with getting society to change is a combination of sunk cost (e.g., it's hard to motivate people to change) and entrenched negative externalities (i.e., institutions and people are making enormous short-term wealth by foisting the true costs of that wealth onto others, including future generations). Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been flirting with more authoritarian methods for climate change.Spacehillbilly (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You plan to take over the planet?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I would take over the world if I have half a chance. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between "bad", "very bad" and "oh so much worse". Enough CO2 has been added that snapping our fingers and stopping emissions would still result in serious issues long term, but would slowly halt the process and as the deep ocean absorbs more CO2 the levels in the atmosphere would eventually come down and the process would reverse somewhat, taking something like 120 years to be undone completely according to that "After Humans" show. Doing away with something like 60% of emissions would cause the CO2 levels to eventually stabilize as the oceans continue to absorb CO2 and climate change would continue severely, but eventually the climate would stabilize at some point, although ocean acidification is still an issue. Doing nothing at all would cause climate change to never stabilize, at least until we either run out of fuel to burn or people start dying en mass, and while the idea of the entire planet becoming uninhabitable is needless doomsday fearmongering, the actual result would still result in the regions near the equator (where the majority of people live) being unsuitable for civilization and, well, if you don't want Europe and the US flooded with starving refugees but aren't willing to actually shoot people trying to come in, we should probably avoid that scenario. CoryUsar (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

the people most opposed to climate change strike me as being the kind who relish the idea of withdrawing behind walls and would be none too squeamish protecting 'whats theirs' with deadly force. how do you reach people for who the science is more about where its coming from than about accuracy, for whom common decency only extends to blood relatives, and who have no fear as the probable effects validate their life view and wins people over to their fuck you jack mindset?

how do you break the inertia of people on board with the idea of climate change when the abstract fears of it are less pressing than more short term concerns that keep them voting for people actively opposed to any action who are successfully drumming up fears of what impact action will have on their already precarious existence?

if are on board and fully engaged, how to you make any kind impact when any slight exaggeration, error, or poorly phrased statement makes you liar, an idiot, a gullible fool, a fearmongering stooge, and even where precise, its meaningless technobabble easily countered by more meaningless technobabble?

the problem we face here is that we still labouring on with idea that scientific accuracy and well reasoned arguments count for anything. until people who are insulated from the effects of climate change have any of theirs fears over it crystallised and made real, it will be an abstract threat. people know its real but its too far off, too distant. the rent is due tomorrow. your job isn't secure. life is precarious. all anyone needs to do to prevent any action is do as they always do - lie and scapegoat. they don't even need to be convincing. they just need doubt and more less abstract fears. catch them in a lie and its just one more stir of the pot. catch us in even the most slightest of mistakes and nothing we say can be trusted. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ED

Is that Conrad guy seriously trying to pull a Lomax on us (sueing the site)? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer In my opinion ED might actually do it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Great, I can already think of some people would love this. Including the current situation we're in... Tinribmancer (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am an admin on ED, I co-run the website. There is no lawsuit. It was a joke and the Rats seem to have fallen for it &_& Yellowbird (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I dislike ED. Their "jokes" aren't funny. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Shock images become funny when viewed 500 times I think. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Who or what is Lomax? A websearch produces an ethnomusicologist and various companies outside RW's remit.

If something can be misunderstood it will be, usually in the direction of most inconvenience and/or generating of discussion. Anna Livia (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia This guy is Lomax. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I miss Dysk. — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

How New Atheism morphed into Social Justice

Fascinating piece on Slate Star Codex. Flipper (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is wrong. Barring a few handfuls of exceptions, New Atheism morphed into modern Rationalism™ and debate (fetishist) communities. Most of the people that tried to expand atheism jumped ship before that happened, some after. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

And I've just finished reading the entire thing. What exactly was it supposed to prove? That there's a shelf life on social movements? No shit. That social trends shift and change? We already knew that. So what exactly is the takeaway? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of misinterpretation of numbers in this article. For instance, of the roughly 30% of people not affiliated with a religion, most are not atheist. Only about one in 4 of those (7% overall) are agnostic or atheist (although societal prejudice might understate these numbers). Of *these*, not all atheists are the confrontational "new atheist" breed (although there are no poll numbers for that sort of thing that I can find). The rest was a bit of handwave-y statistics with not even a great cherry picked example (one Reddit post) proving his point (Google search terms don't mean anything to me). So that proves nothing to be honest. I'll handwave my own: atheism is a male dominated philosophy (again, at least openly -- which "new atheists" by definition are). Where in my experience, the "social justice" activist types typically lean towards demographics that represent their advocacy. (EG: on specific issues like say feminism, it tends to be that, unsurprisingly, a greater percentage of women identify as "feminist" than men.) History suggests that the "New Atheism" movement has a reputation for being a chauvinistic "boy's club", which follows the demographics. So how would they all of a sudden morph into "social justice"? Soundwave106 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Most of this can be understood through the lens of SSC being a hate-filled garbage pail looking for the shallowest excuse to blame things on their enemies. Trying to add a layer based on any sort of factual analysis just overcomplicates things. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

To expand on what Comrade GC is saying (i.e. "New Atheism morphed into modern Rationalism™ and debate (fetishist) communities"), I think that what SSC/Scott fails to realize is that the internet, especially in the 2000s when the atheist movement was rising, was nowhere near as omnipresent as it is today. He actually comes close to recognizing this; he brings up that internet culture in the 2000s was far more intellectual and less driven by memes and drive-by shitposting, allowing a small atheist community to wield an outsized voice in the discourse because they were ready, willing, and able to methodically dismantle the opposition's arguments and defend their own. What he fails to realize, however, is that the decline of this culture went hand-in-hand with the mass adoption of the internet by all of society, not just a small cadre of educated young people. This calls into question Scott's argument that the social justice movement was rooted in New Atheism before it moved on, because I distinctly remember that movement being dominated by young women and people of color in places like Tumblr. Does this mean there was no overlap? Absolutely not; he rightly points out Atheism+ as a sign that those sentiments existed within the atheist movement. I won't deny that some figures in the social justice movement cut their teeth in New Atheism. But as far as the rank and file were concerned, their bases came from very different walks of life. To claim that Barack Obama's election marked one of the turning points in the decline of New Atheism (the other he points to being the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement) goes against the fact that it was at the height of its power and influence during Obama's first term.

Overall, the tone of the piece feels like Scott trying to puff up New Atheism to look more important than it actually was (especially with that comparison to Sparta at the beginning), claiming that it didn't simply burn itself out but instead laid the groundwork for most of the major social movements of today, while simultaneously whitewashing the causes of its decline: namely, that, as Soundwave106 pointed out, it had a very "boys' club" attitude (perhaps best exemplified by Elevatorgate and "Dear Muslima") that turned off a lot of people who otherwise agreed with their central points about the negative influence of fundamentalist religion. They had no problem winning over the young, tech-savvy white men who dominated internet culture in the '90s and '00s, but they had a lot of trouble winning over the young women and people of color who started making their voices heard online in the '10s, and that cost the movement dearly. KevinR1990 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

To get back on the original track of the content of Scott Alexander’s Slate Start Index article, Alexander also either misremembers or mischaracterises The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: It wasn’t simply ”a joke based on the idea that there was no more scientific evidence for God or creationism than for belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.” It was a criticism of insisting that one particular religion, (evangelical) Christianity, should have its tenets taught as science in public schools, and what such an approach would lead to, if not applied arbitrarily and outright hypocritically to this one religion only. Hence the joke lay in constructing similar “science sounding” arguments for a transparently absurd religion to demonstrate why religion should not be taught as science (as per teach the controversy advocates).

This mischaracterisation (deliberate or otherwise) of the FSM context matches the odd cobbling together of New Atheism, Atheism+ and social justice. For one thing, those “big names” typically connected with New Atheism, such as Hitchens and Dawkins, were not those who advocated Atheism+, something that Alexander glosses over by seamlessly shifting the topic from one to another.

Then Alexander moved on seamlessly yet again to another sweeping claim, though this time at least prefacing it with a brief mention that this is his own, personal view, that these early atheists of the pre social justice days ”weren’t in it for the religion. They were in it for the hamartiology.” [citation fucking needed!]

Ironically, Alexander himself sets up exactly the kind of morality play on original sin that he attempts to pin on (his conflation of various) atheism(s) in this very brief aside: ” The Democratic Party is centuries old, but the Blue Tribe – the Democratic Party as a social phenomenon with strong demographic and ideological implications – can be said to have started in 2004.” Note the thinly veiled mythology here: Pre-2004 the Democrats were “simply” a political party, then it veered off into tribalism (note the “fall from grace” connotations). The problem is that the statistics Alexander cavalierly slaps on don’t actually either address or confirm this, since they don’t show any clear sign of 2004 as a watershed, or even a clear sign of Alexander’s “Blue Tribe” being the one that (self) radicalises, but rather a trend towards divergence between “red” and “blue” that is variously caused by one moving sharply in a distinct direction, both diverging sharply from each other, a fairly constant, small, gradual divergence, or even a constant difference with both “red” and “blue” views in dovetailing decline over whether homosexuality should be discouraged by society (both “red” and “blue” opinions declining in step from a 58%-42%split in 1994 to a 43%-22% split in 2014).

Skipping to Alexander’s (supposedly) Blue Tribe justifying hyperlink, we get an even more meandering, not to say rambling, post that seems to be about how terrible this supposed Blue Tribe is and how it has completely lost its sense of proportion and introspection, using a Russell Brand quote as an example(?!?) and then waffling on about whether Fox News or ISIS is worse, seen from a Blue Tribe perspective... Wtf? Russell Brand is a Brit and hardly the epitome of Blue Tribe America, or am I missing some kind of totemic influence he has in the (Blue) States?

What both these Alexander posts share is a penchant for conflation and “association by textual proximity” in which he shifts topic while pretending not to, leading to such results as his conflation of New Atheism and Atheism+, moving on to the social justice aspects of Atheism+ and then claiming that New Atheism is directly linked to social justice, which, as several earlier posters on this thread have already pointed out, is simply bunk. Indeed, you find some of the biggest names of New Atheism firmly ensconced in a fight against “social justice warriors” (Dawkins and Pinker to mention two prominent examples), and I’d like to hear just one or two examples of New Atheists who have ended up promoting social justice.

In short, slapping some statistics on your long-winded argument alongside some cultural icons, while actually writing a simple opinion piece obscured by rambling, turgid prose does not make for nearly as impressive a socio-cultural historical argument/critique as Alexander himself clearly seems to believe. The Blue Tribe post is even worse because the substance is even more thinly spread out across an even longer and more meandering, sluggish text whose argument thus drowns in the sheer length as well as the lack of clearly articulated and connected premises and conclusions.

Well, now I’ve fallen into a very similar style of “intellectual’ish” long-winded prose myself, dammit! Oh well, QED and egg right back on my face as well... ScepticWombat (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@ScepticWombat Well, that was a much more interesting read than the original article or anything else the troll posted. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Heh, that might not be much of a bar, verging on damning with faint praise. ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate overall that people are taking the "chauvinistic boy's club" seriously and a reason New Atheism was eventually "morphed" into social justice (whatever that means). IMO why I wasn't part of atheist communities back in like early 2010s or mid 2000s is because I'm only a teenager and wasn't aware of those communities, spending more time on Mario communities. I can't say I'm representative of women! But atheism, I saw, was a loose coalition of nonbelievers and I was raised in a secular household (pretty much atheist/unaffiliated from birth) so I think I didn't need supportive community to help process or validate my views. Not really because of the chauvinistic crap, as I only discovered it probably when first reading about it in RationalWiki. Anyway, I find it odd that something "morphing into Social Justice" was apparently phrased as a "bad thing" or even a "new" thing since I strongly believe atheism has a place in social justice. Too often religion has been used as a means to enforce divisions that social justice is about (feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, racism). We should be talking about social justice topics when also discussing atheism imo, I don't see how that's an issue. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This whole discussion of atheism and its variants is, of course, a very US-centred one, not least because, in the States, it was a strong reaction against the influence of evangelicals (who in turn seem to have more or less monopolised the terms Christian/Christianity) in politics, something you rarely find in Europe, where conservative, religious influence on politics tend to be more about resisting reforms than actually rolling back reforms made since the 1960s. Hence, it tends to be less of a controversial or a strong (political) ideological statement to proclaim to be an atheist in most of Europe.

However, the US debate among atheists of what, if anything, it signified beyond the lack of belief in gods led to strong disagreements between Atheism+, New Atheism and various other shades of atheism, since being an atheist, in and of itself, doesn’t necessarily require any other political or ideological stance. These obvious and clearly identifiable differences are simply ignored by Alexander, despite his apparent interest in both how those focusing on social justice create out-groups and links between atheism and social justice. While not following the debate closely, I do remember the criticism between Atheism Plus and the Pharyngula/PZ Myers crowd and various other strains of atheists, including what we might term New Atheists, and it was hardly evident that the Atheism+ crowd were in a majority. Hell, Alexander could simply have browsed our articles on these topics to find this out. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Btw, Alexander’s Blue Tribe post also contains glib statements such as his comparison about the celebrations of Thatcher’s death (the (in)famous “Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead” campaign on British music charts being simply one example) and how this is out of proportion to the hatred of Osama bin Laden. However, what he fails to mention is why a large section of British society loathed Thatcher: Her policies had direct impact on countless lives, throwing people into poverty and then adding insult to injury with such initiatives as the poll tax and “pull yourself together” rhetoric, while dismantling the post-war British welfare system, increased powers to the police and the “security state”, not to mention granting the legacy of Blairism, which continued and even expanded on many of these trends. Even more important, these celebrations were a deliberate counterpoint to the generation that “official Britain” showed for Thatcher, as seen in the pompous official state funeral (the grandest for a politician since Churchill) provided for p, according to her own instructions.

That such a divisive figure was given such a grand send off by officialdom makes me a lot more sympathetic to those who decided to stage their own mirror image pageantry, and the part of me susceptible to Schadenfreude almost wish that the US had seen similar “counter ceremonies” when sending off Reagan, whose political deification has far outpaced Thatcher’s.

While you can argue about the “good taste” of such celebrations, they originated in widespread personal experiences and direct impact of Thatcher and her legacy, something that is actually quite unlike Osama bin Laden, whose death was, if not celebrated, then at least applauded or met with approval, mostly by people, such as Alexander, whose lives he had mostly impacted indirectly. Hence, the analogy Alexander sets up is a false one, not least because he implies that such (lack of) celebrations are indicative of a corresponding (lack of) approval and hence that the Blue Tribe thinks Thatcher was worse than bin Laden.

Then Alexander goes completely off the rocker by suggesting that Russell Brand’s criticism of Fox News, which I agree is hardly something that will upset his fans, if replaced by criticism of ISIS would have been a bolder stance vis-a-vis the views of his fans?!? Wtf? Not only is this yet another weird British example, considering that the topic is US Blue Tribalism, but Alexander provides absolutely no argument for this astonishing assertion: That Brand’s fans would be more upset by criticism of ISIS than of Fox News(!) What’s more, and here we’re back at the Thatcher/bin Laden problem, for those living in the US, who belong to the Blue Tribe, Fox News has infinitely more and more direct impacts on their lives than ISIS. Alexander is simply engaging in whataboutism and not as bad as shenanigans, as well as some rather astounding, unfounded assertions.

The Blue Tribe post also contains a really odd use of the criterion of embarrassment, which simply baffles me: ”We know they [the Blue Tribe] are not exaggerating, because one might exaggerate the flaws of an enemy, but that anyone would exaggerate their own flaws fails the criterion of embarrassment.” Apparently, Alexander doesn’t realise that A) the criterion of embarrassment is apologetic bullshit and B) Yes, people are perfectly willing to exaggerate their own flaws when it is narratively convenient, as was the case with either well-documented cases during the Satanic panic, as well as the rather suspicious personal backstories presented by the likes of Lee Strobel of their sinful past. This, not coincidentally, is exactly why the criterion of embarrassment is horseshit and an example of the weird, specialised, ad hoc tool bag created by and for theologians/apologists, but not used by, say, historians. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Blue Tribe" post was basically a tl;dr saying that tribalism exists (not news) with a whole bunch of tribe stereotypes and oversimplified generalizations. Meh. Even this wall blurb showed that a relatively small segment of the population ("atheism") comes in a wide variety of flavors. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Caeser's Messiah

Would you people like an article on Caeser's Messish book? Teerthaloke101 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Who is "you people"? Would YOU like to write such an article? Aloysius the Gaul 20:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean would it come under our Mission.Teerthaloke101 (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article on the topic that includes Atwill’s Caesar's Messiah, specifically the one about Roman Piso. So. I’d suggest expanding the Atwill section of that article if you find it lacking. You might perhaps also want create an initial Caesar's Messiah article that merely contains a redirect to the Roman Piso article. Then, if it makes sense to split Atwill’s variant of the “Roman conspiracy Jesus” from the main Roman Piso topic, the content can easily be moved to the Caesar's Messiah article. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Lag?

Is anyone else experiencing loading issues with the site? It's as slow as fuck. Tinribmancer (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I keep getting 503 errors. Can a Mod or Tech please check out what's going on? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

yes got a bunch of 503 errors for about 3 hrs, just came right. Aloysius the Gaul 01:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it still going on? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Not that I can see. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And it's back. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 05:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What went wrong? Anna Livia (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently one of the hamsters got tired. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a DDOS attack. IP-hopping, but it should be resolved by then. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Replacement Migration

Sources:

https://www.prb.org/theflapoverreplacementmigration/

https://www.un.org/press/en/2000/20000317.dev2234.doc.html

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp

Any thoughts? Because I haven't seen Replacement Migration receive any attention on this site. It's the proverbial elephant in the room. Temujin Haan (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

People move from place to place. Stagnant populations are finite. Yeah, can't think of anything else. Why? What do you think it means? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

5 billion people migrating to South Korea is a bad idea. Temujin Haan (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are already articles on crankery that sometimes uses this trend as "evidence": white genocide, the "Great Replacement", and depopulation conspiracy theories -- not to mention various other things conspiracy theorists have cited in the past for this purpose (eg Agenda 21). A few things may be missing of course (one of the conspiracies surrounding Codex Alimentarius is population control, for instance). There is also an admitted Euro-centric flavor to what we have; much of Asia also has had low birth rates for quite some time, and I wonder if any depopulation oriented crankery has resulted from that (Google did not result in anything so far). Soundwave106 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Scottish National Party are using the need for replacement migration as an argument in favor of nationalism.[1] Meanwhile Brexit-voting Britain has decided it doesn't want foreign workers taking care of its elderly (although in recent years Britain has exported large amounts of elderlies to Spain and other countries in southern Europe, which may now have to stop[2]). Many different approaches exist, and none of this seems the subject for wild panic or talk about elephants. --Annanoon (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You name two approaches aside from the UN's approach and call that many approaches, it's funny watching you grab at the nearest straw, it's your lifeline. The point is the people don't want it, so the UN shouldn't consider it. Temujin Haan (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"The people" being mikey's nickname for himself. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Check your facts first before you go joking around, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/many-worldwide-oppose-more-migration-both-into-and-out-of-their-countries/ Temujin Haan (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as confirmation that you're mikey, thanks. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You should actually read your article... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You know exactly what the article says, the majority does not want more immigration. You have no argument, the facts are against you. And no I don't like Disney so why are you calling me fucking Mickey? Temujin Haan2 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading helps.

Yes, yes I do know what the article says. That's because I actually read it instead of googling headlines that support a narrative. But then again, given you can't tell the difference between "Micky" and "Mikey", reading isn't your strong suit is it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh now we're discussing my spelling now? Like you've never made a mistake, Jesus. Your highlight irrevelant, the majority oppose more immigration. Temujin Haan2 (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Mike, Ssh. It's ok. We know. You just want Black Muslim cock. It's ok. Reject Nazism, embrace Hedonism! "I'll take that as confirmation that you're mikey, thanks." From ikanreed. "...And no I don't like Disney so why are you calling me fucking Mickey?" From you. Again. It's ok. We know reading impedes your hate. There there... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My family has been put in very real danger because of these immigration policies, this isn't a joke. Is this what you clowns were doing while the Paris attacks were happening, joking? Temujin Haan2 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Your mother. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm done, you really aren't as rational and logical as you're made out to be. I've snapshotted the conversation incase it is deleted. And to think that this all started because I started playing Devil's Advocate. I was very much like you guys once, even sneaking around on Conservapedia to troll the weirdos. I only hope you have a similiar wake up call. Temujin Haan2 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BYE!! Don't let the door hit you on the way out! Oh! And let your father know I plan to visit soon! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bye, three years on this site was three too many. I've made edits across the site and have contributed, even asking several questions. The journey is over, good luck. Temujin Haan2 (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

FUCK OFF, MIKE! NO ONE LIKES YOU! NOT EVEN YOUR OWN GODDAMN MOTHER! Tinribmancer (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

For the last goddamn time, I'm not Mike. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Everything was a stupid conspiracy till it personally affected me and my family. If you went through what I did you'd be the same way, don't act like you wouldn't. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See, I'm still not going to take your claims seriously. You want to know why? Because having terrible shit happen to you isn't a good reason to dehumanize others and sign on with racist conspiracy theories. I'm sorry for being mean (I thought you were Mike) but I'm not sorry for shooting your nonsense down. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The majority not wanting mass migration isn't nonsense. I'm not dehumanising anyone, I don't want an ethnostate. All I want is less immigration. If 5 billion people were migrating to Korea would it be racist to not want that? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Guess what? They don't want to go to your country either. Most of them want to stay where they were before people started shooting the motherfucking place up and killing everyone! How fucking selfish and petty are you that you say "yeah, all those people fleeing warzones and climate change? yeah, I don't want to help them out cause some of them might be criminals" Guess what, criminals exist in every population group. Get over it! 5 billion people aren't moving to Korea. Where you got such a ridiculous claim is beyond me. Most people don't even care about you, they're ttitude towards you is neutral, non-existent. Most of them just want to live and protect their families. Why is that such a problem for some people? I literally do not understand how empathy can be so challenging for nominally well adjusted people. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

5 billion people aren't moving to Korea. Where you got such a ridiculous claim is beyond me. That's hyperbole of course but I gave you the sources, and guess what, they aren't from David Duke. But, if that was actually happening, you wouldn't be dead set against it would you?

Most of them just want to live and protect their families. Why is that such a problem for some people? That's what I tried to do. If neoliberalist imperialism stopped attacking these countries in their lust for world dominance, none of this would be happening. But of course liberalism is God. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is fucking cancer for the general population. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the ones responsible for this should pay for their war crimes with either prison time or the death sentence, rather than making the general population pay for it. It is the general population that Democracy was made for in the first place. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WTF are you on about? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Imperalism, neoliberalism, neocons, what else? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with opposing immigration? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess I should've added a reference to the article on mass immigration conspiracies. Oof. There is legitimate talking areas on how restrictive or permissive immigration should be, for various reasons. There's some immigration restriction that are practically everywhere (few, if any, countries let in known individuals that they consider "radicalized" even to visit, to address the ISIL talking point). But the reasons given here is just word salad fearmongering, hyperbole, and snarls. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

All the things I just named are the ones causing it. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I do think we shouldn't be imperialist and bombing countries and exploiting them for profit. But we also shouldn't be turning away those that try coming to a more stable country like the United States. They're victims of our consequences, we shouldn't be victimizing them more. It's unfortunate you had a bad experience (which I'm not sure what the specifics are) but to use that personal experience to generalize and sweep millions of people with similar nationalities under the brush isn't rational. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rebuild their countries like we did with Japan, have an American & European Belt and Road initiative. Give them money, supplies, equipment, etc. I expected more creative answers to be honest. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, that will happen, yes, the country that can't even pay for their own people health care will rebuild other nations, give them money, supplies, equipment without expecting to profit. No, the obvious solution is blame the victims for the problems imperialism created, dehumanize them all and throw in some anecdote about them that affected me/my family/my friends as irrefutable proof that ALL OF THEM are evil. This will solve everything. 179.113.231.89 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Europe and the US could do it, it is possible. We've done it before and we can do it again, there must be some other reason why you're so averse to this option. And as for immigration, do you let a tornado come towards you rather than flee because some of its particles are heading the other direction. Do you bring together two ant colonies together because ten or twenty ants aren't attacking the others? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Attempts to restrict immigration have been done, but there's always ugly results involved. I don't want a repeat of that history. Many others don't. Hence the backlash you got. These are really weird analogies. Immigration isn't anything like a tornado. Humans aren't ants. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

These analogies make perfect sense if you don't live in the suburbs. There will be ugly results for every choice. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Either house the refugees, you know, like you're supposed to under the law (At least here in the U.S., where refugee is a protected class.) or gun them all down. You don't want to do either of those things? Go end the wars which displaced them in the first place. It's not like we've been trying to do that (ineptly) for years now... I'm sick of the bullshit over this issue. These are human beings, some of whom have are children who's parents stayed behind to die while their children escaped, (Fat good that act of nobility did) only for those sacrifices to be in vain because the countries they ended up in threw them in ghettos and treated them like worse than animals. Show empathy or show cruelty, don't waffle on this. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, there are already "ugly results". They're called concentration camps. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how that analogy works. If it's so obvious to you, I don't see it at all and it should be really easy for you to explain. How I see it: immigration doesn't throw houses around. Immigration doesn't cause frogs to rain. I know you're trying to link immigration to damage caused by a natural disaster, rather than being literally a tornado but the reality is that it's nothing at all like a tornado, other than humans require resources to be supported like any other human and that might cost resources? Most of these immigrants are able-bodied. They can work any job just like... any group of people. They have their own benefits. Some are highly educated. They're not a monolith of destitute ants coalescing Wonderful 101-style and then throw trees at houses. And again... humans aren't ants. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You may care about them but the UN and US government doesn't, they just want passive wage slaves who will accept low pay, and quite possibly a depopulated Africa whose resources are free for the taking. I want to end imperialism, rebuild countries, and have a stable home. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how opposing immigration is the solution. Immigrant groups seem to lean against the political party that is primarily responsible for keeping wages low, illegal, and outsourced. And besides, the government can do something about it, like impose regulations (this is already policy proposals), it's the corporations that are more of a problem in my opinion. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So bring them in because they'll vote for you? Sounds like a Republican conspiracy you're supposed to be debunking. Are Democrats any better? Look at Tulsi. ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is also the people's indifference, so long as their comfortable lives are preserved. Children can die in concentration camps as long as they don't raise taxes on the specially special people... Fucking hell my depression is coming back in full force. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like the system, you should change it. Immigrants are part of that system you don't like since they don't have the usual benefits and stuff that corporations need to spend on. They should be demanding a fair wage too as well as protections. Republicans are opposed to all of it to their very fibers so it's no surprise most immigrant groups don't vote for them. We don't need a conspiracy since the Republicans are good at being vile and exploitative that turns away anyone that isn't white (and/or from Cuba I guess). And I'm tired of this whole "both sider" nonsense by the way. I keep having to argue that they're fueled by corporate groups yes, but to equate them to Republicans is a really disingenuous comparison for many many reasons. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We DID attempt to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan the way we did Japan and Germany. It failed, because man of the locals didn't want it and foreign powers (mainly Iran) spent fortunes ensuring that rebuilding could not occur. CoryUsar (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@CoryUsar ^^^ This, a thousand times this. It was tried to build roads, it was tried to make houses for them, it was all tried, and it all failed! There isn't one solution to this problem! For some groups of people the answer is to help rebuild their homes, others their homes are a lost cause and they are leaving it for good reason. Heck, on average illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than domestic Americans! MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So, It's the fifth of November, and we know what that means...

It means that it's the start of World of Warcraft's 15 anniversary celebrations. Why, what did you think I meant-- oh. Well, it's a reasonable mistake... Kencolt (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Boxing Bonfire! Spud (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In the US, it is also off-year election day in some parts of the country: it is the day when Republicans try to get citizens to enjoy eating a chocolate-covered shit sandwich.[3] Bongolian (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The only proper way to celebrate Guy Fawkes day is with hate crimes against Catholics. Basically, imagine if the 9/11 attacks were prevented just in time, and to celebrate the US executed the hijackers and made it an official holiday that every 9/11 would be a day to burn effigies of famous Muslim leaders and commit the occasional hate crime against Muslims (as opposed to the not officially endorsed hate crimes against Muslims that tend to happen around that time). That'd be Guy Fawkes day as it was back in the 17th century. CoryUsar (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

True, the origins of Guy Fawkes Night are pretty nasty. But fireworks! Bang! Zoom! Whoosh! Sparklers! Toffee apples! Baked potatoes! Need I say more? Spud (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if there are still highly traditional communities that hang effigies of the pope instead. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

July 11th every year https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/loyalists-urged-not-to-burn-pope-effigies-on-eleventh-night-bonfires-30399910.html Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Yes, at the Lewes Bonfire in Lewes, East Sussex they burn an effigy of a pope. Although they insist that it represents Pope Paul V, the man who was pope in Guy Fawkes' time, not that lovable little chap Francis who's there now. Spud (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Really, who doesn't love a good round of 'croppies lie down'? Semipenultimate (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Natalie wynn away (again)

ContraPoints, on the back of saying nothing about collaborating with, promoting, and honouring a now already well-established demon for almost four weeks now, has quit Twitter permanently for the second time in about three months. It's remains to be seen if she has Nata-laid her Twitter account to rest for good this time or not, but one thing's for sure: we'll be seeing, like, 300 tweets about Cancel Culture and Purity Testing in the next 24 hours. Minish (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone on our Discord said that she used to be a Far-Righter. Do you know something more about this? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

And it seems Shoe0nHead decides to join in: https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1192333647099109378 Tinribmancer (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Must admit I don't know much about Natalie's past pre-ContraPoints, although I've certainly heard bad things - views that people hoped she had simply grown out of. Her being a former far-right person doesn't seem implausible, but it would certainly be a personal surprise. Minish (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I remember she's mentioned in one of her vids that she used to be an edgy what-we-would-now-call-an-altrighter-before-it-was-a-thing before she started actually researching stuff. I'll have to see if I can find it. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)