RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive332
Liberal[edit]
It's a term that seems to mean different things to different people. My guess is that most of the time left-wingers use it in a derogatory sense, "liberal" is invoking the UK definition meaning pro-capitalist folk, specifically those who put on a progressive face until it conflicts with corporate interests. However, I notice a lot of US users using it to mean what internationally would be considered social democrat, and it refers to the conservative party in Australia. For what it's worth, the Liberal Party of Canada is the centrist party, and because we're a mess of both US and UK influences, "liberal" ends up being something of an all-purpose insult from everyone else.
Honestly, I wonder how useful "liberal" is as a term in this day and age, especially considering how skewed the Overton Window has been. If anything, "liberals" seem more like conservatives (in Canada, at least) because they're the ones most vehemently defending the status quo and current institutions, while "conservatives" are the ones who want to change things, albeit in a reactionary sense of reverting progressive measures (in our case, turning our country into even more of a petro-state). Colossal Squid (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I`m with you, liberals are nothing but corporate, establishment shills. — Oxyaena Harass 12:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Anyone who has a slight clue about international politics knows that the term "liberal" means different things in different countries. "Liberal" in France for instance has tended to refer to laissez-faire, free-trade-defending economics (as I understand it means in much of Europe). Yes, in the United States, it typically refers to social democrat policies. It is a useful term still, because people often rant about politics using terms like these (or other terms) as snarl words. They typically are clueless about international paradigms, and are using them for some tribal rant purpose. Thus you can safely ignore what will often be a pander to a national stereotype. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Liberalism started out really well. It was a rejection of historical Royal and other privileges in favor of individual rights, democracy and the rule of law. We still see this original usage in the phrase "liberal democracy". After this outstandingly positive start it evolved differently in different countries.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact I'm from the U.S. I use "Liberalism" (note the capital L) in the same way Brits and some other Europeans do. Now, "liberals" (note the small L) to me merely means "not far-right" and has a more abstract and generic meaning. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just compare the Liberal Party of Canada (the current governing party with smug-face Justin Trudeau). They are a centre-left creeping very much towards the centre party where Liberal refers to "PROGRESSIVE", with the Liberal Party of Australia which is the main party of its current coalition government. It is a centre-right party (with a handful of what would be considered radical right-wing policies by European/Canadian standards) creeping more and more right every year. Here liberal means "FREEDOM OF THE MARKET". It is a major force of toxicity in Australian politics where the blatant lies they spout on a daily basis (especially about climate change, social assistance and the virtual torturous conditions for refugee prisoners) are on a level only equalled by Trump and the Republicans. So yeah...two very different meanings. Very confusing a lot of the time. ShabiDOO 17:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact I'm from the U.S. I use "Liberalism" (note the capital L) in the same way Brits and some other Europeans do. Now, "liberals" (note the small L) to me merely means "not far-right" and has a more abstract and generic meaning. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Liberalism started out really well. It was a rejection of historical Royal and other privileges in favor of individual rights, democracy and the rule of law. We still see this original usage in the phrase "liberal democracy". After this outstandingly positive start it evolved differently in different countries.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- In the USA, for most of my lifetime, 'liberal' has been an insult hurled at anyone to the left of Ted Cruz. I still consider myself one, mostly because there are parts of the 'progressive' agenda that make me uncomfortable, and what I am is an old style civil libertarian hostile to Moral Endeavor in all its forms. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm English and ive only ever used liberal to mean tolerant/broad-minded and/or generous/copious. I cant say that I have noticed much confusion in how i use it nor have i ever been confused by how others have used it. context tells me what i or others mean. its not really that difficult. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanksgiving[edit]
The holiday template appears to be borked. Thanksgiving is only on the 28th. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. There's obviously a problem with that template. Last year, it appeared on Thanksgiving and then again a week later. Instead of appearing on the fourth Thursday of November, it seems to be appearing on both the penultimate and the final Thursday in November. Spud (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't it on a different date in Canada or something? Avida Dollarsher again 22:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- {@Avida Dollars, if you're asking if one of the two times the template shows up is for Canadian Thanksgiving Day, the answer is no. Canadian Thanksgiving
is on the second Monday in October.Spud (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mexico? Cuba? 50 Riseldine Road, Brockley SE23? Avida Dollarsher again 15:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- {@Avida Dollars, if you're asking if one of the two times the template shows up is for Canadian Thanksgiving Day, the answer is no. Canadian Thanksgiving
- Isn't it on a different date in Canada or something? Avida Dollarsher again 22:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
And now it really is Thanksgiving in the States and the template isn't displaying. Maybe it'll pop up again in December. Spud (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Article idea[edit]
I think we should make an article on the norwegian magazine "Illustrert vitenskap". It is possible their name is a misnomer.Delibirda (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sad to say I don't read Norwegian with their weird ø bullshit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Can't you see the beauty & rich artistic background of the "ø"? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Family Constellations[edit]
I've been getting a load of offers for courses of this thing. Much like NLP, these courses all offer you extensive knowledge to treat people's psychological traumas in a weekend™. On a quick google search, I found that this is more or less something that throws all the blame of the patient's failings on ancestors, but I couldn't find something more solid for or against it. Also, RW lacks a page for it. So, there's an idea for a new page under Woo healing. 200.198.212.254 (talk)
- Not to worry here's a study with N=22 and no control group PROVING its effectiveness at treating depression and also physical pain somehow. Hooray! Although, I guess the author the paper I'm making fun of does say "this is enough to justify randomized controlled trials" so it's maybe not as woo-laden as some treatments. The study also gives a less woo-laden definition of the material approach
FC designates an emerging family psychotherapy where participants are requested to represent members of the family of the person with which the therapist is working (Schneider, 2007) and to make a spatial configuration that symbolizes a social system to identify dynamics and/or transgenerational family
- That doesn't sound quite so radical as you describe. I'm not in a rush to judgement quite yet. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is a interesting case, I actually can pull up two papers that are positive, but they are the same researcher and research paper (Family Process). In the mean time, another paper criticizes them as "not psychotherapy". (Which it doesn't necessarily have to be, but it means it is probably not primary therapeutic.) The wiki connects them with psychodrama, which as far as I know has legitimate applications in psychology, and group therapy (same). But it also mentions that it engages in woo concepts (what the fuck is "morphic resonance?") and a bit of noble savage-ish cultural appropriation from the Zulus, something straight out of the New Age handbook for bullshit healing. So, a mixed bag for sure. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm definitely sensing a mixed bag. I guess the thing that will flip me from wait-and-see to "article now!" is if it's rapidly gaining popularity and usage. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Morphic resonance is pseudoscience promoted by Rupert Sheldrake, so this is highly likely to be at best bullshit and at worst cultish by extracting personal information (family history) in a non-clinical setting that could in practice be used to manipulate people. The reason that clinical setting is important is because psychologists, psychiatrists and MDs are professionally obligated to following ethical guidelines. Any journal the publishes primary research that lacks a true control group is entering the realm of pseudojournal. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- That seems a little extreme. Properly documented and acknowledged non-controlled research to identify candidate hypotheses is a normal part of the scientific process. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I do feel like visiting a couple of sessions to see if it really looks like what i've been described by some colleagues. Interesting to note that Brazil's Health Ministry and the public health service (SUS) treat it as a valid alternative therapy, but so it does for homeopathy, reiki, acupunture and some other stuff. I'm Brazilian, so I've no idea how's people's interest in FC in other countries. A German opinion on this would be nice. 200.198.212.254 (talk)
- Morphic resonance is pseudoscience promoted by Rupert Sheldrake, so this is highly likely to be at best bullshit and at worst cultish by extracting personal information (family history) in a non-clinical setting that could in practice be used to manipulate people. The reason that clinical setting is important is because psychologists, psychiatrists and MDs are professionally obligated to following ethical guidelines. Any journal the publishes primary research that lacks a true control group is entering the realm of pseudojournal. Bongolian (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm definitely sensing a mixed bag. I guess the thing that will flip me from wait-and-see to "article now!" is if it's rapidly gaining popularity and usage. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is a interesting case, I actually can pull up two papers that are positive, but they are the same researcher and research paper (Family Process). In the mean time, another paper criticizes them as "not psychotherapy". (Which it doesn't necessarily have to be, but it means it is probably not primary therapeutic.) The wiki connects them with psychodrama, which as far as I know has legitimate applications in psychology, and group therapy (same). But it also mentions that it engages in woo concepts (what the fuck is "morphic resonance?") and a bit of noble savage-ish cultural appropriation from the Zulus, something straight out of the New Age handbook for bullshit healing. So, a mixed bag for sure. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a difference between “I” and “me”?[edit]
It’s something that worked into my head. I know of the self and I’m pretty sure that exists but when we talk about it we use words like “I” and “me” (or myself). Like how we say we don’t like certain thing about ourselves or some ways that we react. When phrased like that it makes it sound like there are two people inside the body and not just one. I know they refer to the same being but I found it puzzling to hear say that almost like talking about a specimen in a jar or another person, almost like it’s someone else. And when we speak about it to others then is it the part we aren’t proud of or the reflective side that notices these? Is one more real than the other? My head just spins the more I think about it. I’m curious what others think.Machina (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Grammar makes your head spin?RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I felt like I had a stroke reading this.—HamburgerPlate
(talk • stalk) 09:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I felt like I had a stroke reading this.—HamburgerPlate
- I don't think there's any substantial difference, only a grammatical one, not an essentialist one. — Oxyaena Harass 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Subject/Object. Like She/Her, He/Him. You/You.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Subject/object is an intersection of Buddhism and existentialism. Much ink has been spilled in this battle, but as yet the only casualties have been innocent bystanders. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Subject/Object. Like She/Her, He/Him. You/You.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- There’s no “I” in “Team”?
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Human language invaribly draws comparison between subect, direct object, indirect object and in fact, many other kinds of objects and even different kinds of subjects. Most of the languages we are likely to be familiar with distinguish the subject and object with different pronouns and other gramatical changes (I and me) or (Yo, mi, me) or (Ich, mich, mir) or (Je, me, moi) or (Ana, -ni) and so on. English is less complex with just one pronoun for objects. However other languages such as Japanese have just one kind of pronoun and deal with the distinguishing of object and subect entirely through word worder, case markings, prepositions (or similar particles) and other kinds of determiners. This is all pretty interesting for linguistics. Humans inherantly view the world as subjects and objects which are percieved/described/experienced vs. those upon which an action is performed and other more sophisticated stuff we can ignore. Does that mean there is any meaningful difference between I and me? Linguistically...absolutely. Philosophically? I say confidently...NO. There is no meaningful difference. There is nothing particularly interesting about it except in human psychology and social perception but those have nothing to do with the kind of I/me you are talking about. But if you want to read endless books on the subject...there is no poverty of bullshit on the subject in any philosophy library...notably the sections on Eastern Philosophy, Post-modernism and any field that has woo deeply embedded in it. ShabiDOO 22:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I guess I just found it curious that the same self that doesn’t like parts about it still acts and does those things. It just got me thinking really how I say I don’t like parts about me.Machina (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Nuance bro[edit]
I like him. Melody (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Philanthropy[edit]
Been wondering this ever since David Koch croaked: is philanthropist a useless term? Considering it only ever gets applied to rich people and includes the worst people on this planet, such as the aforementioned Koch, it seems more synonymous with indulgence; that is, effectively buying media PR to paper over one's ill deeds (and to prevent a certain number of people from gloating at their deaths a la Scrooge). Poor people never get called philanthropists. It seems very perverse. Colossal Squid (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah it's pretty much a useless, classist word. Poor people are far more generous than the wealthy, but we don't spend our money donating to fucking art galleries. — Oxyaena Harass 16:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- We all conflate words with titles. "He is a philosopher!", "She is a philanthropist!", "They are scientists!", when any rotten person can be any of those things. One can't remove the influence of classes by altering ones diction. For devout Christians, a poor philanthropist is called a saint. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Anybody heard of David Manderbach before?[edit]
Stumbled across an entry for "FAKE HISTORY: The American Civil War, Slavery, and Dissecting the Popular Narrative" by this guy, with the opening blurb describing the book as "in a straightforward manor; author David Manderbach addresses the inaccuracies of the foundation of the attacks to the Southern Heritage and America's History." So I'm guessing it's Civil War/Slavery revisionism. Weird thing is, I can find no info on the guy - there's 3 Twitter accounts, all unused, his Goodreads bio only refers to the book, no Wikipedia, etc. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think you are correct that it's Civil War revisionism, however, this is not a notable person. Just some guy who self-published something on Amazon. The bio is very puffed up, but it doesn't check out at all. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Time is money, not.[edit]
Thought runs the show in the Material world and thought is time and control. Time is money and money is time controlled. Soon we will have negative interest rates and time will have no value.or little value. control slipping away. Thought's last escape from reality is an after-life. The thing that shapes folk and is backed up by fear. If one believes in an after-life then they are slaves. Thought has absolutely no business with all that. But the Bishop has.
Definitely one of the stranger conversations I had on youtube, nothing but a guy (?) saying things are though they were true but without any evidence (this quote was near the end). Yet there was a tiny gem I saw about time and money. I heard that from a business point which seems more about squeezing more out of your workers, but time isn't really a currency right? The bit about the reverse is not really true I think.Machina (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Time is not money. You are not my sunshine. The moon is not a balloon. I am not the one and only. And God is not a DJ. Spud (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I get paid by the hour, so yeh it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Switch Friend code swap[edit]
Hey, I just wanted to start this section here if anyone would like to swap switch friend codes if we wanted to play something on there. I'm mostly active on tetris and smash. SW-5020-9679-4222 RockfordRoe (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- I do Smash but I'm playing the new Pokemon right now. My code is: SW-4544-9197-3020 Cumulus Discuss 02:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Save .ORG[edit]
.org is being sold to a private equity firm. See below:
Didn't think this could be a WIGO, so I'm posting this here. Show your support to stop this.—HamburgerPlate 
(talk • stalk) 21:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Loaded questions, curtsy of TDM2[edit]
| Check the edit history for why. |
|---|
|
I want a rational opinion on this question. It is the debate of whether we should call the first people of America, Indians or Native Americans. Most progressives say that the latter is better. However would you call people of the old world, Native Afro-Eurasians? the people of North, central and South America are as distinct in culture as Africans, Europeans, and Asians. Yet for an odd reason even though the first people often prefer the term Indian, it appears often progressives prefer the term Native American. This is especially true of those who do not live near reservations. There's a good video by CGP Grey about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ 108.208.14.123 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
Has UT returned? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Annoying sealioning like this is common enough that we can't really assume. Contrast that with Mikey-boy, whose bizarre behavior cannot be matched by mere mortals. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would say you've jumped the gun here. Sea-lioning needs to be carried on for a while so that it appears no short explanation will satisfy the sea-lion. That being said, the answer to the question is, "why do you care?" or, "what difference does it make?" or "why should it matter what groups of people are called if the purpose in the calling is for identification of the subject in an impartial declarative sentence? Actually, I like talking to sea-lions. It amuses me when I can get them to waste their time making irrelevant distinctions.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- There already is a catch-all term for "of European descent" ("caucasian"), so that point is in error. The biggest issue I see with the "Indian" term is more that there is a large Asian country who has claimed the name long before Christopher Columbus's massive error. I don't see a lot of polls on what indigenous people think, but best guess from the data I see is that it is not a massively big deal one way or another (eg, "American Indian" is not widely seen as pejorative, and many probably accept that as fine). To me "indigenous" or "Native American" just simply avoids any confusion with another well-established, completely different culture. Nothing more, nothing less. Note that "Native American" is a US oriented terminology that does not carry over to the rest of the countries on the America continents (as an example, "First Nations" is typical in Canada and "pueblos indígenas" is typical in Mexico, as I understand it). And of course being catch-alls they obscure a ton of detail (just as "caucasian" represents multiple European tribes, there are a ton of indigenous tribes with many variations), but any non-idiot knows that.
- It's not a huge deal, though, really. It doesn't seem like CGP Grey is on the clogosphere side of the force so I imagine the point of the video was missed. (Though maybe not... CGP Grey's Twitter feed is complaining about "‘American Indians’ are flagged as a too-controversial-for-trending topic on YouTube". So maybe CGP Grey is stirring the pot for no really good reason. Not gonna waste my time to find out :p ) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would say you've jumped the gun here. Sea-lioning needs to be carried on for a while so that it appears no short explanation will satisfy the sea-lion. That being said, the answer to the question is, "why do you care?" or, "what difference does it make?" or "why should it matter what groups of people are called if the purpose in the calling is for identification of the subject in an impartial declarative sentence? Actually, I like talking to sea-lions. It amuses me when I can get them to waste their time making irrelevant distinctions.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Shame there was never a fucking answer. But I guess this is to be expected from a rational wikipedian. Funny that you feel like you can speak for native Americans. 108.208.14.123 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ariel responded just above, a full hour before your post. Also, I find it hilariously ironic that you're claiming we "feel like [we] can speak for native Americans," and yet you're standing here trying to speak for them with your question (on top of that, using the term you claim is the worse fit). It's very clear you're not bringing this topic up in good faith for discussion, but rather as a lame "gotcha" you got from watching a 6 minute video while completely missing the point of it. If your intentions were to waste our time, congratulations. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Go back to watching your lame-ass Styx and Rageoholic videos TDM2. Or to your "brother's" YouTube channel. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ariel responded just above, a full hour before your post. Also, I find it hilariously ironic that you're claiming we "feel like [we] can speak for native Americans," and yet you're standing here trying to speak for them with your question (on top of that, using the term you claim is the worse fit). It's very clear you're not bringing this topic up in good faith for discussion, but rather as a lame "gotcha" you got from watching a 6 minute video while completely missing the point of it. If your intentions were to waste our time, congratulations. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if naturopathic medicine will become regulated in Michigan?[edit]
Tried to look up the most current information on it but the newest information is from over a year ago. Now according to the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, there will be another push for regulation this year and this year is almost over (https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&action=edit§ion=new). Is there any other info besides the AANP? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Walt Winston[edit]
Not sure if you guys think this is page worthy or not, but I thought you guys would get a kick out of this.
So there's this guy on the internet named "Walt Winston", the self-proclaimed most successful musician who ever lived, claiming to have more #1 hit singles than literally any musician who ever lived (including The Beatles, his favorite band). In actuality, he spends all of his time in his basement writing some of the absolute worst music you will ever hear in your life: his YouTube Channel can be found here https://www.youtube.com/user/walteria1964. He appeared on America's Got Talent in 2011 and, not surprisingly, got rejected. Of course instead of accepting reality and admitting that he got rejecting because he sucks, he has made up all these ridiculous, and even contradicting, excuses as to why he got rejected, like leaving the logo on his guitar exposed, or on another occasion because he's been a member of some royalty club since 1988 (which of course raises the question why in the case of the latter he'd even be allowed on the stage in the first place).
Anyway, so me and a bunch of other guys have been calling this guy out for years now. And, well, he's legitimately filed a lawsuit against us, for libel defamation and slander. Like, someone actually found his court case info on the internet (here's just a sample: https://madisonrecord.com/stories/512681130-case-activity-for-walt-joe-wintson-vs-charles-bernstein-on-june-28). This guy is in his 50's and he's threatening to sue a bunch of teenagers (most of us are anyways, I'm 22 myself) because they don't like his music and they call him out on his bullshit.
Oh, and did I mention that this man is running for congress in the state of Illinois? He announced this on his Facebook a few days ago. Aaronmichael5 05:23 November, 25th (UTC).
- no. none. leave him alone. whats he done to you? stop being a twat to some random youtube loon. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- This "random youtube loon" might become part of the US Congress. We've seen this before when a random youtuber, went into politics. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- What I've learned is that there surprisingly is not a whole lot of folk musicians from St. Louis, MO on ReverbNation (he seems to basically use the "local" folk charts there for his very, very over-puffed claims). A small sampling suggests his recording studio skills need *major* help (ugh), but the song content is passable, if semi-outsiderish, at a local bar band level (it's not "so bad you become legendary" level to me). Definitely not even close to America's Got Talent type top tier, though, and there are better local bands even on ReverbNation's St. Louis MO folk page. If he wants to waste court filing fees trying to sue Youtube etc. for some reason, that's his prerogative I guess, it won't get him far, and I doubt he'll get far in his Congressional run based on his dress style choices alone (politics is all about the superficial :) ). Soundwave106 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- he has a grand total of 405 subscribers. he isn't going to be in congress. disliking his music does not warrant an article. leave them be AMassiveGay (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- and there are a million good reasons to want to sue youtube. they are cunts, for one. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- @AMassiveGay don't worry, unless this guy actually becomes a member of congress (the odds of his actually happening are borderline non-existent however), I'm not gonna dignify this guy with an article. Kind of just wanted to see what other people's reaction to this was. Aaronmichael5 17:41, November 25th 2019 UTC.
- The guy hasn't built remotely enough traction to justify a page for him, and as amassivegay says, would make more sense to let him be in his own sad world. That's not to say that you shouldn't call bullshit on people, I don't think there's anything wrong with challenging people per their online claims...though you certainly wanna be careful you don't end up crossing a line where you're doing it just for fun or semi-cyber-stalking the person or being hyper-snarky about it. At least that's in my humble opinion. But if he ever started gathering a notable following on social media or had some kind of interesting influence on people...I'd go for it. It's really sad he is pressing charges on you guys. Did you perhaps go a little overboard with it? ShabiDOO 01:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't, and to my knowledge nobody has done anything illegal to him at all (like death threats, etc). Aaronmichael5 01:31, November 25th 2019 (UTC)
- The guy hasn't built remotely enough traction to justify a page for him, and as amassivegay says, would make more sense to let him be in his own sad world. That's not to say that you shouldn't call bullshit on people, I don't think there's anything wrong with challenging people per their online claims...though you certainly wanna be careful you don't end up crossing a line where you're doing it just for fun or semi-cyber-stalking the person or being hyper-snarky about it. At least that's in my humble opinion. But if he ever started gathering a notable following on social media or had some kind of interesting influence on people...I'd go for it. It's really sad he is pressing charges on you guys. Did you perhaps go a little overboard with it? ShabiDOO 01:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @AMassiveGay don't worry, unless this guy actually becomes a member of congress (the odds of his actually happening are borderline non-existent however), I'm not gonna dignify this guy with an article. Kind of just wanted to see what other people's reaction to this was. Aaronmichael5 17:41, November 25th 2019 UTC.
- and there are a million good reasons to want to sue youtube. they are cunts, for one. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- he has a grand total of 405 subscribers. he isn't going to be in congress. disliking his music does not warrant an article. leave them be AMassiveGay (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- What I've learned is that there surprisingly is not a whole lot of folk musicians from St. Louis, MO on ReverbNation (he seems to basically use the "local" folk charts there for his very, very over-puffed claims). A small sampling suggests his recording studio skills need *major* help (ugh), but the song content is passable, if semi-outsiderish, at a local bar band level (it's not "so bad you become legendary" level to me). Definitely not even close to America's Got Talent type top tier, though, and there are better local bands even on ReverbNation's St. Louis MO folk page. If he wants to waste court filing fees trying to sue Youtube etc. for some reason, that's his prerogative I guess, it won't get him far, and I doubt he'll get far in his Congressional run based on his dress style choices alone (politics is all about the superficial :) ). Soundwave106 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- This "random youtube loon" might become part of the US Congress. We've seen this before when a random youtuber, went into politics. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Breaking news[edit]
I have come to a startling revelation, you see, Paul McCartney died yes, but he wasn't replaced with an imposter. The Paul we know today is the same Paul before he died, today's Paul is a revenant zombie. Hear me out, just hear me out. You see, after taking huge amounts of LSD I came in contact with John Lennon's ghost, whom spoke to me in ancient Minoan that only I could understand. He led me to a grave belonging to a certain Paul McCartney in this vision of mine, but the grave was empty, and it looked like it was broken out of from the inside. — Oxyaena Harass 08:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- even 'Paul is dead' conspiracies, zombies, and ghosts cannot hide the truth that paul McCartney is the dullest man in pop. Fact.
- also, dreams don't count as breaking news. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- My drug-induced Lennon hallucination says otherwise. — Oxyaena Harass 11:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Moral of the story: Don't Do Drugs, kids! You'll start believing in a "Paul McCartney is a zombie" conspiracy. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Drugs are good for the soul. — Oxyaena Harass 14:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Unless you overdo it. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Then you ascend to a higher plane of existence. — Oxyaena Harass 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Walhalla? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Then you ascend to a higher plane of existence. — Oxyaena Harass 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Unless you overdo it. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Drugs are good for the soul. — Oxyaena Harass 14:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Moral of the story: Don't Do Drugs, kids! You'll start believing in a "Paul McCartney is a zombie" conspiracy. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- My drug-induced Lennon hallucination says otherwise. — Oxyaena Harass 11:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Paul McCartney is a zombie[edit]
If someone made a crank video about this...420 fever dream and post it on Youtube, how many twoofers would believe it? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would pay good money to see that lmao. — Oxyaena Harass 14:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- That would be absolutely hilarious!!! I would pay cash to see that!!! Where do they sell tickets? XD --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Harry Brewis at XOXO Festival[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS1k88LzjkQ
Should we add this to his page? Most of it is about the mermaid fundraiser he did. Tinribmancer (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Are there legit groups helping men?[edit]
Reading the Men's rights movement page and other related pages, it seems that these groups are all nuts. Thus a question came to my mind (especially motivated by Friedman's quote at the beginning of MRM page): Are there legit groups devoted to help men with typical men issues? Tokyo (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] "mens support groups" EK (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @EK The first link gives many results for local groups that seems legit, but my question was about a "national" group. I mean, I have no doubt that many psychologists, or other kind of experts, run independent support groups for men, but I am interested if there exists a coordinated movement on a large scale. The second and third links are about general support groups, not focused on specific men issues. Tokyo (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Have you considered trying google?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bob M and I finds Men's rights movement. Tokyo (talk)
- OK. Was that your only result?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Try the father's rights movements, particularly in the UK (where both sober and kinda whack-doodle varieties of advocacy groups seem to exist). This is your Google hint of the day: for this, Google the specific male issues, not the generics, so you can avoid the MRA cesspool. Soundwave106 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Was that your only result?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- UT is that you? — Oxyaena Harass 20:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyaena What does that even mean? Tokyo (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- UT = UnlicensedThinker. He's a sealioning straw-manner that got permabanned several months ago. I think Oxy thinks you're his sock account or something. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Oxyaena What does that even mean? Tokyo (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Bob M and I finds Men's rights movement. Tokyo (talk)
- Have you considered trying google?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Soundwave106 I gave a glance at the Father's Rights Movement and it seems legit, but:
- "Researchers Martha Fineman, Michael Flood, and others have criticized the movement for allegedly perpetuating negative stereotypes of women as deceptive, vindictive, and irresponsible as well as the stereotype that women are out to take advantage of men financially. (link)"
- All advocacy groups get criticism and many sometimes take odd positions, there's criticism about the National Organization for Women too. Also, an advocacy group is going to be one-sided, and there always will be another side. Father's rights however (which is chiefly concerned about gender bias regarding divorce and parenting concerns) can be seen as a legitimate, debatable issue. As opposed to atypical MRA groups which too often fall under the male supremacy irrational-hatred umbrella. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tinribmancer So should I interpret this as: "my question is considered sealioning / straw-manning" ? Anyway, I'm not the guy. Tokyo (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- UT would quote people the same way, he had a similar posting style to you. If you are not him then I apologize. — Oxyaena Harass 17:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- not all trolls are the same person for fucks sake, and it takes more than one question to qualify as sealioning. knock it on the head. your judgement is shiteAMassiveGay (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- My first though when reading Tokyo's question was...this was a concern troll. It seems I'm wrong but consiering the numerous concern trolls who visit and our thank-fucking-God-he's-gone chronic-concern-troll-pest's history on the site, it's not an unremarkble reaction to see possible signs of concern trolling in this case. Seemed like a classic set-up of concern, by the way are there any support groups for men you know of...and then after a lack of response or inadequate response there's a: "AHA. Emotional support is inherently sexist an nobody cares about men and the whole world is centered around women and men are the oppressed gender" etc. It's happened countless times. Seems we're likely wrong and Tokyo had a genuine question to ask. Though I'm curious why in particular you picked "rationalwiki bar" as the forum to ask this question in particular (not that there is anything wrong with that). Have you tried other forums and found disappointing answers? ShabiDOO 21:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- if we are going to be accusing people of being UT, we can at least get right what the problem we had with him was. it was not, 'JAQing off' I believe the phrase to be, but wilfully misinterpreting the answers so you had rephrase and repeat the response multiple times, ad infinitum.
- and aside from anything, its not unique behaviour, its a tactic with its own name even - sealioning. its idiotic to be accusing everyone at even merest whiff of suspicion of being UT. just call him snowdrop and be done with it. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- My first though when reading Tokyo's question was...this was a concern troll. It seems I'm wrong but consiering the numerous concern trolls who visit and our thank-fucking-God-he's-gone chronic-concern-troll-pest's history on the site, it's not an unremarkble reaction to see possible signs of concern trolling in this case. Seemed like a classic set-up of concern, by the way are there any support groups for men you know of...and then after a lack of response or inadequate response there's a: "AHA. Emotional support is inherently sexist an nobody cares about men and the whole world is centered around women and men are the oppressed gender" etc. It's happened countless times. Seems we're likely wrong and Tokyo had a genuine question to ask. Though I'm curious why in particular you picked "rationalwiki bar" as the forum to ask this question in particular (not that there is anything wrong with that). Have you tried other forums and found disappointing answers? ShabiDOO 21:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- not all trolls are the same person for fucks sake, and it takes more than one question to qualify as sealioning. knock it on the head. your judgement is shiteAMassiveGay (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- UT would quote people the same way, he had a similar posting style to you. If you are not him then I apologize. — Oxyaena Harass 17:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Election booth closing this evening[edit]
I'll be closing the Election Booth later this evening UK time - probably not right on the dot of 23:59 UTC :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- CLOSED - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello[edit]
How do I make my sig stop looking like shit 💖 ASELAಮಾತು 💖 13:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Keeps doing that shit with the date 💖 ASELAಮಾತು 💖 13:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- the idea is to make a signature that isnt broken af. use current html5 syntax and it will work EK (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Paddy Kearney[edit]
I love this song. — Oxyaena Harass 21:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- DOWN WITH THE TRAITORS, UP WITH THE STARS!
- Funny thing, two of my ancestors on my dad's side were Irish-Americans from Michigan who fought for the Union. Both of them made it back, but one of them had to go through Andersonville first. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Nationalism vs Patriotism[edit]
Are there any differences between both of these? Both seem pretty racidal about "defending the nation" issues... Tinribmancer (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- The way I've always understood it is that patriotism is simply pride in one's nation while nationalism is the idea that one's nation should be placed before and above all others. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think that one is just a slightly more polite way of saying the other.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- The way I've always thought about it: Patriotism is wanting your nation to succeed, Nationalism is wanted only your nation to succeed. You can have patriotism without nationalism, but you cannot have nationalism without patriotism. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Patriotism: "I will choose my nation over yours, if it must come to that."
- Nationalism: "I will choose my nation over yours And you should choose my nation over yours also, because yours sucks, just like every other nation that's not my nation." Kencolt (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have a complicated relationship with my country, but in the end all forms of nationalism are bad. I`m not one to shy away from the awful things my country has done, and nationalism is an excuse to do more awful things in the name of the flag. In the words of Samuel Johnston, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Not that anyone here besides Nobs is a scoundrel ofc. — Oxyaena Harass 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- There's also a third term: Chauvinism Tokyo (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I look at the issue this way: You can love your country but still know that it is not perfect and you strive to make changes that help people. That is patriotism. Nationalism to me personally: Rabid love for your country and not seeing any issues that should be resolved. Most of the time you find racists in there. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- There's also a third term: Chauvinism
- I have a complicated relationship with my country, but in the end all forms of nationalism are bad. I`m not one to shy away from the awful things my country has done, and nationalism is an excuse to do more awful things in the name of the flag. In the words of Samuel Johnston, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Not that anyone here besides Nobs is a scoundrel ofc. — Oxyaena Harass 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- The way I've always thought about it: Patriotism is wanting your nation to succeed, Nationalism is wanted only your nation to succeed. You can have patriotism without nationalism, but you cannot have nationalism without patriotism. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think that one is just a slightly more polite way of saying the other.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
We've got pages on nationalism, patriotism and jingoism (the latter redirects from chauvinism). Bongolian (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nationalism seems to imply that something specific about a country is superior (ie White nationalism), while Patriotism implies support for the country as a whole, includes all groups and ideologies.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why would you choose either? Seriously, why would I be proud of the U.S. for example? What, exactly, is inherent to this country that I should be proud of it? Almost all the historic victories have largely been symbolic, and the problems they were meant to address and/or solve still exist and have gotten worse. What, exactly, is there to be proud of? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm proud that my forefathers were able to beat back King George and his red shirts. I'm proud the Union beat back the rebels. I'm proud the boys in green beat back the krauts. I'm proud that my nation took to the sky and flew like birds. I'm proud that my nation touched the moon. I'm proud the nation was able to become an industrial power house. I'm proud that nation continues to be one of the strongest economies in the world. I'm proud that nation has never fallen to dictators, never fallen servant to tyrants. I'm proud of my country because my country is great and done many things no other nation has. My country also brings with it shame in its wrongs, and remorse at its mistakes; we should not forget that. But make no mistake, history will remember America. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strongest economy that has the worst inequality in the Western world you mean. — Oxyaena Harass 20:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- "I'm proud that my forefathers were able to beat back King George and his red shirts. I'm proud the Union beat back the rebels. I'm proud the boys in green beat back the krauts." Ahem, I repeat again my last about largely symbolic victories. We rebelled against the unjust class structure of Britain... only to build our very own version of that exact same structure, right after gaining independence. We fought a civil war over slavery... only to turn around and screw over all the victims of slavery and their descendants, for generations, to this very day. We also still have chattel slavery, we just have it in China now. We... Did not beat the Nazis. We helped beat the Nazis. You know who actually won WW2? The Soviets, the French, and the Brits, mainly the Soviets. We lie about that to this day. "I'm proud that my nation touched the moon." That's nice, but also largely symbolic given we abandoned our lunar program and have cut funding to NASA repeatedly since then. "I'm proud that nation continues to be one of the strongest economies in the world." Bullshit. Straight up bullshit. We have a slapdash economy that tanks every 10-20 years due to systematic flaws and widespread corruption, not to mention the people who are screwed over to prop up this farce. "I'm proud that nation has never fallen to dictators, never fallen servant to tyrants." Trump and Jackson, to name the biggest examples. "I'm proud of my country because my country is great and done many things no other nation has." Empty. Vapid. Words. If there was something inherent about this country that makes it better than the others, you would have named it. If there was something worth being proud of, you would have mentioned it. Parroting this sort of naivety is something I dislike, since it's so, fucking, empty. "My country also brings with it shame in its wrongs, and remorse at its mistakes; we should not forget that." Funny how that's never enough to fix the system problems that plague this country. "But make no mistake, history will remember America." History also remembered Rome, not as something good, but as something large, majestic, and monstrous. History also remembers the Nazis, and I need not say how. Show me something tangible, that isn't empty of any real impact, that isn't symbolic. I feel naught but apathy towards a nation that seeks nothing but its own ego at the cost of its people. Show me something worth giving a damn about, something that isn't empty words or symbolic actions that were quickly made into farces. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? You live in a country with one of the most, if the *the* most advanced aerospace industries in the world. We have one of the most mature automobile industries. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one of the most advanced research institutes in the world. The US has some of the top ranking universities in the entire world. You can point out that we have done a lot of bad, but let's not forget just what has been accomplished! You do not get to be a first world nation without having things to be proud of. We have a massive road infrastructure which bridges our massive nation from sea to shining sea. We have some of the biggest cities in the world, concrete monuments to human ingenuity and ability. And you think we live in a tyranny right now? The following sentence: "_____ Suck(s), _____ is worthless and no help to anyone, and frankly the world would be better without". Know what I can put in that blank? Literally any word in the entire dictionary. I could put any world leader, any politician, any business man, any religious figure, any religion, anyone I disagree with. You can't claim that if you live in Russia, you can't claim that if you live in China, you can't claim that if you live in Ireland. Trump is a sack of shit that has endangered our national position on the world stage and alienated our allies, but is *nothing* compared to a true tyrant like Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, etc. A tyrant rounds up people who disagrees with them and executes them, no president has ever even had the power to do that. And my biggest point is actually going to be against the following "If there was something inherent about this country that makes it better than the others, you would have named it."; you are completely missing the point. Know what country deserves to be proud of their accomplishments? Know what people should take pride in their history? Every. Single. One. They have all come from a lineage that fought hard and died toiling to carry on their life's work to their children. If you are looking for a reason why your nation is the best country in the world period, you aren't going to find it (I would argue no one from any nation could; someone could just come along and spoil it with some terrible crime from their nation's past), but if you are just looking for things to be proud of, ask about your ancestry and their accomplishments. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- "I'm proud that my forefathers were able to beat back King George and his red shirts. I'm proud the Union beat back the rebels. I'm proud the boys in green beat back the krauts." Ahem, I repeat again my last about largely symbolic victories. We rebelled against the unjust class structure of Britain... only to build our very own version of that exact same structure, right after gaining independence. We fought a civil war over slavery... only to turn around and screw over all the victims of slavery and their descendants, for generations, to this very day. We also still have chattel slavery, we just have it in China now. We... Did not beat the Nazis. We helped beat the Nazis. You know who actually won WW2? The Soviets, the French, and the Brits, mainly the Soviets. We lie about that to this day. "I'm proud that my nation touched the moon." That's nice, but also largely symbolic given we abandoned our lunar program and have cut funding to NASA repeatedly since then. "I'm proud that nation continues to be one of the strongest economies in the world." Bullshit. Straight up bullshit. We have a slapdash economy that tanks every 10-20 years due to systematic flaws and widespread corruption, not to mention the people who are screwed over to prop up this farce. "I'm proud that nation has never fallen to dictators, never fallen servant to tyrants." Trump and Jackson, to name the biggest examples. "I'm proud of my country because my country is great and done many things no other nation has." Empty. Vapid. Words. If there was something inherent about this country that makes it better than the others, you would have named it. If there was something worth being proud of, you would have mentioned it. Parroting this sort of naivety is something I dislike, since it's so, fucking, empty. "My country also brings with it shame in its wrongs, and remorse at its mistakes; we should not forget that." Funny how that's never enough to fix the system problems that plague this country. "But make no mistake, history will remember America." History also remembered Rome, not as something good, but as something large, majestic, and monstrous. History also remembers the Nazis, and I need not say how. Show me something tangible, that isn't empty of any real impact, that isn't symbolic. I feel naught but apathy towards a nation that seeks nothing but its own ego at the cost of its people. Show me something worth giving a damn about, something that isn't empty words or symbolic actions that were quickly made into farces. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Strongest economy that has the worst inequality in the Western world you mean. — Oxyaena Harass 20:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm proud that my forefathers were able to beat back King George and his red shirts. I'm proud the Union beat back the rebels. I'm proud the boys in green beat back the krauts. I'm proud that my nation took to the sky and flew like birds. I'm proud that my nation touched the moon. I'm proud the nation was able to become an industrial power house. I'm proud that nation continues to be one of the strongest economies in the world. I'm proud that nation has never fallen to dictators, never fallen servant to tyrants. I'm proud of my country because my country is great and done many things no other nation has. My country also brings with it shame in its wrongs, and remorse at its mistakes; we should not forget that. But make no mistake, history will remember America. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why would you choose either? Seriously, why would I be proud of the U.S. for example? What, exactly, is inherent to this country that I should be proud of it? Almost all the historic victories have largely been symbolic, and the problems they were meant to address and/or solve still exist and have gotten worse. What, exactly, is there to be proud of? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- My ancestors killed people and owned slaves, why the fuck would I view that as good? @RipCityLiberal at least gave me something close to being what I wanted, but it still isn't something I feel I can hang my hat on. If you view me as wanting to be negative, congratulations on missing my point. In my view, countries are just lines on maps, administrative boundaries, words. In my view, the more a social mobility, the less distinction between population groups. In my view, celebrating any country is inherently nonsensical, as you celebrate boundaries, boarders, cruelty, as well as good. In my view, when you celebrate a country, you celebrate the good and the bad in the same breath, because that, more than anything, is part of this country. Don't run and hide behind positivity when I point out that your examples are ultimately flawed, for when you cite those things, you cite the good and the bad, the truth and the lies. And the truth is we need to stop looking to the past for inspiration, we need to view it as it is, not the sanitized mockery we celebrate. The founding fathers vision is dead, and given they wouldn't have wanted most of the country to vote, among other hypocrisies, that's a good thing. We should seek not the prelapsarian glory of the past, but the shining dawn of tomorrow. If paying more than lip service to the failings of history is radical, or negative, then so be it. Oh, and for the record, Trump is rounding people up and executing them, they're called "refugees" and the jackbooted thugs are called "ICE". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Obama has initiated a huge drone war that has killed countless civilians and created entire new generations of vengeful and angry young men, we have deposed and despoiled numerous countries throughout the world, we have the worst inequality in the entire Western world, and one of the worst in the entire developed world, corporations control every facet of our government, and you're telling me this is the "greatest country on earth"? Circumspice. — Oxyaena Harass 14:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I recently had holidays in Russia (2018) and Ukraine (2019), and tend to look at the situation there when thinking about these terms. So for example for me Russia has an amazing history and culture, largely unknown and unappreciated in the west, plus a massive chip on their shoulder about "the west" treating them unfairly for the last umpteen hundred years, and now they (ie Putin) are trying to "restore" their prestige by creating a new Russian empire. And IMO it is the last bit that sucks. They can be justly proud of their history and culture - it is truly fabulous and engaging. But all the grief they perceive they have gotten from "the west" has, IM-simplistic-O, been self inflicted by a history of being entirely ruled by autocrats, and lacking in rule of law - ie their problems come down to the structure of their society and polity, which is something they created themselves - or at least their Tsars and Party Secretaries and Presidents and associated ruling classes did.
- As for Ukraine - as a friend of Polish descent told me (he's a 1st gen NZ-er, his parents being refugees from WW2) - Ukraine has always had its own culture, but is only just now getting its own country. The Museum of Ukrainian History as a Nation in Kiev was a really good historical narrative IMO - relatively unbiased against the Russians despite the current situation - as opposed to the nearby Museum of the History of Ukraine in WW2 - which has a large display about the evils of the Russian invasions of Ukraine right at he beginning. Ukraine is also struggling to come to grips with the WW2 "Independence" movement that fought for the Nazi's, massacred Poles, etc. - acknowledging the fact of these without deifying them seems to be an important issue in their building an identity.
- So..... plenty of room for patriotism - but Nationalism these days is just an excuse for hate mongering and imperialism IMO. Aloysius the Gaul 20:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- that kind of patriotism cuts both ways. if you can be proud of your countrys history, you have to acknowledge your country's sins too.
- Patriotism is my mind needs to be tempered with that. its more about identity than national pride. save the jingoism and flag waving for sporting events.
- nationalism seems rooted in a sense of grievance or a sense of being in some way subjugated. theres plenty of examples in history where its been a positive force, just as there are too many examples where its been a malign one.
- none of these things are 'bad' in and of themselves. it depends very much on far these things are taken and where you stand. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm proud to be an American. But I don't need to be proud of everything that has happened in history. America is still an extraordinary country, where people used to be able to come and create lives for themselves from difficult situations in their home countries. The idea of America, is something to be proud of, even if the execution hasn't always been stellar.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- isn't that the speech at the beginning of the godfather? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The issue here is that there are many cases when American flag waving is used as a cover for anti-intellectualism, racism, fundamentalism, and resistance to change. (This actually is a worldwide phenomenon, patriotism increasingly is represented in anti-intellectual, racist, pseudo-fascist form in too many countries these days.) I respect America and it's accomplishments, and patriotism has been used for noble purposes in the past. But my unfortunate opinion is that a large amount of the people who spout off bumper-sticker patriotism in America today are actually in the process of making America worse off. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with American patriotism is that, not just how much the rest of the world has to hear it, all the time, but the essence of exceptionalism that really tries the patience of everyone else in the world. The American dream mythology was a reality in Canada, Australia and New Zealand...only those countries take care of you when you fail...unlike most of the US where you end up abandoned by the state homeless in the street. Almost every aspect of the American economy, education, entrepreneurship, social mobility etc can be easily found in dozens of other countries and you can always find ways where they do it a lot better. And those very specific elements of an economy or society that are done really well...are a reality in every country..Yet you don't hear them bragging like shit about it do you? Do you hear the Japanese bragging about their superior medical service? Do you hear Canadians bragging about their numerous thankless peacekeeping missions and numerous fatalities that come with supporting countless conflicts in the world? Does New Zealand brag about it's social mobility? When did you last hear the British singing to the world about their epic financial sector in London? Does Uruguay repeat ad nauseum to the world they were the first to legalize marijuana or does the Netherland brag about their liberal postitution laws? Do the portuguese broadcast their effective drug policies and pioneering attempts to legalize gay mariage and fight homophobia? You might hear the occasional citizen mentioning these things, as though its good that they helped start a movement that other countries could utilize. But they don't do it so screetchingly loud, taking credit for a long term multifaceted achievement, as though only their country could pull it off...as though they are a special person just because they are a citizen of a country that did something first or has a reputation for doing something well. You should be proud of being a good citizen. And proud how you personally contributed to the evolution of society. And admit how lucky you are to be able to do so. And most importantly admit their privileage. I think people around the world have a lot more respect for those who can admit their privilege and wish their exceptional tallents and freedoms on other countries. ShabiDOO 22:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I personally imagine that many other countries have patriotism, but with a bit more subtlety, based on what I see in Britain. A few "random observations" (from my personal perspective, of course, which may be in error due to lack of experience):
- A) Many seem to be extremely proud of what they have accomplished in their social health system, enough to announce it to the world during an Olympic ceremony.
- B) The long-running Proms concerts (the biggest classical music festival in the world, as far as I know) has a last night. This is where they end by showing off the British pomp using patriotic tunes from times when the sun never set on the British empire, with a corresponding patriotic mood (in recent times mitigated by the Brexit bullshit, but never mind that.). It's the most nationalistic thing I can think of when it comes to Britain, and it's not terribly so from what I hear. Furtermore, Britain actually has patriotic tunes I feel are unusually actually musically worth something (such as the Sir Hubert Parry composed / Sir Edward Elgar orchestrated "Jerusalem"), and nothing in common circulation as awful as say a Lee Greenwood number. So this is not as excruciating as the American equivalent, and I've never felt even this was terribly jingoistic (though I've heard obscure Elgar numbers that were horribly jingoistic, so maybe this is a case of the most awful jingoism being filtered out over time.)
- C) Despite the above and various other things (Union Jack flags and other British identity things of course were seen) when I was in Britain last (mostly London though I will admit), "bumper sticker" patriotism was not terribly prevalent. There was other bullshit (just look at the UKs tabloids, which are infinitely more awful IMHO than anything the US throws up) and some of that bullshit has indeed manifested in the Brexit crap. And it can be argued that some parts of the UK empire, while not quite as jingoist, might be worse overall in other ways (eg the Troubles in Ireland). But the jingoist-fascism that prevails in certain parts of the United States (where you get kicked off country radio for being ashamed of the president just once -- yes, "cancel culture" fuckers, what do you make of the Dixie Chicks? -- or where kneeling in protest during an American national anthem -- whose tune is British, I'll remind ya -- is somehow a huge important biggly deal) didn't seem that present in Britain. Certainly they didn't start every football match with the egregious pomp that is typical of too many American sporting events. Soundwave106 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with American patriotism is that, not just how much the rest of the world has to hear it, all the time, but the essence of exceptionalism that really tries the patience of everyone else in the world. The American dream mythology was a reality in Canada, Australia and New Zealand...only those countries take care of you when you fail...unlike most of the US where you end up abandoned by the state homeless in the street. Almost every aspect of the American economy, education, entrepreneurship, social mobility etc can be easily found in dozens of other countries and you can always find ways where they do it a lot better. And those very specific elements of an economy or society that are done really well...are a reality in every country..Yet you don't hear them bragging like shit about it do you? Do you hear the Japanese bragging about their superior medical service? Do you hear Canadians bragging about their numerous thankless peacekeeping missions and numerous fatalities that come with supporting countless conflicts in the world? Does New Zealand brag about it's social mobility? When did you last hear the British singing to the world about their epic financial sector in London? Does Uruguay repeat ad nauseum to the world they were the first to legalize marijuana or does the Netherland brag about their liberal postitution laws? Do the portuguese broadcast their effective drug policies and pioneering attempts to legalize gay mariage and fight homophobia? You might hear the occasional citizen mentioning these things, as though its good that they helped start a movement that other countries could utilize. But they don't do it so screetchingly loud, taking credit for a long term multifaceted achievement, as though only their country could pull it off...as though they are a special person just because they are a citizen of a country that did something first or has a reputation for doing something well. You should be proud of being a good citizen. And proud how you personally contributed to the evolution of society. And admit how lucky you are to be able to do so. And most importantly admit their privileage. I think people around the world have a lot more respect for those who can admit their privilege and wish their exceptional tallents and freedoms on other countries. ShabiDOO 22:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- The issue here is that there are many cases when American flag waving is used as a cover for anti-intellectualism, racism, fundamentalism, and resistance to change. (This actually is a worldwide phenomenon, patriotism increasingly is represented in anti-intellectual, racist, pseudo-fascist form in too many countries these days.) I respect America and it's accomplishments, and patriotism has been used for noble purposes in the past. But my unfortunate opinion is that a large amount of the people who spout off bumper-sticker patriotism in America today are actually in the process of making America worse off. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- isn't that the speech at the beginning of the godfather? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm proud to be an American. But I don't need to be proud of everything that has happened in history. America is still an extraordinary country, where people used to be able to come and create lives for themselves from difficult situations in their home countries. The idea of America, is something to be proud of, even if the execution hasn't always been stellar.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
For real, why would anyone do this?[edit]
I just saw this article about immigrating students who were entrapped by ICE. I don't understand ICE's motivation though. The students immigrated legally. What is the point of creating the opportunity for them to legally immigrate, only to deport them? Isn't their purpose to stop illegal immigration? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- ICE's purpose, and the purpose of all cops really, is to control and oppress, don't think that cops of any stripe will not abuse their power, the system is designed in such a way to encourage abuse and silence from fellow cops about abuse, whistleblowers get punished. ACAB. — Oxyaena Harass 17:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Reading this other article, it doesn't seem that the students immigrated legally. I quote:
- " "Their true intent could not be clearer," a federal prosecutor wrote about the students who enrolled in Farmington in a sentencing memo for one of the eight recruiters, the Free Press reported. "While 'enrolled' at the University, one hundred percent of the foreign citizen students never spent a single second in a classroom. If it were truly about obtaining an education, the University would not have been able to attract anyone, because it had no teachers, classes, or educational services," the sentenced memo continued. "
- Tokyo (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Their legal status is bullshit. This is an arm of the government with little regulation and low standards for membership assaulting a group of people who's only crime is not being born in the US. Fuck ICE, Fuck the police that work with ICE, and Fuck Xenophobia.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Tokyo Did the students know that when they enrolled? Also, are there examples of other fake universities that have been doing this same thing, or is ICE just being a bully to these people? There are entrapment laws for a reason. You don't create the opportunity for criminal activity simply to increase incarceration numbers. All it does is create an air of distrust towards law enforcement, and arrest otherwise non-criminal offenders while real criminals go free. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not only that, but in the first article, there is also this: "Reddy said, though, that in some cases, students who transferred out from the University of Farmington after realizing they didn't have classes on-site, were still arrested.". Students intent didn't matter, it looks like it was a scam scheme. 191.205.10.131 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Tokyo Did the students know that when they enrolled? Also, are there examples of other fake universities that have been doing this same thing, or is ICE just being a bully to these people? There are entrapment laws for a reason. You don't create the opportunity for criminal activity simply to increase incarceration numbers. All it does is create an air of distrust towards law enforcement, and arrest otherwise non-criminal offenders while real criminals go free. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Their legal status is bullshit. This is an arm of the government with little regulation and low standards for membership assaulting a group of people who's only crime is not being born in the US. Fuck ICE, Fuck the police that work with ICE, and Fuck Xenophobia.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Reading this other article, it doesn't seem that the students immigrated legally. I quote:
I read other articles and this whole things is very shady. As far as I understood, ICE version is that they set up a fake university, which promised student visa's in exchange for fake tuition money, with the students aware of the immigration fraud. But others dispute that, instead, the students, or at least some of them, believed the university was real, and therefore were arrested despite they were willing to immigrate legally. Probably, the one who will shed light upon this situation is India, via ambassadors or other representatives, since if the latter version is true, then it could lead to serious diplomatic issues. Anyway, even assuming the worst from ICE, I'm more inclined to think that this mess might be due to incompetence (not thinking that legit student would enroll?) or greedy (where did the tuition money go?) than oppression, control, or xenophobia. Regarding FEDs creating the opportunity for criminal activity in order to arrest the criminal, I'm not necessarily against it, since, for example, knowing that the guy bribing you or the hitman you're trying to hire, could actually be a FED, can be a good deterrent for many. Tokyo (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- It never fails to astonish me how we tolerate the government when it commits frauds, impersonates people, and otherwise abuses confidences and poisons human relationships, all on the grounds that it was claimed to be needed to catch people going along for the ride. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 00:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think there's a good reason to impersonate to try to catch criminals but this method is in response to an overreaction of, what, visa fraud? The set-up, the punishment, they don't seem to be appropriate for the kind of law-breaking we're dealing with. --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Tokyo If I do it, it's fraud and/or entrapment. If the cops do it, it's a sting. Nice consistent standards... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie Yeah, almost everything that is done by the government would be a crime if done by private citizens, that's hardly news. Tokyo (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Tokyo Shut up. Seriously, you have no idea how accountability or law works, so shut up. What ICE did comes dangerously close to entrapment, given they implied the people attending would go through a student nativization process, which is a legal process, as their bait. They actively set up a situation where people would be encouraged to break the law, used a legal process as bait, and then covered their asses afterwards. If I did that it would be a crime, if the police do it, it's still a crime dumbass. Lick jackboots somewhere else. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Naah, it's you that have no idea of the kind of person I am. If you knew me, you would never think I'm licking jackboots. Start assuming to know less things about other people and the world in general. Tokyo (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- You just stated that the law doesn't apply to those in power. That is your defense to me pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards at play. If you don't like the implications, don't make the argument. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Naah, it's you that have no idea of the kind of person I am. If you knew me, you would never think I'm licking jackboots. Start assuming to know less things about other people and the world in general. Tokyo (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Tokyo Shut up. Seriously, you have no idea how accountability or law works, so shut up. What ICE did comes dangerously close to entrapment, given they implied the people attending would go through a student nativization process, which is a legal process, as their bait. They actively set up a situation where people would be encouraged to break the law, used a legal process as bait, and then covered their asses afterwards. If I did that it would be a crime, if the police do it, it's still a crime dumbass. Lick jackboots somewhere else. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie Yeah, almost everything that is done by the government would be a crime if done by private citizens, that's hardly news. Tokyo (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Tokyo If I do it, it's fraud and/or entrapment. If the cops do it, it's a sting. Nice consistent standards... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think there's a good reason to impersonate to try to catch criminals but this method is in response to an overreaction of, what, visa fraud? The set-up, the punishment, they don't seem to be appropriate for the kind of law-breaking we're dealing with. --It's-a me,
Let's try to sort things out. What I stated is that almost everything that is done by the government (collect taxes, imprison people, kill people, ...) would be a crime if done by private citizen and that such fact is hardly news. That's my response to you saying that if you did what ICE did it would had been a crime. I didn't say that the law does not apply to those in power, but that there are things the authorities can do that private citizens can't. Now, did ICE commit a crime? As I said before, there whole situation is really shady. Of course ICE says that the students were aware of paying a fake university in order to immigrate illegally (which is exactly what an authority who abused power will say) and of course some students says they were not aware (which is exactly what somebody who committed immigration fraud would say). Hence, let's wait when things will be more clear. Again as I already said, I believe India representatives might be the ones who will shed light upon what happened. Tokyo (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Look you fuck, ICE is an unhinged paramilitary operation, going beyond its mandate to actively entrap kids that just want an opportunity to study in America. Fuck you and your fucking Nazi tendencies. RipCityLiberal (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nazi tendencies? You're nuts. Tokyo (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RipCityLiberal Actually, that last reply (to me) clears some (not all) of the water. @Tokyo I'm going to point this out again, even if ICE didn't entrap their targets, they still came dangerously close to it. Add to that their less than stellar reputation in obeying the law and... well, the judge should throw the case out, and an independent external investigation should be launched. Either that or just disband ICE, since they were always a legally dubious group of paramilitary thugs. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nazi tendencies? You're nuts. Tokyo (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I am kinda interested in Theistic Satanism[edit]
After really learning about the topic, I see nothing wrong with it. I do not see any evil in it at all. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Satanism is interesting, I`m no longer the hard on antitheist I used to be, and I don't think being religious is inherently irrational. That said I am still an atheist, but I see the good religion creates, and how it helps so many people, that I can't bring myself to hate it anymore. That being said I`m still anticlerical, organized religion is a menace. — Oxyaena Harass 21:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Religion also gave us the Bananaman, this piece of shit and his site that we've been at "war" with for many years. Heck, they even gave us one of their used toys...
- Oh, and Fundies. So many Fundies... Tinribmancer (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Theistic Satanism is an oxymoron, Satanists are atheists.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Conservapedia left over is so much fun (epic sarcasm). Fundies also gave us certain Christian schools that are far worse, much like a group of conservapedia rejects. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- As I said I`m still an anticlericist, and I laugh at Fundies like the rest of us, but I`m not gonna make fun of some random pagan for being pagan, @Tinribmancer. — Oxyaena Harass 02:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I was being rude so sorry. As for the original topic, I am choosing Theistic Satanism. — Satan Loves You Zombies eat flesh --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- As I said I`m still an anticlericist, and I laugh at Fundies like the rest of us, but I`m not gonna make fun of some random pagan for being pagan, @Tinribmancer. — Oxyaena Harass 02:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- The Conservapedia left over is so much fun (epic sarcasm). Fundies also gave us certain Christian schools that are far worse, much like a group of conservapedia rejects. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Theistic Satanism is an oxymoron, Satanists are atheists.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, and Fundies. So many Fundies... Tinribmancer (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)