RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive331

This is an archive page, last updated 27 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>, <329>, <330>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Strikeout humour

Can we, as a website, get rid of fucking awful childish fucking lame strikeout humour? Aceⁱ⁹ 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should. Spud (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it works in some cases. The Obama article for instance. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But one place they should never be is in the first paragraph of an article.This is where the reader decides if the article is worth reading. Cross-outs are usually ambiguous, and passive aggressive, used as a way to express a negative opinion. They signal the reader to stop reading, stare at the typographical detritus and wonder. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In most cases, using snarky strikeouts in the opening paragraph of an article is ill-advised. I've been making it a point to remove this wherever I see it. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

On this site, I've always thought they typically represent irrational hysterics marketed as "truths" by certain idiots, so I do think that it works in certain instances. And a site with a "snarky point of view" is passive aggressive by definition. I would agree, like most things, that it is typically best in small doses, but "your mileage may vary". Soundwave106 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 That would be my point of view as well. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two aspects of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the less celebrated one applies here: people who know a lot often think they are average. You may very well immediately know what a cross-out refers to. The general reader can not be expected to know what the text has not explained. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

(Slowly Raises Hand) I...I like the strikeouts... MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think the status quo is fine—they’re very much in keeping with SPOV. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The articles here seem to be motivated by several, sometimes conflicting objectives: to inform or persuade the reader, and to amuse the author and like-minded individuals. When both objectives are accomplished, nice job, I say.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I support judicious use of strikeouts. It's true, they can easily be overused and unfunny. As noted in a previous discussion and memorialized (RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?), scientific point of view should never be undermined by snarky point of view. Similarly, facts and well-documented evidence should not be undermined by snark (or strikeouts in this case). Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My concern with strikeouts is that the way they are used is not consistently, even in the same article. Take for example Jordan Peterson's page. In the first sentence strikeouts are used as "thing that is claimed thing that is in reality" (as in "Jordan Bernt Peterson (1962–) is a Canadian evolutionary biologist, neuroscientist clinical psychologist." But later, they are used in the opposite way as "thing that is in reality thing that is claimed" (as in "Peterson suggested forming a far-right "free speech" Patreon alternative." Tokyo (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Here are some suggested rules of thumb for dealing with strikeouts:

• Use consistently within an article.
• Minimize to one per section maximum, no more than 3 per page.
• Do not use in the first paragraph.
• If appropriate, rewrite the text without the strikeout while retaining the snark.

Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Bongolian's guidelines are excellent. Spud (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice work Bongolian. Personally though I will never use them and will remove them where they either disrupt the flow of the article or are just plain unfunny. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

If we have a vote, can we just ban all the "yes get rid of it" fun haters? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume most of us are here for fun, so, as long as the vote is posted in a number of places,e.g., ATIM page, saloon, relevant talk page, let the mob decide. That should be fun, for a while.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not tho. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad news (and an fyi to others who care a lot like me apparently)

@Ace McWicked The uncultured swines at RationalWiki Discord voted 1-14 with majority opposing removing strike-out. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So strikeout humor, as we're talking about it, is strikethrough font. Strikeout humor, when I first started reading this, I was thinking "jokes that don't land" and that's what made me think "well, definitely don't keep strikeout jokes in the first paragraph." I don't know what to do, as a site, about jokes that don't land. But strikethrough jokes, as long as they can be read as outlandish, are the justified handholding for Poe's Law. I mean, who can't read strikethrough that can read Poe's law?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

NASA SLS Pricetag is 2 Billion a Launch

So recently it was announced that the US Space Launch System from NASA is going to cost 2 billion per launch. This is in light of similar alternatives to the rocket costing in the 100 million-per-launch range. I personally find this infuriating. The sheer amount of corruption within funding for space science is astronomical, and congress has turned what could have been years of scientific advancement into years of billions wasted. From what I've heard, it is the fault of one Republican Richard Shelby, who uses NASA as a big jobs welfare program for Alabama. That Two-Faced pig has turned over a decade of NASA funding into a still-birth. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Step 1: run on a platform of stopping government corruption and waste. Step 2: Generate a ton of waste and corruption. Repeat. Honestly, I don't mind the government allocating money to projects in poorer states to help smooth inequality. I do mind that it goes through shitty middlemen contractors who absorb half the money into themselves, then allocate a small percentage to election campaigns as a business expense. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Think of all the good that money could've been used towards instead of this, like repairing American infrastructure, or properly funding the IRS so they can afford to do their damn jobs and audit the wealthy, or going towards public housing etc. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

NASA is starved for cash so I don't exactly think it is realistic.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena: Look this is the arguments conservatives use to defund NASA. The problem is the person allocating the funds, not that NASA requires money to operate. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Three individuals on this planet have enough money to mitigate climate change entirely, too sad capitalism incentivizes selfishness over selflessness. Said amount of money is also the amount of money that goes into the US Military, really makes you think.... — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A few more years, some private solution (such as SpaceX's Starship) will become available that can do the same things as SLS for less money, at which point SLS will be killed. Due to its cost, it will only have flown a handful of times by then anyway. And SLS is likely to be the last time ever that the US government buys a rocket using that model, so although it is a big waste of money, hopefully the day will arrive that this form of government waste will be gone for good. DepressedAustralian (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Landmark forum?

I had a friend of mine invite me to this and I have to say that everything seemed fishy. The posters and pamphlets were all so vague and said nothing. Has anyone heard of this and is it reputable?Machina (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Landmark is one of the derivative groups based on Erhard Seminars Training (EST). Landmark honchos owned or own a small restaurant small chain in California known as "Café Gratitude". They restaurant owners tried to coerce the lowest paid workers into taking Landmark training, and got sued for it. They went semi-belly up because of this and closed half of their locations. Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I was curious as to why the talk page on the subject that is on here seems so pro landmark. I have an excerpt from their “syllabus” that raised questions for me.”THE MYTH OF IS AND I. In this section, we explore the nature of what we think of as reality, which includes an objective world independent of us, where cause and effect are key operators; where I, as an identity, is a collection of characteristics, attributes, and experiences from the past. In exploring the nature of reality and taking apart these myths something else becomes possible. Here we observe not so much the particulars of the realities we construct, but that it is human to construct such realities and then to forget that we are the ones who constructed them. As a result, we see that we no longer need to be confined to living within this limited range, and we gain the freedom to express ourselves fully. (End quote) This one in particular raised a lot of red flags for me.Machina (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure personally, either. Possibly a convert. My impression based on very limited Googling: A) It's one of those fuzzy-wuzzy feel-good personal development courses popular in management circles, but seems to aim for a "self-degradation oriented reflection is the way to enlightenment" pathos that is a little departed from the empathetic approach that's popular today. Landmark's technique wouldn't work very well on me, I'd probably eventually yell at them that their technique is bullshit and why don't you assholes just fuck off. B) It engages in behavior that, while not quite to the point of cult-oriented conditioning from what I read, is "too close for comfort". C) The Scientology-style intolerance of criticism leads more weight to point B. Soundwave106 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can post to our talk pages (with some exceptions). In this only one person (Abd) posted to the EST talk page. Caveat emptor! If you want anecdotes, I knew one person who took EST: he told me basically that he got nothing out of it long-term, a basic waste of money other than learning how scams work first-hand. Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s just that a lot of what they said was either mistaken or not really true. Plus most of it was not new, I much of it seems based off Buddhist though (to me) or some form of self help books/conventional wisdom. There was one bit about saying that you are mistaken that the past informs the present and they said some world salad (that I didn’t understand) which I guess mean that the past is the future or something like that. I guess meaning that you carry that past with you into the future? It was really hard to follow the phrase they gave me, plus I saw the word “freedom” mention like a thousand times in the pamphlet (which is kind of suspicious to me. I think it can be summed up as you are unlimited and the only restrictions are that ones you place on yourself. To which I say bunk. I am not unlimited and the restrictions I have aren’t all mental or language. Sure we do at times hold ourselves back with the stories we tell but some of those are rooted in truth not fiction. Accepting yourself, even your flaws and weaknesses seems healthier. Honestly I’m just glad to be out, they didn’t take well to my uncertainty and ambiguity, saying they get it and all that but it was clearly what they didn’t want to hear.Machina (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the Erhard Seminars Training page? "EST did not happen all of a sudden in a vacuum; it was a combination of techniques and philosophies Erhard borrowed from Mind Dynamics (see below), Scientology, Zen, Gestalt psychology, Martin Heidegger's existentialist philosophy, Dale Carnegie's public speaking and motivation seminars, popular motivational books of which the most influential were Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich and Maxwell Maltz' Psycho-Cybernetics, and techniques Erhard developed and refined for training salespeople at the encyclopedia companies he worked for." Landmark is just repackaged EST. Bongolian (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it, thanks for calling me out. I don't know if I woulda looked at EST if you hadn't. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Didn't notice this when it was current - but FWIW I did the Forum and "Advanced Course" back in 2001/2002 - very intense, very culty, very oriented to keeping you "in hte program" - hated it when I said thanks very much an I kept getting calls for 2-3 years asking me to go back to it. On the plus side IMO it DID help me at a time of my life when the info was useful - stuff like "make your own decisions", "be aware of rackets (ie unvoiced biases and filters you use to help make decisions)" and similar stuff. so for me it was a positive experience - several of my friends did it before me to, which I didn't realise at the time... none of them are raving loonies, all of them also left the program in the 2000's or even before. Aloysius the Gaul 03:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Causes of homophobia

What are the causes of homophobia? I saw that the page Homophobia gives two old and relatively dubious causes. I believe that, as many human phenomena, homophobia probably has multiple causes. Some I can think of:

• Religious beliefs (but that's not really an explanation, because it raises the question: why are these religions against homosexuals?)
• Some kind of evolutionary fear that being friendly with homosexuals would make other people believe that one is homosexual, hence reducing one's changes of reproduction?
• Maybe mirror neurons play a role. The mirror neurons of a heterosexual who see homosexuals might activate giving him the sensation of doing homosexuals acts, that he dislikes, hence creating a general disgust for homosexuals. (Does not explain homophobia from people of opposite sex.)
• Some kind of "uncanniness" as in the Uncanny valley hypothesis. That is, one has a so strong idea of "man" as "heterosexual man" and "woman" as "heterosexual woman," that everything that might seems ambiguous under this mindset causes him discomfort.

I did not explained very well, anyway I hope you got it. Tokyo (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not well explored in the Google scholar links I see. Personally I would theorize that it could be lumped in the standard "tribalism", of whose root cause also seems murky based on limited Googling (although there have been a few intriguing theories I've heard for certain aspects such as fear of disease being correlated with racism, which doesn't seem like it would apply here). But humans do seem to like to create "roles" and "identities", and one study (at least, by the abstract :p) does suggest that indeed homophobia in part comes from homosexuality violating a "male role norm". This correlates with the "suppressed arousal" angle, because that's not a "role norm". One study intriguingly links homophobia in Africa to authoritarianism, colonialism, and Islamic religion -- all three of these tend to be authoritarian oriented, and all three tend to annoyingly lump humans into arbitrary groups and denigrate "the other". In the Western world, I would postulate the same might apply -- cultural gender role rigidity drives homophobia to some degree. I have no idea how you would measure such a thing though... Soundwave106 (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I don’t know about the violating norm thing. I learned that homosexual relationships in Greece were more based on a power dynamic.Machina (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You could equally well ask what are the causes of any kind of prejudice. As Machina points out - there is nothing automatic about homophobia, and in some cultures it is (or was) unremarkable. Not all cultures have been racist, at least in terms of skin colour. But there are always people who can be placed in some out group and hated.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bob M Yes, I could equal ask what are the causes of any other kind of prejudice... so what? That doesn't make my question vain. Tokyo (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. But what I wanted to point out was that homophobia is part of a class of similar failings. In my, now doubt flawed, opinion we first need to think about what causes prejudice in general. And then ask if there is anything unique about homophobia. And, if so, what is it? Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There may be a problem with the way you frame the question. Homophobia is a concept. It denotes the causes of fear and hostility some people express towards gay men, etc. The hostility reified by bad behavior is probably an incoherent category. Better question: why do some people choose to be hostile towards gay men? Probably the answers will vary with the societies in question. Most probable answer: it's a minority class and some people are mean. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

While homophobia is very complex (as other users have aluded to gender roles, uncanniness, cultural norms) and yes it is the result of many factors...probably the most brazenly obvious and most vicious contributor to LGTB suffering throughout the last 2000 years or so are the Abrahamic religions. While vaguely tollerated to a limited extent in pagan Europe...it was pretty much blasted out of Europe for centuries save a few highly cultures, enlightened or privelaged corners and no doubt the long running systemic boy rape by Catholic priests. I don't think any force on Earth has done more to control people's sexual lives, turn LGTB live's into nightmares and inflict many other related social restrictions and cruelties than Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Religion (and to a lesser extent political ideologies) plays a huge role in rampant homophobia or conversely having a low level of it. Did someone say scary homophobia? A cross, cescent, six sided star or dictator probably played some important role in the development of it. ShabiDOO 20:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but, as I mentioned in my first post, this is not really an explanation, because the reasons why such religions evolved in such a homophobic way is still missing. Tokyo (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Two theories: (A) God commanded them; and/or (B) people are bigoted by nature. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 13:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I`m inherently skeptical of any claims about human nature. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read any good analysis of why Judaism was so homophobic. I'd guess intuitively that it was simply a highly tribalistic group of people in a hostile atmosphere where reputation, property and honour became essential for staying alive and/or prospering. At the very least, these were likely contributing factors. Throw in a whole bunch of random cultural development, the insanity of religious invention, the crazy rantings of influential people at the time when these creeds were made. If the religion was highly influenced by cranky elders (which was the case in Abrahamic religions) I'd imagine thats a pretty big force for shaping traditional, stable and conservative ideas. And so on. I imagine those passed on to Christianity and Islam by default. But then...this is hardly the kind of answer we deserve. Someone will have to do the research and proper analysis sometime...cause I'd love to know the answer myself. As Oxyeana said...I too am skeptical of a lot of generalizations of human nature, especially considering our general ignorance of it and how speculative much of it is. ShabiDOO 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

People are complex, and trying to essentialize the "nature" of humanity is always gonna fall short of the real thing. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the 'original' basis for homophobia within Judaism isn't really that interesting and most likely trivial any how. I think it is more worthwhile to look at how it spread, amplified, and distorted over time.

probably its monotheism helped there. removing all diversity. more pluralistic religions have gods for all facets of human experience. the Abrahamic ones don't. and seem to actively hate the actual human condition.

getting taken on by the byzantines helped spread it, getting spread throughout Europe just in time to be spread with European empires like a virus of genocide across the world. spread by people with a zeal for holy murder.

and while rival cultures and religions can be put to the sword and be eradicated, human sexuality persists to be demonised. its always fresh.

always provides a handy crime to accuse our enemies of - the cathars and the knights templar suffered from this. mere accusation and liberal use of torture all the evidence needed to wage wars.

at someone point the homophobia brewed from all this stopped needing its religious basis. if mere suspicion is enough to condemn you, then not being gay isnt enough, you need to be actively and loudly homophobic. it becomes so ingrained so visceral. ive never encountered actual religiously inspired homophobia in the flesh, but ive seen plenty from people who probably never been to church in their lives. its just there so ingrained it persists even as we become more secular. in some parts of the world were we exported it, it exists even afte the colonials have gone, seeing homosexuality as a western vice, a western weakness to be resisted by the pure Asian or African cultures in post colonial nationalism, or part of a backlash against the decadence of the old orders like the rise of Islamic fundamentalism after the collapse of the ottoman empire.

and with these more current cultural warring in the west, and with populism and nationalism resurgent, where there is no nuance, with us or against us mentalities. it persists. in different forms. with different basis. all the gains in tolerance and rights, hard won over decades, that has seen in my neck of the woods at least seen lgbt people so visible and numerous and safe could be eroded and vanish so quickly and easily.

everything is uncertain. I worry that we have passed through some kind of golden age of toleration, however brief, with all that is good on the verge of collapse. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need an explanation of why a religion got certain features before we can blame the religion? If ancient proto-judaism got it's homophobia for no reason at all, essentially at random, does that make it any less a cause of modern-day homophobia?

We already know that homophobia is not naturally occurring. Homoeroticism was common in western culture before Christian influence drove it underground. Some of the oldest art ever discovered, in Zimbabwe, shows gay lovers. There were gay emperors of China during the Han dynasty. It wasn't until the early medieval era, with Christian missionaries arriving in China, that homosexuality started to be looked down on, and there weren't laws against it in China until the 1800s. In many Native American cultures, homosexual people were not only recognized, but had special privileges and duties in society. There is no reason whatsoever to think that there is any universal principle behind homophobia, or that the Abrahamic tradition of homophobia is anything other than a fluke. Hannasanarion (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

we don't need an explanation to blame the religion, but it is nice to know things. it is nice to know things about something that has fundamentally shaped and continues to impact our lives. it might help us manage it that little bit better. Personally, for me, its trivia, I do not believe that specific piece of knowledge will bring me any greater understanding, being so far removed from the present. but then laying blame on Abrahamic religions doesnt do much for me either. it clearly is a major factor, its not difficult to see that. its trivial to see that. but today, homophobia is not uniformly spread. it is not equally virulent. the justifications for it are not all the same. and it persists where the religion is no longer present. what I find interesting is how we get from something we are told is wrong to something we a physically repulsed by without even thinking about it or needing any prompting. whats even more interesting is how you might undo it. there is likely no single reason for it being so ingrained, likely a cumulative effect of many factors, the strength of feeling may have waxed and waned over time and place, and I for sure am not smart enough nor learned enough to come up with anything more than point and say 'that maybe?'

it is personally useful to me to not necessarily know these things but to discuss and try to make sense of them as a way of making sense of a thing that has had a profound impact my own life, but I feel these are important things to know for us all, to be able to see the mechanisms used in spreading hate of all kinds not just homophobia. it seems incredibly pertinent these days.

there is one positive that I have gained from this discussion. in over 2000 years since the birth of Christ and the spread of Christianity through Europe and the world, the rise of islam, and for even longer still the birth of Judaism, wars have raged, peoples and cultures have been wiped out, tortured, burned, stoned, enslaved in the name of the god of Abraham. there are no pagans left in Europe. the cathars extinct, ancient ruins stand where the cultures that built them were so eradicated that they are a mystery to us today. during all this, lgbt people were destroyed where ever they were found. but unlike many peoples and culture, there are still lgbt people. everywhere. homophobia persists, but so do we. and we will continue to do so as long as humanity exists. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Preach. I'm a bit bothered by your edit summary though:

i started smoking something on friday, and havent slept, eaten, or stopped since. this is what results

^{— Unsigned, by: CheeseburgerFace / talk / contribs} 01:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Religion in general is shit, the Abrahamic religions more so. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The term "homophobia" treats opposition to male same-sex relations and opposition to female same-sex relations as a single unitary phenomenon, which ignores the differences in intensity between those two oppositions. For most of the history of Christendom, opposition to male same-sex relations was much stronger than opposition to female same-sex relations. Not long after Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire, male same-sex relations were criminalised, but the same was not done to female same-sex relations. Indeed, in the majority of Christian history (France I understand being the main exception), female same-sex relations were never criminalised. This goes back even before Christianity, to the Jewish Torah – the Torah makes male same-sex relations a capital offence, but says nothing about female same-sex relations. I think, whatever are the psychological/social/religious/cultural/evolutionary/etc causes of this opposition, it must have different cases in the male case and the female case, given the different intensity of oppositions. (Indeed, viewing male-male and female-female relations as having something in common is a rather modern perspective, which is almost unheard of prior to the 19th century – for most of human history, the two sets of acts were seen as having nothing essentially to do with each other.) DepressedAustralian (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Very Serious People

The page Very Serious People is crap, and I'm not alone in thinking this. I think that it is at best a weakly defined term. Putting people and organizations on lists on that page, particularly without detailed citations, just amounts to a smear. I propose just removing those sections wholesale. Is there any support or opposition to this? Bongolian (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It's the kind of thing a reader would definitely understand better with examples, but also not something you'd want to comprehensively list like we do. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should keep the “defining examples” in the article, which I’d suggest are such media as the NYT, WaPo, WSJ and The Economist. As for which pundits should remain, Brooks and Friedman probably exemplify VSPs better than almost anyone, while most of the rest can probably be cut and the discussion of their varying degrees of VSP’ishness can be moved to articles on the people in question (if such exist, otherwise it can simply be deleted).

The problem with the section on politicians is that while I agree that the VSP phenomenon is important there too, it becomes difficult to distinguish from “centrism”, triangulation and the like. This is because what characterises VSPs more than anything else is their support for the status quo or slight variations thereof (hence their preference for designations such as “pragmatic”, “realistic”, “professional” etc.).

Probably the best examples, to me at least, of US politicians fitting the VSP depiction overall would be Hillary Clinton and George H. W. Bush, while Barack Obama fitted it when it came to his obsession with bipartisanship, but arguably less so in his decision to pursue a big healthcare reform (though you could argue that its implementation was VSP in being based on Romney’s Massachusetts model).

As for non US politicians, I’d say that Macron is probably the best, current European example. While he is big on reforms, these tend to be very VSP’ish in emphasising supply side economics and “market magic”, which seems to be the VSP economic panacea, though Macron wrap these in high minded rhetoric. Indeed, the kind of (vaguely social) liberalism that Macron represents is probably the epitome of European VSP’ism (cf. The Economist). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Putting "very" in front of anything requires context. As an adverb here, it implies snark. Very Serious People followed by a full page explaining what "Very Serious" people actually means is not too much. Let the site operate. Don't be very concerned that it will collapse. But it's language, learn language a little bit, you monsters. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Bongolian on this; furthermore, I think the three or four lists at the end of this article need to be culled down to specific examples with explanatory text, and the rest deleted. If you look at the history for this page, it is a magnet for BoNs to add anyone to the list they feel fits their opinion of what a "very serious person" is. This is detrimental to the article and the wiki. We should not be supporting stupid fucking bookmark lists here. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, I would suggest just deleting all the people and organizations that don't have supporting references. I've read and edited this page before and I still find it mystifying as to why most of the people are listed there. Bongolian (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Obama just heads up stated on Twitter to "not listen to progressive voices as much." We should keep him on there as well. You know it's funny how disillusioned I've become with Obama, and Nobs still has the gall to call him a leftie when he's a sellout neoliberal shill. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the people on this list don't make a pretense of being Very Serious, but are just flat-out frothing reactionaries that the media portrays as Very Serious due to the balance fallacy. Barbara Kay, for instance, is the Canadian Phyllis Schlafly and attends MRA events, and Jordan Peterson is very temperamental and quick to anger. I also support culling names that don't have explanations because it does me no good when I have no clue who the person actually is (who the heck are Linda Chavez and Lanny Davis, for instance?) or when certain people stray so far from the smug centrist New York Times / Washington Post / Atlantic editorialist type that I start to wonder what the term VSP is even supposed to mean. Even the smug centrist editorialists need an explanation at least. Colossal Squid (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Colossal Squid that several of the examples are more wingnutty than VSP (Ben Stein?!? Really?!?). I think that the VSP definition perhaps needs to more clearly emphasise some form of the status quo/establishment/respectability aspect that I mentioned in my entry above (it’s basically what ties together several of the characteristics already listed) to catch the original snark against the likes of Brooks and Friedman and to clearly separate them from various wingnuts. Perhaps this is better achieved by using a few of the wingnuts currently listed as examples of what a VSP is not? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This discussion should not be about our personal opinions about whether someone is a VSP. If you don't have a reference that substantiates your opinion, particularly about living people, it doesn't matter for mainspace pages. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a fuzzy category to begin with. Also, a list of people in media who are mocked for being generally respected or part "the establishment," seems all snark with no content (In Texas they say, all hat and no cattle). This is not an article where one comes away with useful information.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that this category is that fuzzy, simply because there are at least some obvious examples (I’ve listed some of the more prevalent cases) of pundits, media and politicians whose opinions are, almost per definition, considered “serious”. This is actually one way of exercising power by claiming not to do so, similar to those who try to deflect scrutiny or criticism by claiming merely to acting from “rational” or “pragmatic” motivations. It is basically camouflaging a certain set of political beliefs as being unpolitical, “serious”, “pragmatic”, “rational”, or “professional” “common sense” (sorry for the many quotation marks). This is not particularly new, either; Margaret Thatcher resorted to a similar disguise of politics as technicalities through her TINA (There Is No Alternative) rhetoric. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If someone wants to suggest VSP as an AfD, I might support that. In the meantime, I'm going to do what I see as the minimum necessary to fix up the page: culling out names without any (or adequate) substantiation. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion? Really, @Bongolian? I consider that a bit odd, given that you have decided that Blazing Saddles apparently merits not only an honourable mention as worthy satire, but a mile long article replete with a detailed side by side plot walkthrough and commentary... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between the two pages, but in any case, I think that I laid out my case within the Blazing Saddles page fairly clearly with regards to 1) missionality and 2) the need for quoting the screenplay at least at length. Also with regard to VSP, I said might support deletion, not would support it. Bongolian (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My point was that you thinking an article is crap or going on forever might not be a good argument for a (possible) deletion case. I pointed out quite clearly what should be improved and paired back, as well as why I think the topic is missional (in brief: VSPs exercise a particular kind of status quo power and do this in spite of the merits of their views and mainly by a sort of appeal to their own authority, thus neatly encompassing aspects of both the authoritarianism and crankery clauses in the mission). In response, you just kept on about the article being crap, seemingly because you don’t like the topic/concept. So, my point is that our personal tastes in “good/crap/appropriate” articles and subjects are not going to take us very far. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Lmoa I’m gonna die lol

For the past week or so (maybe longer idk), Australia (the place what where I live) has been having the worst bunch of bushfires in recorded history. At one point, in NSW alone, there were like 17 out of control bushfires at the same time. They reckon the fires are probably gonna get worse next week. It’s still not even summer yet. This shit is, of course, only going to get worse as climate change gets worse; here’s the thing though. Our government won’t do S H I T about it!!! Our PM ignored firemen who said this would happen SEVEN MONTHS AGO!!! He’s trying to figure out the best way to outlaw climate change boycotts!!! His acolytes have been spreading OVERT disinformation - somehow, this is apparently the fault of our Green Party for banning backburning even though 1) they have no major opposition to it (except that sometimes it’s done by people who don’t know what they’re doing), and 2) even if DID have a problem with it, they are a SMALL ASS MINORITY PARTY that has never been in charge (and therefore COULDNT ban it) while our ruling conservative fucks have been in charge for years upon years!!!! Just last week there was a fire 500m away from my house (which they thankfully managed to catch basically as soon as it started). Anyway the point is, shit’s all fucked up what do I even do 49.182.48.120 (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, fuck the liberals. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You turn that anger into action. Probably look at Greta Thunberg as a source of inspiration and join some climate protests like people are doing around the world. IMO I really need to do the same because I loathe the conservative climate change deniers a lot too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Been protesting and helping arrange other protests, as well as various community disaster support networks; both of which organised with various leftist groups. Even doing what I can just kinda ends up feeling kinda futile. I try to not be defeatist and that but goddamn it can get pretty depressing, especially now that the pigs have started getting involved and beating the shit out of peaceful climate protestors. I guess its inevitable that something like this will take time and suffering to sort out, but I don’t know how much of the former we have left, and how much of the latter there’s still left to come. 49.182.48.120 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Duh, why don't the climate change protesters go fight the fires? Get off their asses and actually do something? nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 03:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Rob, you nitwit - given the huge swath of the population which supports action against climate change there is no doubt some firefighters are climate change protesters. Ace^McWicked 05:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Fossil fuels made the 20th century economy (which honestly is a huge problem for this issue, anarcho-primitivism isn't the answer, the solution for climate change probably will be a push of a currently unknown mix of technology and mitigation strategies in the end, hopefully). But consequently there's a lot of money for "status quo lobbying". Thus the corporate claptrap, which filters through the business oriented think-tanks and then to the simpleton propaganda (eg AM talk radio and populist right wing outlets here, not sure how it works in Australia). I'm always amused at how badly some people seem to fall for this shit, while simultaneously having a paranoid-style viewpoint where everything else is a conspiracy. Um, okay. (Most evidence shows that fossil fuel company scientists were *very aware* about climate change, for a *long* time.) Soundwave106 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So this means, after we weaned children off carbonated soft drinks to juice boxes with a plastic straw (cause polymers come from fossil fuels), now we have to wean them off of juice boxes? Where will it all end? nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 05:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Not going to link it with the KKKlintons, nobsie? Tinribmancer (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Soundwave106: I think mitigation strategies should start mainly at the top since they're the ones with the most power to effect the changes. Income inequality is driving climate change as well as the other way around, especially globally, but I also believe in the more individual/community scale. We can do lifestyle changes (don't buy SUVs, Jeeps, and Hummers for starters) and that's always valuable though I think getting legislation to do something and trying to pressure producers to change have much better effects. We banned plastic bags and it wasn't the end of the world. I like to see more of that. Heck, I know this might be unpopular but we should also keep gas prices at an uncomfortable enough level so people don't want to invest in fuel inefficient cars (I think low gas prices promotes purchase of SUVs). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Protip: Please ignore Rob's comments

Climate change discussion is more important and I don't want this derailed to be about Rob at all. Thanks for the understanding.💕💕💕 --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobs' insights are important tho. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be typical right-wing jackassery? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is, but it is important to know what that stupidity is at any given point in time. Aloysius the Gaul 20:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no shortage of resources of conservative stupidity to observe. We're past those PRATTs now especially in climate change. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobs is the modern day Nostradamus, treat him with respect. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

we have to wait 5-600 years to laugh at him?? That seems a bit extreme!! :( Aloysius the Gaul 22:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

nobs’s comments are only useful as a barometer of what the weather is like in raging conspiracy theory wingnut land. The only reason to enquire further into a nobs comment is to gather material for an article detailing the contents of said conspiracy theories. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There was no reason to follow up for what essentially was a debate fallacy of the... straw man type. (Ba-doom tsssh!) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

At any rate, in a more serious reply to LeftyGreenMario, carbon taxes are certainly one way to discourage carbon energy, or rather (to put it more correctly) have the price of carbon energy correctly reflect their future impact (this would include the cost of fuel). Schemes like the "carbon fee and dividend" approach (where carbon tax revenue is distributed as a flat dividend to everyone) actually are being endorsed by some conservatives these days. Of course it's a compromise and part of the appeal of these sorts of plans are that it is market oriented and doesn't have those pesky climate regulations. But it shows that even business oriented conservatives are well aware of climate change these days. (The Trumper types can rant about plastic straws and other stick-it-to-imaginary-libs bullshit all they want. :p) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Moderator elections

The election booth is now open for the 2019 mod election. This year, we have thirteen candidates:

• LeftyGreenMario
• Bongolian
• Spud
• RWRW
• GrammarCommie
• Oxyaena
• Ariel31459
• Avida Dollars
• Ace McWicked
• RightyBlueLuigi
• RipCityLiberal
• Scream!!
• Rationalzombie94

--Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried to find answers to a very very very odd question relating to sexual assault/abuse (targeted at people with a background in Psychopathology)

My question: Is it possible that someone could be so mentally unstable that they view sexual abuse as love and they want to be sexually assaulted?

I thought of this question after watching a South Park episode where the side plot was when the character Mr. Garrison was not sexually abused by his dad and he wanted to be sexually abused by him. The reason is given by my question (seeing it as love), this was also the case with Mr. Garrison's mother in the episode who viewed being sexual abused by a parent was love.

Yes it is a very weird question but that episode got me thinking if it was possible. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

short answer - yes. sex as a form of self harm is thing. its often tied in with past trauma and abusive relationships. often involves seeking out risky sexual behaviours or shameful and degrading ones, of varying degrees to the point that may be real actual risk, in an extreme example, of sexual assault and rape. how common that extreme maybe, ive no clue and ive no desire to dig too deep in any kind of research of the subject.

should not be confused with very common and generally harmless rape fantasies or dumbass cartoons on the telly AMassiveGay (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Human beings are very variable and strange things. And there are a lot of us. The result being that the answer to the question "Has anyone ever done X?" is almost invariably "yes". (Assuming that X is physically and logically possible.) The real question is always "How common is X?"Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

But also there's research, and the answer is essentially yes, even if not in the somewhat intense terminology RZ used. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Are ALL Trump supporters worthy of being condemned? I'm confused

I've been wondering since I am a young social democrat who has recently been paying attention more to politics, and I am a big Bernie supporter. But I have been reading that anyone who supports Trump is inherently evil because they are either racists or tolerate racism, so there are no good ones. basically I am wondering if progressives in general think that is true? I know one girl at my high school who I recently found out is a Trump supporter which I found surprising because she seemed so ghetto, though she is white. She is actually a sweet person and her best friend is a Latina even though she hates immigrants. She is also against her own right to choose which is stupid. I can't really hate her because she is from a poor family even poorer than mine and I am always soft on poor people, even if they are literal Nazis. But a lot of Trump supporters are just rich assholes and I agree those people suck. But should ALL Trump supporters be condemned or should we try to reach out to some of them and turn them into democratic socialists? Dasnahmynay (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Among activist group that I'm familiar with, the feeling seems to be that Trump supporters are not worth wasting time on at this point. Trump seems to have come close to alienating everyone who once supported him who could be alienated at this point, so he's left with the hard core supporters. Two examples among us who represents opposite ends of the Trump support spectrum are 1) User:Rationalzombie94 who voted for Trump but no longer supports him and 2) User:RobSmith (Nobs) who still praises Trump for things that he condemns Democrats for doing. Consequently, Nobs is worthy of ignoring. Bongolian (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: my answer takes into account Dasnahmynay's additional information here: User talk:LeftyGreenMario#What is wrong ("I want to know the answer, this is important because I aspire to be an activist and political canvasser so I need to know what to do."). Bongolian (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s a bit of an extreme framing to start by the point of whether ALL Trump supporters should be condemned (whatever that means).

First off, “Trump supporter” is an extremely broad category, ranging from GOP partisans supporting Trump simply because he has a red badge, over religious fundamentalists who are as creative to come up with Rube Goldberg’ish defences for Trump as they are in their apologetics, raging conspiracy theorists like nobs, people like your friend who still buy into Trump as the last best defence against the swamp/immigration/job losses/America’s declining international power/whatever, and then there’s of course the literal white supremacy types of various flavours.

Secondly, what do you mean by “condemning” and what do you condemn these various kinds of Trump supporters for? Does it not merit at least admonishment, if not outright condemnation, to choose to(!) remain stupid in the face of the avalanche of shady shit produced by and surrounding the Trump White House, or to insist on explaining it away as a Deep State (or whatever is in vogue) conspiracy? I use the term “remain stupid” because it’s not exactly difficult to get informed about the shit state of affairs in the Trump administration, hence remaining stupid about it is an active choice of either sticking with Trump propaganda outfits such as Fox News or simply remaining uninformed altogether. If the answer is instead to counter all the Trump shit with whataboutism vis-a-vis the Democrats or some other convenient scapegoat, I’d call it an outright false equivalence by this point.

For instance, I’d definitely “condemn” the religious fundies for supporting Trump, because the hypocrisy and baffling “interpretations” of Trump’s presidency they engage in is patently absurd and completely at odds with how they have reacted to, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Thus, if there ever was any doubt, Trump’s presidency has exposed the shallowness of the US religious right (as long as president shows hostility towards gays and abortion, nothing else really matters), as well as the hollowness of their claims of moral superiority and bombastic attacks on the “degeneracy” of modern society (seeing as how Trump is pretty much the embodiment of all they proclaim to hate about the latter - apart from not being gay or having had an abortion, of course). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, “condemnation” should not preclude you from trying to convince those open to be convinced that Trump is basically going to sell them out whenever it’s convenient for his personal gain, that his presidency is a disaster for several areas of US life (just look at his environmental policy, if you can call it that), or that he’s a fucking inept and shockingly corrupt moron who shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House. However, how many of those who currently support Trump are actually open to be persuaded otherwise is somewhat unclear (as Bongolian pointed out, though I’m not sure it’s that clear cut). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyone worth reaching out to has jumped ship already. Besides, no, Dems shouldn't try to reach out to GOP voters. That's stupid. Dems and the GOP are ideological opposites, and we've seen where Third way Neo-Liberalism goes. What the Dems should do is exactly what the GOP has been doing this entire time, which is rallying their base, going after "neutral" voters and fence sitters, and maybe if they're lucky gobbling up a few disillusioned GOP voters. Again, I see zero reason to focus on GOP voters, and even less reason to focus on (core) Trump voters, who tend to be habitually ignorant if not outright malicious. Nobs is an example of both to some degree, though it's mostly the former in my opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to be an effective political activist. This task is very different from expressing ones own sentiments on political questions. There is little political effect in talking to those who already are fed up with Trump and his ancillaries, apart from organizing them to be activists. You may have contempt for the rest, but you will be working against your goal by shunning them when you should talk to them as a better angel. Deciding that Trump supporters are incorrigible is admitting defeat. Dialogue can force open unwilling minds closed by the monologue of a corrupted ideology.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Apart for the problem of defining a "Trump supporter" I would ask condemned to what by whom? Condemned to jail by a judge? Condemned to the hell of your choice by whatever god you might imagine? Or do you mean that people who disagree with them strongly should disprove of them strongly? If you mean the last - then you are right, but it's not a very profound suggestion.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up Nobs you're a cult member.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "condemn" is the right choice. It's more that the worldview of what I call "Donald Trump's biggest fanboys" is completely out of whack with reality. Conspiracy whackdoodle-ry is nothing new in American politics (hi, Lyndon LaRouche!), nor is the exploitation of racism new in politics; to see it so prominent in one political party, to the point where the current president is actually tweeting conspiracy oriented or racist tweets, is. I don't think all 2016 Donald Trump voters are of this breed, and I think the slight suburban vote shifts to Democrat that we have seen in recent elections show this. Nonetheless, the rigidity of Donald Trump's popularity (he's basically been about 40% approve / 53% disapprove for his entire term) suggest that there are few people to convert left; conservatives who detest the behavior of the Trump Republican party have probably pulled a George Will and gone independent now. Maybe there's a few left to convert by showing them the true side of Trump, eg the places online where "Donald Trump's biggest fanboys" gather (like r/The_Donald). If they can't see that shitshow for what it is, and not figure out that this is what Donald Trump represents, they are beyond hope. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

For fuck's sake who reindented me so I'm replying to ariel and not the OP?

I've got the strong and totally correct opinion that, yeah, if you're any kind of republican, even a regretful one, after say... 2000 or so, there's no redeeming qualities to your politics. Vote third party if you correctly identify democrats as also bad, but yeah, all trump supporters are some kind of completely awful person. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The world is a terrible place.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ariel, that was a shit take. There is no "corruption" to Trump's platform, he's just a fascist, plain and simple. This idea you have that the left and right aren't inherently in conflict is simply laughable. Further, your apparent belief that Trump supporters will vote Dem, or anything but (R), is simply delusional. No, they'll follow their habits, and vote for Trump, because that's what they've been trained to do. The idea that GOP voters will change sides is how we got Neo-Liberalism, and all the bullshit it brought to the Dems. What I'm saying is that that line of thought is why the Dems are mostly shit, why the Dem leadership is laughably ineffective at pushing any actual policy through, why the system is broken. Inherently conflicting ideologies do not mesh. This is especially true of the modern GOP, which has become increasingly authoritarian due to the Dem strategy of throwing their own base under the bus in the name of compromise while the GOP laughs at their opponent's stupidity. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No one else sees the OP as a troll? The entire premise is off base, the issue of the cult of Trump is different than ideological political differences. Additionally the all or nothing language from Sanders and Trump do little to improve political discourse.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I am not sure you understood I was addressing the OP about their interest in political action, not getting their own head straight about what to call people who voted for Trump.. Maybe the OP is a troll. But, Trump has indeed corrupted whatever ideology characterized the republicans, say pre-2008. It was a shitty ideology to begin with, but it got a lot worse. Also, your view that Rs and Ds are like cats and dogs is a little deterministic for me to accept completely, and besides the Independents are and have always been persuadable.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 In my view you need to know your own positions, or at least have a general gist, before choosing to engage in political action. This is mainly because you need to be able to decide what positions you're fighting for. I'll agree with the view that the GOP is getting worse, and that Trump's populism is part of that, though I'd also argue it predates Trump to a large degree, going at least as far back as the civil rights era, if not further. As for the "cats and dogs" comment, firstly, that seems a bit unfair to cats and dogs who co-exist peacefully thank you very much, and secondly, this has to do with policy positions, mainly social, but also economic. The parties are at odds to some degree, and their bases more so. As I've tried to explain multiple times now, this is necessarily bad, as it allows for more clarity for voters, more pushback against further extremes via the Overten window, and prevents one party from effectively dictating the political landscape, as the GOP has done to some degree. I also agree that Independents are approachable, however, they by nature are not the core base of either party, and thus in my view should be treated as such.

I do not take this view out of desire, more as a reaction to watching the political landscape and thinking it out on my own as well as weighing professional opinions. The Overall trend thus far seems to be the GOP mounting an effective long term electoral strategy by riding whichever populist they can get their hands on, then replacing them when they have worn out their use. And while I don't think the Dems should adopt this strategy in its entirety, I do view several of the major brushstrokes as being effective; Mobilizing the core base, reaching out to Independents and centrists, having policies that the party will bend on, and others they will dig their heels in on. In my view the Progressive Caucus, (Sanders, AOC, "The Squad", etc) is the left-wing version of this strategy, though obviously with several differences. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal I mean I originally reverted this topic, which was edit warred over untiul Ace decided it should remain, so... As for Sanders VS Trump... Good. I'm serious, Hence my long posts. In my view we need polarization in our political system, at least to a certain degree. As it stands, it's very hard to tell the Dem establishment from the GOP in terms of policy, and it very much hurts the Dem base, you know, minorities, if the Dems continue their "governance through compromise" strategy. Let's take trans rights as an example. The GOP opposes them, so what should the Dems do? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Also a hearty "fuck you" to RCL here, who can't suffer that anyone sees the "center" as not inherently reasonable, as if Trump support and sanders support were at all similar in any significant way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that those who think everything needs to be compromised on is absolutely wrong. Human dignity is not up for compromise. Neither is the right to exist. And currently in the US, the Right has taken the extreme position on this, like Trans rights GC, with is out of step with basic human rights. Also ikanreed, I am classic liberal, a centrist by most accounts, except in the US, when it would be much closer to Social democrat.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Social democracy is a stopgap solution, it doesn't fix the systemic issues at hand, merely band-aids them. A true fix would be to abandon capitalism entirely, it's nearing its death anyway, why choose to die on this hill? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Only because I don't currently see another viable/palatable alternative. A more regulated capitalism, with less cronyism I think is possible.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

seems like we have had this conversation a few times before, posted by obvious trolls. each time it is even more pointless. we know what trump is about by know. we've known since the last time this question was asked. and the time before that, and before that. there is little excuse now. support for trump is support for racism, homophobia, hate, corruption. we know this. if you support trump but don't support these things just what is it that allows you to let these things slide? any one of these things should be deal breaker for anyone with any decency. whats so important that trumps still your man? I posit that if you are a trump supporter you do infact support these things and are an awful person, or you are indifferent to these things and still an awful person.

I am sure there are many decent trump supporters. racists can very affable if you are not black. homophobes can be very helpful if you are not gay. ted bundy was positively charming when he wasn't raping and murdering. on a personal level if someone is decent to you, you can let a lot slide. particularly with close friends and family. but it doesn't make them decent people because they never called you a fag. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite all the apocalyptic predictions, USA under Trump is doing well. Therefore, there's no reason to condemn Trump supporters in the first place. Tokyo (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

What have you been smoking and where can I get some? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll sell you some. Ace^McWicked 21:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I remember when we were told that we couldn't trust the guy with nuclear weapons... and despite that, here we are. Trump neither caused any major conflict nor he made the economy crash. If one stops listening to the news networks that want us all scared, and start looking around, things are going well. Tokyo (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, where are you getting this stuff from? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

See? If one can get this under Trump, it can't be so bad. Tokyo (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

not having started a nuclear conflagration puts the bar for success somewhere on the low side AMassiveGay (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

OK so some people are saying that all Trump supporters are indeed hopeless, and evil and we should not reach out to them. What I have a problem with here is blaming that for neoliberalism when neoliberalism was meant to appeal to rich suburbanites by moving to the right economically. I am talking about pushing a left-wing economic agenda to reach out to poor people, including poor white people who support Trump. Like that girl I know, who isn't even old enough to vote yet, wouldn't left-wing economic policies help her and her family? When all you hear about in politics is culture war bullshit it isn't surprising that a lot of people go against their self interest economically. I imagine the average affluent rightwinger despises people like that as much as they hate poor liberals and minorities, so why not split the coalition and appeal to all the poor conservatives who agree with us on economics?

Also on a side note am I the only one who thinks we need to stop calling Biden a "centrist"? He literally just came out against legalizing marijuana. 70% of the US and prob most Trump supporters support that. He is a fucking right winger, basically fascist lite and it is time to start calling him out as one. I will be old enough to vote in 2020 and if Biden is the nominee, I'm going Green or something else not fascist. Dasnahmynay (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

IMHO you are correct and an economic focus might help (as pointed out, this is happening already). Unfortunately bear in mind that the right wing (via that well known "Southern strategy") has done a good job racializing progressive economic redistribution, so you are not going to win over everyone. The "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" type of Trumpers I know probably wouldn't be convinced due to excessive racism or conspiracy thoughts. (And this is unfortunate because most of these Trumpers I know in this category (anecdote) are poor to lower working class, or rural. With the added irony of often relying *on* government programs of some sort, ranging from SSDI to Donald Trump's soybean farmer welfare.) But there are others that probably wouldn't mind having health care or maybe an actual living wage. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

not liking pot does not make one a facist AMassiveGay (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Biden is a centrist. An American centrist, but a centrist all the same. As for voting Green, have fun throwing your vote away! Seriously, I mean it. We live in a system where your choice is lukewarm centrism or plutocratic fascism, and third party POTUS votes might as well not exist. It's not a long-shot vote by the way, they aren't going to win in a FPSTP system that favors two large parties and nothing else. As for trying to appeal to the GOP on economics... You do realize that's what the progressive caucus is doing right? Granted, it's indirect, but that's all they can do given that GOP voters are... well there's no other way to say it, they're trained dogs. They're trained to put party loyalty and tribalism above everything, including their own families in some cases (look up how many Southern families kick their kids, yes literal kids, out if those kids come out as trans or gay.) Hell, just go read Nobs' talkpage. GOP voters, barring very rare exceptions, don't break ranks, period. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

We're having a whole bunch of arguments at once, so let me just clarify.

• Trump is a racist
• Supporting Trump means you support racism
• Joe Biden is a shitty candidate
• Stop appealing to Republicans because if the racism, xenophobia, misogyny, tariffs and general corruption isn't enough to make people not vote for Trump they are a lost cause.

RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The democratic candidates shouldn't be wasting time trying to convert core Trump supporters, but they do still need to be careful about the kinds of policies they put forward. Its worth bearing in mind where they lost in 2016; the election is forfeit without states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, regardless of how enthusiastic the democrats' core supporters are. I'm unsettled by national polls indicating high levels of support for policies like Medicare for All: the distribution of that support matters too, and that can be forgotten when support seems high enough.35.2.129.102 (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pennsylvania is currently blue. It's not a threat this round. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How did Trump's election make your life (or the lives of your beloved ones) worse?

Since I was not believed when I said that USA under Trump is doing well, now I'm curious to know how, concretely, Trump's election made your life (or the lives of your beloved ones) worse. Tokyo (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My taxes went up 40% because of the elimination of the student loan interest and state/local tax deductions. I'm 60k in the hole because of that debt, and I pay income taxes to New Jersey, New York, and New York City. Fuck me for getting an education and living in a productive part of the country instead of buying a private jet I guess. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That's something concrete. But is it right that student loan interest deduction (I guess that's what you meant) has been eliminated? Maybe this is not updated, but I read: "Student Loan Interest Deduction. Like the adoption credit, there were rumors that the student loan interest deduction had been shuttered: it was not. For 2019, the maximum amount that you can deduct for interest paid on student loans remains $2,500. Phaseouts apply for taxpayers with MAGI more than $70,000 ($140,000 for joint returns) and the deduction is completely phased out for taxpayers with MAGI of $85,000 or more ($170,000 or more for joint returns)." Tokyo (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. My gross income is $90,000, just enough to have a 1 bedroom apartment that's not falling to pieces with a 60-minute bus commute to Midtown and no car. So I need to pay interest on my student loans, which need I remind you are from the government, so the interest itself is already a tax. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying higher taxes, and I can get by okay given the fact that Trump hiked taxes on me, but the fact that he called it the "tax cuts and jobs act" is fucking insulting, especially since my 40% tax hike does nothing but fund a 100% tax cut for big corporations like Amazon and Fedex who got to deduct their private jets and stock buybacks to bring their burden to 0%. Hannasanarion (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised because a $90,000 gross income seems a lot (against a US median gross income of $40,000). You shouldn't have too much problems in living and paying your student debt of $60,000. Probably I'm missing some important information. Tokyo (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The most well known "Midtown" in the US is Midtown Manhattan New York City, which has a high cost of living. I will assume this is where we are talking about. And the issue with the "tax cuts" Trump implemented is that some (only some) of the difference was paid for by reducing the state and local income tax deduction. This has disproportionately affected states which have higher state and local tax basis (which NYC has). Coincidentally, these places tend to vote Democrat. A more full explanation of the cuts are here. The net sum of the tax cuts are that they are an eventually unaffordable giveaway to businesses and the very well off (budget deficit hitting nearly $1trn a year this year -- yeah, "Tea Party" "anti-deficit" ranters of the past, this is what you *really* want, eh?) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The process for legal immigration, which I am a secondary participant in, has become even more of an expensive hassle than it already was. Medical care costs for my poorer family members shot up putting the lives of people I care about at risk. I live in a country where hundreds of thousands of innocent children are stolen from their families and incarcerated in inhumane conditions you inhuman fuckers, and if the passive psychic trauma of living with yourself considering that doesn't destroy you inside, just absolutely fuck you ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Legally immigrating to USA has become more difficult for you or one of your family members? (I don't understand what do you mean by "secondary participant") If so, how? Tokyo (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not my place to share any aspect of anyone else's life but my own on the fucking internet. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Did I mention a lot of my family excluding a few exceptions, is right-wing? Yeah, well they all got worse. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This pretty much is the big negative. Apart from a large tax cut and some Obamadiditmustrollback executive order crapola, and enough administrative turmoil to inspire a future *several* season long docudrama, Donald Trump's administration hasn't accomplished much of note. No surprise, given the nation's decentralization, that economically it's humming along (unevenly, but it's humming). Social fabric wise, however, is a different story. Mr. Trump has heavily amplified the polarization and racism in this country with tribal rhetoric and actions. Instead of making America great again, he made Thanksgiving dinner much, much worse for a start. And we haven't gotten to things (like the child camps mentioned) that future US historians will find absolutely repulsive. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure Trump's election inspired and emboldened a racist to scream at one of my born-native friends (born from a Mexican family but as American as I am) to "go back where he came from" while my friend was waiting at a bus stop. The good news is that I think there were witnesses or someone else waiting, so while my friend got on board, people told the driver to not pick up the little obnoxious cream-colored dog turd with a human head, and so that fellow lost a ride. Also I'm also worried about immigration policies affecting someone I know, who's a Korean immigrant and had to deal with some issues with documents and he risked getting deported even though he's an absolutely positive productive member of American society. So yeah, that rotten bloated orange peel and his crony administration can go get thrown with force into jail. Nobody I know is right-wing though so it's nice when everyone I know is on the correct side of human decency, and Thanksgiving is just all of us having a reasonable discussion because we already agree with each other. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ditto what LGM said, as a black Male, I'm under constant threat from a revitalized and inspired crypto fascist white supremacist movement that has moved firmly into the mainstream. RipCityLiberal (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It has negatively affected my life in multiple concrete ways that I would prefer not to discuss in detail. Generally speaking, these negatives revolve around healthcare access, international travel, the immediate effects of climate change, racism, and the stress that these things cause. On the positive side though, it forced me to re-evaluate the lifelong criminal and sociopathic behavior of one of my relatives and to completely disown him. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A pretty racist title from NBC

"Pete Buttigieg is struggling with black voters — and not just because he's gay"

Ehm... Melody (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The Pete Buttigieg candidacy is one of those absurdities of broken US politics. A man whose only offering is superficial charisma as "serious presidential candidate" is insane. The question shouldn't be "Why is Pete unpopular with black voters" but "Why does any human being want president pete?" ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg hasn't dropped out yet? Boring, let me know when he does. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I forgot Buttigieg too. Anyway yes, the title should have been written better. Tokyo (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

CNN poll has him leading in Iowa.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he went up totally arbitrarily. It'd be more reasonable (in some ways) to ask why Warren is still in the race. But in others, he's a fucking mayor who has no goddamn reason anyone should vote for him. He's like a pure "Not trump" reduction broth. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Marianne Williamson still hasn't dropped out so... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The headline is fine because the fucker insinuated that he isn't doing well with black voters, because he is gay, which is a bullshit cop out for not having much experience and having very little in the way of policy to benefit black voters.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg is just an opportunistic scumbag, don't pay him much heed, even Biden has consistent (albeit wrong) principles. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@RipCityLiberal What you said would make sense if the title was: "Pete Buttigieg is struggling with black voters — and not because he's gay." But the title is: "Pete Buttigieg is struggling with black voters — and not just because he's gay." So also NBC is insinuating that Buttigieg is not doing well with black voters because, at least partially, he is gay. Melody (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, not just the title, the article itself says Buttigieg is not doing well with black voters because, at least partially, he is gay. Tokyo (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on obsessing over a clickbait headline. Yawn. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems he's getting more popular somewhere - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/17/pete-buttigieg-iowa-poll-surges-ahead - does Iowa matter? Aloysius the Gaul 20:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Both those headlines imply the same thing, that his low support among black people is at least somewhat related to his sexuality, which is not the fucking case. RipCityLiberal (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal Actually, doing a bit of research, there are reasons to believe that a homosexual candidate is not appealing to the African American community. I'm quoting Wikipedia literally:

"Homophobia is considered prevalent in the African American community. Reasons for this include the image young, black males are expected to convey in the public sphere; that homosexuality is seen as antithetical to being black in the African American community; and the association of the African American community with the church in the United States. Black people are generally less supportive of homophobic policies being written into law. African Americans support LGBT civil liberties more than their white counterparts; some theorize this is because of conservative churches' role in advocating for African American civil liberties and that this advocacy has expanded into the LGBT population. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia_in_ethnic_minority_communities#Black_community Tokyo (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

lol. You must be new here.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal ...and how is that relevant to the topic of discussion? Tokyo (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Quoting a Wikipedia article is not an argument. The charge here is that black people are inherently hostile to people based on on their sexual orientation. This charge has no basis in reality, especially when you include factors such as religion and age. This headline, accurately, takes aim at the bullshit claim from PB supporters, that somehow because he is gay, black people don't support. This is a lazy argument, without a factual basis. RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"Quoting a Wikipedia article is not an argument (link to Argument from authority)."

It would be an Argument from authority if I said "it's true because Wikipedia says so!" which is not what I said. I wrote that there are reasons to believe that a homosexual candidate is not appealing to the African American community, and the Wikipedia article cites articles and books supporting that (and also other sources saying the opposite).

"The charge here is that black people are inherently hostile to people based on on their sexual orientation."

This charge is preposterous. How could skin color influence acceptance of homosexuals? I doubt anybody is making such a claim. As I intended it, the charge is that because of cultural reasons, like the intersection with religion, the African American community (hence, speaking statistically, not about every single person) might find a a homosexual candidate not appealing. Tokyo (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Strange, I thought he struggled to win support from African Americans because of the crappy way he's handled the Eric Logan case. Avida Dollars^{her again} 21:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey look UT is back out with a new coat of paint. @Oxyaena@GrammarCommie -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering the shit I've been getting recently I`m letting GC handle this one. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tokyo Or, here me out, because this is a bit out there... But maybe it's because he's a racist, egotistical, establishment, milktoast candidate, and the African American demographic isn't made up of morons? Just a weird, wild, and way out there thought. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And again, the headline is basically a stupid comment Buttigieg made distilled into clickbait by an editor in order to sell a product. Sheesh, you'd think people would be more aware of this stuff these days... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In the past I was against pot.........

Now that I tried it I cannot see why I was against pot. Then again, being born in the early 90's I was exposed to more anti-drug/anti-weed ads when I was a kid than as an adult. Almost immediately after I smoked it I stopped hearing voices in my head and I felt on top of the world. A whole week of feeling depressed went away. Going to start buying it. Glad that it is legal here in Michigan. Legalize Weed Nationally --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! Glad to hear you're feeling much better.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 03:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate you but I have a very intimate relationship with drugs and mental health so my advice is not Congrats! but rather - be careful. Ace^McWicked 06:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

So drugs make you feel good? I guess that settles it. 82.132.212.241 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's more like the effects of marijuana are relatively mild. There are certainly health risks (I'd honestly be *really* cautious with marijuana if you have schizophrenia tendencies), but from my perspective such is less than alcohol. Other illegal recreational drugs don't enjoy the same appeal of casual low-dose social use (eg let me know when cocaine users switch to coca tea) so strategies will differ for them. What also is clearly settled at this time, of course, is the current drug epidemic in America (the opioid crisis) was pretty much started by home-grown legal prescription drug companies in the 2000s. (Has anyone made a buddy cop anti-narco film, the type so popular in the 1980s, where the Bad Guys are pharma execs in suits and ties? Hmm...) Mindless "drugs are bad m'kay" type rants are pretty much silly at this point. Especially when they lead to moral panics that do no one any good. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

speaking in generalities, then yes, pot is mostly harmless, especially when compared to other drugs legal or otherwise.

speaking more specifically, considering that Rationalzombie has spoken of their difficulties with mental health in the past, coupled with the inherent difficulties of self medicating implied by their post, i have trouble not parroting Ace and advising caution.

i'd rather not overstate any risks nor assume too much from RZ's one brief post, but it is worth mentioning that even the most oblivious pot evangelist always add the caveat of while mostly harmless it can aggravate existing mental health issues of the kind that RZ has spoken of.

ive never been one for a blanket just say no approach to drugs, plenty of people have fun with all manner of em with no serious or lasting issues. what I do say is know what it is your doing. know what risks there may be. it is true that things like smack are probably far worse, but the 'pot is magic' evangelists are still fucking idiots AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

We've all heard Rationalzombie94's mental health issues throughout the year. I think it's congratulation-worthy to hear that he's no longer hearing voices in his head, however, reading articles online reveal that the data about Cannabis and schizophrenia are mixed:

https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-marijuana-link

https://www.psycom.net/medical-marijuana-schizophrenia

Our article

I recant my previous statement, I now say: enjoy with caution. Cannabis is not well understood.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I am at max dosage with my psych medicine and at this point, if pot in small amounts helps: I am all for it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 I'm no doctor but I think that mixing psych drugs with pot is not wise. Is your personal doctor aware of that? If not I suggest you to tell him, so that he can give you better advice on your situation. Tokyo (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree about being cautious with usage. It's probably wise to avoid high-THC/low-CBD products or highly-refined products like hash or shatter. Requoting our cannabis page from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine study:[1]

“” Cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use the greater the risk. In individuals with schizophrenia and other psychoses, a history of cannabis use may be linked to better performance on learning and memory tasks. Cannabis use does not appear to increase the likelihood of developing depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. For individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorders, near daily cannabis use may be linked to greater symptoms of bipolar disorder than non-users. Heavy cannabis users are more likely to report thoughts of suicide than non-users. Regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.

Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy Rationalzombie94 found a drug that's working for them, but mixing drugs is a huge no no. I can definitely understand where he's coming from. I've taken countless medications and they never fixed my issues. But please PLEASE consult a medical professional if you're mixing drugs. We don't know a lot about cannabis, too. Even if cannabis works for you now in the short term, there's no saying cannabis will work for you in the long run. Drugs have a tendency to be desensitizing. I used to always take meds, but I stopped taking them years ago. It was a mix of waiting rooms being too much of a hassle and me realizing taking medications didn't help me at all. I realized that there was no miracle drug to make me a better person, but instead I had to work on my own issues and self examine myself. Schizophrenia is different because you have to be taking drugs, even if you fee like you don't.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 20:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

As a member of a family where pretty much everyone has had or still has depression, with mom a psychotherapist and a sister is a psychiatrist - their familial "professional" advice to me was "use modern pharmaceuticals if they work for you". These days "modern" include legal marijuana derivatives I think - congrats. Aloysius the Gaul 20:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a big difference between pharmaceutical that are made by drug companies and marijuana derivatives that are sold at cannabis stores. The former are well-tested, analyzed for risks vs. benefits, and sold in precise and uniform amounts. The latter are not (perhaps with some exception for testing and reporting of THC and CBD content). Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

and there's quite a lot of difference between farmed marijuana and ilicit grown marijuana - the former is generally a known product, with published content, the later is not. The sol called "well-tested" pahrmaceuticals have a long history of fraudulent results for the sake of profit, so I think your analysis is not all that sound on that front either - arguably "craft marijuana" farmers are producing a product that is at least as good as the best the pharmaceutical industry has to offer. Aloysius the Gaul 23:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Weed today is very different from the weed sold back in the day. It's higher in THC content (gets you high) and low in CBD (makes you relaxed). This is done because ... people like to get high. As a result, modern weed is more addictive and more dangerous.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 20:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ultimately there are so many variables with puff ad what effects it has on people. frequency and strength effects things, smoke, vape, or brownies will have an effect, where you do it, when, who with. and its different for different people. if this were anyone else, id just be saying have fun, enjoy yourself but not on a school night. you'd have to make a concerted effort over a long period of time to get to where its problematic.

but we are talking about someone with a specific diagnosed condition the specifics of which I am not certain but is not merely depression where as a pointedly-not-doctor no mark on the internet cannot in good conscience do or say anymore than be careful. short term, it might work fine. might be great. mid term, long term, maybe. who knows? its always great at first, but the more you do, the experience changes to a more stoned and paranoid feeling.

I have substantial personal experience with substance abuse. on going issues that probably making me more wary than I need to be. I can give things to watch for, indicators that might suggest a problem. but this is over a long period, with more than just pot. and I don't have RZs specific medical history, it might not be all relevant. but one thing that might be is that if problems do arise, its not easy to spot them yourself until they are major problems, and less manageable.

take care of yourself rz, I hope there is someone who can let you know if they see something you might not not have noticed. you'll probs be fine, and we are all just being melodramatic, but still, be careful. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not going to smoke it again

I realize that it is not a good idea, still support making it legal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My brother developed schizophrenia (there is a history of it in the family) and it was almost certainly either provoked or much worsened by smoking weed (though we are talking long term high dosage). That doesn't necesarily mean that weed is impossible in your case. But the best advice for you has already been mentioned: "talk about it with your doctor". Just tell him/her in all seriousness that you tried it, how it seemed to help and ask if there are medicinal marijuana treatments available and what (s)he thinks of it. If (s)he's the kind of doctor who laughs off or dismisses things you can tell her or him in advance to take it seriously and to explain his answers (not just go meh). (S)he might give you a good reason not to. Or possibly tell you a little smoking here and there is harmless (likely). Or some magical alternative we don't know about yet. But you should ask. If (s)he is a shitty doctor than change your doctor if at all possible. As has been mentioned multiple times, week shouldn't be a boogeyman but care should be taken with mental health. ShabiDOO 00:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I just gone ahead and done it

Huge change to the template wiki-wide but I think warranted. Ace^McWicked 06:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Huge change" lmao. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a huge change because it effects multiple pages - not that my edit was huge. Ace^McWicked 20:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Open your mind to the truth or risk losing credibility. Avida Dollars^{her again} 09:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"losing credibility" LMAO 82.132.212.241 (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

is it even true tho EK (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No, not really. I think bigger changes are needed to that template. How many recent edits to this wiki have had anything to do with "religious fundamentalism" or "creationist claims"? Nigh on sod all. Spud (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Avida Dollars You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless you're talking to the police, in which case you should shut the hell up.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How dare you insult our boys in blue, our valiant knights defending against the criminal underwo- oh who am I kidding, ACAB. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I like police. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, a law and order candidate. Who could have guessed?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I've updated it further since this wiki is really more of going after gamers conservative claims (like racism/xenophobia, anti-gun control, TERFs) and pseudoscience (like climate change denial and fad diets). I feel religious fundamentalism has taken a backseat. No I am not apologizing for strike-out, sorry Acey, that's what you get for misspelling "affect". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Excellent edit! That ties what we really do now in with our legacy as a response to Conservapedia perfectly. I could not have put it better myself if I'd had all day to think about it. Spud (talk)

I'll get you one day - when you least expect it. Ace^McWicked 21:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Staying sane

How do I stay sane when the president of my company (small, about 30 people, so he's my end-all be-all boss and we talk every day) comes in every morning and regurgitates whatever he listened to on Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Lauren Ingraham or whatever last night? It's actually driving me insane.

He comes in this morning and asks the people around the table in the kitchen "SO WHO'S WATCHING THE COMMUNIST DEBATE TONIGHT?" and since most other people here are on his side, they all start ribbing about the insanity of "the socialists" and how they're all horrible candidates who have zero chance of beating Trump.

Then, without even a proper segue, he starts going off on how he just heard last night that "Back in the 70s, they were predicting global cooling! What happened to that?!" -- and I really almost started to lose it. He's fully bought into the Fox News narrative, in every way. He even goes on about how he feels victimized as a member of the Right.

This is the guy who pays my paychecks. I have never really openly talked about my own politics and I'm legitimately scared to. How the fuck do I stay sane? This isn't a terrible job and I'm probably getting paid more than I should, but I'm going to lose it if I have to put up with this. TheUnderOver (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Bringing politics to the workplace, unless politics is somehow related to the job in question, is very unprofessional. Said so, I don't think that you have more than the following options:

1) Endure the situation. If you think you're getting paid more than you should, you can consider the extra money as a compensation for your patience.

2) Be open about it. The next time you are asked if you will watch the "communist debate" say: "Yes, I think X is a valuable candidate," trying as much as possible to not sound aggressive. It might be that, knowing that your are on the opposite side of the political spectrum, your colleagues will reduce their political discussions.

3) Change job. You can see this as an opportunity to find a better workplace. In such a case, it is the best to avoid mentioning to your boss that you're living because of their behavior. Instead, use some other excuse, so that their will be keep to give good recommendations for other employers.

Tokyo (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ignore Toyko's advice, it's shit. Instead, utilize common ground. If you have any friends among your co-workers, reach out to them, ask them what they oppose while keeping your own views vague. Play off common dislikes. I have a social acquaintance I convinced to drop their dislike of the Gillette ad campaign, at least temporarily, by pointing out that ad campaigns in general tend to be stupid. Do not come out and tell them your actual views. They're actively hostile towards those views, and letting them know they have an "enemy" among them will make your life worse. As before, work with common ground. For ACC deniers, ask what the harms is in switching over to natural gas and renewables, cite sources if needed, don't go into the debate over whether ACC is real or not. They've already made up their minds, and will be highly resistant to change. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't bring politics to the workplace as much as possible -- it's unprofessional, as Tokyo says. So the key is whether this is a red flag on other toxic behavior or potential cultural issues. I've worked with a Fox News parrot who otherwise was mostly harmless, and there was no real issues. On the job he was fine, so ignoring the parrot wasn't too difficult. On the other hand we had a contractor at one point who "did not get renewed" pretty quickly, in part because of his constant "Obama's gonna take your guns" ranting and very loud, very crude, very sexist "jokes" and anecdotes he was constantly telling. (I'm sure the later guy blamed "liberals" somehow for his departure.) I would not want to work for a company where crude, sexist behavior is tolerated (huge number of reasons for this aside from personal political perference). Soundwave106 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's funny how three pretty much different suggestions, each of them having a short explanation of its advantage, can be quickly rebutted as "shit," while proposing something which is essentially in the middle of the first and second suggestions, without saying the suppose advantage. Tokyo (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want revenge, unionize your workplace(warning may get you very fired or slightly murdered). If you only want to survive, turn into a radical misanthrope no one wants to share their views with. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything wrong with you, but if your situation really interferes with your sense of well being, I suggest seeing a counselor to get strategies for the kinds of problems you are experiencing. My philosophy has always been to ask myself: why should I care about what other people think? If there is no useful answer, I try not to care about that.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 That actually sounds like a good policy, barring certain standard exceptions. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

By "communist debate" does he mean the House hearing as duly laid out in the constitution? Is he against the constitution then? Want's a revolution perhaps? doesn't think Americans should have the ability to look at whether a president should be impeached?? Aloysius the Gaul 20:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

He means the 5th Democratic debate that's happening tonight.Osha^wottalot 21:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the clarity - so he's just trucking (and probably willfully) ignorant about what communism actually is then. From over here that seems sadly par for the course in the US these days - especially from the Republimorons. Aloysius the Gaul 22:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Day 20: How NoFap changed my life

It didn't. I thought I'd give "No Nut November" a try. I'm going to continue, just to experience it; I see jerking off as too masculine anyway. The only benefit from NoFap is slightly more time.

Fun Fact: NoFap is suing the porn industry Good luck.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 20:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

NoFap encourging its entire membership to each file a lawsuit? Hmm, I can't think of who, but this reminds me of a another group which is definitely not a cult... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Rhodes is filing a lawsuit. They're asking for donations:

https://nofap.com/defend-alex/—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Every time this comes up, I can't help but think about the Vonnegut book bluebeard, where he made fun of the literal fascists of 1930s Italy believing this bullshit. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This "No Nut November" is the classic thing conflating so many different phenomena that it is difficult (at least for me) to write about it without a numbered list:

1. Masturbation is healthy, as long as it is not so compulsive to negatively interfere with other aspect of life.
2. Pornography is not dangerous, as long as it is not so compulsive to negatively interfere with other aspect of life.
3. As almost anything in life, there are people having difficulties to deal healthy with masturbation and pornography and, as far as I understand, today internet pornography (essentially unlimited, instantaneous video streaming) affects the brain in a different way than ol' days pornography (adult magazines, photos...), increasing these difficulties.
4. These people should be helped somehow, without at the same time passing the wrong message that masturbation and pornography are dangerous. A message pushed, for example, by many religious groups. Tokyo (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

One NoFap member in one post compares the organization to Alcoholics Anonymous, which is wrong on so many levels. Alcoholic beverages are man-made substances that are scientifically proven to be bad for one in any amount. Alcoholism is also a problem for a lot of people and has a lot of scientific research supporting that it exists. Porn addiction? It's not recognized as a disorder. Human sexuality is a natural thing for most people. It's natural to find naked bodies arousing. Porn is digitized naked people. People who have porn issues likely have underlying problems. I'm under the belief that certain people have addictive personalities. If it wasn't porn, it would be something else.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 21:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tokyo, can you provide any genuine examples of supposed "porn addiction" gone wrong? — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

What is recognized as a disorder is mostly based on culture and/or semantics. I think it's better to never use that as an argument. I agree that pornography is not dangerous per se, but I disagree to dismiss the situation as simply "If it wasn't porn, it would be something else." It is certainly helpful to study this phenomenon. Of course all addictions have something in common, but I wouldn't think that an alcoholist and an addicted gambler should be helped the same way. Tokyo (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been babbling more on the NoFap talk page, but the central problematic core of NoFap is that they confuse a potential compulsive disorder problem and over-amplify it with "addiction" phrasing. Call it what you want, but any problematic masturbation (eg so compulsive that it actually does impact normal functional life in some way) is best dealt with compulsive oriented therapy, not the type of treatment you use for addictive chemicals (let alone the AA-like absolute abstinence and pseudo-cultish stances that seem to be part of the NoFap movement). For most people, masturbation is normal and healthy, and any framing of it as some addictive evil that applies to *everyone* is bullshit woo. I'm sure they are problematic cases, but the issue in this case is the *compulsive disorder*, not masturbation itself. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It seems that Rhodes may have misrepresented who the defendants are. The named defendants are Nicole Prause and her company (Liberos).[2] Rhodes stated the defendants are "closely associated with the porn industry".[3] Prause is actually a "neuroscientist researching human sexual behaviour, addiction" and Prause's organization, Liberos, was formed because of "Institutional attitudes towards sex research and ongoing safety threats from anti-porn organizations…"[4] Bongolian (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

SW nailed it, NoFap is stupid, and uses convoluted logic.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

NoFap is indeed bullshit. The NoFap article links to a login-gated forum post on us. Can anyone archive it for us? I registered but it needs admin approval.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 03:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The full text is here:[5] Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian I was referring to "The discussion of this article on NoFap.com", unless I'm missing something.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 03:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Looks like it's giving an error message. Bongolian (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace, Is this what you wanted?[6] Bongolian (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. It seems like the forum is public. They likely deleted the topic and the page is throwing a generic error.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 06:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

yourbrainonporn.com

A troll linked to the website yourbrainonporn.com on the NoFap talkpage. It has a research section:

https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research/

I think it's worth having an article on, however, it's a lot to take in.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 04:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

My favorite joke I heard about NoFap November is "Incel Ramadan." I'm not trying to put anyone down, from what I get out of the joke, it's definitely not making fun of Ramadan. It's equating the idea that for one month out of the year, some people are going to try to not masturbate. And they give it this cute name, nofap November, because no shave November was a thing read millennial, read boomer, but the whole idea that masturbation is bad for your relationships is pickup artist pseudoscience. "Stop jerking off and you'll have no choice but get out there and be an oppressive sexual force," doing it to yourself is somehow limiting your capacity to have sex? I have had sex and then jerked off later that day, I have had sex and not finished and miraculously went to sleep and my balls were fine.

"Incel Ramadan" shouldn't be a good joke (even if it cracks me up). This would be fun if the target demographic wasn't pent up boys who think they should be having sex already, with the only effort being "fate should drive me towards a single sexual partner that isn't a slut." It's nonsense. Nonsense November. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Their medical disclaimer is a fun read... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

it's a self-harm solution to an old problem if I can finally remember it.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I like how that video is a text-to-voice reading of the wikipedia page.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 09:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Does any Hollywood executive have a proper education? Read this article and you can see why I asked

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/studio-executive-wanted-julia-roberts-play-harriet-tubman/story?id=67162700&fbclid=IwAR2VBS-4JZ-1hYyuKT-R6R0ALOT4tHSVsiSxTFFrtNA1zr5KnRatHLs5OYA

Bad enough that Hollywood cannot get scientific facts right. Time to ignore historical facts. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that they considered this is so mind boggling stupid, I legit put my phone down, to contemplate whether humanity really deserves to exist.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Part of it is yes, they're that dumb, part of it was that 25 years ago, and they were that dumb. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a dramatization of Tubman's life showing in theaters now (Harriet), staring Cynthia Erivo, who is Afro-British. The film seems to be reasonably well received at about 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. Bongolian (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is the early history of the very same screenplay. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking after reading both articles, it was one executive in regards to an early version of the screenplay, and quite a while ago at that. So, it's unfair to assume that all Hollywood executives are educationally deficient clowns who have zero idea of what kind of a shitstorm that casting would cause-- and rightfully so-- in most media, forums, and the minds of damn near every person of color (and for once, that color would include white). We can only assume the one dumbass. We can also play a fun, happy game of speculating who it was... Kencolt (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

what I get from the article was not so much that the executive was uneducated nor especially dumb, but that's what they think of American movie audiences. "It was so long ago. No one is going to know the difference." is the quote. its not like that mentality hasn't worked well enough for Hollywood in the past AMassiveGay (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't know the studio and we don't know the executive. For all we know the person relating the story was breaking it to the author, " This is good, but our producers don't give a crap about that. If you get a good script for Julia Roberts, we are in."Ariel31459 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Going by the mentality that the American audience has no clue about history, they would probably make a movie about the American Revolution and have George Washington played by a Japanese guy then claim Americans don't know the difference. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

but why would they? the above example only exists because they are or were catering to a largely white demographic, whom they believed would not be interested in the stories of non white people, would not watch a movie with a non white hero. recent controversies concerning the ethnicity of characters being depicted by actors of another ethnicity and controversies concerning even featuring minority characters at all tells me its still a common sentiment and makes me wonder if its hollywood underestimating the audience or an accurate assessment of them. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg

So, I just heard in the news that Pete Buttigieg is gaining popularity is the US. Politico says he's currently at 7%.

Is he really gaining popularity? Also, is he capable of being a president? Tinribmancer (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Slightly from what I've heard, and no, he does not have to capability of being president or even winning the POTUS election if he makes it past the primaries. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing him in the hopes that if he wins, Facebook won't get regulated or broken up.[7] There is not a lot of grassroots support for him from what I understand. When was the last time that a mayor from (where?) was elected directly to POTUS? Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"is he capable of being a president". If Donald Trump can manage to be president then I would imagine that Donald Duck could do it. Trump has lowered that bar a lot.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm as qualified as anyone else who's never held public office. Buttigieg is only slightly more qualified than me. My neighbor was a city council member. Why isn't she running for POTUS? Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

because he chooses not to you moron. "Capable" doesn't mean "has to do so" Aloysius the Gaul 20:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If Trump gets re-elected for a second term, would you support me in a 2024 POTUS run? I promise it'll be entertaining at the very least. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you run? If you running depends on me supporting you then you probably don't deserve my support :) Aloysius the Gaul 23:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The media reports horse race bullshit, using intentionally unreliable polls in order to simulate sudden and narrative shifts in voter intention that do not exist. Nate Silver has turned on his rigorous roots to be one of the bullshitters. It's hard to say much besides that Biden slowly decaying is real. If you see reports of "X is suddenly in the lead" just straight up ignore them. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

He isn't getting more popular, it's just that the media and the democratic establishment have finally realized that Biden's poll numbers are never going to rise again, so they're throwing their support and free air time behind the next best pro-business centrist milquetoast white dude. Hannasanarion (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sound. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't like Bernie Sanders, and even I am generally surprised the conversation turns to someone polling at 7 when Sanders is consistently in the top 3. Me thinks the rich are afraid of taxes. RipCityLiberal (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

conservapedia reviewed and is rated a "questionable source"

A high quality fact checking site reviewed Conservapedia , yesterday 20-Nov-2019.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2019/11/20/daily-source-bias-check-conservapedia/

Summary is "Overall, we rate Conservapedia Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies as well as outright false information. This is not a credible source on any level or by any known criteria." But they go into detail. Is the rating site imperfect,because there is no mention of snark in their review of RW? Please pardon any rule or culture breaking, tho I've read RW for years,but noob on site. Oopsy, I see already added to main Conservapedia article, good work! ^{— Unsigned, by: Dianevm / talk / contribs}

plenty of mention of RW's "snark" - "openly use loaded language", "routinely poke fun at conservatives", "we rate RationalWiki Left-Center biased based on use of loaded language against conservatives" - what are those if not mentions of snark? Aloysius the Gaul 23:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check says about Conservapedia, "The general gist of the Wiki is that anything bad that has ever happened occurred because of liberalism." Love that quote! Spud (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So much for the best of the public then.... RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"As a Wiki they are funded through donations and crowd sourcing." That's new. I thought Andy paid for it himself? I guess he's missing that sweet, sweet Eagle Foundation money. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, they've had a donate button since October 2015. So it appeared while Phyllis Schlafly was still alive. Spud (talk)

They fell out over Donald Trump IIRC. Avida Dollars^{her again} 22:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Vaccinations against Prion disease: An interesting scientific video talking about the concept (Few years old)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwNEZhPRqfk

I found this video to be interesting. Wonder how long a prion disease vaccine will take to be made for humans? Once a safe vaccine for prion disease is developed it could save lives. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)