RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive339

This is an archive page, last updated 25 January 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Why can't I stop believing this conspiracy theory

I'm usually so radically anti-conspiracy. But the tapes of Epstein first purported suicide attempt were just declared "accidentally deleted" by way of incorrect backup procedure. It's hard to hanlon's razor this one to any level of believable incompetence. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I can easily believe some no-goodery is involved here but a broader sinister conspiracy may be taking things a little too far. What exactly do you think went on? Who were the players? What was the goal and why? ShabiDOO 21:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that's the trick of it isn't it? If you lock yourself down to a specific hypothesis, you can find yourself wrong when evidence contradicts you. But the problem is, Epstein had connections to incredibly powerful people and deep implications that many of those incredibly powerful people were doing one of the most heinous individual crimes we all know.

My best guess is

What got me started down this path was conspiracy theorists making a correct prediction. So many generally reasonable, if slightly conspiratorial, people said "He will 'commit suicide' before ever seeing the inside of a court room" then the attempt happened, and all sorts of things were shady about it. Then those same people said it'll happen again, and they'll get him this time. And those people were being fucking reasonable. And any sane prison administrator given the circumstances, would have decided extra security would be warranted for the most important defendant in the country in a decade or more who had an attempted suicide and claims of an attack on his life circulated. But somehow, between attempts all the security cameras broke?

That leaves me in a place where I've seen reasonable validation of an extreme hypothesis. And nothing that's come out since, save the autopsy report, which has been credibly contested, moved the needle even a millimeter the other direction.

So that leaves your who and why. As I said, it's too many people with perfectly sound individual motives to really discount any ideas credibly, but the most believable seems to be the attorney general of the united states managing it, given his role in shutting down the previous Epstein investigation, and the powers that office would bring for handing down some orders to effect the death quietly.

But I don't specifically believe that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevant re. calibre of staff. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The "deletion" is actually a combination of an incorrect video preservation request immediately after the fact, followed by a bungled backup system retrieval 6 months later. IT fuck-ups, <sarc> that never happens. </sarc> I'll grant the conspiracy on Epstein is not of the implausible whack-a-doodle variety, it certainly beats your standard George Soros bullshit in that there are definitely some high-places type possibilities that are not implausible. But incompetency is equally plausible here in this particular case. Ghislaine Maxwell (Epstein's madame and daughter of ex-Daily Mirror head honcho and financial fuckup Robert Maxwell) is still around, albeit in hiding, and I imagine there are other players in the still ongoing investigation. It would be nice if a place just posted court documents and whatnot, if I had the right connections I could probably fart out some bullshit to a young pup reporter and get a viral story going on this topic, such is the rumor mill in media around this story. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And that doesn't strike you as bullshit? Like I get that I'm on a rationalist site arguing for a large-ish conspiracy doing something that could hypothetically be explained with incompetence. But you don't take that explanation and go "Wait, the IT staff(and administration and police) for the prison waited 6 months for the highest profile case the prison has ever had to backup critical evidence? Like you feel comfortable with just taking that statement at face value? I just... can't. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The backups don't strike me as bullshit, many companies fail at that. The initial fuck up is a fair bit more suspicious. The problem is that the rumor mill on this guy is too strong for me to get a clear read on things, so I personally "can't conclude anything". I, for instance, personally think that people are over-emphasizing the Donald Trump / Bill Clinton angles because we live in political times. And there's a lot of rumors on the source of his wealth etc. If people want to figure out how he actually *got* rich, just read articles done via 2002-2003 (around the time he hobnobbed with Clinton and started attracting media attention.) Basic Wall Street bullshit, that's what. Because rich guys aren't necessarily smart guys and some men of the elite class definitely still think with their dicks (Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are proof of that), we'll see who if any were directly involved in Epstein's "kinks". While I get the general impression that a lot of the rich knew of his *cough* "eccentricities", I have no idea how many actually were involved (it might be a Jimmy Saville-ish sort of thing). It's pretty clear that Mr. Epstein was also a quant/math type who was big in funding scientists and hanging around the TED Talk scene, not everything and everyone involved with him and the scene he hang out with involved pedophilia. As far as the light 2008 sentence goes, all I'll say it's well known the judicial system is severely biased in favor of the rich in America. This is not news and not specific to one person. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What a misleading title; it's not a theory if it's fact. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is all bullshit. Epstein killed himself, and even if he didn't, it's a good thing he's dead. Remember, he had sex with underage women.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem isn't the miscarriage in justice of Epstein dying. It's the complete closure of the case, and the fact that the powerful people he played pedophile pimp to are never going to see justice. The fact that we have photos of Bill Clinton with him, his "acquisition specialist" and some of his kidnapped victims, and nothing is set to come of it is insane. Ghislane Maxwell is a free-fucking-woman right now, in spite of the direct and copious evidence that she was a fucking central figure in the abuse. The amount of testimony those girls gave of other men abusing them, including the current goddamn president of the united states is not something you brush aside.

What the fuck is wrong with you to say it's "Okay". Fuck you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I said it's okay because of the fact that Epstein finally faced justice himself. I just wish that more rich people who molested underage girls also got justice. In case you didn't know, all of this would've been prevented if the FBI just listened to the women.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what shut down the first investigation. It was the the current secretary of labor, who said he was an 'intelligence asset'. That's not an unreliable source I'm linking here. The FBI didn't "ignore" the women. A single powerful person shut down the investigation for reasons that, once again, relate to very powerful people. It's not easy to bin it as "just law enforcement being bad in a typical way". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the goddamn Washington Examiner! That's not a reliable source! And the FBI did ignore the women. If they actually listened to them, innocent women wouldn't have been molested.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Acosta was the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida at the time, which is why he was involved. here's the Wiki link. It is worth noting that he didn't get off *completely*, however, it was a fairly light plea deal. Here's the New York Times article about the sentence in 2008. I'm curious behind the story of the ignored women, Jeh2ow? My Google-fu isn't finding it but it's probably because I don't know what an appropriate date range would be so I'm not able to filter out the noise. (Most of my return searches are current affairs.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Acosta had faced scrutiny for failing to disclose the deal that would've made Epstein plead guilty. When Jeff got arrested in July of last year, Acosta was heavily criticized for not prosecuting Epstein earlier, and he had to resign his position in the White House shortly afterward.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 20:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe he committed suicide but I don't entirely believe that he was killed by people like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Sure it's possible that he was but it's very very unlikely. RationalHindu (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What makes it unlikely? Specifically? What evidence undercuts the likelihood of that? The actual material evidence at hand is... thin, and somehow getting thinner. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

i'm inclined to believe there has been conspiracy and there has been cover up, only it doesn't go all the way to the top. its more of the covering my own back variety that I expect is common within such an underfunded prison understaffed by undertrained and over worked employees. this kind of thing happens all to often (see helen Bonham carters link for details) and would probably resulted in nothing more than slap on the wrist for incompetent staff if it were concerning the usual johnny nomark, which for all furore surrounding Epstein, in that facility was just the usual johnny nomark to overworked guards whom falsifying their checks and reports an not being arsed with procedure is par for the course. no one usually gave a shit about the inmates least of all the staff. this one maybe got a mention in a team meeting, along with a lot of other team meeting bullshit, and this pedo is no trouble, certainly not stabby, so whatever. of course the heat this has generated wasn't anticpated by the guards on duty so they really half arsed the signing off on things they should have done but didn't. if there were a far reaching conspiracy, I bet they would have ballsed up the cover up leaving more evidence than just negligence and incompetence.

its just such a deeply unsatisfactory conclusion we are unlikely to shift the feeling of being cheated, of a conspiracy, especially one so plausible. and despite the attention, we are still ignoring what a shitshow the American penal system.AMassiveGay (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a basic failure. How can we prove the earth is the earth round and why do vaccines work? Why does Comet Pizza refuse to open the door to their basement? The issue is that even if it is really a problem, It absolutely is fucking stupid. To assume it must be foul play isn't the right attitude either. But thanks to Q level insanity, anyone who wants answers is deep meme Q. And I have to be polite about it, because nobody who goes for Q also stops to think "can this be real?" It CAN NOT, there are too many moving parts, your representation that gets a pass is literally the pedophile big money party you claim to hate. Q has no balls. Q has nothing other than "Democrats are just as bad as Republicans," = and because they have no balls, they constantly fall back on Republican leaders, who are majorly the people they are upset with in the fist place.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Dershowitz is a leading legal consultant on the Trump impeachment. What a strangely confounding factor. The same guy who gave counsel to Epstein's successful defense in 2011, counseled the OJ defense, the Epstein defense, and the Weinstein defense, oh did we change our minds? Or is this executive branch so stupid and out of touch that they hire accept the generosity of highest paid criminal defense lawyer, who has succeeded in his last three consultations only to see the defendants go back to court because getting off on technicalities isn't exactly the same as not committing crimes, that it shouldn't matter? This is a guy who was paid to caree about Epstein not being convicted, and now he cares about Trump not getting convicted. What the fuck would be the Qanon conspiracy behind that? I'm also frustrated by the Epstein shit, but look at it, Donald Trump isn't some deep freedom force, they've got Dershowitz on their side now, you maniacs. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

They've always had Dersh on their side. He(or at least media figures who often work as his proxies, like cernovich) helped promote the original pizzagate conspiracies. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to run off topic so hard, I'd like to point back to it. I'm with you that Epstein's death is not lining up, and Qanon's circle-jerking isn't a... source... for legitimate information. I think I'd still get dragged by the Qmunity (coined) for saying that. I'm with you, I ran the points here, pared down Epstein either "did not kill himself" or "was provided the opportunity to kill himself within days of showing active suicidal behavior." Not impossible that he did it on his own. But the missing security footage, the "iunno" sleepy response from the people in charge, and there's no exact narrative being pushed was/still is fucking awful, poor show. Epstein was the highest profile federal prisoner of all time. That just doesn't read. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

When religious nuts say Spiritual Warfare is happening

They way they say it sounds more like terrorism.

Threats of violence, amassing weapons, distributing propaganda, vandalizing non-Christian temples and coercion is like terrorism/extremism. Religious nuts can sugar coat it all they want but at the end of the day- it is terrorism or extremism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought spiritual warfare was just prayer and exorcisms and get thee behind me satan type stuff. what you describe is terrorism/extremism AMassiveGay (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

In other words, this is evidence that Evangelicals and Islamists are practically the same.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

Seems the 737 was downed by an Iranian missile by accident and one has to wonder if the incident was either similar to Iran Air Flight 655 or caused by some trigger-happy assholes.

Besides the implications given how hot are things there, I can picture conspiracy theorists flying like flies to fresh bullshit to this incident. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

not sure why Iran Air 655 is differentiated from trigger-happy arseholes...... however I work with a former RAF Phantom rear seat officer (ex Base commander, Sqn training officer, etc) who noted that procedures are easily missed, mistaken or applied incorrectly - he recounted cases he'd seen of aircraft shot down on exercises in peace time, "Blue-on_Blue" in the Iraq War 2, etc. The potential for disaster applies any time there are live weapons "in play" - we are lucky it doesn't happen more often! Aloysius the Gaul 23:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists love to take tragedies, twist the details around and get clicks on their videos/blogs/websites. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I added this to WIGO World. It appears that it was on accident, as the Iranian army mistook it as a missile. Expect some conspiracy theories about how Iran fucking hates the West, and this is evidence.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It's worth reading about the Vincennes and Iran Air 655 for an astonishing example of just how irrational people can be, and how they can ignore evidence in favour of baseless theories with terrible consequences. So yes it's likely. --Annanoon (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, American conservatives are actually acting like Iran in 1988. A plane flew, the missle thought it was a threat, and shot it down. Iran claims that America shot down Flight 655 on purpose, while the Republicans think Iran gunned Flight 752, also on purpose.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the suggested advantage? A lot of their own nationals were on board and all I can see are problems.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, after so much evidence came out against them to the point the cover up was a bigger problem than the missile itself, Iran admitted they done goofed. Many people are out protesting, but actual news is hard to come by. Iran government is suppressing the protests as best they can. Interesting that all in all, the Soleimani killing is working out more and more in Trump's favor. CoryUsar (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does looks as though things have fallen well for him. No doubt he will somehow try to take credit for the chaos following the downing of the airliner.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's fucking awful is what it is. It's canon that the US shot down 655 by accident, but it's kinda also known that the US doesn't have a history of changing policy after killing civilians. It's up for grabs on whether Iran shot down a plane taking off from their own country by accident. I heard CBC interview a family member the day after, "survived by her brohter" speaking about his family, including a 2 year old, who were on the flight. I feel upset as fuck about that shit. Who fucking cares, if this is what nationalism and posturing leads to, fuck the US, fuck Iran too, it's fucking awful. Reagan is a fucking blight, but he did one deepity, "But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other." - Ronald Reagan, no doubt written for him. I'd say "can we fucking recognize each other enough that, yes, we can kill civilians, and can we just fucking stop doing that forever now?" I'm not even a pacifist, this was stupid revenge in my opinion and there's no special history fact that says the US has a right to complain here. It's fucking awful is what it is, it's time to stop. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi

How is everyone doing?^talk 03:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

*Gestures at everything* How do you think? And we're only 9 days into this year. (Actually I'm doing better(?). I started a new job this week, that's in my field of study, and came with a pay raise... I'll feel better in like three weeks when I've gotten use to it and settled in. How are you doing?) --NavigatorBR(Talk) - 03:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A fellow anarchist? Nice. I've just started taking HRT. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

YAY! Congrats sis! RationalHindu (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, friend! — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the implication that trans and anarchist are exactly the same thing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, both involve a rejection of hierarchy, the former rejecting rigid gender assignments. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

circling the drain AMassiveGay (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Not seen you about for a while.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am currently living in Hell if Hell was real.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, a fellow Northeast Ohioan... Yeah... That describes this whole state, honestly. Least we get the lake and good food. Granted, Columbus got that Ikea...--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 04:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You got a bunch of our town names too. Seriously, there are a ridiculous number of eastern Ohio towns named for towns in Connecticut; indeed, that's why the population in northwest Connecticut especially crashed (some towns up that way are still well below their 1840s highs). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow You're from Northeast Ohio too? We should meet up sometime. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, as a Clevelander, I got this to say: Cleveland is just like Detroit. In Ohio. With far more rednecks.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 14:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Blimey, there's a blast from the past. Sophie here still perpetually leaving and never coming back. How's tricks? Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Democratic Primary

As even a passing glance through my edit history will inform you, I'm an avid editor of the page on the 2020 Democratic Primary/Contest for the Nomination. I realized while looking over it recently that the current list of those people who are currently in the running is incomplete, without any mention of big names like Tom Steyer, who has been present at a number of debates, and Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick, both of whom thankfully won't be. Are there any supporters of any of the currently unlisted candidates on the wiki who could help fill in their policy positions? Representative Slip Submit a slip 22:11 January 10, 2020

I'm not a supporter of any of them, but I can see about getting them up. Good catch, I some how missed that too despite the amount of time I've spent editing that page.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 19:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, groundwork has been laid, I'll go through later and add some more info, but anyone else should feel free to jump in, obviously, it's barebones.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 20:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Local 58: Still probably a better choice than Fox News

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuoMasRkMhlj1VNVAOJdw5w/videos

Yes I know that Local 58 is a work of fiction and I am merely cracking a joke. Do not look at the moon --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a great channel for taking a break from all the talking heads. After all, T H E R E A R E N O F A C E S. Blitz (Complaints Box)

I still prefer kid's TV. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How 'bout them Titans?

I doubt this has anything to do with RationalWiki's mission, but then again, how 'bout them Titans?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Pre-Olympian gods of Greek Mythology? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about the NFL team that beat both the Patriots and Ravens.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Weird alliance of nationalists and birds, but of course the giant mythological monsters beat them at an NFL game. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

How 'bout looking at pro-team sports as corporations rather than just entertainment? Making huge sums of money off of players' brain injuries is rather icky even if there was a legal settlement (Concussions in American football). Bongolian (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I hear wrestling is even worse, how the corporations handle it. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, football and wrestling are both dangerous, but there is one sport I found that's even more violent than the two other sports combined: women's hockey.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally follow auto-racing (the Indycar series mostly), which prior to, say, 1980 or so could be half a suicidal career choice. It still is risky (for those who enjoy the "old school risk" for some reason there's always the Isle of Man TT), but in general technology and safety standards have come a long way since then, and have saved a *lot* of race driver lives -- something I personally find a fascinating aspect of the sport. Here's hoping someone comes up with the equivalent of a HANS device to deal with football CTE. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian See, this is the problem: you have to pick your fights strategically. Football is the most popular sport in North America.You might as well start preaching vegetarianism. Red meat is a killer, yeah. Also, I'm a New England fan. They lost to the Titans, but I was glad to see the Titans show up against the Ravens. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I take great pride in being both an american and never having suffered the indignity of actually watching an american football game. MirrorIrorriM

So, football does provide you with some satisfaction in life. Interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk) 17:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) why do you not play proper sports? stoopid americans. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My question would be: who or what are the Titans, Patriots and Ravens? - and why should I care?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Who fancies a cheeky Nando's? Spud (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ice hockey is one of the most demanding sports. It's so fast paced and quite dangerous, controlling your temper is difficult, and you'd think its a skill highly paid players or well trained players would have mastered. Here the Soviets were out of the medal contention and Canada was heading for a very likely Gold. The Soviets were goading the Junior Canadians into a fight, knowing if they started a brawl it would disqualify their arch enemies. Despite having the chance for eternal glory and what would be a crowning achievement for most of them, they flew home in disgrace because they couldn't back down from a fight. They were booed off the ice the Soviets laughing their asses off. Canadians mostly revolted and a few (including Don Cherry) thinking this was the correct response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnv5tQZR-jc ShabiDOO 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

How many of you live in a neighborhood surrounded by right-wing nuts?

I certainly do and a few of them are racist. Good thing I have fairly limited interaction with them. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Include me, as I live in a major city, which also has it's fair share of wingnuts.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Filled? No. But definitely saw a "Who is John Galt" bumper sticker on an economy hatchback which is just the saddest expression of political views. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I never experienced it in Europe or Canada (not that they don't exist...I'm sure but I just don't know where they are). Though while working in several local pubs in the UK there was ALWAYS a super conservative know it all, usually but not always bigoted...that everyone tolerated despite never shutting up about shit, because they added colour to the evening talk. Also they tended to drink a lot of the "traditional beer and food" stock that no one else did. They are annoying, slightly offensive but not terribly toxic.

However going to very specific parts of the US gives you a whole new kind of education. Riding a local bus through an inner city nightmare like Detroit or Baltimore is more frightening and disturbing and fascinating than a horror film or misery-porn-documentary and going to a barbershop in a small conservative American town is more exotic and insightful than going through an Arab tribal bazaar. ShabiDOO 19:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For an added dose of Fun, there is a KKK chapter in my county. To anybody in liberal European countries, you find conservative nuts commonly out in rural areas. No joke. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in a blood red state that is so conservative it is not shocking for the Democrats to place third or fourth in our towns mayoral race(behind libertarians or some moderate Conservative independent). Pretty much everyone I talk to IRL is either a trump supporter or a never trump republican who just hates trump and not the far-right and will still support the same policies if they were proposed by a more "respectable" person. It is also a hotbed for militia hysteria and all sort of sovereign citizen style anti-government plots. Probably the only left-wing people I have met are school students my age(who tend to be Bernie supporters), although that means there is some hope for the future I guess. It does have some upsides, and I probably would not move if given a chance, but I would definitely give it serious thought.Flandres (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I live pretty close to the Westboro Baptist Church. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in a Los Angeles suburb where it's Asian majority, mostly Chinese (60%); white and Latino are similarish; nearly half residents are foreign-born. It's known for excellent schools there. I guess I lucked out. Doesn't mean I don't see the occasional american-flag-patterned Q, a car that looks like it belongs to a gun nut parked outside the mall, or a car with fundie stickers on it in the freeway. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in central London, a solidly labour voting city, in Vauxhall, a solidly labour voting constituency, in a neighbourhood where I cannot throw a stone without hitting a gay. sooo, take a guess. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in rural Texas. I doubt more elaboration is required. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I drove across Texas long ago. There was a seemingly unique rural town there where everyone waived to you as they drove in the opposite direction on the highway. I didn't stop there, so I don't know what it was like IRL. It was somewhere in the western part I think, possibly near the place with the enormous swimming pool of endangered pupfish. Bongolian (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you’re talking about Devil’s Hole, that’s in Nevada. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it was definitely Texas. I remember getting my only speeding ticket around then. Bongolian (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Balmorhea State Park is where the Texas pupfish were that I remember.[1] Bongolian (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, America has two spring pools with critically endangered pupfish? This is the one I thought you were talking about: Devils Hole pupfishChef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I went to Wal-Mart today to get new wipers. There was a car absolutely pasted in bumper stickers. Two of them had bright red text and a bunch of tiny text that nobody would see while driving. So I only noticed the bright red text. The first one said "A CHILD HAS TO DIE" and the second one said "ABORTION." Who is this person who believes in abortion because a child has to die? That was literally the phrase "A CHILD HAS TO DIE" Maybe Satan worship is overtaking my city. This was kinda funny until I really looked at it and yeah, it's kinda funny, but I'm also kinda like "crap, that's pretty close." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in the same place as LeftyGreenMario but I'd like to add to her point that I saw a truck embellished with two large Blue Lives Matter flags once. Otherwise, yeah, wingnuts aren't too common where we live. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 07:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The place I live in is actually remarkably "purple" (our county voted for Obama both times, and also voted for Donald Trump) so as far as bumper-sticker-mobiles go it's pretty easy to find both sides. I'm biased, but in my opinion, the lefty bumper sticker vehicles tend to be parked around places with better food and music. Those with the right-wing slogans inevitably tend to also love crass machismo bullshit, such as "truck balls" (speaking of right-wing nuts, hurr hurr hurr) or the ever-popular "Calvin peeing on things" bumper stickers, that surely demonstrate the vehicle owner's <sarc>refined sense of taste.</sarc> () Soundwave106 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in New England. There are plenty of right-wingers I suppose, but they don't advertise. Nobody is intimidated by them. They don't talk very much. People don't seem to care much what their neighbor's think. I know I don't. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Where I live is a lot like Flandres described... except the people at my school are just as much in favor of Trump as the adults are, complete with people wearing Trump 2020 shirts and MAGA hats to school. Sigh... Oh yeah, and they have a lot of religious stuff at my school, they don't go so far as to have "moments of silence" like I've read about in other places, but half of the "student-run" clubs are church based. Marbles (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong Protests Predictions

I was wondering what people think is going to be the ultimate conclusion of the Hong Kong protests. I personally think the Chinese government is going to pull another Uighur-style detainment project and mass incarcerate protesters or anyone seen as sympathetic to the protesters. I think the rest of the world will let them get away with it because Beijing has their hands in everyone's pockets. I just don't see China backing down at all, they have proven they are willing to commit genocide (against the Uighurs for example) to keep a sort of "ideological-purity" in their citizens. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Uighur is not a world economic force, Hong Kong is. This isn't like, say, culture, which the mainland in theory also supports but in practice is not open enough to let flourish. (Mainland integration IMHO was a key factor in the decline of Hong Kong cinema, once a major powerhouse in the world). My guess is that China will try to "manage" the protests and hope they fizzle out. But Xi Jinping's authoritarian instincts are bad enough that who knows what will happen. Being a little peeved at China is one of the few things I think Democrats and Republicans in Congress actually agree on these days, so even the Uighur bullshit is causing *some* to take notice. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

China wins, Hong Kong gets some token concession, but gives up several elements of their actual de facto independence. There's no meaningful way for any sort of internationalism to come to the protesters' aid. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong wins, but not without serious consequences. Sanctions and divestments occur. Hong Kongs economy temporarily falters, but after a while, it climbs, and Hong Kong is still a large and important city.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no plausible mechanism for that to happen and it's a really dumb prediction. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's really anybody's guess. Uighur and Hong Kong are not likely to be treated similarly just because Uighurs are an other within China and Hong Kong is not, neither geographically nor ethnically. Xi is likely to be very hesitant about crushing Hong Kong because it might show that he has lost the 'Mandate of Heaven' (see DuceMoosolini' great new page on Imperial China). Doing anything that crushes Hong Kong's economy will not be a good idea from any perspective. Bongolian (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Even using your bizarrely medieval framework, that makes no fucking sense, because emperors used military force to crush peasant rebellions all the goddamn time as part of the preservation of the mandate. I seriously cannot fathom how you'd look at the current situation and see the CCP giving an inch for any reason. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(other than token gestures to save face, of course) ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not the point. They don't need to give an inch. They're more likely to seek some sort of ignore-til- it-goes-away solution or a low-key battle of attrition. Their puppet in Hong Kong, Carrie Lam, already gave an inch, but the protesters' all-or-nothing attitude does make it difficult for the CCP. DuceMoosolini already made the analogy that the CCP has taken on the functional appearance of empire, by the way. Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

China's not going to cave because doing so would be an unacceptable show of political weakness. Plus, there's no reason to. Beijing holds all of the cards, and all they really have to do is keep letting their thugs run loose against the protesters and wait things out. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A Tiananmen Square style military crush of Hong Kong is IMHO financial suicide (given the depth of the protests -- it's not just "others" or lefty students, it's practically everyone -- and given Hong Kong's financial center status, and how that seriously helps out China). A military style response to the protests is IMHO an actual plausible World War 3 trigger. I doubt Xi would resort to this (though you never know). China waiting (perhaps futilely, but hey) for the movement to fizzle, maybe with a few token face saving gestures, is the most likely result. The problem I see here is even China's mild actions are causing the opposite effect that they want. (Congratulations, DPP, for winning the Taiwan elections a few days ago!) Soundwave106 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Iron law of institutions, you'd rather rule a burned out husk of a peninsula than give away a thriving banking center to self rule. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

China has two goals and every single thing they do is to maximising the stability and survival of the Communist Party above all, and then the development of the Chinese state (special territories, Taiwan and minority areas and all). Stripping a subversive religious people of their world view which conflicts with that of the communist party is worth it and the costs are tiny cause the world won't sacrifice Chinese trade relations over a people most had never heard of, who are Muslim (casual racism) and nothing to directly and quickly offer the world (economically). The bad press doesn't bother China as their long term goals are being fulfilled. In Hong Kong a massacre would hinder the stability of the party and development of the Chinese state and so they don't invade. Giving into them would also be destabilizing so they don't give them their freedoms. It's status quo with constant soft-pressure and propaganda. They are patient and will take short term pain for the long term stability and development of the state. Their massive investments, highly detailed and researched relations with every country in the world, clear and detailed goals and plans make them a force we cannot compete with. The democratic countries of the world won't come together and cooperate properly to help contain China (which is a menacing force no matter how you look at it). They have no qualms executing two innocent Canadians in order to get back a valued member of the communist party from Canada's legal system. Democracies are usually unable to handle short term pain for long term gain (or even survival) as you see with climate change. And so China will win, Hong Kong will lose to some extent, the Uighurs will lose big time and eventually western countries will lose a huge chunk of their economic and political influence. It is likely that we are living in the peak age for world human rights and as totally insufficient as it is...right now should be considered the golden age for humanity...and also the world might be on fire in a century so there's also that. ShabiDOO 22:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"...and eventually western countries will lose a huge chunk of their economic and political influence. It is likely that we are living in the peak age for world human rights and as totally insufficient as it is...right now should be considered the golden age for humanity." You say this as if western countries didn't engage in extensive colonialism and imperialism. The USA on its own has been a massive human rights violator since WWII and screwed over multiple countries worldwide. No question the Chinese government is bad, but it annoys me when people frame "The West" as some sort of great moral bastion. Colossal Squid (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You'd need a pretty singular minded reading of that text to make that conclusion. Of course the west is responsible for countless human rights violations. It is not a great moral bastion. But it is the only place that has reasonably (despite it being terribly insufficient) enacted human rights, as we have come to see, many of us at least, as one of the most essential components of any social contract. Do you think with the demise of western influence that human rights will increase? Will more countries have meaningful basic human rights at the hands of the influence of China? Indonesia? Saudi Arabia? Russia? The European Union, despite having an agenda that at times is not always particularly benevolent, has done more to ensure the realistic enactment of human rights among its neighboring countries. Despite the fact that several of those countries have sold weapons to terrible governments....does that somehow invalidate the role the EU has played? To speculate that we are living in an age with the peak realistic enactment of human rights around the world...is not unrealistic or crazy. Enjoy those rights while they last and be grateful you actually have them. And if this prediction is wrong, and China somehow devises a miraculous way to ensure rights within the authoritarian party or Islamic countries change their tune, and the world isn't on fire in a century...then hurrah for the world! I'm glad I'm wrong. But please don't put words in my mouth. ShabiDOO 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you're all looking at this the wrong way, human "rights" shouldn't be anything that governments have anything to do with, since it then becomes a bargaining chip on their side during times of civil unrest, or in the hands of rabble-rousing demagogues. It ultimately perpetuates a system none of us had any part in consenting to, it's forced upon us whether we want it or not. If one seriously believes in human liberation do away with governments, and all other sorts of unequal, hierarchical systems. A bottom up approach is always better than a top down approach. Now as for the West supposedly being a bastion of human rights, I think that's just another talking point they use, notice how Western governments in particular go on and on about Iranian human rights abuses while ignoring Saudi rights abuses, and the Saudis are even more authoritarian than the Persians are. On the scale of geopolitics, what comes first is national interests, concern for all human beings come second. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Joining the European community, or in some cases, even becoming a trading member, requires those countries to have very rigorous standards of human rights. It's an unambiguous policy of the European Union to ensure that human rights remain totally protected within its members and have literally advanced the state of human rights in neighbouring countries in their quest to join. They have had less success with Morrocco, Turkey and Georgia however you can be sure that without those pressures their human rights situation would be a lot worse. But yeah, I'd agree this is hardly sufficient but I'd say that if Western countries just suddenly collapsed or lost all their world influence, I wouldn't hold my breath on the meaningful implementation of human rights in other countries. This is a lot different than the American approach which is a really half-assed and badly funded attempt to bring rights to other countries and totally ignore the opposite effect when it gets in the way of business (which the EU can be guilty of with sub-saharan Africa). But even then, the programs that the US have funded, and more importantly the cultural influence through literature, film and television cannot be underestimated. Canada has had some success in the Carribean, and Australia and NZ in the South Pacific (though Australia also created migrant camps of horror in the same area so...there's that). But all you have to do is look at China and Russia's attempt to have African/Asian governments literally scale back human rights to sell their new technologies or secure investment and development. The opposite case. ShabiDOO 21:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree that Beijing will “win” in terms of, at most, offering cosmetic adjustments, not to mention that they will only ditch Carrie Lam once the protests are well and surely over. However, in thus “winning” in Hong Kong, Beijing will likely irrevocably lose Taiwan, since Hong Kong was supposed to be the trial run/poster child for a one country, two systems model that was to serve as the blueprint for (re)unification between mainland China and Taiwan. As it is now obvious that there are not fundamentally two systems (at most there are a few perks and even those may have an expiration date of 2047), whatever sympathy for (re)unification there might have been in Taiwan is well and truly dead among any Taiwanese who prefer democracy to one party rule. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Want some opinions on this Essay

Essay:Zombie Biology

I am using it for the novel I am writing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you read "The Zombie Survival Guide" by Max Brooks? Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that many mistakes in that essay. Also, we haven't had an essay get created on a long time.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh bugger

Well. My beautiful amazing (former?) partner has decided to take a break from our relationship. It’s not because of anything either of us did, it’s apparently because they have a massive workload (final semester of their degree) and they felt like they wouldn’t be able to make enough time for me and were worried that I wouldn’t tell them if they ended up hurting me. We’re still talking and on good terms and it’s (hopefully) meant to be temporary but there are no guarantees. I don’t know what to do. I’m sad and confused and numb. My really good friends reckon it will be fine and this is just a temporary setback, for me to work on myself before we get back together but like. I don’t know. I have no idea why I’m even saying this here but yeah. That’s whats going on. ❣️ ASELA^{និយាយ} ❣️ 10:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty shitty. Are you seriously committed to the relationship (like see a long term future). Does it feel like its best to just give your partner the space they need and cross your fingers that you can resume after the exams or do you feel like this is a call for you to fight for your partner and offer more to the relationship? Has your relationship recently been failing? Are there any notable changes? Has your partner been hinting at things you can do to help the relationship that you cannot give or haven't given enough? How about your partner developing the relationship? Is there an imbalance in the relationship (one of you has been more committed or is more detached and has more power-dynamics? So much involved hey? What is it about your partner that makes you want to stay in a relationship? Have you told your partner this? etc ShabiDOO 15:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

We had a big ol chat today. We both still care for each other but there’s a couple issues that I don’t feel comfortable discussing in detail publicly. Nothing about wrongdoing but just different identities, life goals, etc. They don’t know if they see a future with me or not. I want to stay with them because they are kind and wonderful and funny and make me feel good. However, I probably can’t do that until 1) their exams are finished, 2) I learn to start enjoying education and not taking it for granted while hating every minute of it,, 3) I learn to hate myself less so that they don’t have to spend so much energy helping me feel non-terrible, and 4) I learn some middle ground between “constantly wanting support” and “feeling like a worthless piece of shit if I ask anyone for anything even if I desperately need it”. I feel like, recently, I’ve probably been more invested than they have, but they reckon it’s because they’re at a crossroads in their life. They say that they really want me in their life for the future but it’s impossible to tell if it’ll happen. Right now, I’m just trying to mitigate the drug binges/crying fits I’ve been going through. Maybe it will work out. Who knows. ❣️ ASELA^{និយាយ} ❣️ 07:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A new eponymous law

"Jeh2ow's law" should probably be this: if someone ever gives you something intended for medical use, please check your doctor's credentials. It doesn't matter what race, what sex, and what gender your doctor is. Just make sure they aren't giving you pseudoscientific woo.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So when I buy a jade-vagina egg from Gwenyth Paltrow online, I shouldn't just shove it up an orifice and expect miraculous results but consult a doctor first? ShabiDOO 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather, you would consult the doctor before you get the medicine. Also, why get medicine from an actor well past her prime? The law is as follows: look at your doctor's credentials so you don't get scammed.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Eponymous laws are based on comments in heated discussions or commentaries that later become famous for some reason. You don't just propose a maxim that is already common knowledge and has been repeated elsewhere thousands of times and impudently propose that it be named after yourself.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Quiet, man. I'm enjoying the epic scale of this vacant brainfart. He should definitely elaborate further. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I was this dumb when I was a teenager. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

But I already know my doctor will tell me it's stupid. So how can I find a doctor who will recommend using vagina eggs? ShabiDOO 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I, myself, am reasonably certain that no doctor I ever consult will recommend a vaginal egg for me. On the off chance that I ever do find such a doctor, I will flee him or her wildly and in a panic and call the AMA, CDC, and every other possible medical org I can think of, because I'm happily cis male and this will redefine malpractice. Kencolt (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I propose "Bob's Law". "If someone suggests you should put your hand in a fire, speak to an adult before proceeding." Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

But what if the person suggesting it is also an adult? Is their suggestion sufficient?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 18:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think one of the points of adulthood is that you're supposed to have suffered enough burns to formulate your own sense of caution, and if you fuck up it's now your fault. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I smell a vagina candle[2] in need of a hand. Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The vagina candle seems to actually be a IMHO brilliant marketing stunt by perfumer Douglas Little ("Heretic" brand) who got the idea from Gwyneth Paltrow's reaction to a test scent. Personally, I don't think most vaginas smell like "geranium, citrusy bergamot, and cedar absolutes juxtaposed with Damask rose and ambrette seed", but noses differ, I guess. *shrug* Soundwave106 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The fuckers sold out disturbingly quickly, so I'd also say it was a brilliant marketing scheme. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So I found an "alternative doctor" in the Taiwan wellness centre which is in the basement of a shell-fish market and she has really high ratings on yelp which I would imagine means "highly certified" for her field. With that kind of encouragement I asked if she'd help me with my first vagina-egg implant but then when we both realized I don't have a vagina we both were temporarily stumped on what to do. I didn't want the egg in my ass but at the same time I wanted all the benefits of the vagina egg like balanced hormones and a regular monthly cycle so we went for the rectal route but all I can say is it was a total disaster and I think I'll have to make numerous doctor visits now to sort out a whole new set of problems. Maybe I just should have heeded the Jeh2ow's law all along. It is an outstanding law. Should we start an article on it? ShabiDOO 22:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm a legit doctor, and I know for a fact that all your problems will be solved if you spend fifteen minutes per day huffing the fumes from Gwyneth Paltrow's pussy candle. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If even the front pages of the tabloid press and similar suggest 'medical X' is a bad idea, avoid it like the plague. Anna Livia (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Why the hell are you mocking me? This can seriously be used in a debate. If someone ever promotes something meant for medical use, look at the doctor's credentials, because you could get scammed. And leave Gwyneth Paltrow out of this, as her vagina candles are about as BS as you can get.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because of how you so modestly named your new "law," and the fact that this is RW. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Do y'all really have to be so rude, he's not trying to stir trouble or anything. This is only causing him to get pissed off, why the bullying? — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My point being y'all don't have to be pricks while making your point. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I really didn't care for the first iteration of this subsection and wanted to urge caution. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Jeh ought to set up a committee that states common knowledge, makes them into laws, then awards credit to random users here. For example, "Summa's First Law:Every article created by Forpsionics will be woefully under-cited and pushed into mainspace months before it is ready."𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that sounds like a good idea, zero offense to Forpsionics. We should make a list, put it under Fun, and talk about random laws people come up with not only in RW, but around the entire internet.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean like this? FWIW, Jeh2ow's Law totally deserves its place in there. Caveat emptor, son. (That's "good luck" in Latin.) Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

RW's joke detector has detected jokes in the following. Warning:Humor levels may vary. Please don't say,"This is a joke, right?" or act like this is serious on the talk page.

Boy, are y'all thick.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Then what about this for Jeh2ow's Law, or Weeks' Law?: If someone has a habit of blaming everything bad that's ever happened on one person, group, or thing, they aren't even close to being worth believing. Examples include David Icke blaming some things no one cares about on the lizard people, while Smoloko News used to blame everything on the (((Zionists))) before getting shut down. This is perfect for internet discussions.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 22:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, you can't just state common sense and stick your name on it as a "law". Otherwise people will make fun of you. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I know. Just let me have this.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You wish. Keep whining, squeaker!𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If so, then fuck this shit, I'm out. Obviously not LANCB, but forget about my idea.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

YAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!! VICTORY!!!!!𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact I have a bone to pick with your so called "law". Turns out I just left the vagina egg up in there and my hormones have never been more balanced and my monthly cycle is more regular than it has ever been. The only possible answer must be Gwenyth Paltrows incredible fabulous miraculous vagina egg and its natural healing powers. So I think your law about consulting "real doctors" is wrong, cause my doctor said using vagina eggs would be stupid and yet look at all the evidence you need. Me! As healthy as a fiddle! All because of celebrity jade technology. ShabiDOO 00:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The only important question is if this "law" allows me to cheat on my taxes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can't find a way to make it do so, you are no TRUE freedom-loving patriot.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Alleged evidence of UFO sighting

Hey all, I’ve came across this article (through a tweet I believe) and I’m not sure what to make of it, many people are saying this is evidence for UFO’s/Aliens visiting our planet and the US government being aware of it. I don’t think it’s convincing but I don’t really know what to make of it. What do you guys make of this?—WMS (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That's from Tom DeLonge (of Blink-182 fame) and his "To The Stars" academy. That group is well known for being UFO alien nuts. Reality is that they are "unidentified" thingies (from what isn't the best of video, to be honest), but all that means is objects that the military doesn't know what in the heck they are. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Aliens might exist, but the chances of being as advanced or more even are very slim. Expect some bacteria, because there wont be any spaceships from outside the galaxy.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This also doesn't follow. Many star systems are billions of years older than ours. Unless you've got some secret numbers for the Drake Equation, we cannot reasonably say what the probability of similarly or greater "advanced" life existing is. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Using a sample of one, sapient life has only existed on earth for about three million years give or take, complex, multicellular life only half a billion years or so, and 85% of life's history on earth has been dominated solely by microbes. I think, using a sample of one, that it's not unreasonable to conclude that microbes are gonna be more common than technological civilizations out there in the void. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

But it doesn't follow that that's exclusively what you'd find. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

True, but I don't think it matters much, life is life. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy! BIOETHICS TIME! I LOVE BIOETHICS!!!! Not all life is equal, in the eyes of humanity. You can see that in that we're willing to outright genocide polio or measles(salute those brave antivaxxers standing up against this bacterioholocaust), but feel seriously angry about killing even one human being. Seeing that there's any other life in the universe would be scientifically transformative. Seeing there's any other intelligent life in the universe would change practically everything. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course UFOs are real

The term "UFO" comes from the very real job of flying object identification, which is, as you might guess, critical for war-readiness. You'd get a vague smear on the radar readout from the reflected signal, and you'd need to be an expert to take that vague smear and recognize it as a specific plane. If you couldn't recognize it, it got recorded as unidentified. The Navy not keeping records of that kind of thing would be an absurd oversight, and they really don't want spotters and pilots and radar techs withholding information due to the crank stigma of "UFO sightings".

The jump from objects that are both flying and unidentified to "Alien" is what's absurd. Without being able to review the archive(which they keep secret for inscrutable military reasons), it's impossible to make any sort of informed skeptical judgement about what, specifically, the unidentified objects are. Suffice it to say, "not aliens" is a good starting assumption ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the reasons are quite "scrutable", really. Especially in the earlier days of radar, the identification of a 'blip' was less a science than an art. As you noted, the term "UFO" meant exactly that-- Unidentified flying object. It could be anything from a gaggle of geese in flight to a B-17 to the Hindenburg (Well, the last would be unlikely, since by the time radar had any reliability said Hindenburg was ash and air, and that doesn't show up so good on radar even today-- at least not in the comparatively small quantities it produced).

One of the things the military is also aware of is that each identified object tends to have a pretty identifiable radar "shape", a signature set of identifiable factors that add up to "That's a B-9", or "That's a Zero", or even "That's the Hinden-- the fuck? Call the General, we have a time bubble here!". (The last almost never happens.)

Especially during WWII, when Radar was notable for buggering German plans to bugger Britain, letting any of the information on actually telling one smear from another into the public eye would be bad-- (a), because you didn't want your enemy to know how good you were at identifying friend from foe-- and if foe, which foe it was, and (b) The very existence of Radar was sooper-dooper sekrit, and just knowing it could be done meant that someone could then try to back engineer it-- and a chart of "This plane looks like this smeary thingy" would be staggeringly useful for that effort. Know what to look for, you're halfway there.

Even today, there's a call for keeping that under wraps. If a hostile power knows that you don't know what "Smear 23-Z" actually was, then (especially for a more technically advanced military) it's not such a bad idea to consider building your next stealth plane to be able to imitate "Smear 23-Z" or similar. Militaries keep secrets for many reasons, and no matter what the UFO community thinks, very few of them have anything to do with flying saucers and anal probes. Kencolt (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to be coy, but yes, all accurate. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely if you are aliens on the '1000 planets you must visit before you die/(d)evolve/otherwise change' jaunt the last thing you want is to be spotted; ditto if you are doing a recce to invade (but not when you actually wish to do so). Anna Livia (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Back to the original topic :) I work for a Govt dept that gets UFO reports - the equivalent of the FAA in the USA, or CAA in UK, CASA in Aus, etc. People expect us to "investigate" their reports. We do so only insofar as to cross-check to see if there's any reports in similar date/time and place that they might relate too - otherwise no, there's no known aviation safety issue from "lights in the sky"..... some folk get all huffy 'cos of that! shrug - not my problem. They all get recorded by us faithful civil servants of course :) Aloysius the Gaul 00:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Might as well say that I am an atheist

Ever since joining the Satanic Temple (Still a member, it is atheistic), I lost more and more faith in divine beings. It feels right to reject belief in divine beings. I no longer feel shackled. 25 years of religion and I felt scared to give up faith. I do not feel scared of losing faith.

Question: what made you dump religion? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to be more precise than growing up catholic. And I don't really mean that as a dig against the Catholic church, per se. The only clear point of history I can remember was there was a class they had us take to prepare us for First Confession, and we got a piece of paper with example sins to confess listed on it. One of them was "doubting god", and I remember asking if it was also a sin to not believe god exists, and the teacher(some poor church mom) being positively aghast at that saying "it's the very worst sin". I don't remember if I was strictly an atheist at the time, but I do remember thinking it was absurd that mere conjecture and belief could be worse than, say, murder. I think moral contradictions have always hit me harder than factual contradictions. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I grew up in a cult in the UK. I kept hearing things which didn't quite jibe. Then one day in church - I guess I was about 17 - I clearly remember thinking "I don't think any of this is true". (I whish that I had done what a friend of mine did when he suddenly reached that point in the middle of a sermon - he just got up and walked out. But, sadly, I can't make that claim.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't believe what everyone else believes in my family, so I read the Tanakh several times and became an atheist.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 14:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I might've had some wavering belief in paranormal when I was 8 and I know I used to take part of a Chinese ritual in the graveyard involving my grandfather, where fake money and food get burnt, but I wasn't ever raised with a specific religion. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's weird, but many rituals are nice in a non-religious way, sometimes. Tokens and symbols can be nice, as long as people don't start believing they do anything. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I was brought up similarly. Same sort of paranormal stuff because that's interesting to kids, a little bit of an obsession with ancient mythologies, but nothing in the way of a specific god (capital or not). I suppose the closest to being raised religiously one can say is that I've been ingratiated with the atheistic Buddhism (Eight-fold path/Middle Way) that existed at first, but other than that, nothing really. I love the "All babies are atheists" argument, because I feel like I'm kind of living proof of that. Representative Slip Represent yourself 17:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Babies aren't capable of grasping complex issues like theism, atheism, so on and so forth, I don't think babies are developed enough to be called an "atheist" or a "theist." Once one is the age of five or so, you can easily start grasping such concepts. I've been an atheist since I was 10. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In a way, I did enjoy the burning, but I saw the ritual was more of a family get-together rather than genuine belief in, well, this ritual. We also ate some home-cooked Chinese food after burning some. Still remember the dumplings, mmmm. I had to ask what religion is this, I remember, because it's never discussed in the textbooks on religion so I was left confused what religion that was. Think I was told it was Buddhism, dunno (I remember very well that my grandma had yellow swastikas embellished on the burial cloth at her funeral; the stark contrast of symbolism was really striking to me) but it never seemed quite that. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario It's Chinese folk religion. Taiwanese Buddhists burn those paper thingies to send to their relatives in the afterlife. So too do Taiwanese Taoists. So probably do a few Taiwanese Christians and Muslims, even if, strictly speaking, they are not supposed to. Even I have been asked by my Taiwanese friends to chuck some god money in a furnace so that the Chinese gods would smile on little white me. I might do that again during my upcoming Chinese New Year holiday. Spud (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I figured later on, but just the lack of documentation of folk religion made me unable to characterize what the ritual was part of until I think I read about it in some kids magazine. Anyway burning fake money and some food, better than animal sacrifice, huh. Man I wonder if there's some type of fake money that turns fire green, as some things I burnt in a fire place did do that. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been to church since I was 4 AMassiveGay (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I just sort of grew out of it. I think I was atheist by the time I was 14 or so. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Though I was raised by a particularly cultlike family of evangelicals(well, kinda; my father and almost all of our relatives were Christians and my mother was a secret atheist), I do not think I was ever "engaged" by religious teaching at any point in my life. Ever since childhood being at church always carried a connotation that "this is for other people and I have no place here". I never related to biblical messages or the virtues of humility and temperance that I was being taught, I never understood why various things were either lauded or forbidden, and by the time I was ten I spent church staring at girls or daydreaming. Eventually, without consciously going "I am an atheist" I just told my mother I did not want to go to church anymore and with my father incarcerated there was no one to force the issue. Considering I was "coming out" if you will in a blood red state it was shockingly peaceful-pretending to be religious was far more stressful.Flandres (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I never really was a believer/religious (not that I can recall at least, though I’m both baptised, confirmed and still a member of a Protestant church for reasons that have nothing to do with religious beliefs), so I never really went through the whole “deconvertion” thing.

As the whole “religion as significant political marker” thing isn’t much of an issue in my neck of the woods (as opposed to in the US), being an atheist doesn’t really carry the significance lent to it by, say, the culture wars. Conversely, some form of cultural Christianity (or other religion) or a form of less clearly defined belief in “some sort of higher power” is widespread, but without the kind of strong cultural contestation and significance of religion as an explicit political marker such beliefs (or lack thereof) is generally seen as a personal/private matter/choice and thus rarely part of the broader, public discourse.

When it comes to the use(fullness) of (religious) rituals, I kind of enjoy them as markers of important (life) events. For instance, I find that there is indeed some soothing elements to the well known routine of a funeral and a good funeral oration by the priest might help to highlight both the good and salient aspects of the life that is now at an end and what we ought to both remember and realise is lost. Plus, it paradoxically tends to not only bring various family branches together, but also create a sort of “those were good times” positive, even cathartic, atmosphere after the formal church rituals have helped set the stage through a series of well known and worn steps. Similarly, at weddings, christenings and confirmations, the rituals give a similar sort of steady and familiar framework for dealing with important life events (cf. rite of passage), and I do enjoy many of the hymns as well.

The reason I generally avoid going to church outside of the aforementioned “life events” is that having to either recite the Lord's Prayer with the congregation (and thus be a hypocrite) or to keep silent (and thus rather missing one of the crucial features of going to a sermon at all) is something that to me feels like an awkward choice between two quite unattractive options. Not to mention that I have on more than one occasion simply fallen asleep during the sermon... ScepticWombat (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Rapa Nui

For the longest time, I bought into the myth that the inhabitants of Rapa Nui destroyed their environment and themselves because of Moai, and only just learned it was made-up bullshit, and their recorded population decline was due to Peru making slaves out of them on top of disease brought on by colonialism. It seems obvious in hindsight (of course there'd still be people living in Rapa Nui), but it made me realize how much indigenous people get erased from historical narratives. I know the myth gets debunked in our own article on Rapa Nui, but I think that could be better emphasized because of how widespread (for instance, forming the basis of Jared Diamond's Collapse; guy himself could use an article considering how hated he is in anthropological circles) and toxic it is (to put it mildly, vastly underestimating the Rapa Nui people's ecological knowledge). Also, does anyone have any good sources for the actual history and present day story of Rapa Nui culture? Colossal Squid (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I used to believe as a kid that American Indians/Native Americans got along with European colonists. Watching Disney movies and glossing over historical facts by the school system would lead a kid to believe that. No worries. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There was some kind of ecological collapse on Rapa Nui. There was a species of palm tree, now extinct, that only grew there; it seems to have been wiped out by human activity. Pollen records show a strong decline in plant species diversity over time on the island after human settlement, a familiar story. The moai religion had been abandoned and rejected by the islanders in what seems to be a very short time. Unfinished statues remain in the quarry where they were made. The moai themselves were toppled by the islanders themselves well before European involvement. Some have speculated that the statues represented a repudiated aristocracy, but this is mostly speculation. The notion that they ruined the stands of trees to make moai is also pure speculation. The moai religion had been replaced by a religion based on birds; this culture gave rise to the undeciphered Rongo-rongo script. But the human population there does seem to have declined from peak levels during the moai period before Europeans got there. Of course slavery and disease didn't help. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article, a leading theory is that rats that the original Rapa Nui people brought with them when they settled the island were partly responsible for eating the tree nuts from the now extinct palm trees. Further, the palm trees were especially slow to grow, at about 100 years to reach maturity. I think the decline of the island can be chalked up to a perfect storm of lack of natural resources due to slow growth, disturbing biodiversity of a small ecosystem by introducing new creatures (rats), colonially introduced diseases (small pox), and the slave trade. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A newer eponymous law

Oxy's law: "Any self-proposed eponymous law is likely gonna be modestly named after the proposer in question, at which point it will be likely be met with derisive mockery." — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Y'know what, I actually like this one. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 06:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I also named it "Oxy's law" on purpose to add to the law's effect. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I hereby formally greet this proposal with derision and mockery.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Antigem’s Law of Eponomics- New eponymous Laws will be created for the sole purpose of producing awful puns, until such a time that the supply and demand for such laws reaches a balanced point where the creators are met with more mockery than indications the puns are appreciated.Antigem (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bob M As is appropriate. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Derpity derp de derp derp de derpity derp derp. ShabiDOO 13:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As a student that had to learn wholly nondescriptive things like "Moh's scale", "Wernicke's area", "Broca's area", "Richter's scale", "Brodmann area", "Planck's law", "Kirchoff's law", I say to hell with dead stuck-up white men names on textbooks than actually make it easier to memorize what name refers to what. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

When I was a high school student, one of my science teachers offered that getting a discovery named after oneself was a great reason to become a scientist. Honestly though, it's an awful reason. The best reason is to love the processes of science — problem solving, rational thought, mathematics, debate, teaching, collegiality and competition. There's some dubiousness about naming discoveries for people because of the frequency of multiple discovery. Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If I were to discover something, I wouldn't name something after myself. It just comes off as super stuck-up. I'd rather call things I find after unique properties of them. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the discoverers actually named them in honor of themselves. It is more likely that others at the time merely honored them for contributing to science by using their discoveries to lavish praise upon the discoverers.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a idea. How about we translate some of our articles to Norwegian?--Deli-delibirda! (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you know the language, go for it. I don't know the language myself so I would not be helpful. There are probably others here who do know the language. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm betting that the only user here who is fluent in Norwegian is Delibirda. :-) Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually took (and passed) a Norwegian language test once when applying for a job (which I didn’t get), though it turned out that only Norwegian applicants were required/supposed to take it. Long story short: While I would be able to check whether the stuff was fairly faithfully translated, I really can’t be arsed to do the heavy lifting of systematically translating it from the ground up. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Like I said before, you do not have to ask permission to start translating articles into another language. If you want to do it, just go ahead and do it. Personally, I would love to see as many different languages as possible represented here as possible and I'd be happy to see Norwegian added to our growing Tower of Babel. Jubel! (That's Norwegian for Skål!) Spud (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I need help editing an article

Here is the draft for Terrence Williams. I need serious help making it to the mainspace. Also, at the end when the article is ready, let's reply it on one of his Twitter posts so he gets pissed.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs references. Right now, I'm taking the article's word for it, so I need examples to support the claims in the article. Not sure if we should engage with him on Twitter, however. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right. I'm pretty sure that once this article gets finished, it will probably be discovered by Williams, as there aren't that many pages on him.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That's going to be needing a hell of a lot of references. For that matter I'm not sure how you would really reference something like "Williams all of a sudden flipped his positions on pretty much everything".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Williams personally claimed that he used to be a Democrat. He says this on both his Twitter and his website. It would be nice if someone told me several references about him that would be perfect in the article.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 20:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is sort of a problematic guy to cite very well, such is the nature of online "stardom". This guy has some presence online, enough to be a notable (56K subscribers on Youtube, 742K followers on Twitter) but very little impact outside the social media circle echo chamber he is in. So I see very little bio information outside of a single Heavy.com article so far. However, he seems to tweet a *lot* of conspiracy theories and a Google News search basically shows he gets attention for basically that, most notably the "Epstein didn't kill himself" motif suggesting that Clintondidit (famous perhaps because Trump retweeted it), but also other bullshit such as "George Lopez put a bounty on Trump", "8 black kids jumped a kid wearing a MAGA hat", "Ilhan Omar was partying on the anniversary of 9/11" (also retweeted by Trump), etc. Apart from that, he has the standard "everyone is against conservatives!" whine and the usual conservative posts on social media that complain about social media content policies, predictable right wing populist stuff these days. (Last week I flushed out the draft of John McAfee a fair bit, and by comparison, that guy's so much more an easier edit since there's so much information out there.) Soundwave106 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if being an AA, pro-Trump comedian is worthy of a real article here on RW? I can't imagine that he is funny given current show listings. What about creating a register of twitterati Trump supporters not important enough to have their own articles?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)