|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive333
Can anything be called solid if it's always changing?[edit]
What I meant is that if things are always in a state of change (breaking down, growing, etc) then does the term "solid" still apply when describing them? Would we just call them processes since they are always "becoming" something else? I know liquid definitely doesn't apply and neither does gas. But when I found out the solids aren't really "solid" (by that meaning there is a bit of space between the particles that make it up, it made me question (against my wishes) the nature of why we call some things solid and others not. Is it a matter of permanence?Machina (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Depends on what environment a chemical is in. Say water was in an extremely hot environment such as the planet Venus, it would stay a gas in the lower atmosphere. On the flip side, if water were on Saturn's moon Titan, it would remain solid. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- You're describing immutability, not solidity. Solidity is, by definition, impermanent. Any solid object will cease being solid when subjected to the right combination of temperature and pressure. I don't know of any physical object or material that can be described as absolutely immutable.2600:1002:B11B:FB0A:85DB:A29:4227:D71 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- You're describing immutability, not solidity. Solidity is, by definition, impermanent. Any solid object will cease being solid when subjected to the right combination of temperature and pressure. I don't know of any physical object or material that can be described as absolutely immutable.2600:1002:B11B:FB0A:85DB:A29:4227:D71 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- IIRC from my apprenticeship teachings 40 years ago - Solid means non fluid - fluids easily change shape to assume the shape of their container. Fluids include both liquids and gasses - gases expand to fill the container they are in. Liquids do not fill the whole container if the container has more volume than the liquid. Solids do not do that. That's pretty much it for why some things are solids and others are not. Aloysius the Gaul 20:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- 40 years ago? You must be at least 55 now. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good to see math education is alive and well :) Aloysius the Gaul 12:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- 40 years ago? You must be at least 55 now. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I figured that is what is meant by solid. Not that something is unchanging, because everything changes. But I guess I hear that if everything is in a constant state of change then the terms solid or "noun" wouldn't apply to such things or that even calling them things would be wrong since they are in the process of changing. I heard them say such things should be called processes and not objects or things, the human body included. Though something seems quite off about that.Machina (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Previously there were considered to be three states of matter: Solid, liquid and gas. (You kids with your plasmas and whatnots have confused things) Atoms can be included in any of these three states and can change between them. This is pretty basic science and is not a matter of surprise. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
There are five states of matter - solid, liquid, gas, plasma and cat. Avida Dollarsher again 17:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
context and situation decides whats solid or not. a brick wall is solid. I cannot pass through. but for atoms it may as well not be there. it makes no sense to use terms that have no relevance to whatever the your level of perspective. things at an atomic level follow different rules to your everyday. it requires its own identifiers to make sense. labelling things with vague all encompassing terms is useless at all levels of experience. a brick wall is a solid at street level, no matter how many atoms whizz through it, I have to walk around. as a barrier to prevent to radiation zapping you? its porous. same applies to if you talking about solid, liquid, gases, etc. why call an iron bar anything less than solid? at my level of perception its solid as it gets. unless I drop it in a furnace, its going to stay a solid regardless of whatever natural processes it may be undergoing. everythings a process of one sort of another - it tells us nothing without some reference relevant to your particular situation.
we are all ultimately space dust, but it doesn't help me to make sense of anything that might be useful or relevant to me. this all smacks of the buddhist nonsense you keep bringing up. its more of if something can described or acts differently in one plain existence then we are all wrong and deluded for seeing things and describing things in ways that is actually relevant and useful. is the point maybe to obfuscate and remove us from anything at all relatable. nonattachment is probs a lot easier if you can convince your self everything is false, and your own subjective perspective is a lie. probably makes you more reliant on whoever is feeding you this arse, to cope with the uncertainty they've instilled in youAMassiveGay (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- That actually makes more sense. I mean sure objects are changing all the time but it's not useful to refer to them as verbs (especially since verbs describe nouns. And you are right that what might be true at one level doesn't apply to all levels. The term solid doesn't refer to unchanging but it is still a thing, though Buddhism might dispute that. My guess is that it is still and object, and in the case of living things a thing until it dies and breaks down to the base levels.It is still solid, until it no longer is.Machina (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Blazing Saddles[edit]
I've been watching the progress on Blazing Saddles and it's looking very good. This is a high quality page on the wiki and I've nominated it for a Silver rating. Please take a look and help make this one cover page material. Thanks, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Krishna needs a major revision and added onto[edit]
A whole lot of the "who Krishna is" is inaccurate. First of all the whole thing talks about Vishnu rather than Krishna. Yes, they are technically the same but they are not interchangeable. Think of Vishnu as the big super ultra-powerful version of himself while Krishna is still powerful but like a bodybuilder x2 version of Vishnu. The same section of the Bhagavad Gita that contains the popular line "Now I am become death the Destroyer of Worlds." is where it shows how they are different. Before this section, Krishna is just teaching Arjuna about Yoga and what forms of Yoga would be best for people like Arjuna, who is a Prince about to go into battle. After a while, Arjuna asks Krishna to show his "true self" so Krishna basically turns into this super bright being whose body sorta kinda just looks like it goes on forever with infinite amounts of versions of himself all the while everything around him is on fire. THIS is Vishnu. Anyway, if the majority of the article is about Vishnu then why not have the article be named after him? Second, Vishnu is not believed to be the Godhead by all Hindus, Vaishnavists believe that but a lot of Hindus don't. I am a Shakta Hindu or a Shaktist, I believe that the Godhead is Adi Shakti, the divine mother. There are also Shaivists who believe the Godhead is Shiva. There are also Smarta Hindus or Smartists who are the most polytheistic of all Hindus and do not have one god or goddess they all believe to be the Godhead. Third, Krishna isn't the avatar of the Trimurti. The Trimurti is a group of gods, those being Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. The sentence right after that says the Hindu Trinity instead of the term the article literally just used which is Trimurti. RationalHindu (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- No one's stopping you from editing the page yourself. It's best practice to add citations that back up your claims when you make substantive edits to a page. Bongolian (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
An ancient American joke[edit]
My grandpa was the only person I really listened to at Thanksgiving. He told two jokes from when he was younger, and they are good.
First joke, racehorses and telegraphs.
So there are three guys, and they tend a stable, but their dream is to have a winning racehorse. Their horses can't even qualify, but their dream, that they go on wth for years, and finally they have a horse that they think can cut it. So they beg around for the money, somehow they get the entrance fee, and they put it all into their best jokey, Sam Ferell. So they send him off, and wait for his telegram back saying "Sam is going to tell us whether we went bust or not." The telegram rider comes bolting into town, just as fast as he could. And the telegram reads "S F S F S F S F." Everyone at hone was confused, this telegram was a misprint. So the whole town buzzes, trying to figure out what the telegram was supposed to say.
Finally, Sam omens home, no hose, no money, and everyone is pissed. They say, "Sam why didn't you tell us?" and Sam says "You couldn't read it? I could only afford an S and an F, so I sent "Started and farted, slipped and fell, see you on Friday - Sam Ferrell"
The delivery is the important part.
Second joke.
A veteran goes into a drugstore to get a sundae.
So a veteran of the war is ordering a sundae, and he asks for chocolate and a cherry. The clerk decides he had better give this veteran the works. So everything goes in, imagine it and it goes in this sundae and just to top it off, just before the veteran goes to take a bite, the clerk holds him off and adds some crushed walnuts to garnish it. Just then, the veteran tries to pick it up, but his hands are shaking so bad and he's cursing. The clerk asks "I'm so sorry, is it the crushed nuts?" The veteran says "No, it's the shell-shock."
Again, it's the delivery that makes these jokes. Gol Sarnitt ([[User talk) 04:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Any joke about bollocks make me laugh regardless of the delivery. Spud (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What about this one? Anna Livia (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia Well, no. Not that particular joke. I love the Four Candles sketch but that ending is extremely weak. Ronnie Barker later rewrote the ending of the sketch so that a female shop assistant comes out and asks the customer what kind of knockers he wants. Now that's more like it! Spud (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Four Candle, that's new to me. I laughed the whole way through. I'm thinking of all the Pikey dealings in Snatch Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Glad you liked it. Spud (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- And what about this bird? Anna Livia (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Glad you liked it. Spud (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Four Candle, that's new to me. I laughed the whole way through. I'm thinking of all the Pikey dealings in Snatch Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Anna Livia Well, no. Not that particular joke. I love the Four Candles sketch but that ending is extremely weak. Ronnie Barker later rewrote the ending of the sketch so that a female shop assistant comes out and asks the customer what kind of knockers he wants. Now that's more like it! Spud (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What about this one? Anna Livia (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is it that people who kill cops get more time in prison yet a person who murders a child get's less time?[edit]
It is not like cops actually do a good job at enforcing the law so far they are brutal against black people, immigrants and the handicapped. Why should cops who do a terrible job get valued over a kid who cannot defend themselves? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Cop killers are just pest control workers, don't @ me. — Oxyaena sup>Harass 14:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Why is it that people who kill cops get more time in prison yet a person who murders a child get's less time?"
- @Rationalzombie94 What makes you think that? The punishment for murder depends on several things. Tokyo (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 Two major factors. One, as you've stated we give undue deference to law enforcement. Two, the nature of law enforcement as, symbolically at least, the enforcers of law. This means, in the eyes of the law, that killing a cop is attacking the legal framework itself, however slight that might be. There are similar enhanced legal punishments for attacking prosecutors and judges for example. Basically, at its core this has to do with the nature of power, authority, and the state's representation thereof. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that the state is, by the population at large, viewed a legitimate source of authority, and therefor it's rules are to be obeyed, and therefor they are to be enforced, and therefor the enforcement mechanism is to be preserved. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that the statement "Police murderers get more time than child murderers" is false - but do we have any actual statistics to demonstrate it? (Also it would be a little difficult to compare like with like.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that the state is, by the population at large, viewed a legitimate source of authority, and therefor it's rules are to be obeyed, and therefor they are to be enforced, and therefor the enforcement mechanism is to be preserved. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 Two major factors. One, as you've stated we give undue deference to law enforcement. Two, the nature of law enforcement as, symbolically at least, the enforcers of law. This means, in the eyes of the law, that killing a cop is attacking the legal framework itself, however slight that might be. There are similar enhanced legal punishments for attacking prosecutors and judges for example. Basically, at its core this has to do with the nature of power, authority, and the state's representation thereof. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
if there is any difference in severity at all, I would imagine it would be to disincentivise any criminals from targeting the police - the folk putting themselves in harms way so to speak. to make what can be a dangerous job a bit less dangerous. whether its true or not or effective, I don't know, but I don't think it has anything to do with an idea of the relative 'worth' of say child murder victims and police officer murder victims. then there is also the fact that police murder is on top of what crime or incident they called out to. its an escalation. but I dunno, ive only heard of police murderers being some different breed in movies trying justify to the audience the seriousness of a situation, create a sense of peril for the protagonist, the villain more villainous, more desperate. is this a common belief or perception? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Children are mostly killed by their parents, often as a result of depression or psychosis, and frequently by their mothers (women tend to be treated more leniently by courts for various reasons).[1] Police are often killed by people in the course of committing other serious crimes, such as armed robbery, or while resisting arrest for crimes. Racial and gender biases may also be involved. --Annanoon (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sweet Neo-Con[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNqh8XyH-f4 — Oxyaena Harass 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- 'All your base are belong to us# Anna Livia (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
A Hilarious Display of Irony on the TFR[edit]
I couldn't help but notice on the Truth Frequency Radio webshite that on the left, we have an insane rigged sports conspiracy theorist, and on the right, we have another conspiracy theorist who is also a San Francisco Giants fan: literally, right next to each other, on the same website. I can't help but imagine these conspiracy theorists going at it with each other in some secret chatroom somewhere when they're not on the air. Aaronmichael5 15:33 November 29th (UTC).
- That site seems to show that the horseshoe theory might be most applicable with the conspiracy theory side. It seems mostly moonbatty (eclectic pagans, holistic health, astrology, and an advertisement for hemp oil that is holy cow nature woo), but includes crap I'd normally associate with wingnuts (flat earthers and a Ruth Bader Ginsberg / Global Syndicate / Donald Trump lolwut conspiracy thingy, for a start). Soundwave106 (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Black Friday[edit]
Pretty good example of black comedy, naming a day of rampant consumerism after a colour that brings to mind our oil-stained economy. Colossal Squid (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not to mention just the general idea that the day after Thanksgiving (in the United States that is), the day of giving thanks, we immediately turn right around and trample/tooth and claw our way to the electronics section at Walmart for the newest Apple shit that we don't NEED, but WANT, and all because it's about $40 than buying it for sale online 3 days later. Oh the sweet sweet Irony. Aaronmichael5 20:38 November, 29th 2019 (UTC).
- Black Friday is my "buy nothing" day really. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 22:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I went down to the used movie/game store by my house today, they were having a "door busting" sale that ended at 10:00AM. Got 3 used movies for like less than $9.00. Amazingly, I didn't have to trample or stab anyone to get anything. I walked in, looked, found what I wanted, checked out...that was it. Genius isn't it? Aaronmichael5 21:49, November 29th 2019 (UTC).
- I should start a business selling body armor to people going who attend major sales such as Black Friday (and have a sale on Black Friday). God stole my thumbs --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:54, November 29th 2019 (UTC)
- I went down to the used movie/game store by my house today, they were having a "door busting" sale that ended at 10:00AM. Got 3 used movies for like less than $9.00. Amazingly, I didn't have to trample or stab anyone to get anything. I walked in, looked, found what I wanted, checked out...that was it. Genius isn't it? Aaronmichael5 21:49, November 29th 2019 (UTC).
- I don't understand why anyone needs to buy a new phone every year. I usually try to keep using my stuff until it stops functioning (obviously a bad idea with a car, but fortunately, I live in a city with good public transportation and I don't mind being relieved of the maintenance and gas costs, not to mention the road rage). Colossal Squid (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have an Iphone 6S, which I've had since December 2016, so going on three years now. It still works just fine, and from what I've heard it's also Apple's last good Iphone, so I'm using it until that thing self destructs. When that happens I'm most likely switching to Android. Aaronmichael5 05:22 November, 30th 2019 (UTC)
- Black Friday is my "buy nothing" day really. --It's-a me,
Revamped the Georgia Central University article[edit]
Thoughts. Hail Satan --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Needs more sources in general. Needs more detail on the intro's "woo" accusation.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Took the political spectrum quiz[edit]
https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-results.html
I got Social Libertarian. Seems right. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
War Pigs[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Ws3YfONY — Oxyaena Harass 04:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- You know I'm trying not to do this. Here I go anyway, sucking the joy out of everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdPs5YXQTSw no lyric video available this song really, instead of just being powerfully angry, sets a scene for the kids who see the "white boat comin' up the river." It's set like the young man is America versus Britain, which sure, America won the war, but it describes a life that is supposed to just be taking care of the people around you, not dealing with an advancing military, and I know Neil definitely doesn't like manifest destiny.
- Still, Sabbath are the undisputed champions of punch. Build anticipation, drag a little bit longer, and then everything hits at once. Sabbath and Young were two huge influences on grunge, and the reason there was a Soundgarden v Pearl Jam v Nirvana schism. I was too young for teams, I liked them all, I liked Butthole Surfers, and I still do like them all. But Butthole Surfers were almost exclusively branded as train of thought LSD, and Ozzy Osbourne and Chris Cornell are so unwaveringly commercial these days that it taints my view of their earlier intentions. Yeah, the War Pigs suck. Doesn't Ozzy have a track with Post Malone? War Pigs, great song, it's a hit for a reason.
- There's always the next step, EDIT: doing away with subtlety in favor of brevity. Can't say it's not my favorite, I love a song with about a 2 minute limit. (Edited link, I meant to post a song under 2 minutes. The other link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMAZYt8zu30)Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The stupid man's smart person[edit]
How is it that people's perception of a smart person ended up becoming a smug white man prone to throwing temper tantrums whenever he meets the slightest of opposition, e.g. Jordan Peterson, or Bret Stephens of bedbug infamy? I guess, based on the popularity of "SJW OWNED" videos, it has something to do with people mistaking machismo shows of dominance as intelligence? Or how many people use "logic" as a bludgeon to beat people with rather than a tool for connecting concepts together? Colossal Squid (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Jordan Peterson throwing temper tantrums? I think you have mistaken him with one of his opponents. The connection between JP, temper tantrums, and machismo shows of dominance makes even less sense. By the way, in the title you wrote "stupid man," but in your post you simply write "people" (not "stupid people.") Tokyo (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Peterson throws tantrums. Just look at the nonsense that catapulted him into the spotlight. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie Obviousy we disagree on what tantrum means.
- Anyway, JP or not, my opinion of @Colossal Squid's post is that the main claim has no basis. How do we know that people's perception of smart persons is "smug white man prone to ..." ? I say we don't. At most, perharps, now we know that @Colossal Squid's perception of people's perception of smart people is...
- It is certainly interesting to understand what is people's perception of smart individuals, and an argument can be made that such a perception is different from reality, otherwise not so many people will fall for obviously non-smart cons and cranks; but I doubt such understanding will come from this thread. Tokyo (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- The title is a direct quotation from an article about Jordan Peterson. Also, I said "people" because while it's usually right-wingers who elevate obnoxious anti-intellectual pundits (the overwhelming majority who are middle-aged, white, and male) on wingnut welfare as geniuses, they trick a lot of decorum-obsessed liberals and centrists as well. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Again: There are no evidences supporting your main claim (people's perception of a smart person ended up becoming a smug white man prone to throwing temper tantrums whenever he meets the slightest of opposition) and you are making no effort to find any. This is similar to the post, a few thread above, making a claim about murders of children and police officers, but without giving any statistics supporting it. Tokyo (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know about whether people perceive them as "smart", but smug, over-aggressive dumb assholes have been a bit of a force in American entertainment for a *long* time. It's kind of a feature. Definitely back to the 1980s, when Rush Limbaugh style talk radio started, and even the nationally syndicated conservative blowhards replaced a more politically balanced but locally fragmented politics and sports blowhard radio talk show. Simultaneously the rise of "shock" TV happened, most personified in its worst case by Morton Downey Jr. Machismo and pseudo-fascist advocacy has certainly been a feature before that (see the Death Wish movies) as has the dumb kind of racist blowhard character (see Archie Bunker), although I can't personally think of too many examples of the "I'm an asshole and proud of it" schtick before the 1980s (this is probably because I haven't thought too hard about it :) ). Most of the truly dumb assholes tend to be low-rent entertainment that fades fast (eg: who gives a shit about Morton Downey Jr. today?). Higher quality entertainment tends to not just rely on blowhard anger and therefore lasts longer (Oprah Winfrey, who started roughly around the same time as the shock talk folks with a more empathetic approach, has made *huge* mint, even more than the less-asshole-but-still-carnival-freak-show folks of talk Jerry Springer and Geraldo, both who did fine from that affair but are minor players in media now). It is my opinion that over-reliance on this low-rent type of entertainment can be a sign of network decline (right, ESPN, network where the talking head blowhard is starting to matter more than actual sports?). AM talk radio and some sects of "conservative" media (read: news made for Archie Bunkers) is one of the curious exceptions to this trend, and it is unfortunate that their current dominance of a certain political party propelled a blowhard idiot to president. But Jordan Peterson is no Rush Limbaugh, and odds are high no one will give a shit about Jordan Peterson in a few years. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Again: There are no evidences supporting your main claim (people's perception of a smart person ended up becoming a smug white man prone to throwing temper tantrums whenever he meets the slightest of opposition) and you are making no effort to find any. This is similar to the post, a few thread above, making a claim about murders of children and police officers, but without giving any statistics supporting it. Tokyo (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Peterson throws tantrums. Just look at the nonsense that catapulted him into the spotlight. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Most people think they themselves are smart, and the people they recognize as smart are people they agree with. This is true for both the educated and the under-educated. What you may really be asking is, "how can most people be so wrong (I mean., I know I'm right. Right?).Ariel31459 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
ignoring the tedious pedantry up above, the thread title is pretty apt description of Peterson as explained quite clearly in the article. Peterson the 'smart' person, a professor, university lecturer, proper credentials, but is on youtube where research and nuance go to die. he spouts a lot inane nonsense about a lot subjects that make him very popular with people, lets just say arseholes, who Peterson has very kindly provides a lot erudite sounding soundbites, which while inane if looked at too deeply, is gold to people who wont look too deeply and don't need to look deeply but can rationalise being pricks with something vaguely intellectual. we could say these people are 'stupid' but that underestimates what is happening. they have weaponised this shite, as they have with other memes and bullshit. they are not after debate, and they do not need to be smart. it is attrition via a deluge of pedantry. 'stupid' here should be read as 'cancerous' AMassiveGay (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is not going out on a limb to suppose that assertions such as "you have to be stupid to agree with that ( or disagree with me) " are catastrophic to resolving an argument in your favor. Take Marshall McLuhan, for example. All the smart people I knew thought that "Understanding Media" was a great work of scholarship. Until, that is, it was observed that it was more poetry than science and produced no academic continuations of importance. Ralph Waldo Emerson was a celebrated genius during the long period of his American lectures on the subject of his ":Essays." I find Emerson's essays to be prose poetry that any practical person would reject as useless prattle. And yet farmers across America paid their hard earned dollar to hear the great orator speak. There's an ass for every seat.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I feel I should clarify that I was not responding to your post when I said 'ignoring tedious pedantry' (though I did wish terrible things on you when the edit conflict meant I had to rewrite everything).
- I also think think it isn't that big of an issue to be calling one side stupid. the issue is that aren't listening in the first place and there would still be no debate if we all said please and thankful and I made everyone a nice cup of tea. in the realms of social media, there is no debate, there is no attempt to change minds or prove the righteousness of your argument. its about putting up so much noise everything is drowned out, except the most loudly shouted which is always awful.
- one side benefits from this more than other. one doesn't need to prove anything, they just need to shut down all debate all trust all goodwill in a torrent of absolute dog shit.
- you don't need be smart or stupid, and its a tactic that has literally brought my country to a standstill for 3 years, and its a tactic not just on social media but by people stalking the corridors of power.
- sure mudslinging baby kissing liars are as old as the hills, but they didn't have google. and its been so so so easy. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Dishonesty in politics gets on my nerves too. Since Trump has hit the scene he has been the paragon of dishonesty, the platonic ideal of corruption looks good next to that miserable good-for-nothing. I don't know if you have anyone at all like him in your country. People who occassionally say disagreable things don't bother me as much anymore because of him.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Over on this side of the pond, we've got Bo Jo and his Iago, Dominic Cummings. As well as the pepperami in a smoking jacket, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the nicotined stained man-frog, Nigel Farage and the walking Greggs advert Mark Francois.To name, but a few. And our nearest neighbour has Ireland's first openly smug Taoiseach, Leo Veradkar and co. As well as the Healy-Rae's (honestly, just look of Michael Healy-Rae on youtube or any video site, you couldn't make up such a person} Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- I guess the stakes are different, some people will be effected by things more than others, and the relative power people have in different political structures, but ultimately there seem like the similarities are that its brought problems inherent in our political systems to the fore. there always problems in any systems but you work with what you got and we are not say north korea. now though? so much in uk politics is done through precedent rather than cast iron laws. people would resign if they were caught in lie. people were outraged by half truths. sure people did lie and exaggerate and no one trusted politicians, but its so brazen now. its like someone has flicked a switch. there are MPs, cabinet members, who just fill me with disgust at the contempt that they have for us. I keep hearing reports about death threats to mps, how we should remember these are human beings too, how we may disagree but we all want whats best, yada yada yada, but boris pops up and lies through his teeth. Michael gove drops by who is a literal fucking weasel. how do these people have jobs? why are they not hounded from society as pariahs? why are they in fucking government? still? there is not one minister who has a shred of decency nor an ounce of integrity. they are not cunts because I don't like their politics, they are just cunts. that is their nature.
- whatever trump does can be reversed at the next election. worse comes to the worst and you grit your teeth for the next 4 years. in the uk we are on the verge of catastrophe. there will be no more uk, and what remains with what I know these people have in store, I despair - they will have all the justification to destroy everything that I valued in my country.
- it didn't require a master plan. it didnt require vision. it didn't require party loyality. just a complete lack of shame. the last 3 years of dreadful purgatory tell me there is no road back and no chance of course correction. the best news we have had in months is that we 'might' get a hung parliament. 'might' AMassiveGay (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Over on this side of the pond, we've got Bo Jo and his Iago, Dominic Cummings. As well as the pepperami in a smoking jacket, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the nicotined stained man-frog, Nigel Farage and the walking Greggs advert Mark Francois.To name, but a few. And our nearest neighbour has Ireland's first openly smug Taoiseach, Leo Veradkar and co. As well as the Healy-Rae's (honestly, just look of Michael Healy-Rae on youtube or any video site, you couldn't make up such a person} Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Dishonesty in politics gets on my nerves too. Since Trump has hit the scene he has been the paragon of dishonesty, the platonic ideal of corruption looks good next to that miserable good-for-nothing. I don't know if you have anyone at all like him in your country. People who occassionally say disagreable things don't bother me as much anymore because of him.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Saudi-US alliance[edit]
You know I don't even see why the US-Saudi alliance is still necessary, we're about to become a net exporter of oil and it's not like OPEC is gonna cut us off. — Oxyaena Harass 18:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Saudis are a counterweight to Iran. Iran is Saudi Arabia's archnemesis, and they also happen to be an enemy of the US, so the US government likes to prop the Saudis up against them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- War crimes in Yemen gang. — Oxyaena Harass 19:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly that. The Houthis are seen as being aligned with Iran, so the Saudis went apeshit when they rose up in Yemen. The US is now supplying aid, intel, and weapons to the Saudis even though they're doing shit like blowing up schoolbuses. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the Saudis excel at renting luxury hotel rooms.[2] Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Alliances exist for various political and economic reasons. They are not usually impacted much by morality unless the population of one of the allies starts to object.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Saudi government (via its investment funds) and Saudi private individuals own huge assets in the US and western Europe including large shares in Uber and several other tech and car companies, significant shares in major investment groups with political connections such as Blackstone, and a lot of government bonds.[3][4] --Annanoon (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Alliances exist for various political and economic reasons. They are not usually impacted much by morality unless the population of one of the allies starts to object.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the Saudis excel at renting luxury hotel rooms.[2] Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly that. The Houthis are seen as being aligned with Iran, so the Saudis went apeshit when they rose up in Yemen. The US is now supplying aid, intel, and weapons to the Saudis even though they're doing shit like blowing up schoolbuses.
- War crimes in Yemen gang. — Oxyaena Harass 19:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
NDA before a set[edit]
I can't tell how real this is or what the actual intent is, but there is buzz about Pete Davidson requiring people to sign a non-disclosure agreement before attending his shows. Pete Davidson does not like people being on their phones during his set, let's go real low to source that one.
I'm over here like "no, Pete, you're good, but you're not that good!" A Way With Words radio just had a caller who claimed to coin the term "ear space." The caller was really excited because they said "ear-space" and it was understood - very important. And he couldn't figure out where he heard it so he looked it up and dad-gummit nobody has an expressed definition for ear-space. So, he was asked, what does ear-space mean? - very important.
The two definitions from the guy were described as (generally) "amount of time available to listen to a podcast" and "the similarities in something like music that can't be otherwise defined." You had better believe I started salivating when I heard these potential description. Now I can say why Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rage Against the Machine, Primus, and Mars Volta all sound the same to me! All the bands occupy a very similar "ear-space"
And the Wayword radio people just took it in stride. Said the most lasting terms are the ones people just pick up and understand and use.
Pete Townshend also gave an interview, where he claimed he foresaw the internet, and I believe him. Butt so did Warren Ellis. I have made jokes that years later show up in the mainstream. But within that interview Tonwnshend laughed at the idea that you can copyright chord progressions and spoke about actively defying his publisher's attempt to sue another artist.
So what is this idea that an NDA is going to protect jokes? If this is a corporate takeover of comedy, Pete Davidson is still the bad guy. Taylor Swift was also the bad guy when she trademarked the phrase "This sick beat" - Taylor Swift and nobody else.
It might be a very meta joke. But I'd say, just don't sign the agreement, don't buy the tickets if he is in a position to threaten anybody like this. He's already doing the Les Claypool/Maynard James Keenan version of absolutely hating his fans. His fan base is the exact thing Pete Davidson will never be in control of, this is a weird flex. What is the actual fucking reason a comedian would draw up and then require their audience to sign a non-disclosure agreement? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't anything about fella, his act, or why he doesnt like people on phones at his show nor why he may want want NDAs, so I gonna jump in with some more general points.
- comedians, in the past, have been very prissy about their jokes. before tv and radio, comedians doing working mens clubs, touring the country, never the same audience twice, could have the same act, same jokes for decades. n tv or radio meant people hadn't them before, and they were their jokes. I hear comedians will re write all their material now because if they do a thing once, its all over internet everyones seen it.
- joke thiefs have always been a big deal to comedians too. you used to be able to get paid per joke or you just thought of a funny, sent it in to a show and someone chuckled. backin the day, its a lot easier to see where jokes came from. 'Arthur askes been doing that joke since 1920, itsa known aske joke, pay the man.' did I think of this hilarious sick burn myself or did I have remember it from some random youtuber? if you a comedian on twitter, you try out lines. self promote. get your name outthere less people forget. then you start getting grief for thieving that real funny line from popular instagramer cuntface who probably stole it from you, but now its his line and your just a jealous petty humourless prick on twitter - not the best look for a comedian, and you steal all your material.
- can you copyright a joke? or a sketch? I dunno. its not a new problem nor the only problem. its not unique to comedy. spotify, twitter, instagram, youtube, its never been easier to get your stuff out there, it might even be seen by someone. getting paid though? its an issue for big stars, with establidshed fan bases. if you starting out? don't drop out of college just yet. and who owns your work now? you or youtube? somenes making money on the internet. its not always clear who. I hear pornsites make a stack of cash. the people actually making the stuff? not so much. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I get that point, having a stand-up set can be spoiled a little harder than a musical set, especially if you don't have a robust well of jokes or know how to work them better under certain conditions. And if you've got a big special coming out, you just don't want to spoil it. Times have definitely changed, I had not fully considered it.
- And hey, maybe Pete's made the first million dollar inside joke. But for me, nah, I remember an old one, "I can keep a secret. It's just nobody I tell it to can." I still think it's ridiculous and a bad look, but ok, I'll hear him out if he says anything about it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hubbard blocked me[edit]
I am no longer eligible to comment on Hubbard's blog. It appears that he has finally mass banned everyone who debunks him from posting in the comments section. Just remember that this is the same guy that complains day in and day out about being censored by main stream media. Aaronmichael5. 2:07 2 December (UTC).
- Why was my entire post changed to this one which had nothing to do with it?Machina (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can see two possibilities: 1. Posts are impermanent and therefore are not real in any objective sense. 2. You had an edit conflict. My money is on 2 - but you may prefer 1. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Machina I'm not sure what exactly happened. I didn't delete any existing posts, I used the "add topic" button which, unlike the "edit" button, doesn't let people alter existing posts. As Bob said, it was likely an editing conflict. Aaronmichael5 13:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can see two possibilities: 1. Posts are impermanent and therefore are not real in any objective sense. 2. You had an edit conflict. My money is on 2 - but you may prefer 1. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The hell happened with Oxyaena?[edit]
I check the recent changes page like I tend to do and there seems to have been some sort of issue involving Oxyaena? He blocked himself and also deleted the entire userpage telling us to "go to hell". I'm genuinely not trying to start shit or anything, I'm confused as to how this all started or what's going on. --Yay for me, 
RightyBlueLuigi!(Not a Mod) 20:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- So like right after I posted this, he unblocked himself to leave a message on his talk page criticizing Ace. He also seems to be taking this to the chicken coop. I'm still rather confused but I guess that answers my question? Shrug? --Yay for me,
RightyBlueLuigi!(Not a Mod) 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ace's job is to deescalate problems and not provoke users into further dramas. His first few days as an admin have been pitiful and if I knew he'd behave like that I would never have included him anywhere on my ballot. Oxyeana has flown into a bit of a headless chicken mode ... cause messing with one's user page and starting up a coop case so quickly is a pretty brainless way to resolve problems. Luckily the coop case was sensibly ended before it got out of hand. I used to go flying into headless chicken mode on another wiki...especially when one particular admin would say the most bitchy provocative things that could infuriate anyone. I realised that when you feel enraged by people's schenanigans on a wiki (justified or not) its best to take a break for a few hours or days and come back with a rational and reasonable plan to work out the issues. And that if I ever became an admin...I would avoid being a dick to users who are easily provoked. ShabiDOO 22:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- You should have known that Ace would behave like this because I specifically pointed it out in the moderator campaign page (RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Campaigning#Candidate endorsement sheet): "This dispute with Oxyeana is not a good sign for either party's moderation capabilities, as it's been inappropriately dragged over from the mod board with neither party willing to just let it be." Bongolian (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ace's job is to deescalate problems and not provoke users into further dramas. His first few days as an admin have been pitiful and if I knew he'd behave like that I would never have included him anywhere on my ballot. Oxyeana has flown into a bit of a headless chicken mode ... cause messing with one's user page and starting up a coop case so quickly is a pretty brainless way to resolve problems. Luckily the coop case was sensibly ended before it got out of hand. I used to go flying into headless chicken mode on another wiki...especially when one particular admin would say the most bitchy provocative things that could infuriate anyone. I realised that when you feel enraged by people's schenanigans on a wiki (justified or not) its best to take a break for a few hours or days and come back with a rational and reasonable plan to work out the issues. And that if I ever became an admin...I would avoid being a dick to users who are easily provoked. ShabiDOO 22:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- tbh, I saw this coming. And I also knew that the next Chicken coop was going to be Oxy vs. Ace. This was WAY too predictable... Tinribmancer (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't followed what Oxyaena's complaint is exactly and she hasn't done a good job clarifying.. Ace wants to be more lenient with blocks? I don't agree if the users are being offensive to Oxyaena personally. Otherwise I think that some moderators here have left some tough decisions to a tech which is, to use a universal colloquialism, chicken shit. If you don't want to make it easier for contrary opinions to be seen, maybe its time to go, but I would request her to stay.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The crux of the disagreement is over blocking policy. Basically, Oxy wants to have a liberal interpretation of blocking policy, and Ace wants to strictly follow the blocking policy (see RationalWiki:Blocking policy). The blocking policy frequently says 'should' (not 'must') for reasons to block, and that would tend to support Oxy. However in support of Ace, the policy says, "For instance, if someone makes an edit that is not that bad but you personally disagree with it, then you should not block them, as you will most certainly be promoted for doing so..." Regarding "being offensive", if one were to be offensive to someone on RW repeatedly, depending on the nature of the offenses, it could be interpreted as harassment, which is worthy of a long-term block. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've taken the initiative in a lot of things, hence I could be called a de facto mod, not that it really matters. I also differ hugely with Ace and the "official" mod team on user rights and what being a mod entails, I believe the community itself should have greater powers in dealing with shit like this, and for a long time it was really informal, no one had a problem when I banned UT or TDM2 for instance, I was even thanked by LGM for "taking the initiative" in banning UT. Ace is trying to restrict such powers to mods themselves, and I see this as a blatant power grab from the community. — Oxyaena Harass 20:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I always thought that ikanreed or GC blocked TDM2. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK, so what it sounds like is a group of moderators manipulate Oxyaena into being the heavy, the de facto moderator, using her to do their unpleasant tasks. It seems like this wiki is only consistently tolerant of nobs who, to my knowledge, has been consistently wrong in every opinion he has ever expressed in black and white. When nobs speaks, everybody drinks. @Oxyaena Why can't you just ask another moderator when Ace does something you don't like? Why does everybody have to hear about it? No block is usually worth this kind of trouble.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I always thought that ikanreed or GC blocked TDM2. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've taken the initiative in a lot of things, hence I could be called a de facto mod, not that it really matters. I also differ hugely with Ace and the "official" mod team on user rights and what being a mod entails, I believe the community itself should have greater powers in dealing with shit like this, and for a long time it was really informal, no one had a problem when I banned UT or TDM2 for instance, I was even thanked by LGM for "taking the initiative" in banning UT. Ace is trying to restrict such powers to mods themselves, and I see this as a blatant power grab from the community. — Oxyaena Harass 20:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The crux of the disagreement is over blocking policy. Basically, Oxy wants to have a liberal interpretation of blocking policy, and Ace wants to strictly follow the blocking policy (see RationalWiki:Blocking policy). The blocking policy frequently says 'should' (not 'must') for reasons to block, and that would tend to support Oxy. However in support of Ace, the policy says, "For instance, if someone makes an edit that is not that bad but you personally disagree with it, then you should not block them, as you will most certainly be promoted for doing so..." Regarding "being offensive", if one were to be offensive to someone on RW repeatedly, depending on the nature of the offenses, it could be interpreted as harassment, which is worthy of a long-term block. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 At no point did moderators ever tell Oxyaena to do something that they didn't want to do because they wanted someone else to take the blame for it. As has already been said, it's not mods alone who decide who gets blocked. And we're not a secret cabal. You can see all of our conversations here on the wiki. Spud (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Spud I apologize for the ambiguity of my statement about the moderators. The rules under which moderation operates allow for a tech to proceed as if they were a moderator. When no moderator objects, that constitutes de facto approval, which is the tradition in western jurisprudence referred to as Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur. It is my view that when a case appears in the CC, the moderators have failed to succeed at their job. Is their lack of success intentional? If they don't even try conflict resolution beyond, "settle this yourselves or take it to the CC," then it would appear to be due to either their intention to not intervene out of fear of deciding wrongly in the majority view, or it is due to the progress of an inexorably deterministic system. Oh, I don't think you are as helpless as you make yourself out to be.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Dysk and I used to do a lot of the heavy lifting together, I still do but Dysk is gone now. — Oxyaena Harass 21:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Ariel31459 This is something that has been bothering me aswell. He literally stands for everything this site is against. Yet for some reason, EK nominated him for moderation, Oxy sended him an invite to the discord & Dysk endorsed him when he ran for the Board of Trustees last year... @Oxyaena Can't you convince Dysk to come back? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Dysk and I used to do a lot of the heavy lifting together, I still do but Dysk is gone now. — Oxyaena Harass 21:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It is not a simple matter for moderators to overule a single moderator. Ultimately, the power is in the mobocracy in the form of the coop, i.e., Sysops like you. Bongolian (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK. The problem is moderators are not acting coherently. It is plain that the moderators can choose any solution to decide disagreements among themselves that does not infringe the rights of the mob. Arguments settled by mutual consent, do not require a mob authorized method. There are any number of ad hoc lower court constructs that would not require a vote if done by consent. e.g.: in any serious dispute between sysops, including moderators. either the question goes directly to the coop, or each disputant agrees to pick a moderator and the two selected moderators decide the issue if they can. Otherwise it goes to the coop or is dropped. This is a way to create a lower court system while still respecting the mob. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- If one wants coherency among moderators, perhaps there should only be one elected, or perhaps a political slate. Anyway the problem with a majority of moderators overruling a single dissident moderator is that that the dissident still has the ability to go to the coop and appeal to the mob to overrule the moderators. Bongolian (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Am I being described as a single dissident moderator? Because I don't know what I have done to deserve such a epitaph. AceModerator 01:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Bongolian Would that really be a problem if a general vote were called for? On the other hand, what if the two disputants agreed to mediation by a third person (moderator?). The problem as I see it is the moderators don't know they can suggest methods of dispute resolution short of everybody voting (which is really tedious) Your point suggests you are satisfied with the current situation. Good. Someone is happy. Better than nothing.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't draw the conclusion that I'm happy with the status quo. We work within a mobocracy for better or worse. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then we are the victims of a deterministic system after all. God damn it.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, @Ace McWicked, I was writing abstractly. Bongolian (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I`m willing to arbitrate my troubles and come to a resolution everyone (including myself) can agree upon fyi. This is a good start I'll admit, but the very nature of this site is ultimately at stake here, such a thing can't be left to a bar discussion. It needs a community wide discussion and/or vote in the end as per mobocratic principles. — Oxyaena Harass 06:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, @Ace McWicked, I was writing abstractly. Bongolian (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then we are the victims of a deterministic system after all. God damn it.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't draw the conclusion that I'm happy with the status quo. We work within a mobocracy for better or worse. Bongolian (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- If one wants coherency among moderators, perhaps there should only be one elected, or perhaps a political slate. Anyway the problem with a majority of moderators overruling a single dissident moderator is that that the dissident still has the ability to go to the coop and appeal to the mob to overrule the moderators. Bongolian (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@RightyBlueLuigi, @Shabidoo If you haven't been following the discussion in RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation, it appears that the Ace/Oxy conflagration may have been de-escalated to a truce. I hope I don't have to eat my words. Bongolian (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Appreciation for the Survivalism article[edit]
I've found Survivalism to be a good resource on a personal level because it's not immediately obvious that rugged individualist prepper myths are precisely that, myths, and the article does a good job of debunking something that is rarely questioned otherwise (only other time I've heard something along these lines is The Hunger Games, where Haymitch shocks Katniss by pointing out the secret to survival is to "get people to like you."). Some time in the new future, I'd also like to add Special Period Cuba as an example of survivalism in practice, since it's well known for shifting the country towards organic, urban agriculture to address food shortages. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! I wrote a good chunk of that article. As somebody who lives in Florida hurricane country and has a "bug-out bag" out of necessity, I've always seen survivalism as fueled by a deep, antisocial, nihilistic distrust of not only the government, but society in general. The tone I get from a lot of survivalist writings is that they actively want civilization to collapse, because they think that they and people like them will wind up better off in the aftermath. Fight Club touched on a lot of the same stuff concerning men who, even though they may be comfortably upper-middle class and among the "winners" in modern society, feel utterly unfulfilled by it. Survivalism is the same deal as Project Mayhem: a movement of (mostly) men trying to preserve a sense of "rugged individualism" in a world that's grown smaller, flatter, and more interconnected by the day, where the frontiers are long gone. IMO, the Unabomber was this idea taken to the logical extreme, seeing the march of progress and civilization as an inherently emasculating, oppressive force and actively trying to destroy it. I'd love to see your add on Cuba's "special period", but an even better idea might be looking at the collapse of communism more broadly, and how different ex-communist states reacted to it. (In Russia, you had the takeover by the oligarchs, while in North Korea, the government fell deeper into totalitarianism.) KevinR1990 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Is Poland doing OK?[edit]
I just saw this article talking about how some far-right activists are proposing making giving restitution to holocaust victims / descendants of holocaust victims illegal. Punishments include jail time up to 25 years for giving restitution (from my research, this is the highest jail time allowed in Polish law unless the criminal is a terrorist or commits mass murder). My question is, how popular is this kind of politics in Poland? Is this just a bunch of loud far-right activists, or is such a thing gaining substantial steam in Poland? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Poland unfortunately has been ruled by the Law and Justice (PiS) party, a party that likes to bash gays and give handouts, since 2015 I believe. They are rather illiberal, though at present not at Turkey / Hungary levels of authoritarian-ish tomfoolery. Apparently the event in the article (Independence Day march) was was organized by Ruch Narodowy (National Movement), Obóz Narodowo-Radykalny (National Radical Camp), and Młodzież Wszechpolska (All-Polish Youth) per AP, three organizations that are well to the fascist right of Law and Justice. This side gets about 5-7% of the vote these days (can't find the demos on the radical groups but Law and Justice seems to be your Trumpian demographic equivalent, and I would speculate ala some white nationalist groups in the US, these groups are for people who find PiS not racist enough). The Holocaust restitution issue actually seems like one of the devices the far right uses as a "wedge" to attract votes, kind of like how the Republicans babble about bathrooms. (Anti-Semitism? Sure! The fact that the United States also advocates such probably doesn't help). If I were a Pole, particularly one outside the PiS demographic, I would worry a fair bit considering ultranationalist rallies are attracting tens of thousands of people. Typically, US events of this nature attract hundreds at most. I wouldn't consider that good. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The PiS is also trying to rewrite Polish history by basically claiming that no Pole was complicit in the Holocaust. The PiS had the entire staff of the Museum of the Second World War summarily terminated, then only rehired them if they signed an agreement that conformed to the the PiS's historical revisionism.[5] Bongolian (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't this, more or less, some form of propaganda? Holy shit... Tinribmancer (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- there has been a uptick in antisemitism all across Europe. PiS is uncomfortably far right. legislation concerning its role in the holocaust and reparations are more for nationalist sentiment and certainly inflame antisemitism.
- but these laws didn't just come out of nowhere. there has always been unease and debate over polands exact role during the holocaust. unlike other countries during ww2 its government did not collaborate with the Nazis, it was simply removed, and in areas where the polish population was not simply ethnically cleansed or exterminated, punishment for noncompliance in their roles conscripted to them was brutal and fatal. So what does 'compicit' here mean for a population brutalised into obidience? its been hotly debated.
- the death camps were in Poland but there were no polish guards. some 90% of the jewish population murdered but 20% of polands population was killed, half were non jewish poles. Poland suffered greatly during the war, more so than other countries. it must sting to not be seen as a victim in all that. must sting that some portion of blame is to be parcelled out to them. must sting to be expected to pay reparations, when Poland itself never received any.
- it must also sting that unlike other countries Poland was never liberated. it was occupied by the other country that had invaded them at the start of the war, guilty of their own crimes and oppression and murder, with Russia only taking responsibility for katyn in 2010. suffering still more from Stalinist purges, with Nazi collaboration being a trumped up charge.
- its not difficult to see why the polish might be a bit touchy on the subject. its not difficult to see how easy it is for PiS to exploit. these laws may well be inflammatory, may well be a worrying sign. but they cant simply be dismissed as rabid right wing revisionism. theres a bit more to it than that. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't this, more or less, some form of propaganda? Holy shit... Tinribmancer (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The PiS is also trying to rewrite Polish history by basically claiming that no Pole was complicit in the Holocaust. The PiS had the entire staff of the Museum of the Second World War summarily terminated, then only rehired them if they signed an agreement that conformed to the the PiS's historical revisionism.[5] Bongolian (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Kamala is Out[edit]
Never really cared about her after besides her awesome takedown of Joe Biden. — Jeh2ow Damn son!
- Just another useless run of the mill centrist. — Oxyaena Harass 20:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Which was obvious, since she only gained 7%. Still waiting for Miss Woo & Yangnam style to drop out. Tinribmancer (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- TBH, Marianne Williamson should've dropped out a long time ago. It's surprising she and both Delaney and Hindu Assad Apologist are still running. — Jeh2ow Damn son!
- Surprise, Oxyaena! Most voters are centrists. Bongolian (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- This exactly. Even if the lefties got their dream candidate in the White House, they’d still have to struggle against a Congress that would be, at best, moderate left. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wellllll, "Yangnam style" is kinda gross, even if I don't consider Andrew Yang a viable candidate and wouldn't vote for him. And I agree, most American voters are centrists, the party on the right works a lot more cohesively under the banner of loyalty over solidarity and pushes the center as far right as mental-gymnastics allow. Not to say solidarity is even remotely possible in the modern world of individualism. So, we wake up each morning to America's centrist dream, the land of all rational nightmares solved by just saying "That's a little too far left for the current political climate."
- Also, some of the most politically inclined readers that I have.... The privilege to hear from, for a while about a year ago could only remember Harris as What's her name, "Hobama," so my issues with her actions as a public prosecutor aside, the political war machine rages on. And only one side loses. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Bongolian and that's why this country is doomed. — Oxyaena Harass 05:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- So, there's no one able to kick Trump's ass? Tinribmancer (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Bongolian and that's why this country is doomed. — Oxyaena Harass 05:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also, some of the most politically inclined readers that I have.... The privilege to hear from, for a while about a year ago could only remember Harris as What's her name, "Hobama," so my issues with her actions as a public prosecutor aside, the political war machine rages on. And only one side loses. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wellllll, "Yangnam style" is kinda gross, even if I don't consider Andrew Yang a viable candidate and wouldn't vote for him. And I agree, most American voters are centrists, the party on the right works a lot more cohesively under the banner of loyalty over solidarity and pushes the center as far right as mental-gymnastics allow. Not to say solidarity is even remotely possible in the modern world of individualism. So, we wake up each morning to America's centrist dream, the land of all rational nightmares solved by just saying "That's a little too far left for the current political climate."
- This exactly. Even if the lefties got their dream candidate in the White House, they’d still have to struggle against a Congress that would be, at best, moderate left.
- Surprise, Oxyaena! Most voters are centrists. Bongolian (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Practicing My Skepticism[edit]
The second characteristic of maya is more subtle. Anything that appears is not real. This seems like a contradiction. Anything that appears must be real by virtue of its appearance. It has a presence and therefor must have a reality. But we can also say that anything that appears must also disappear. This implies that anything that has a beginning must also have an end. Including your birth. If you are born you must die. If you believe in your birth and death, and your existence consists of the span of these points, the you will suffer, because it implies you were born to die. This sounds harsh but there is no denying birth and death are linked to each other. Finally our perception of life is bound by space and time, or perception of it is a product of maya. This points to human consciousness being finite and limited, appreciating reality in specific forms and their evolutions. It cannot conceive beyond those boundaries. The implications are enormous. For instance, there seems to be a space or sense of division between us and everything else. This implies who we are is separate from everyone else. This sense of duality causes suffering because it separates us from the source of our existence. Examining what reality is not we can see what it is. Reality is unchangeable. It does not have a beginning or end, but always been and always will be. It is not bound by space and time and therefor doesn’t have different parts or facets, nor qualities or characteristics, it is absolute and infinite and therefor beyond the dimension of form. If we believe we are the body and our senses we are disconnected from our essence. At some point, when realize there is no substantial reality to this formed existence, we can then take the steps require to lift our awareness beyond the changing field, and let it merge with, or dissolve into, the Absolute Pure Consciousness.
The above was something I found in a magazine (called "the light of consciousness"). Anyway from what I gather reality does nothing but change and is space and time, to think of it as beyond space and time is…..well I don’t have an answer. I don’t know what happened beyond the Big Bang as space-time was only present after it happened. Also I find his logic on “real” flawed, but that is more my intuition than anything else. Finally I know that as far as I know we just have human consciousness, and no amount of meditation or drugs will change that reality.Machina (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know, drugs help me gain insight into the nature of the divine...... — Oxyaena Harass 05:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Eat more Soma.
Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Time to drink the moon RationalHindu (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Moonlight is constipating.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Time to drink the moon RationalHindu (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Eat more Soma.
Come on, I’m being serious here. I’m trying for once to stand on my own.Machina (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Policy about collapsing posts[edit]
|
Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead! |
What is the policy about collapsing posts of other users on talk pages? Who can do that and under which circumstances? I didn't find it on the community standard. Tokyo (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Again, the community standards are not gospel, you wouldn't find it in there. — Oxyaena Harass 13:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then let me ask about it in the Saloon bar, without immediately accusing me of being a troll. By the way, I never asked about community standards before, hence your "again" is gratuitous. Tokyo (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to know too. Melody (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- there doesn't seem to be explicit policy. I guess obvious trolling is acceptable to hide, but other things, such as Machina's endless philosophical questions, or someone posting a huge wall of text, is more borderline. It often, I think, comes down to how someone feels on the day. And I've seen collapses get undone because a third person thought them unjustified. Avida Dollarsher again 19:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Avida Dollars I think that collapsing other users' posts on talk pages, with the purpose of mocking their content is contrary to "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Except for spam, which can be removed, other users posts should not be edited. Tokyo (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- The posts in question aren't being edited. Other edits are occurring, which affects the edits in question. Yes, I know which edits you're clutching pearls about, and no, they weren't edited or censored, not beyond a basic level of preventing someone's literary vomit from being an eyesore. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then I rephrase my position as "Except for spam, which can be removed, other users posts should not be
editedtouched," since some one thinks that collapsing a post does not constitute an edit of such post. Tokyo (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)- If someone posts threatening, racist, violent, or other seriously objectionable content on a talk page, I do not collapse it, I vaporize it. I don't consider such content to be "spam". Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Cosmikdebris Well, I think we all agree that threats, racism, violent, or other seriously objectionable content should be removed.
- As I said before, I think that collapsing other users' posts on talk pages, with the purpose of mocking their content is contrary to "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue."
- The situation goes this way: User 1 writes a reply (which is not spam, threats, racism, etc.) on a talk page; User 2 doesn't like such reply and so collapses it and puts a mocking title to the collapse form like: "User 1 doesn't understand X and is an idiot." Tokyo (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- If someone posts threatening, racist, violent, or other seriously objectionable content on a talk page, I do not collapse it, I vaporize it. I don't consider such content to be "spam". Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then I rephrase my position as "Except for spam, which can be removed, other users posts should not be
- The posts in question aren't being edited. Other edits are occurring, which affects the edits in question. Yes, I know which edits you're clutching pearls about, and no, they weren't edited or censored, not beyond a basic level of preventing someone's literary vomit from being an eyesore. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Avida Dollars I think that collapsing other users' posts on talk pages, with the purpose of mocking their content is contrary to "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Except for spam, which can be removed, other users posts should not be edited. Tokyo (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- there doesn't seem to be explicit policy. I guess obvious trolling is acceptable to hide, but other things, such as Machina's endless philosophical questions, or someone posting a huge wall of text, is more borderline. It often, I think, comes down to how someone feels on the day. And I've seen collapses get undone because a third person thought them unjustified. Avida Dollarsher again 19:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
If someone is blatantly trolling (including its various flavors concern trolling, JAQing, Sealioning, etc.), that is certainly worthy of collapse so as to discourage troll baiting and to encourage the discussion of actual issues. Bongolian (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Cosmikdebris @Bongolian Tokyo is bitching (yes bitching, whining, whinging, etc) about my collapses on this talkepage, but won't come out and say it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
What's Your Views on Israel-Palestine?[edit]
Mine is essentially the same as Bernie Sanders. According to my bio page, I am a Zionist, but I also believe that Palestinians need to have basic human rights. I may not agree on things like BDS, but I know that the best option is a two-state solution.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a supporter of Palestine, specifically a supporter of a secular socialist Palestine. I believe that Israel is an illegitimate state as well as an arparthied state. RationalHindu (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer what I call the three state solution, even though it isn't practical. The whole country just cut in half, with Israel on one side and Palestine on the other. Then a big ass International military checkpoint on the boarder with clearance to kill either side's military on sight. Thus the conflict is resolved, forever. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- All states are illegitimate states, but Israel especially. Have you read on the ethnic cleansing done during the 50's and 60's to make way for Jewish settlers? Disgusting. — Oxyaena Harass 18:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- 1) A sufficient summary of my viewpoint is this article quote: "[Isreal] cannot have at the same time a strong Jewish majority, all the land and a full democracy that does not discriminate against Arabs. In the end it must sacrifice either land in a two-state solution; or a Jewish majority in a big “binational” state; or the claim to being a proper democracy. It has tried to avoid such stark choices through messy partial withdrawals. But the more permanent its occupation becomes, the more it risks sliding towards apartheid."
- 2) From a US perspective, I do believe that AIPAC has way too much lobbying influence in Congress, and IMHO (due to alignment with the Netanyahu hawks) actually promotes some policies that are not terribly representative of the typical American Jewish viewpoint anymore. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am in favor of both the one state and two state solutions. Tanker One (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict because mediawiki is the spawn of beelzebub) 1. This discussion is a lot more civil than than the shitfest that all but tore the wiki apart a few years ago. 2. To add to the AIPAC comment above, there's also a strong belief among American Christian evangelicals that Israel needs to exist in order to bring about Armageddon and the Second Coming, and this has a strong influence on US middle east policy. 3. I try not to thing about point 2 much because it's fucking terrifying. Avida Dollarsher again 18:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- All states are illegitimate states, but Israel especially. Have you read on the ethnic cleansing done during the 50's and 60's to make way for Jewish settlers? Disgusting. — Oxyaena Harass 18:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer what I call the three state solution, even though it isn't practical. The whole country just cut in half, with Israel on one side and Palestine on the other. Then a big ass International military checkpoint on the boarder with clearance to kill either side's military on sight. Thus the conflict is resolved, forever. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand that your viewpoints are different than mine. 1948 was to Israelis as a year of triumph, while to the Palestinians, it was a year of the genocide. I support Israel's right to exist not because I believe of the Armaggedon, but because I think Jews need a home country, especially after centuries of persecution. However, I am not a big fan of Netanyahu and his government. Criticism of the Israeli government isn't always anti-Zionist, much less anti-semitic. Someone aught to tell Ben Shapiro.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, you can oppose Israeli policy towards the palestinians without being anti-semitic, or even anti-israel. It's similar to opposing apartheid backalong, you could oppose that without calling for South Africa to be dissolved or its white population to be brought back to Europe. Avida Dollarsher again 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- EXACTLY— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- The stealing of native lands, putting palestinians in reservations (concentration camps) and the conflicts that resulted in many many murdered for no justifiable reason, are akin to Europeans and their atrocities in North America. There was always some other possible solution to the millions of Jewish people left over after the horrors of the hollocaust including mass migration to the United States. It didn't have to include the destruction and violation of another people's lands, customs and rights. Since it happened...and since its been decades with Israel well established with a multi-generation functioning society, I agree with the right for Israel to exist. No doubt. But for there to be any moral legitimacy to it's existence, Israel should make multiple concessions with the palestinians, compensate them generously and either integrate them totally equally into one country or set up two states with a fair division of land and adequate resources to develop. And they should stop stalling and using the excuse of safety to drag on this conflict for several more decades. And stop with the fucking settlements and water-stealing and countless provocative moves. On the reverse Palestine has to get its extremism under control which has, so far, never been done. And it most certainly wouldn't hurt if they worked on their dismal treatment of women, LGTB, black people, non-traditional muslim beliefs and sexual harassment and violence. While its certainly no Saudi Arabia...it is still a god awful place to be a woman or a homosexual. Besides the grotesque daily human rights violations of Palestinians by Israeli forces...and lack of humanity (often on both sides) one of the more insidious elements of the conflict is the attempt to smear criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism which is viciously manipulative and a disgraceful way to treat the memories of millions of Jews who suffered and died under the persecution of actual anti-semitism. While I admire the partially progressive society they have created and their ability to survive in an extremely hostile atmosphere...I simply cannot ignore or pretend the inhuman treatment of Palestinians are some how justified under a plethora of what are, individually justifiable grievances...but collectively not remotely justifiable for the current modus operandi of Israel. The UK Labour party is indeed full of anti-semitism and Corbyn has a few really stupid ideas (though not all of them) and should wake up and get it under control. Until he does he is a false liberal and a disgrace to the progressive world. ShabiDOO 21:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I like your style, ShabiDOO. I don't know about Corbyn being an anti-Semite, (although I am aware of him saying dumb things before) but you are right. For Israel, the "colonizing" would make their existence illegitimate, but by that logic, countries like the United States would also be illegitimate, because the colonists also killed the natives to make way for their land. And let's not forget that Palestine has their own issues, from poor leadership (think Hamas) to their conservative views on things like religion. Neither party is innocent, and there is only one way to make Israelis and Palestinians happy, a two-state solution. Not because it sounds like a good idea, but because it's the only way we don't have more bloodshed.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 22:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Israel initiated the conflict in the first place, and the US isn't a legitimate state either. — Oxyaena Harass 23:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- True, but legitimacy is based on opinion, as in, did they have a good reason to exist. Israel was created as a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust, while America exists because pilgrims wanted religious freedom. Of course, there are consequences for everything, including Israel's founding. The good consequences include their heavy scientific knowledge, having an amazing health-care system (better than the US, at least) and being one of the most educated countries in the world. The bad consequences are, obviously, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and most of the time, it isn't even anti-Zionist. In fact, several scholars say that criticizing Israel could actually give their government (not the current one, for obvious reasons) ideas on how to improve their relationship with the Palestinians without going into war. I still believe in a two-state solution, and I hope others will.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 00:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot think of a single valid reason to uproot, take over and opress a people because your own people have major dire problems and you refuse to consider another solution. What the British did in America was represensible. Same goes for the creation of Israel. What China did in Tibet. How India took over the Indian Ocean Islands. How some countries still supplant minority groups to build hydro-damns and toxic mining projects. This is an error that we keep repeating again and again. It's barbarous. And I'm not going to pretend like there is any more shred of justification of it per the state of Israel because the Western world treated them so barbarously, grotesquely and inhumanely. I don't know a single moral or ethical system that justifies that kind of mass suffering on such an inhumane scale to simply solve the problems of another group to their most convenient form and their long awaited wishes. Regardless of how nice their hospital beds are now. Justin Trudeau the so called friend of Canada's first nations, the false progressive that he is...is still fighting kicking and screaming from paying Native Canadians the compensation they are due for a 21st century scandal of racist social-welfare abuse...ordered by a court that Trudeau is still fighting. And that's in happy land nordic forward looking Canada. We haven't even remotely started admitting to the scale of this human calamity or dealing with the modern fall-out. So yeah, you can exist while still admitting, appologising, repairing and healing the wounds. ShabiDOO 04:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- True, but legitimacy is based on opinion, as in, did they have a good reason to exist. Israel was created as a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust, while America exists because pilgrims wanted religious freedom. Of course, there are consequences for everything, including Israel's founding. The good consequences include their heavy scientific knowledge, having an amazing health-care system (better than the US, at least) and being one of the most educated countries in the world. The bad consequences are, obviously, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and most of the time, it isn't even anti-Zionist. In fact, several scholars say that criticizing Israel could actually give their government (not the current one, for obvious reasons) ideas on how to improve their relationship with the Palestinians without going into war. I still believe in a two-state solution, and I hope others will.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 00:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Israel initiated the conflict in the first place, and the US isn't a legitimate state either. — Oxyaena Harass 23:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I like your style, ShabiDOO. I don't know about Corbyn being an anti-Semite, (although I am aware of him saying dumb things before) but you are right. For Israel, the "colonizing" would make their existence illegitimate, but by that logic, countries like the United States would also be illegitimate, because the colonists also killed the natives to make way for their land. And let's not forget that Palestine has their own issues, from poor leadership (think Hamas) to their conservative views on things like religion. Neither party is innocent, and there is only one way to make Israelis and Palestinians happy, a two-state solution. Not because it sounds like a good idea, but because it's the only way we don't have more bloodshed.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 22:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- The stealing of native lands, putting palestinians in reservations (concentration camps) and the conflicts that resulted in many many murdered for no justifiable reason, are akin to Europeans and their atrocities in North America. There was always some other possible solution to the millions of Jewish people left over after the horrors of the hollocaust including mass migration to the United States. It didn't have to include the destruction and violation of another people's lands, customs and rights. Since it happened...and since its been decades with Israel well established with a multi-generation functioning society, I agree with the right for Israel to exist. No doubt. But for there to be any moral legitimacy to it's existence, Israel should make multiple concessions with the palestinians, compensate them generously and either integrate them totally equally into one country or set up two states with a fair division of land and adequate resources to develop. And they should stop stalling and using the excuse of safety to drag on this conflict for several more decades. And stop with the fucking settlements and water-stealing and countless provocative moves. On the reverse Palestine has to get its extremism under control which has, so far, never been done. And it most certainly wouldn't hurt if they worked on their dismal treatment of women, LGTB, black people, non-traditional muslim beliefs and sexual harassment and violence. While its certainly no Saudi Arabia...it is still a god awful place to be a woman or a homosexual. Besides the grotesque daily human rights violations of Palestinians by Israeli forces...and lack of humanity (often on both sides) one of the more insidious elements of the conflict is the attempt to smear criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism which is viciously manipulative and a disgraceful way to treat the memories of millions of Jews who suffered and died under the persecution of actual anti-semitism. While I admire the partially progressive society they have created and their ability to survive in an extremely hostile atmosphere...I simply cannot ignore or pretend the inhuman treatment of Palestinians are some how justified under a plethora of what are, individually justifiable grievances...but collectively not remotely justifiable for the current modus operandi of Israel. The UK Labour party is indeed full of anti-semitism and Corbyn has a few really stupid ideas (though not all of them) and should wake up and get it under control. Until he does he is a false liberal and a disgrace to the progressive world. ShabiDOO 21:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- EXACTLY— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- What makes the situation especially sad is that while modern Jews are primarily descended from ancient Israelites (with some foreign DNA, like virtually everyone else on Earth), the Palestinians are primarily descended from the ancient Samaritans (with, again, some mixture in there). The Israelites and Samaritans, notably, being virtually the same people but viciously fought over stupid reasons. The more things change... CoryUsar (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
As an American, what I am mostly tired of is that a third of the world hates us because of our joined at the hip relationship with Israel. There was a time when it was possible to admire Israel. It was the only place in its area where you could assemble an orchestra to play Beethoven. It is no longer possible for me to admire them. They have become another tribal state in the world's armpit. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The Outer Worlds[edit]
Should we have a Funspace article on it? I have been playing through it, and it some stuff to say about late stage capitalism, but doesn't seem to warrent it in mainspace.Tanker One (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not a moderator, but I'm considering it.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Don't need to be a moderator to make pages. And why not have a funspace page on it? Don't see anything against having one. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Funspace is usually used as a way to snark at on-mission topics. But I wouldn't be so purist as to deny broadening its scope to things that are off-mission and fun. I only worry it could be a moderation nightmare, since this is a public wiki. Are there fun pages that aren't tied to on-mission pages? I don't use essays, so I'm not sure how those work, but maybe that's something to consider? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- there isn't actually much to say about the outer worlds and its message is simply 'corporations are bad' its so unsubtle with that it doesnt require any analysis. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you have played the game, you would know of Monarch Stellar Industries, which is portrayed as a "Good" Corporation, which suggest there might be something more. Even then, as Jim Sterling pointed out, it is important in the game industry as it tries to squeeze every last dime out of the people that play their games and the current fight to make you not own the game, just to have the right to access it.Tanker One (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have played the game and no, there isn't much more. there really isn't. its fun and all, but a little on the nose. everything you just mentioned is a stretch. a big one. it just has a business model that is increasingly rare these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I still think we should have a Funspace article on it, along with a few other video games. Also, Ellie and Felix's attitude to revolution and parents shows how many people want to just do something, but rarely follow up with it.Tanker One (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have played the game and no, there isn't much more. there really isn't. its fun and all, but a little on the nose. everything you just mentioned is a stretch. a big one. it just has a business model that is increasingly rare these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you have played the game, you would know of Monarch Stellar Industries, which is portrayed as a "Good" Corporation, which suggest there might be something more. Even then, as Jim Sterling pointed out, it is important in the game industry as it tries to squeeze every last dime out of the people that play their games and the current fight to make you not own the game, just to have the right to access it.Tanker One (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- there isn't actually much to say about the outer worlds and its message is simply 'corporations are bad' its so unsubtle with that it doesnt require any analysis. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Funspace is usually used as a way to snark at on-mission topics. But I wouldn't be so purist as to deny broadening its scope to things that are off-mission and fun. I only worry it could be a moderation nightmare, since this is a public wiki. Are there fun pages that aren't tied to on-mission pages? I don't use essays, so I'm not sure how those work, but maybe that's something to consider? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Don't need to be a moderator to make pages. And why not have a funspace page on it? Don't see anything against having one. --It's-a me,
Trump Impeachment update[edit]
Why are the republicans using the Bill Clinton impeachment as their "defense" weapon? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Tinribmancer Because they're two-faced soulless hypocrites with no shame? A better question would be, why don't we just launch a full scale investigation into the Republican party and its many, many, many, crimes? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- And who's going to support the democrats? Congress is filled with republicans. The white house aswell and the mayority of the senate too. Not too mention all the shitty conspiracy theories that would get launched by many of the people we have pages off... Tinribmancer (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, both parties should either grow up, by which I mean adopt actual viable policies, or implode. But more to the point, the GOP is 100% crap, while the Dems are only 97% crap. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- The United States constitution symbolises the literal rape of black and brown bodies. Trans Crusader (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- It'll serve the nation well if Democrats can stop kissing billionaire butt and stop being so goddamned timid and fragile when it comes to caving to GOP demands of putting half of all ducklings in a wood shaver. But a good way to get them to move is if the Republicans get politically neutered, the Overton window gets shifted left as it should have anyway, so we can move the Democrats with more confidence without having to worry about how the GOP feels. How are we going to achieve that in a nation deeply infested by Fox News and other conservative outlets, I don't know. At least the midterms show that there's enough people that are fed up with these Republicans but who knows how long that resentment lasts? It's not like Bush completely destroyed confidence in ever voting Republican again even though he should have. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- It'll serve the nation well if Democrats can stop kissing billionaire butt and stop being so goddamned timid and fragile when it comes to caving to GOP demands of putting half of all ducklings in a wood shaver. But a good way to get them to move is if the Republicans get politically neutered, the Overton window gets shifted left as it should have anyway, so we can move the Democrats with more confidence without having to worry about how the GOP feels. How are we going to achieve that in a nation deeply infested by Fox News and other conservative outlets, I don't know. At least the midterms show that there's enough people that are fed up with these Republicans but who knows how long that resentment lasts? It's not like Bush completely destroyed confidence in ever voting Republican again even though he should have. --It's-a me,
- The United States constitution symbolises the literal rape of black and brown bodies. Trans Crusader (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, both parties should either grow up, by which I mean adopt actual viable policies, or implode. But more to the point, the GOP is 100% crap, while the Dems are only 97% crap. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- And who's going to support the democrats? Congress is filled with republicans. The white house aswell and the mayority of the senate too. Not too mention all the shitty conspiracy theories that would get launched by many of the people we have pages off... Tinribmancer (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Stephen Miller, Anyone?[edit]
I mean, it's pretty obvious he's a white supremacist. Here's my draft.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 21:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- You are a person of few words I see. Yes to an article. No to the "draft" as it is not an article yet.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Be ready for some complete religious BS.[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KMwSHj12Tk
This video is of the highest cringe. For those who do not want to waste 6 minutes of their life- the video is a woman telling a "true" story about her satanic ritual abuse caused by her dad who was a satanic priest. The ingredients of this video include: God saving the victim from Satanists, the victim leading a life of promiscuity, supposedly having an abortion, getting a mental health diagnosis from a Christian counselor and the Satanic priest accepting Christ on his death bed.
I watched the entire video. The woman's story is full of holes and does not make any logical sense. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Heh, I thought the satanic ritual abuse panic largely died out at the end of the 1990s. I guess it still lives on. The only SRA case I've heard so far that seemed to have some elements of "truth" was a tiny Louisiana ultrafundie Christian cult church that may have dipped into Satanic symbolism when they went into the kiddie abuse angle because of course Satandiddit. (This more or less describes shitty cult and power / sexual abuse, in other words, which knows no religious bounds, and of whose behavior, minus the Z-grade horror movie emulation bullshit, can even be found in very large "mainstream" religions too.) The "first reaction" to me based on your description (did not watch video :) ) is that the woman had an abusive father, which led to some mental health disorders as it often does, and that's probably the root cause. How much Satandidit was actually involved is frankly irrelevant. My advise to the woman, not that she'd listen, is there are better places to manage mental health issues than the cults that promote nonsense like SRA (cults tend to treat those with mental health issues as prey.) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Any drug experts here?[edit]
I’ve been trying to improve some of RW’s drug related articles (drugs r my special interest), but I just don’t know enough and don’t have access to many journal articles! I know it’s probably not high priority stuff, but if there are any drug experts here, maybe please help out with these articles! 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 11:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Drugs should be legal, the drug war destroys lives and empowers Mexican cartels.23.118.143.3 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- True shit 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 13:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- define 'expert' here. its a subjective term generally, but more so with drugs. a habit is not the same as expertise, and 'drugs should be legal' is empty rhetoric. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- When I say “expert” I mean someone who actually knows how drugs affect the brain/body/etc scientifically. I do a lot of drugs but I’m not an “expert”, so I was hoping someone who knew what they were talking about could correct/expand upon a lot of the drug shit in the articles. I’ve tried to put in the stuff I know and reference it, but a lot of it is too complex for me to understand fully. 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 14:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Fir example, in LSD I added a section about how LSD acts as a serotonin agonist, but what it ACTUALLY makes the brain do is too complicated and fucky for me to really go into, so I was hoping someone else who knew that shit could do it. 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 14:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think even neuropharmocologists know *exactly* how LSD works. :) Not an expert neuroscientist either, but I thought your LSD edit is fine for now. Only quibble is that the entire class of 5HT2A hallucinogens is very, very large (see: "research chemicals") and I'm not sure if it's true that most are non-dopaminergic. So maybe change "most" to "many" and maybe reference the other classic 5-HT2A antagonist, psilocybin (aka "magic mushrooms"), since that has low affinity for dopamine per the wiki. (As far as I know, LSD, psilocybin/mushrooms, and two drugs in a minor role -- mescaline and DMT -- are the main 5HT2A antagonist hallucinogens in common use.) The clearest explanation I've seen for how it produces its effects on a limited Google is here (under the "LSD pharmacology" section) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- define 'expert' here. its a subjective term generally, but more so with drugs. a habit is not the same as expertise, and 'drugs should be legal' is empty rhetoric. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- True shit 💙 ASELAនិយាយ 💙 13:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The "Baron" Trump controvery[edit]
Thoughts on this recent controversy? Frankly both sides look like absolute idiots. The republicans are too angry over a "joke", though I think Matt Gaetz's reaction was the correct one. However to be fair Pamela Karlan's "pun" was highly out of line and not really appropriate. It was petty, and dumb. An Eighteen year old can't be a Baron if he has no ower. If she had said that about his older children it might possibly have been accurate but in this case I think it doesn't. 23.118.143.3 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC) sources: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/dec/05/impeachment-hearing-joke-referencing-barron-trump-draws-angry-response-video https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/republicans-invade-barron-trumps-privacy-drag-him-into-politics.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/politics/melania-trump-barron-trump-impeachment-hearing/index.html — Unsigned, by: 23.118.143.3 / talk
- Ahem, "BOTH SIDES!" That is all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- you don't use someones kids as a means to attack them. that's pretty basic stuff. not even the adult ones, unless they are part of the story. it doesn't matter if its not that bad or that trumps probably said much worse. and as it was said at an impeachment hearing where everything is magnified and distorted it was simply idiotic. shes already being characterised as a fanaticAMassiveGay (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Tough shit, Barron Trump is bourgeois, I could give two fucks about him. — Oxyaena Harass 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- It was probably a dumb thing to say from a political perspective, but it's not like she insulted the kid. It's a fake outrage story that the right is using to distract from the actual facts of the impeachment inquiry. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 14:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. One is a Faux Pas, the other is actual criminal violations. And make no mistake, Trump is guilty of 1-2 charges already, only being saved from a fine and/or imprisonment by the undue deference we show the Executive Branch. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- The right's faux outrage over Barron, given how they treated Chelsea & the Obama girls, never fails to amaze me. Melania is clutching her peals now, but she was pretty quiet when her hubby attacked Thunberg, or when the SD kids were being victimised. There's probably a huge amount of projection going on too, as we've yet to see Trump doing anything fatherly with Barron. The only thing we've ever see him do with his kids is grope Ivanka. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- He groped his own daughter? Holy shit...! Tinribmancer (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- The right's faux outrage over Barron, given how they treated Chelsea & the Obama girls, never fails to amaze me. Melania is clutching her peals now, but she was pretty quiet when her hubby attacked Thunberg, or when the SD kids were being victimised. There's probably a huge amount of projection going on too, as we've yet to see Trump doing anything fatherly with Barron. The only thing we've ever see him do with his kids is grope Ivanka. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. One is a Faux Pas, the other is actual criminal violations. And make no mistake, Trump is guilty of 1-2 charges already, only being saved from a fine and/or imprisonment by the undue deference we show the Executive Branch. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- It was probably a dumb thing to say from a political perspective, but it's not like she insulted the kid. It's a fake outrage story that the right is using to distract from the actual facts of the impeachment inquiry. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 14:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Tough shit, Barron Trump is bourgeois, I could give two fucks about him. — Oxyaena Harass 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- you don't use someones kids as a means to attack them. that's pretty basic stuff. not even the adult ones, unless they are part of the story. it doesn't matter if its not that bad or that trumps probably said much worse. and as it was said at an impeachment hearing where everything is magnified and distorted it was simply idiotic. shes already being characterised as a fanaticAMassiveGay (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It's fake outrage that no one will remember. "Off with their heads!" Now that's one to remember. Bongolian (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- what outrage isn't fake? its all political theatre which they excel at, while the best we can do is 'they started it' as we follow trumps cues AMassiveGay (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Spud's second RW French translation is now in mainspace[edit]
In time for St. Nicholas' Day, I am proud to announce that I have just moved Père Noël, my French translation of Santa Claus, out of draft space and into mainspace. Other French speakers are, of course, more than welcome to correct any mistakes I might have made, to rephrase anything I wrote that they think could be phrased better and generally just to do whatever they like to the article to improve it Spud (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)ë
- Nice job, Mr. Potatohead Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Dave Daubenmire[edit]
I think we should make an article about him. I mean, look at this.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like he is (perhaps fortunately) fairly low notability for a dedicated page (either this "Pass the Salt" ministries or the "CoachDave.TV" have pretty low view counts). Search for his name in Youtube and a LOLWut type video from progressive streamers The Young Turks (around 260K views) seems to have about 250 times more views than what this guy typically gets. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I know. This guy is so fucking insane that there are probably more responses to him than all of his original videos. Also, even the most insane of conservative wingnuts aren't like him. Even Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos can't top him in being a fucking idiot. Daubenmire is one of the dumbest people I've ever heard of.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Patterns in RightWingWatch[edit]
I was browsing RightWingWatch earlier today, and I've noticed a lot of articles where people are calling Trump "Chosen by God", and saying that anyone opposed to him is "following Satan". I may have been too young to remember, but I don't recall this accusation against critics of Bush during his time in office. Has there always been this radical-theistic rhetoric in regards to Republican presidents, or is this something new? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes? Though in my opinion most of the wingnut woo-meisters and cranks have gotten worse since Trump got elected. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Bush didn't cultivate a cult either. The evangs, however, were already getting more and more disturbing when a mixed-race president got office, and Trump threw out all the dogwhistles and brought out the absolute worst in them. It's telling they're all for family values and shit, but you know it's all just dogwhistles when the guy encapsulates all their values they're supposedly against (a womanizer, a cheater, a corrupt money launderer), pretty much confirming what we always thought about the evangs: controlling grifters, treating everyone else like garbage while hiding behind nice-sounding labels. But don't get me wrong, evangs were always like this, just not as overt. They didn't "get" worse, they were always wastes of oxygen, but now emboldened by a big, bad waste of oxygen. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- FYI a few choice links and a full paper show that "evoking the God" was well in play during George W. Bush's time. From what I can see, prior to then, the evangelical crowd could be just as nutty (televangelism has been around since the 1920s, when radio began), but politicians tended to evoke God in less messianic-type ways back then (faith was discussed, and of course there was slogans, but policy was not driven by God as far as I can tell). I blame Billy Graham for starting the ball rolling for tying into Richard Nixon's agenda. Slowly after this, the evangelical preacher faction started taking over the Republican party little by little (something Barry Goldwater even sounded off on a lot in his later days). 1980 Republicans were dominated by business and neo-conish interest with a little Moral Majority and racism in the background. 2016 Republicans are basically reversed, the "preacher" takeover is complete. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, Bush didn't cultivate a cult either. The evangs, however, were already getting more and more disturbing when a mixed-race president got office, and Trump threw out all the dogwhistles and brought out the absolute worst in them. It's telling they're all for family values and shit, but you know it's all just dogwhistles when the guy encapsulates all their values they're supposedly against (a womanizer, a cheater, a corrupt money launderer), pretty much confirming what we always thought about the evangs: controlling grifters, treating everyone else like garbage while hiding behind nice-sounding labels. But don't get me wrong, evangs were always like this, just not as overt. They didn't "get" worse, they were always wastes of oxygen, but now emboldened by a big, bad waste of oxygen. --It's-a me,
Uhhh, What?[edit]
There are legitimate criticisms if the Israeli government (and trust me, there's a lot). And then there's the right-wing conspiracy theorist in SyrianGirl, who found a new reason to hate the evil Zionists: Christmas. And you idiot paleoconservatives think that liberals are raging a War on Christmas.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- She's an "occasional cohort" on Infowars? Jones hates muslims, but not this one?? Tinribmancer (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is perfect Clogosphere material.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 00:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- From her Twitter she looks like a Christian. — Oxyaena Harass 04:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- — Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- My personal criticism of the Israeli government is them pushing Palestinian people off their land. Now this is a criticism of their government and not the actual Hebrew ethnic group. Some nuts take actual issues with the Israeli government and twist it into bigotry. That is straight up wrong. Why blame an ethnic group for the workings of a single government? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 I don't actually know. Did something similar happen to people with Japanese ancestry after Pearl Harbor? The answer is yes. No government in the entire world, including (and especially) the Israeli government, is without criticism.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I personally delineate it further, and have issue with the actions of particular parties that promote unsustainable (at least, without breaking democracy) attitudes towards settlements and the Arab minority. If any theoretical twisting type wants to "no true Jewish" parties like the Israeli Labor party who do *not* advocate unsustainable actions, they are welcome to wallow in their fallacy. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 I don't actually know. Did something similar happen to people with Japanese ancestry after Pearl Harbor? The answer is yes. No government in the entire world, including (and especially) the Israeli government, is without criticism.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- My personal criticism of the Israeli government is them pushing Palestinian people off their land. Now this is a criticism of their government and not the actual Hebrew ethnic group. Some nuts take actual issues with the Israeli government and twist it into bigotry. That is straight up wrong. Why blame an ethnic group for the workings of a single government? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- From her Twitter she looks like a Christian. — Oxyaena Harass 04:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is perfect Clogosphere material.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 00:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)