RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive336
Alex Jones' views on Muslims[edit]
Is it okay if I remove Alex Jones from the Islamophobia category? A lot like how Peter Sweden no longer attacks Jews and how Mike Cernovich may or may not have converted to Islam, Alex Jones, once a rancid anti-Muslim bigot, has ignored his Islamophobic past and even embraced several Muslims onto his show, such as SyrianGirl and Louis Farrakhan.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't. Saying that makes him not Islamophobic is like making the "Muslim best friend" argument on a professional level. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying he is, because he really, really, really isn't. The only reason I was considering removing him was because he doesn't appear to be directly attacking Muslims anymore.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no evidence that Jones is intellectually honest, so do not remove this. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that. Let's wait a few more months until Jones actually admits that he likes Muslims and only looked like he hated them so he could attract some racists to his website.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wait a few decades. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, the site is still "Islamo-cherry picking" as of today. Today's Infowars news includes the headline "MUSLIM POLICE OFFICER HIRED TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY ENDS UP BEING PART OF GROOMING GANG -- Abused his position to target underage girls." Even the fuckin' Daily Mail gets the story better (it was a 16 person gang) as the actual Infowars article itself conveniently ignores the one guy with a British name in the gang which would spoil their scary Muslim angle (note the sly aside to the names they chose to highlight). It is true that there have been some predominantly Afghan and Pakistani immigrant pedo rings busted in Britain lately but it's not like this is something "the British natives" don't ever get involved in, even possibly at a Parliamentary level. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wait a few decades. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that. Let's wait a few more months until Jones actually admits that he likes Muslims and only looked like he hated them so he could attract some racists to his website.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- There's absolutely no evidence that Jones is intellectually honest, so do not remove this. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying he is, because he really, really, really isn't. The only reason I was considering removing him was because he doesn't appear to be directly attacking Muslims anymore.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
climate catastrophe sacrifices[edit]
We all know we are heading to climate doom and that there is no way countries (especially the US) will do whats necessary to stop it. It's likely to be very very very bad even with notable changes (which won't happen until there are problems that really disrupt people's lives right in their faces). So I thought I'd ask everyone a set of questions. Assume, that we have the ability to assess just how bad things are and just what we need to do to alleviate problems. Each option includes what needs to be sacraficed and what the consequences of not doing it are. Please don't argue about how realistic they are. I don't care. I want to know how far people would sacrafice things for their great-grandchildren. These questions assume you are able-bodied, healthy and live in a city. Your personal economic condition is irrelevant (you can live in a boarding house or put your kids all in one bedroom).
1. Personal use of petrol/gasoline is banned. No cars/motorcycles. House heating only upto 17ºC/62ºF. Airconditioning down to only to 30ºC/86ºC (adjusted for hum.). Can rent an electric car for 3 one hour periods a month. Salary is reduced 33%. Food prices go up 3 times ($2 bread is now $6), electronics prices go up 5 times (a $300 smart phone is now $1500). No flights period. Kitchen stove/oven used for only 30 min a day. No hair-dryers/toasters period. Hot-showers for only 2 min a day. No personal washers/dryers and one laundry cycle per person per week only. Only 2 hours of screen time a day. Internet speed reduced by 90%. No internet streaming. Only playing videogames of anykind for 5 hours a month. If you do this, your grand-children and their descendents will suffer a fair bit for only for 200 years.
2. No vehicles and can rent an electric car for 1 24 hour period plus 5 one hour slots a month. Everything else is public transportation and bicycles. Home heating cannot be higher than 20ºC/68ºF ever. Airconditioning is only allowed at +30ºC/86ºF at moderate levels. Food is twice the price. Electronics are 4 times the price. Your salaray is reduced by 15%. Flights restricted to one transcontinental trip per year. No toasters/hair-dryers. 5 min showers max. One laundry cycles a week per person. Internet speed reduced by 50%. Only streaming films/tv 10 hours a month. Only playing video games of any kind for 10 hours a month. If you do this, your great-chanchildrens lives and their descendents will be VERY terrible for only 500 years.
3. Can have electric cars only with 2 hours driving time a day max. Home heating up to 22ºC/71ºF. Airconditioning down to 25ºC/77ºF. Food is 50% higher. Electronics cost double. Salary is reduced 10%. One domestic and one transcontinental flight a year. Two laundry cycles per person per week. 30 hours of gaming per month. If you do this, your descendents will have an extremely shitty time for 1000 years but the world won't set on fire.
4. No changes. The Earth will be on fire in 100 years.
Which one would you pick. Again, seriously. PLEASE don't argue about the plausibility of any of this. I don't care. It's the level of sacrifice one is willing to make I am interested in. ShabiDOO 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I personally would be extremely resistant to option 1 and willing to do option 2 (and I have no plans to have kids and HATE the heat and cold and love long showers and long cooked meals.ShabiDOO 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Having no vehicles is nigh unfeasible in SoCal, unfortunately, due to the urban sprawl. Basic amenities like grocery stores are much more than a 30 min walk. All public transport is on a very local level (and not available all day since they're not available at evening): all rails I can use require, well, driving on freeways to get there. There's also a strong car culture to change in L.A., which is very difficult to pull off. Bicycles are a good way to get around though not sure how to handle lugging groceries around. I'm not sure if this problem is unique to where I am, but SoCal is infamous for its car culture and inconvenience of public transport.
- Beyond plausibility, I think very limited car use would work, probably 2. Air conditioning for temperatures above 86 is pretty much the norm where I am. Food being twice the price is somewhat of a stomach though, but if it's only meat being more expensive, that's fine. Electronics? I can get by with piracy. Salary, I can take. I don't use toasters or hair dryers. I can take pretty quick showers, and I don't use too much laundry cycles. Internet speed would suck though. I don't stream films or watch TV. 10 hours a month video games, though, I can't live, but I *can* just use extra time on art or something. --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then you'd have to move to another city or mass protest until public transportation is better. The climate doesn't care about our excuses. ShabiDOO 00:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- As someone who plays 8 hours of video games per day on average, any restriction there would be completely intolerable for me. Besides that, I could handle every part of #1. I get to cheat the air conditioning part though because I work in a precision laboratory that is always 20 +/- 1 °C. I think it would be more interesting though if you included not having restaurants though, because in all likelihood the stove restriction would make me use them more. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's unclear to me how some of the things you propose would have any significant effect on atmospheric carbon (e.g., internet speed? The internet actually reduces the need for travel, so why discourage it?). From personal observation, I have grave doubts about people's willingness to sacrifice for their adult descendants: it gets too abstract. The problem with these choices though is it's not really a matter of individual choice. It's a matter of global agreement. Bongolian (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- As someone who plays 8 hours of video games per day on average, any restriction there would be completely intolerable for me. Besides that, I could handle every part of #1. I get to cheat the air conditioning part though because I work in a precision laboratory that is always 20 +/- 1 °C. I think it would be more interesting though if you included not having restaurants though, because in all likelihood the stove restriction would make me use them more. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then you'd have to move to another city or mass protest until public transportation is better. The climate doesn't care about our excuses. ShabiDOO 00:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is exactly why I think that no scheme for altering the course of climate change by restricting carbon emissions is feasible, and we are better off trying to learn to live with the consequences of the way we know this ends anyways. I can't imagine any of these schemes being enacted by governments that pretend to respect democracy or human rights. The hard greens are full of scary talk about culling the human race, secure in their privilege that it surely couldn't be them with their backs to the wall. If you allow people to vote on any of these plans, you know exactly what the result will be. Those who would enforce any of them necessarily would have to arrogate dictatorial power to themselves. I really think we're better off rolling the dice on the climate rather than erecting a tyrant who would enforce these privations on unwilling subjects without any guarantee that they will actually work. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 06:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- 1. So commercial use of gasoline is okay then? Caaaause all of our produce is grown in the middle of the country and it needs to get to the supermarket on the coastlines somehow. Unless you want a government program that funds all trucking companies to get new electric trucks and ban gasoline trucks, then this is just our public infrastructure.
- 2. If cars and motorcycles are banned or severely limited, how the heck am I gonna get to work? Am I supposed to bike the freeway lol? How would you regulate that with no turn signals?
- 3. Everything else is fine except for the video games and the internet stuff. But, if just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions, then why not just regulate the shit out of them instead? They're getting super wealthy off of making the planet a worse place for everybody. Meanwhile the common man/woman is working their asses off just to afford healthcare. And you want to reduce our salaries? Let's just regulate the Fossil Fuel Industry first and then go from there. Cumulus Discuss 07:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
so i'm getting that all this is unfeasible because we don't like buses and cant turn off the xbox? time to start investing in sunblock. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to get 300 million Americans, let alone the entire population of industrialized countries to, to all collectively agree to and abide by those rules is not only unfeasible but unreasonable. We can't rely on the good will of the people. We need to enforce rules or people are just gonna do what they want. But if we're gonna pass legislation, there's better things we could do then tell people not to drive as much, use electricity, water, heat as much, etc. Cumulus Discuss 12:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- and that is why we are doomed. also, the keyword in the thread title here is 'sacrifices' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- FFfff I'm like 50/50 on the whole doom and gloom thing. I don't think Earth will become another Venus in like a runaway greenhouse effect scenario, but I am very concerned about insect population decline and coral reef decline potentially collapsing the food chain and causing worldwide famine. That shit is fucking scary, my friend. That being said, I know Shabidoo's talking about what sacrifices we'd be willing to accept to fight Climate Change. I just don't accept the premise that, that is what we should be doing. I think it would be much, much more effective to just get money out of politics so 70% of Americans can elect politicians who will actually f-ing do something.Cumulus Discuss 15:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- and that is why we are doomed. also, the keyword in the thread title here is 'sacrifices' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to get 300 million Americans, let alone the entire population of industrialized countries to, to all collectively agree to and abide by those rules is not only unfeasible but unreasonable. We can't rely on the good will of the people. We need to enforce rules or people are just gonna do what they want. But if we're gonna pass legislation, there's better things we could do then tell people not to drive as much, use electricity, water, heat as much, etc. Cumulus Discuss 12:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- australia is literally is literally on fire and they are still dragging their feet. we are doomed. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- and I do not own a car, walk everywhere, don't have air conditioning, only ever flown anywhere twice in my life, take cold showers, can make a tasty and nutritious meal in 10 mins from raw ingredients with only a kettle and a microwave, never ever used a hair dryer - I am like climate jesus AMassiveGay (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Despite clearly asking, TWICE, to knock it off with the feasibility stuff (I am fully aware it is NOT practical, feasible, reasonable, useful, necessary or even constructive the way I wrote it) most of you totally failed the experiment as I predicted. All I want to know is to what extent you are willing to make grave and very difficult personal sacrifices to avoid, humans say, living in refugee camp conditions for centuries. Thankfully two of you actually answered it. It leads me to conclude that even people who are angry at the stupidity of climate change deniers for their part in likely dooming us all...would be extremely resistant themselves to doing answer number 1 (as I would too). Just admit it. It tells us a lot about humanity, even amongst those who focus their efforts on social justice and empathy for a better world for everyone. ShabiDOO 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well to be fair the way you worded it made it sound like you were just talking about the feasibility of the three plans, not alternatives but that's neither here nor there. Given certainty that picking option #1 WILL positively affect disenfranchised people, I'd pick #1. Given uncertainty, I'd pick #2. Cumulus Discuss 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am someone who is essentially addicted to TV and video games. I would choose #2 because I would make a few changes. I don't even own a car, so that's something going on for me. Also, what about electric planes powered by solar energy? That sounds extremely smart for a guy that wants to go places.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well to be fair the way you worded it made it sound like you were just talking about the feasibility of the three plans, not alternatives but that's neither here nor there. Given certainty that picking option #1 WILL positively affect disenfranchised people, I'd pick #1. Given uncertainty, I'd pick #2. Cumulus Discuss 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Despite clearly asking, TWICE, to knock it off with the feasibility stuff (I am fully aware it is NOT practical, feasible, reasonable, useful, necessary or even constructive the way I wrote it) most of you totally failed the experiment as I predicted. All I want to know is to what extent you are willing to make grave and very difficult personal sacrifices to avoid, humans say, living in refugee camp conditions for centuries. Thankfully two of you actually answered it. It leads me to conclude that even people who are angry at the stupidity of climate change deniers for their part in likely dooming us all...would be extremely resistant themselves to doing answer number 1 (as I would too). Just admit it. It tells us a lot about humanity, even amongst those who focus their efforts on social justice and empathy for a better world for everyone. ShabiDOO 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- and I do not own a car, walk everywhere, don't have air conditioning, only ever flown anywhere twice in my life, take cold showers, can make a tasty and nutritious meal in 10 mins from raw ingredients with only a kettle and a microwave, never ever used a hair dryer - I am like climate jesus AMassiveGay (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- No. You can't just say "it's only the level of sacrifice I'm interested in" unless you are going to balance that against the level of "reward" each will generate - and since you don't actually know the level of reward your scenarios are pointless - nonsensical even. Aloysius the Gaul 19:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Your premise is flawed. If the system is broken, then pinning the blame on its users for not properly adapting to its dysfunction is the most inefficient way to fix the problem. The impact of individual action is infinitesimal unless you coordinate a mass of people to use that as a starting point for system change. In my case:
- I already don't use a personal vehicle because I live in a Canadian city with good public transportation that's ingrained in our culture, but I'm also aware that public transport in most US cities is utter garbage in comparison and much of the powers that be have actively fought such measures. So it's more productive to fight against the oil and car lobbies strangling public measures.
- I have no clue where your data on energy austerity comes from, but where the energy comes from matters a lot. Using less energy, especially without communicating such an intention to others, won't shut down coal plants. You need massive infrastructure changes for that.
- That being said, yes, we need to use less energy. But taking your example of cooking, the 30 minute limit is easily cheated simply by eating out, and says nothing about its supply chain. The fundamental problem of excess energy use is the privatization of services that should be public. For instances, shared kitchens with food sourced from local permaculture. I also use the commons area laundromat once every two weeks.
- Also, an essential good such as food should be public, so I disagree with increased staple food prices on principle. All it does is hurt the poor while doing nothing to stop rich people consumption.
- As for streaming and video games, the primary motivation for such absurd energy guzzlers is companies wanting enforce Internet media as private property. It's obviously way more efficient to download and share, or to buy a video game once and give it to a used game shop when done, but those things are fought against because they cut into corporate profits. Also, binge video game and streaming culture is a problem of societal atomization. If we weren't so individualized, I'd be easily willing to substitute those things for communal art projects or board games with friends. Overconsumption of electronics are also a result of mass advertising, and would also be offset by more of a sharing culture.
- In summary, individualism is the problem leading to excessive energy use, and you can't solve that with individualism. Individualism in isolation may as well be thoughts and prayers in regards to their actual impact. Rather than say I'd live with #1, I'd say I would work and advocate towards private sufficiency and public luxury that makes #1 more viable for people and offsets its worse consequences such as increased food prices. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- People are incapable of reading and paying attention to the details, provisos, disclaimers and important comments. And so far still only two people have been capable of admitting they could or couldn't handle these options. I've posted the same question on a couple other forums I participate in and everyone there clearly understood it was not a debate about a sensible plan to deal with climate change but what people are actually willing to sacrafice. Users there clearly admitted they could or could not as amassivegay and mario, for example, did. I picked gaming because there are a lot of gamers here and I know it would be very hard to sacrifice...even if it meant saving the Earth from becoming one giant refugee camp. I picked food prices because we all have to eat and people with lower incomes would really struggle with that. I picked vehicles cause it would be a royal pain in the ass for most Americans even if it meant the world would be on fire in a century. And so on only giving only the vaguest resemblance of energy saving and emission saving practices. Zheesh. ShabiDOO 19:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Socialism is the only practical way to fight climate change, and the Earth isn't in danger of becoming Venus at all. However, the Earth not turning into Venus doesn't mean there's no need to worry, the last comparable situation this catastrophic in world history, the end Permian extinction event, lead to the extinction of 96% of all life on earth. — Oxyaena Harass 19:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Some life will invariably survive, but that doesn't mean that we will be among those survivors, which is why it's paramount to establish socialism, any less will lead to mass suffering in general. — Oxyaena Harass 19:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- "People are incapable of reading and paying attention to the details, provisos, disclaimers and important comments." Bullshit - the various "details, provisos, disclaimers and important comments" make the question nonsensical - I completely understand the words, but for me the decision how much to give up is inextricably bound to the flip side -what is the benefit? Without identifying that you do not have a proposition for people to consider in any sensible manner - would I give up all fossil fuels, etc in option 1 if it made no significant difference for 500 year? Hell no! Would I do it if it would make a significant difference in 190 years? Hell yes! Without quantifying the effects of the options you have no right to complain that others point out the obvious deficiencies in your "question" - how about taking some responsibility and providing outcome proposals to go with your change proposals?. Aloysius the Gaul 20:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- it doesn't need any of that. its not a scientifically considered list of options to produce a scientifically calculated outcome, its a simple thought experiment - what would you prepared to give up for the greater good? turns out not much. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Aloysius I would think that "people suffer terribly for 500 years" is enough for a thought experiment" but you are right. This was a disastrous idea on my part. I will not try thought experiments again on rationalwiki. ShabiDOO 21:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you'd post a thought experiment on a site called RationalWiki and not expect people to scrutinize the premise. I personally hate philosophical multiple-choice or yes/no questions where you're not allowed to offer any other input. In particular, suggesting tripled staple food prices is a good indication of this premise blatantly ignoring the role of inequality in the climate crisis. Colossal Squid (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I studied for my degree in philosophy we did thought experiments all the time. It is, a very common part of developing critical thinking. There are no small number of thought experiments which are preposterously unrealistic yet are valuable (in various ontological ways). They are used all the time in works on ethical matters. One incredible thing about creative thought experiments is substitution. That you can replace variables with similar problems (that aren't an issue now but may be in the future) and they would still apply in a similar way. It is easy to fiercely criticize companies for not making short-term costly changes to avoid the planet setting on fire (as they obviously should). Resistance to ethical though experiments, in my experience, usually stem from having your values challenged. Obviously we need to do whatever we can to stop the planet setting on fire and I seriously seriously doubt we will. People (just as much as businesses) are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid turning the USA or Europe into what could possibly be one giant refugee camp. ShabiDOO 00:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- "Resistance to ethical though experiments, in my experience, usually stem from having your values challenged." Nah, I just hate the sanctimonious framing of problems where there's an obvious, all-or-nothing correct answer and answering anything else or questioning the premise makes you implicitly morally deficient. For the record, I did almost answer scenario #1 and included a long-winded bullet point explanation so that others can assess how sincere I was about it. The reason I didn't was because of the tripled food price and 30 minute cooking part, which does nothing but punish the poor while letting those middle-class or higher get away scot-free. Other aspects of scenario #1 have minimal impact on me personally, such as the automobile part, but not everyone is in my scenario, and I recognize how it would screw over people who need to commute to work in a place with bad public transport. This is why I dislike giving all-or-nothing, context-free responses. Colossal Squid (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
scenarios have to be context sensitive, which the premise fails at --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- No leftgreenmario. The principal applies in most situations. We humans aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid large scale suffering. And sorry but yes and no questions are a normal part of every day life. When you vote in an election or a referendum you make a yes or no choice. It's the same in administrative decisions, business, personal decisions. We do it every day. If there were a referendum on making specific drastic changes and you could vote yes or no being likely our very last chance to make a difference...would you vote yes, no or not vote at all? I'm not knowledgeable enough to spell out specific concrete lifestyle changes and sacrifices we'd have to make to avoid climactic Armageddon. If someone here does I'd love to know it if you don't mind sharing. I'd personally like to know myself if I'd be willing to go through with it. I would bet a years salary most of us wouldn't. You don't like these questions...then you don't have to answer. Other people do like them. You think its useless...again you don't have to participate. But please don't tell me that thought experiments, even preposterous ones are not a normal part of critical thinking or dealing with ethical dilemmas. That is ridiculous. ShabiDOO 05:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. What if in the winter, my proposed sacrifice is to never ever turn on the heater, don't use a fireplace at all; nor should you purchase any coats, just rely on a sweater. If you aren't willing to make that sacrifice, move to another place. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. What if in the winter, my proposed sacrifice is to never ever turn on the heater, don't use a fireplace at all; nor should you purchase any coats, just rely on a sweater. If you aren't willing to make that sacrifice, move to another place. --It's-a me,
- No leftgreenmario. The principal applies in most situations. We humans aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid large scale suffering. And sorry but yes and no questions are a normal part of every day life. When you vote in an election or a referendum you make a yes or no choice. It's the same in administrative decisions, business, personal decisions. We do it every day. If there were a referendum on making specific drastic changes and you could vote yes or no being likely our very last chance to make a difference...would you vote yes, no or not vote at all? I'm not knowledgeable enough to spell out specific concrete lifestyle changes and sacrifices we'd have to make to avoid climactic Armageddon. If someone here does I'd love to know it if you don't mind sharing. I'd personally like to know myself if I'd be willing to go through with it. I would bet a years salary most of us wouldn't. You don't like these questions...then you don't have to answer. Other people do like them. You think its useless...again you don't have to participate. But please don't tell me that thought experiments, even preposterous ones are not a normal part of critical thinking or dealing with ethical dilemmas. That is ridiculous. ShabiDOO 05:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- "Resistance to ethical though experiments, in my experience, usually stem from having your values challenged." Nah, I just hate the sanctimonious framing of problems where there's an obvious, all-or-nothing correct answer and answering anything else or questioning the premise makes you implicitly morally deficient. For the record, I did almost answer scenario #1 and included a long-winded bullet point explanation so that others can assess how sincere I was about it. The reason I didn't was because of the tripled food price and 30 minute cooking part, which does nothing but punish the poor while letting those middle-class or higher get away scot-free. Other aspects of scenario #1 have minimal impact on me personally, such as the automobile part, but not everyone is in my scenario, and I recognize how it would screw over people who need to commute to work in a place with bad public transport. This is why I dislike giving all-or-nothing, context-free responses. Colossal Squid (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I studied for my degree in philosophy we did thought experiments all the time. It is, a very common part of developing critical thinking. There are no small number of thought experiments which are preposterously unrealistic yet are valuable (in various ontological ways). They are used all the time in works on ethical matters. One incredible thing about creative thought experiments is substitution. That you can replace variables with similar problems (that aren't an issue now but may be in the future) and they would still apply in a similar way. It is easy to fiercely criticize companies for not making short-term costly changes to avoid the planet setting on fire (as they obviously should). Resistance to ethical though experiments, in my experience, usually stem from having your values challenged. Obviously we need to do whatever we can to stop the planet setting on fire and I seriously seriously doubt we will. People (just as much as businesses) are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid turning the USA or Europe into what could possibly be one giant refugee camp. ShabiDOO 00:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you'd post a thought experiment on a site called RationalWiki and not expect people to scrutinize the premise. I personally hate philosophical multiple-choice or yes/no questions where you're not allowed to offer any other input. In particular, suggesting tripled staple food prices is a good indication of this premise blatantly ignoring the role of inequality in the climate crisis. Colossal Squid (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Aloysius I would think that "people suffer terribly for 500 years" is enough for a thought experiment" but you are right. This was a disastrous idea on my part. I will not try thought experiments again on rationalwiki. ShabiDOO 21:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- it doesn't need any of that. its not a scientifically considered list of options to produce a scientifically calculated outcome, its a simple thought experiment - what would you prepared to give up for the greater good? turns out not much. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- "People are incapable of reading and paying attention to the details, provisos, disclaimers and important comments." Bullshit - the various "details, provisos, disclaimers and important comments" make the question nonsensical - I completely understand the words, but for me the decision how much to give up is inextricably bound to the flip side -what is the benefit? Without identifying that you do not have a proposition for people to consider in any sensible manner - would I give up all fossil fuels, etc in option 1 if it made no significant difference for 500 year? Hell no! Would I do it if it would make a significant difference in 190 years? Hell yes! Without quantifying the effects of the options you have no right to complain that others point out the obvious deficiencies in your "question" - how about taking some responsibility and providing outcome proposals to go with your change proposals?. Aloysius the Gaul 20:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"And so far still only two people have been capable of admitting they could or couldn't handle these options."
I said this earlier, so I want a cookie and/or points.
"Given certainty that picking option #1 WILL positively affect disenfranchised people, I'd pick #1. Given uncertainty, I'd pick #2."
Cumulus Precipitation 05:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- A plan to negate climate change has to be economically feasible, there is no way around it. Mass change in infrastructure and transportation is not cheap. A start is to plant large amounts of trees to absorb Carbon Dioxide, it is affordable and highly effective. Another idea is giving people tax rebates so they can get hybrid cars where it is far more fuel efficient. What I am mentioning is a start and is economically feasible. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem with all of these plans is that they don't really attack the core of the problem and place the burden of rectifying the problem on the everyday citizen as opposed to the people who are really at fault, i.e. large companies. These solutions are simply poorly thought through in scope and methodology, and the figures are clearly pulled from your ass. Real solutions would (for example) not depend on specific activities that one is doing but an overall energy draw, would limit meat consumption, would prioritize nuclear power being swiftly implemented over other forms of power, and would require increasing taxes. The specifics of these plans are better left to climate scientists, but regardless, a bottom-up approach will address the problem with much less cost to the individual. And I don't give a rat's ass about your debate rules, so don't complain about me not answering the question. (sqıɹʇuoɔ) (ʞlɐʇ) ɐuıƃƃıɹds @ 10:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Umm, okay. I would rather have solar energy because of things like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but other than that, you're correct. We can't just make up some ideas and say that it's a solution. We need experts to acknowledge the problems of climate change, and how we can prevent/fix them.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 20:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- I did not claim it to be a solution, what I said was a mere start. There are no easy answers. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was responding to the OP, not you. (sqıɹʇuoɔ) (ʞlɐʇ) ɐuıƃƃıɹds @ 23:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Uranium/plutonium thermal reactors do have significant downsides, but there are other types of nuclear power. Liquid fluoride thorium-based nuclear reactors are much safer than current U/Pu reactors, produce less waste than other forms of nuclear power, pollute less than forms of power like solar and fossil fuels, carry little potential for weaponization, and rely on the more abundant thorium as opposed to uranium. The primary barrier to their implementation is the high initial cost, which can be solved by increasing taxation to heavily subsidize thorium-based nuclear power plants and provide free education (so that people working in fossil fuels can move to nuclear plants). Doing this requires heavy government oversight and financial and job sacrifices, but will result in more sustainable, efficient energy with fewer environmental consequences. Solar power is not as good of an option for a variety of reasons, many of which are explained here. (sqıɹʇuoɔ) (ʞlɐʇ) ɐuıƃƃıɹds @ 23:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- I did not claim it to be a solution, what I said was a mere start. There are no easy answers. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Umm, okay. I would rather have solar energy because of things like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but other than that, you're correct. We can't just make up some ideas and say that it's a solution. We need experts to acknowledge the problems of climate change, and how we can prevent/fix them.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 20:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Any objections to me editing Bernie's page?[edit]
On Bernie's talk page, I explain why I think a certain section of Bernie's page should be deleted. The explanation is long so please go to the link and read it if you want to know why I think certain parts of 'Military Spending' should be deleted. I posted this in his talk page like roughly six months ago waiting for a response and I never got one so now I'm posting here as one last time before I go ahead and delete this so we can have a more clear and accurate picture of Bernie's profile. Also I want to see what you all have to say before I hastily edit/remove something so important and incur banning. Please respond with something like, "I agree, go ahead" or "I disagree, and here's why" to ease my anxiety. Thank you and have a nice day/night! Cumulus Discuss 14:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- You might try rewriting that section, but I don't think it's entirely untruthful and so I wouldn't recommend removing it. The commissioner of the Vermont Department of Economic Development stated in detail how Vermont is part of the supply chain for Lockheed Martin (1,610 Lockheed-related jobs in a $2 billion aerospace/aviation industry within Vermont).[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah I'll create a sandbox/draft up a new section and then I'll link it here when I'm done. Here's what I think needs addressed:
- 1. I do think that rewriting that section is in order. As I showed in my post on the talk page, the words are taken almost word-for-word from our sources without quotation marks. So to avoid plagiarism, we should make a point of at the very least replacing words with synonyms and/or restating the same idea with different words.
- 2. The context of the text implies Bernie is hypocritical about being a war dove when he is allowing F-35s into his state, but based off of the evidence I have gathered this was an Airforce decision, not a Senator decision. Now I might be wrong about that and I would certainly by all means be open to, you know, seeing evidence to the contrary. But from what I've seen, I don't think he can actually do anything. Also he mentions that since they're already built anyways, they have to be stationed somewhere, and that somewhere might as well be his state since Vermont would be losing out on jobs otherwise. So I think a possible solution would be to just add that to the article to, you know, just bring in more context and shed a brighter light on the issue. Cumulus Discuss 05:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- EDIT: I have finished drafting up a revised section. I saw at the top of the article that you posted, that indeed, Bernie was involved in bringing the F-35s to the state. I tried to be impartial when talking about how the F-35s help Vermont's economy and Bernie being anti-war and all the context that goes with that. Please take a look-see, let me know if there any errors, biases, etc. And let's see if we can't make this something better. :) Cumulus Discuss 06:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not bad. When will this be on Bernie's page?— Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Version I read had a sentence fragment before the quote. No objection to the content. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Jeh2ow, Well since it seems two fellow Rational Wikians don't object to it other than the sentence fragment, which I have gone on to correct along with more sentence structure/grammar/and an incomplete sentence, I will be posting this in the near, near future. Cumulus Precipitation 05:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not bad. When will this be on Bernie's page?— Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- EDIT: I have finished drafting up a revised section. I saw at the top of the article that you posted, that indeed, Bernie was involved in bringing the F-35s to the state. I tried to be impartial when talking about how the F-35s help Vermont's economy and Bernie being anti-war and all the context that goes with that. Please take a look-see, let me know if there any errors, biases, etc. And let's see if we can't make this something better. :) Cumulus Discuss 06:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Terrence K. Williams[edit]
At first I thought he was just some lame ass joke guy on Twitter making Republican rants. Since Trump got elected, though, Williams has now gained a massive following on Twitter, and has about 750k followers right now. Should we make a page?— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't fear the reaper[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVn6b9QQZeM — Oxyaena Harass 23:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I love that song! Thanks!— Jeh2ow Damn son! 00:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- It needs more cowbell! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Be afraid. Be very afraid. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, you have me there. — Oxyaena Harass 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've eaten those several times, they're quite good. The burn is a lot more than a normal person can handle, hotter even than a jolokia or moruga scorpion, but it doesn't linger more than a couple minutes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I definitely would like to try one. I've spent some time building up tolerance to spice, I'm always disappointed when a 5 feels average. But of course, I'm also a little relieved that I can just eat my meal. (Trigger warning, homophobia as a poe timepiece, whole film is poe, homophobia is not being glorified) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiPmHwxK6u4 Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Holidays[edit]
To my fellow athiestic Jews and Christians and Black people on RW, have a happy Hanukkah, Christmas, and Kwaanza.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's 50 fucking degrees out and it's "only" Christmas Eve. — Oxyaena Harass 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would be dreaming of a white Christmas, (or, in my case, a white Hanukkah), but I don't wanna look racist.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Summer time here - we get a red christmas :) https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/pohutukawa-flowers Also Happy Hogmanay! Aloysius the Gaul 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- To my fellow Agnostic Satanists: Have a wonderful holiday season. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Summer time here - we get a red christmas :) https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/pohutukawa-flowers Also Happy Hogmanay! Aloysius the Gaul 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I would be dreaming of a white Christmas, (or, in my case, a white Hanukkah), but I don't wanna look racist.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The Scientist[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB-RcX5DS5A— Jeh2ow Damn son! 20:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- coldplay are worse that hitler. you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Worse than Hitler, you say?— Jeh2ow Damn son! 20:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's an absurd joke, it means that a band is not worse than Hitler, so to say it's worse than Hitler is to just say "I can't like it." I know from past experience this isn't how the bar is supposed to operate.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=oKbErAqZ1l4&feature=emb_logo
- Good catch on the Hitler analogy, guys, way to help the mission. Coldplay was a thing. Superbowl caliber, just like Beyoncé and Red Hot Chili Peppers. I didn't add that accent agieu to Bee's name, that just autocorrected into existence. Pop songs don't have a single devil. Except maybe Max Martin. Play a hit if you don't like it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Worse than Hitler, you say?— Jeh2ow Damn son! 20:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
ok, stating the obvious, and as previously stated, cold play are not literally worse than hitler. its obvious and intentional hyperbole and an obvious and intentional joke, on how its kinda fashionable to diss coldplay (and judging trivialities to be worse than hitler is probs cliché at this point), that I didn't feel it needed clarification, taking silent smug satisfaction at the over earnest of others. I do however dislike coldplay with a passion that is jarring to the intolerable blandness they embody. not just coldplay, but anything similar, travis, ned sheeren, dido. the literal sound of nothing but incomprehensively popular that its everywhere. music should have some response to it, physical or mental. it should grab you or repel you. it should generate some kind of feeling. i need intensity. if im not feeling things intensly, i'm feeling nothing at all, like im dead. coldplay ARE death. or i just have a meth habit. it might be that. viva a vida was ok i spose. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I'm right there with you. I remember listening to Coldplay when I was like 17. Kinda liked it. But you're right, the incessant blandness becomes a real fucking drag. I even like Lizzo a little bit, at least where she's coming from and most of her songs. But the incessant blandness is such a drag. Billie Eilish even said she didn't think her song "Bad Guy" was a good song, That's OK, that's fine, but that's not a personality trait, I hate Adele songs and can still sing them. So I get what you're saying, for sure. Stick a needle in my eye before I have to listen to another classic rock song, but to be honest, it's not because it's bad, it's just because I'm tired of it. Pop is always so late that it's really hard to notice something new in pop. But you know, when you just gag at the first sight of it, it'll never make sense. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't even like playing that game of 'things you like are shit and heres a list of reasons why they are shit and therefore you are shit'. its never a good look and I learned not to play long ago.
- it was just a throwaway joke. banter if you will. I shouldn't be justifying somethings not my cup, no one needs to defend their musical tastes. now I just look like a superior prick, even though my superior and refined tastes contend that boney m's Rasputin is musical perfection.
- I just wanna be included sometimes, but fuck you mainstream, at least try to be fun and interesting, its lonely on the fringes AMassiveGay (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I'm right there with you. I remember listening to Coldplay when I was like 17. Kinda liked it. But you're right, the incessant blandness becomes a real fucking drag. I even like Lizzo a little bit, at least where she's coming from and most of her songs. But the incessant blandness is such a drag. Billie Eilish even said she didn't think her song "Bad Guy" was a good song, That's OK, that's fine, but that's not a personality trait, I hate Adele songs and can still sing them. So I get what you're saying, for sure. Stick a needle in my eye before I have to listen to another classic rock song, but to be honest, it's not because it's bad, it's just because I'm tired of it. Pop is always so late that it's really hard to notice something new in pop. But you know, when you just gag at the first sight of it, it'll never make sense. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
trolling[edit]
We don't have an actual article on trolling which I think is very very strange. Perhaps no one ever got around to it or maybe there is a reason why we shouldn't have an article but I think it's fairly important that we do. I started a very very rough preliminary draft here if anyone wants to contribute, critique its form it or suggest serious structural/conceptual changes (please post ALL such comments on the talk page and not here). If you have an opinion on whether we should even have a troll article you could let me know here please. ShabiDOO 21:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trolling is a generic type of activity that is done by annoying people, which qualifies just about everyone at one time or another. It would be equivalent to creating an article entitled "Contemporary Annoyances." Ariel31459 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo Yes we do. @Ariel31459 No, it's not. Trolling is antagonizing/annoying with the specific intent to cause emotional distress. Again, we have an article on this subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- So you are saying it's not necessary? ShabiDOO 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trolls are persistent and act the way they do specifically to piss people off. That’s what distinguishes them from regular people who just happen to be annoying every now and then, like me. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 00:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo A more dedicated page could be useful, so go for it if you feel a new and improved article could be made. It was my intention to point out that we had an article, albeit a poorly named one. Apologies if I came off as rude, that was not my intent. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Of course you didn't seem rude you silly goose! It had just gone through my mind that there might be some kind of troll-psychology where not having an article is a way of not feeding the trolls that might justify not writing an article (silly of me but...you never know). The don't feed the troll article is good for what it is, but I think a dedicated page to trolling is useful because its so extremely relevant (indirectly and sometimes directly) to all of our mission statements (especially its extremely negative effect on social justice). Thanks for the edits on the page. Do not hesitate to make more. ShabiDOO 02:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo A more dedicated page could be useful, so go for it if you feel a new and improved article could be made. It was my intention to point out that we had an article, albeit a poorly named one. Apologies if I came off as rude, that was not my intent. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trolls are persistent and act the way they do specifically to piss people off. That’s what distinguishes them from regular people who just happen to be annoying every now and then, like me. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 00:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- So you are saying it's not necessary? ShabiDOO 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo Yes we do. @Ariel31459 No, it's not. Trolling is antagonizing/annoying with the specific intent to cause emotional distress. Again, we have an article on this subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You might want to look at this: Don't feed the Troll, as you can run into overlap material. You should expand the page, however, as I always thought it was lacking somewhat. --It's-a me, 
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: 
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”[edit]
I'd like to add that phrase to the "Deepity" article, because it seems like a good, commonplace, example of one. It relies, of course, on the ambiguity of "strong" and "weak".
- In many people's lexicons, "strength" is basically synonymous with "good for society", making the phrase a tautology. At most, it is based on the idea that good times require hard work which requires strength, which is not quite a tautology but is hardly considered extreme.
- But when the phrase is used by the far-right, who usually seem to be the ones using it nowadays, it takes on a militaristic tone. That is, strength is equated with fighting ability, and the argument is that good times lead to demilitarization, implying that demilitarizion leads to "hard times" and thus it's a bad thing.
The latter version is far more contentious, and is usually the bailey, while the tautological version is the motte. Pyro (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I like it as a deepity, indeed. Actually Nicolas Taleeb covers this in one of my favourite books (Black Swan). Talking about selective breeding he mentioned rats around nuclear research/stations in Russia. Only the strongest rats survived the radiation and logically it would seem as though you'd breed super rats over several generations per the tough conditions and survival of only the absolute fittest. But in reality, yeah you had the ones who were strong enough to survive...but they were also infertile, died of cancer or were weakened and easily eaten by their predators. So it negated the already dubious theory that they'd breed super rats through the natural selection of an agressive environment since only the toughest could breed. He clearly mentioned this as a response to deepities (and folk wisdom people use in economics/politics/lifestyles). Hard times creates a whole lot of weathered-down people. ShabiDOO 02:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- When I was still able to work, I met many men with black lung and other forms of occupational COPD, and literally hundreds more who were severely injured by repetitive stress. And dealing with these sad stories is not easy, and probably twisted me as well. Hard times cripple strong men. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, that's not to say that Taleb is a rational person, as per his article, he's really fucking stupid.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 12:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Quite a few of his ideas are extremely insightful and he communicates them brilliantly. But yeah...much like Dawkins and Harris and to a lesser extent Boghosian wobble between beacons of rationality and humanism vs. sheer asshole stupidity. Taleb is no exception. Luckily most of us can separate the useful from the gross garbage though it's difficult to say the least.
- Of course, that's not to say that Taleb is a rational person, as per his article, he's really fucking stupid.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 12:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- When I was still able to work, I met many men with black lung and other forms of occupational COPD, and literally hundreds more who were severely injured by repetitive stress. And dealing with these sad stories is not easy, and probably twisted me as well. Hard times cripple strong men. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Developing an economically feasible plan to counter climate change[edit]
We all know that the climate is becoming whacked out and this is an issue that needs to be solved. Now changing the infrastructure is needed but it would cost mountains of money to do so, no way around the costs of it. Due to the fact that changing infrastructure and convincing CEO's of fossil fuel companies would take large amounts of time, a different short term solution is needed to buy time. To me at least, the most economically feasible option is to buy patches of land and plant trees. It would be a start and buy time to develop a solid long term plan. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- How about getting rid of CEOs and their ilk entirely? — Oxyaena Harass 14:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 Lobbyists are your biggest problem here. Even when some companies are willing to co-operate, their lobbyists would intervene and demand some sort of profit in their favor...
- the merits of tree planting seem to be debated: it has potential to store a lot of CO2, but it can cause environmental problems (replanting existing forests is probably ok but new forests may be problematic), is slow, and may remove good farming land needed to feed people (unless you simultaneously transform agriculture and get people eating less meat). There are also criticisms that it displaces CO2 production to the third world/tropical regions, rather than cutting it entirely (eg if the UK covers its farmland in trees and imports lots of crops then the UK looks virtuous but has only displaced emissions). Maybe it needs coverage in one of the global warming articles.[2][3]--Annanoon (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
"The First Temptation of Christ" or how fundie Brazillians decided to boycot a comedic Christmas movie with a change.org petition & throwing Molotov Cocktails towards Portas dos Fundos.[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Temptation_of_Christ
I hope I get to witness the day that people would ban religion worldwide..
Btw, isn't this on mission? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Having fun with USPS[edit]
I decided to play a little Easter egg with the United States Postal Service on Christmas Eve. I wrote an entire letter to God. I heard that these letters would end up in the cracks of the Western Wall in Jerusalem instead of being considered a dead letter. This would be fun.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
https://wbckfm.com/where-are-letters-to-god-delivered/
Seems to be true, maybe I should write a letter to God asking him why he is the almighty cunt. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)