RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive341

This is an archive page, last updated 6 February 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>, <339>, <340>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

"Joe Rogan's audience aren't Trump people or Right wingers"?

https://twitter.com/wesinjapan/status/1220522545629159424?s=20

Never listened to Joe Rogan for once, how true is this guy's statement? Dogeatsdog (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Very false from what I know of the man. Either by accident or by design Rogan has cultivated a mostly right-wing audience. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I also haven't listened to Joe Rogan a lot, but it appears that he is politically Third Way, often combining social liberalism, and fiscal conservatism, and vice versa. This could explain why he's had both members of the alt-right and Democratic presidential candidates like Sanders on his show.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Mostly it's the radio equivalent of tl;dr, unless it happens to be someone you're especially interested in. You could certainly do worse, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Never listened to his show, his comedy, his MMA, or his Fear Factor, so I'll go with what the what other Wiki describes and assume his views are vaguely libertarian-ish. If I recall Sanders gets some cross-libertarian support. I don't think there's another Democratic candidate with that cross-appeal (maybe Yang?). So the endorsement makes perfect sense to me. *shrug* Soundwave106 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rogan's politics, from what I've gathered, are a hodge-podge. He's socially liberal but very anti-PC, economically libertarian but not necessarily a friend of big business, critical of military adventurism, pro-gun rights, pro-animal welfare, and pro-marijuana legalization. His political endorsements are all over the map but generally line up with an anti-establishment sentiment; he endorsed Ron Paul in 2012 and Gary Johnson in 2016, and this election, he's officially endorsed Bernie Sanders but also spoken positively of Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. In some ways, his politics are the exemplar of "Third Way" centrist neoliberalism, but in others, he's its antithesis. This article by Devin Gordon for The Atlantic goes into great detail on who his target audience is: mostly "bros", young men (likely white by virtue of simple demographics in the US, but not necessarily so) who generally don't really care about politics, dislike moralism of any stripe (especially when it seems targeted at their proclivities), embrace a particular kind of "man's man" culture associated with extreme sports and MMA, and in my experience have a lot of overlap with fans of South Park. More well-to-do members might be college fraternity members, or had been so when they went to college. He's probably the voice of what I think is the future of the Republican Party (as opposed to either Trumpism or a return to Reaganism): socially liberal but in a classical sense rather than a progressive one, economically populist (whether that be interventionist or laissez-faire depends on the political winds of the moment), and not just very male but often overtly masculine. KevinR1990 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So we can't put him in the anti-Communist camp (aka Counter-revolutionary), which makes him either a Pinko, Fellow Traveler, ignorant, a Commie Symp, or just a spoiled adolescent. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 18:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the Atlantic article, I'd put him in the gym-bro crowd above anything else, and he's popular because he's the bro Terry Gross in essence. Vague bits of the left, libertarianism and alt-right philosophy have swirled around Joe and have been picked up in piecemeal but nothing necessarily defines him except his Broness. The biggest surprise of this article is that Jock bro culture and Nerd geek culture are no longer worlds apart, in that it is now possible to sell a rather expensive Darth Vader kettlebell. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I largely agree with the awful centrist liberals who think the show has had way too much willingness to uncritically present alt-right shits, but they're really really reaaaaaaaaallllly reaching for any excuse to demand bernie apologize for something innocuous, and genuinely have no actual fucking convictions on the matter, and I don't want to give them an inch on this. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rogan's endorsement shows that Bernie truly can reach across the aisle, and those who say otherwise are full of fucking shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

First time somebody ever referred to Hari-Kari as "reaching across the aisle". By their fruits ye shall know them. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Side note: "Hara-kiri" (lit. "stomach-cutting") is the correct spelling for ritual disembowelment. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

He backed away from Cenk for less. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If Joe Rogan wants to talk about smoking weed or MMA, he's an authority in my book. I have heard plenty of his podcasts, have known plenty of people who want me to just listen to his podcasts with them. One person on his show, no clue who, posited that the middle east is more violent because from an evolutionary standpoint that's where humanity started civilization, and Rogan compared it to working on an old operating system. As opposed to what, you two morons, interbreeding with a nonexistent peaceful white race instead? He's a comedian who gets punched in the head for fun. The problem is, one group of listeners thinks Rogan is very smart about everything and asks useful questions, and one subset of guests on his show say "yes, Joe, exactly, that's exactly right," and another subset says "no, Joe, let me explain it in different terms." Somehow to his big fans it doesn't add up that the people on his show who say "haha, ok, but no not really" are the ones to listen to. Being said, I don't think Rogan's endorsement of Sanders is an issue. I don't think liking Rogan is bad, but it does imply some taste. I think saying "Rogan's endorsement of Sanders proves Sanders has a huge racist, misogynistic base that Sanders will endorse right back" deserves a "haha, ok, but no not really." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought the issue was not that he gave sanders an endorsement, but that sanders was pleased with it, and did not disavow it? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Bernie apparently accepted the endorsement, and some members of the Very Concerned Left (MoveOn and Human Rights Campaign are examples) were Very Concerned that someone who has made trans-phobic and "anti-PC" remarks in the past actually endorsed a candidate "on their side" or something. I'm not terribly concerned personally. Assuming my "gym-bro" impression is correct, some of that sort of bullshit unfortunately occasionally comes with the territory (especially if you toe a South Park-esque "anti-PC just because" line as well), but the "gym-bro" crowd tends to be *far* worse when it comes to diet / exercise / supplement woo, and to start engaging in lefty Purity Tests over this crowd is honestly counter-productive. (I see a recent podcast of his was with openly gay Strongman Rob Kearney, for instance, seeming to confirm that gym-bro appeals above all.) I'm also getting the impression that the worst of his transphobic remarks had to do with a MMA controversy over Fallon Fox (the first openly transgendered fighter in MMA) and while his quoted remarks were "not classy" to put it lightly, how to handle the transgendered in sports is honestly a legitimate concern. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"Not classy"?? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely did not talk about this MMA trans woman in the right way, but after listening to (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-KjcOQPVeI) his clarification of his current stance on trans women, and his admission that he tends to say stupid incorrect shit, but at the end of the day wants to be friendly... I'm inclined to agree with Rogan that people shouldn't be taking him so seriously on anything but what he's an expert on. Also he is now wary of doing anything else that could influence politics, as an interesting aside. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit different from a David Duke endorsement. Sanders doesn't need to say "don't know him, whatever, thank for the endorsement." It's not the same thing. My bad it's a transcended debate now.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Libs hate Rogan so his endorsement can't be that bad, hey hey. Endorsing Cenk is also probably considerably less strategic than accepting an endorsement from Rogan. lan (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Disease outbreaks and idiotic conspiracy theorists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cplSFezFcg - news clip about the new Coronavirus strain the emerged from China.

Read the comment section and you will find brainless conspiracy theorists of all types. Religious fundies, those who think that the virus was made in a lab and hard green people blaming meat eaters. Real circus of dipshits. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Now wait a minute. Why would the Trump-hating Deep State and CIA begin a false-flag germ warfare operation against the United States to derail a China trade agreement? nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 23:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I was expecting to find some sort of xenophobia in the comments section. I was not disappointed. I hate shitheads who say that Chinese eat weird things. I mean, we get it now, we do eat weird things, what's exactly the difference between eating bats and snakes and eating cows raised in a disease vector of an environment that is our meat-packing industry? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 00:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm still shocked beef tendon isn't eaten widespread. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I enjoy it in soup. It's so chewy it draws the experience out longer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Vietnamese pho with beef tendons can be quite tasty. Most cuisines around the world have food items that seem revolting to people from elsewhere. We have a short section on that topic here: Argumentum ad fastidium#"Disgusting" foods. Bongolian (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Beef tendon's great in soup, but I really like it in a cold spicy mala dish too. I also like pork feet a lot since it's a very similar melt-in-mouth texture to tendon. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@RobSmith I have to agree, that would be a stupid way to derail an agreement. If China wanted to derail an agreement, it would be easier using assassins against politicians than bioweapons. Less collateral damage. No I am not advocating assassination. It is more for the sake of the argument if China wanted to stop a deal. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So true. Either way, it's hard to pin motive on either China or the CIA. OTOH, perhaps Guiliani did it to keep the trade war going since Trump has come to some accommodation with Mitch McConnell, a guy who is in the pocket of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, globalists, and the Deep State. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 01:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@RobSmith "Jewsdidit!" ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah ha! Now we got evidence! Justin Trudeau shipped coronavirus to China in hopes of prolonging the China trade war until after passage of USMCA. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 18:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Corroborated media accounts - insures the death of cp:Globalism and re-election of Donald Trump. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 19:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If I wanted to kill thousands of people with a disease that spreads all over the globe rapidly, I'd just wait for flu season. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as things stand influenza is almost certain to kill more people this year - and every year.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ballad of the Alamo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyu3OIn5A00 I feel guilty for liking Marty Robbins' music even tho he was such a reactionary shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Texas revolution is one of the worst shitshows of American history. You want both sides to lose. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The colonists were reactionaries anyways, it certainly shouldn't be called a "revolution." The Texans were fighting because Mexico had recently abolished slavery, and was willing to take action to enforce said abolition. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

that and they had to start paying tax after years of not having to AMassiveGay (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do an article on the Texas Revolution, but I've always been distracted by other projects. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Texas revolution is overly romanticized. I'm not going to repeat which state I'm from. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Texan here. My Texas history professor taught us that the Texas revolution was at first a part of a larger rebellion against Santa Anna. The initial goal was to become an independent state of Mexico (we were part of another state.) with slavery as a main reason as well. though the independence movement gained traction as more and more American volunteers came and supplanted the local Tejano and Mexican population. he even taught that the flag used at the Alamo was a Mexican flag with the eagle replaced by the numbers 1824. and this professor was a white guy who had a respect for Mexican and American history. Gzstg (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Fighting the Texas Revolution almost makes you wish for a Little Ice Age. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

American Vassal

It will be very interesting to see to what extent the UK will be vassalised by the United States. Canada can certainly assure the UK that historical/cultural/political ties won't make the US any less ruthless...who always has a huge upper hand. Canada has had decades to adapt. The UK will be extremely vulnerable with few options but to maybe make a couple concessions and be dictated the rest of the terms. I'm curious just how brutal it will be (with China, the EU, Japan etc too). ShabiDOO 18:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the UK one already? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Britain is entering he third world. we've moved away from Europe, cannot move closer to the us without significant concessions, and bullied from looking elsewhere. what have we gained? blue passports. whoop de doo AMassiveGay (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Please sir, can I have a trade deal?" Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Look at the bright side, the UK is better situated for Most Favored Nation status than Cuba is. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 19:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I am an American, and not familiar with common types of British reactions to Americanisms of all sorts. I can tell you that if Americans condescend to the British for whatever situations Britons currently face, I am unaware of it. The British government has never been a vassal, nor is likely to become one, their pride could not accept it. This is where we Americans got it from. This sort of talk, where GB is given as a has-been world leader trolls the traditional English sense of superiority. After all, according to Ben Franklin, being English and being white were practically the same thing: "...the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth." By these criteria, I myself am a person of color, so don't ask me boss. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems the only issue here is trade - access to the American consumer market. Americans hold what everybody wants - access to our consumer market. And we don't really need anything from the rest of the planet, including oil to fuel our economy, human capital or brainpower, or cheap labor. Trump's a genius, and even the boys in Davos are seeing the light. nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 20:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Basically, some form of (increased) Finlandization seems probable, although depending on whether Trump retains the White House or not, the Brits may or may not have their noses rubbed in it, such as a very public(ised) opening up of the NHS to US healthcare corporations, having to agree to import chlorine washed chicken etc. Trump would likely revel in such hoopla to stroke his “strong man” image, whereas another occupant of the White House might be more circumspect and thus less likely to publicly humiliate London. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Then why does the UK toe the US line on the international stage? — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena My response was meant in good humour (sic). The US and GB are allies. Allies are supposed to support one another. Please forgive my ignorance of British foreign policy (I admit it), but at least on one question, the Iran Nuclear Deal, GB opposes Trump and sides with the other cosigners. They are right to do so. This looks like local politics for Britons.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

'being English and being white were practically the same thing' that's not been true for a long time. take a stroll through London. it has the largest non white population of any city in Europe. its one one of the most multicultural cities in the world. multicultural London English has pushed out cockney into Essex and is no longer a London dialect. look at Bradford, the largest Pakistani population in the uk, look at Leicester which has 55 mosques, 18 Hindu temples, nine Sikh gurudwaras, two synagogues, two Buddhist centres and one Jain centre. chicken tikka masala is more popular than roast beef AMassiveGay (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was joshing. I've heard that London may be one of the most international of all cities.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Imagine the joy and delight so many Brits will have when they get their blue passports. It will almost make all those job losses and lost workers-rights and inability to retire in the Mediterranean worth it. ShabiDOO 12:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

actually, its disingenuous to suggest all we get from this is blue passports. theres a commemorative coin too. makes one proud to be british. the Brexit day celebrations will be such a joy knowing that all the important things are taken care off. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Kobe

When he was still playing, Kobe Bryant was one of the greatest guys on the court I've ever seen. He scored 81 points in a game once against the Raptors. Unlike his teammate in Shaquille O'Neal, he was by far more modest. Regardless if you're a Lakers fan, his death will be a massive loss to the entire sports world.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 20:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I was shocked when I heard of the news. I don't watch sports but even I know his name and it's a tragedy that his death was quick and fiery. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Same. This man's a household name, even for nonsports fan. I probably know him in part because I know who the Lakers are, and my dad watches basketball on TV. Oof, it's an end of an era. No one deserves to die so young. RIP. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Alex Jones is scum. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A redundant statement if ever I read one. Kencolt (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Also found footage of an MSNBC host referring to the Los Angeles Lakers to the "Los Angeles one-particular-word. Probably an accident, but still.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Remember that Kobe Bryant was (credibly) accused of sexual assault back in 2003. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

So - this is yet another foreign sports story? Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, American basketball. Though actually big enough of a story to show up as a mid-level article when I query Google News from Venray, NL (the highest placing story was a quote about Kobe from F1 driver Lewis Hamilton, natch). Soundwave106 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

8 other human beings died in that crash. Kobe was a basketball phenom, and a credibly accused rapist. Whatever our love or hate for Kobe personally means to us, a private helicopter full of people crashed during a bout of fog in which nobody should have been piloting a helicopter for any reason, let alone to get to tip-off in time. It should be noted that the pilot requested special clearance, and it was given. This was human error. the pilot should have raised altitude and carefully searched out level ground before making a move. Just fucking stay aloft until somebody helps you figure it out, we've got GPS, it's not the God damned Vietnam War. I mean, aviation accidents are just never OK, pilots know that 99% isn't a success rate in which people can also survive. What the fuck was this pilot trying to accomplish and why in the hell did anyone clear him to attempt it? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the BBC, "they all look alike". Needless to say, Americans are highly offended. nobs^{Free Roger Stone!} 07:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've heard his name before having something to do with North American basketball but I really have no idea who he was. My paper never mentioned it. It was mentioned in EL Mundo but it must be a very slow news day indeed cause after asking several friends (who enjoy sports) who Coby was...they had no idea nor had ever watched North American basketball in their lives nor could name a single NBA team. ShabiDOO 12:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am only aware of this guy because of his legal problems, but I don't know what it brings to the reports of someones death if all I have to say about it is 'I don't know who they are'. seems like bad form. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, this iconic Trump hater and leftwing elitist was able to escape rape charges in the post-Clinton-Harvey Weinstein-Jeffrey Epstein Era by the tried and tested method of blaming the victim. nobs^{Free Roger Stone!} 15:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to Bob who pointed out that its another America-centric issue (North American sports league) and to soundwave's suggestion that it is international news which it sort of is in a few papers here and there, cause its a slow news day. I think most continental European paper's headlines are about Belgium's King and him being forced to admit and provide for a bastardette child the whole country already knew about after a DNA test (again, its a slow news day). ShabiDOO 16:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not only is it a local US issue, it's not obvious why it should be of interest here. I understand that people can talk about whatever non-relevant thing they like. But that also means that others have the right to say WTF.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I did get the opinion that it is of low relative importance. Sports actually is very regional-ish in practice except for a few marquee nation-competing events (Olympics, World Cup, etc.). I'd actually wager a lot of Americans actually wouldn't know who Lewis Hamilton was, and he's way higher up as far as international profile goes than Kobe Bryant is. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

When are you going to accept the Trump is also a clinton-style Epstein associate pedophile? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

apolgy for bad english

where were u when cobi friant die

i was at house eating dorito when phone ring

"Cobi friant is kil"

"no"

VerminWiki (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that basketball is a hugely popular sport in Spain, I'm a bit surprised that our editors there weren't very familiar with the name Kobe Bryant

Oh well, I hear Nicholas Parsons has just died at the age of 96. Now who fancies a cheeky Nando's? Spud (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Live in Spain. I honestly couldn't name a Spanish basketball player.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I live in Madrid and I have no idea what our basketball team is called. I don't know anyone who watches or goes to games except my ex who was a sport fenatic. While yeah it's probably more popular than in the UK...popular is still relative. Did you know the UK has an ice-hockey league? I saw "The London Nights" play the Nottingham somethig-or-other. The two team's players had drinks together in a pub near the venue. Mostly Canadians and Russians having a ball playing hockey in a country that doesn't go to -40° in February. Slow news day. ShabiDOO 19:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What about this for an international sport? Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine protests in Hong Kong

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/china-coronavirus.html

Things are getting ugly in Hong Kong after the local government wanted to use a unused building for Coronavirus infected patients. Protesters already ignited fires in the building. Containment will be fun considering the fact that those infected can spread the virus before showing symptoms. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Where are Hong Kongers going to go to escape quarantine? The mainland? nobs^{Epstein didn't kill himself} 19:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

hell is always an option. EK (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Or the US. I understand that the country is very welcoming to the tired poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

R. Budd Dwyer

Probably more well known for killing himself in front of a live TV audience. We should talk about how much of a douche he was and why he was convicted, which led to him calling for a news conference, where he shot himself.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 02:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The person thought that making those who prosecuted him feel guilty over his death, was worth traumatizing (some for life) the dozens of people who were in the room. An outstanding human being. ShabiDOO 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo It actually gets worse... Central Pennsylvania, the state were this happened, was getting nailed by a snowstorm, and a lot of kids were home from school that day, and one of the big television stations in that region aired that footage uncensored, for some reason...--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 23:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"one of the big television stations in that region aired that footage uncensored, for some reason" It was live, wasn't it? Revolverman (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about it being live on the Wikipedia article, or this news clipping from the The York Dispatch discussing how it was covered by various news stations. However that clipping does say that "Almost immediately, the NBC affiliate in Pittsburgh, WPXI put its film on the air and showed the suicide in full.", which could be what you are thinking of. Also a few stations, elected to broadcast the uncut footage it as part of their noon news programs and evening news broadcasts.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 01:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Granted, I've never really deeply investigated this, but I was always under the impression that he intended it to be live. So that there would be an ironclad record of him dying before he was formally removed due to corruption I think? This insured his family got some benefits, or something. Revolverman (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Trump's "peace plan"

Apparently, his plan favors annexation more than actual peace. It's bad for Israel as it could harm the country's economy and security, and the chance of an actual Palestinian state existing because of this is very slim. This is less of a peace plan and more of a peace scam.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It turns out absolute tyranny is a kind of peace. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I would bet €1,000,000,000 that God, Bhudda and Zeus would descend from the heavens and play a game of billiards in the Roman Colosseum for a charity fundraiser to bring awareness of hang-nail sufferers (up to 1 million people are inconvenienced every year by hangnails) ... before any peace plan of any kind by Trump did something other than make things worse. But alas, I can't find a betting website that offers odds on such a scenario...nor do I have a billion euros to bet. While it isn't funny in the sense that so many people in the Middle East will continue to suffer...it is utterly hysterical watching Trump fail spectacularly again at something he thinks his Godly capabilities can easily solve. I hang onto the hope that we'll watch him be humiliatingly booted out of office in November. Wouldn't that be divine? ShabiDOO 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the Trump plan is literally just "the status quo but we dig a tunnel and palestinians shut up about it". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a tiepo in the announcement. It's actually the Middle East Piece Plan: After getting the nod from the US criminal-in-chief, Israel's criminal-in-chief is about to annex large sections of the West Bank.[1] Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian Even as a Zionist myself, that's a pretty smart analogy.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Though I personally favour Palestine, even from a pragmatic and realpolitik standpoint the plan is damn godawful. As it is now, the plan pretty much gives Israel everything they could reasonably hope for, and it's in every way worse than what Palestine currently has (which is really saying a lot). The level of misunderstanding you would have to have regarding the Israel-Palestine Conflict in order to believe in the viability of it is astounding. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This was never meant to be an actually viable proposal. It's just Trump performing for his base, trying to show how much he favors Israel. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it would be terrible for Israel, unless you think that all Israelis have the same annexationist policy as Netanyahu, which is false given that parties like the Labor party and Meretz exist.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's ludicrous to propose that Israel is going anywhere, the past, its innumerable atrocities included, is said and done. I am antizionist on principle because of its inherent disregard for human rights and its ethnonationalist character, but as a matter of realpolitik Israel isn't going anywhere, we may as well try to mitigate the damage the occupation has done, starting with the Nakba onwards, and try to atone for the mistakes still being committed by Israel (they say "Israel has a right to self defense" but they always leave out that those so-called "terrorists" are acting in self defense too, the First Intifada was largely peaceful, at least initially, and Hamas only rose to power out of the brutal suppression of the First Intifada, so in many ways Israel is the aggressor here), but Israel is here to stay like it or not, might as well not resort to goddamn ethnic cleansing and apartheid. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A thorough debunking of GWAS hunting racial-IQ obsessed pseudoscientists(preprint)

Applying the current most reliable bioinformatic techniques to the same datasets Lynn types use for their shitfest papers finds next to no effect from between-group genetic differences on IQ. This is incredibly unsurprising to anyone who's read the methodology sections of a Lynn or Molyneux paper, as they do nothing to properly normalize their data before applying it. But if you're ever exposed to one of those race realist types with one of their papers published in a pseudojournal, this will be a good resource. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotta bookmark this. Sure to come in handy at some point. I bump into race realism all the time. Cheers!82.36.198.177 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Need some constructive criticism

For those who helped me out with the opening to the story: This section comes immediately afterwards.

“”Right after accounting all his supplies to last through the hurricane, Romney grabbed multiple medical books. Because of the extra time he had, Romney choose to study for medical school. Already being a physician's assistant, the time it would take to get a full medical degree would be much less. As time past, the winds from the approaching storm only got stronger. Thunder and lightning brought a feeling of unease even among the strongest of men. Not a single person was immune to this feeling, nobody. Storm clouds rolled through the area as if they were an advancing army. Catastrophic destruction was coming. While Hurricane Dominic would bring disaster to the state, another disaster was brewing at the same time. Nobody could see it at all nor hear it. It was a plague that existed in the human species for hundreds of thousands of years. The posion that would activate it would be unleashed during the storm. Hundreds of miles of the coast of Florida below the water's surface, a small seismic tremor caused a small yet deep crack in the ocean floor. Out the crack came a twenty thousand year old toxic substance. This toxin had cancerous causing properties and it damaged DNA. In mere hours the toxin would reach coastal Florida. Romney listened to his radio while studying medical books, music provided some comfort. That comfort was frequently interrupted by Emergency Alert System activations. It seemed like that any comfort he had was cut short by one thing for another. Then came the biggest annoyance, an advertisement for the New Tomorrow Baptist Church, "Join New Tomorrow Baptist Church today. Membership application is available avaliable through our website www.NewTomorrowBap.org. Membership application is also available in person at the New Tomorrow Baptist Church. We are located on 391 Marie Drive. May God bless you and free you from sin". While New Tomorrow signed his paychecks, Romney hated their guts. The sole reason he had any form of affilation with the church was that they owned the hospital he worked at. New Tomorrow Baptist Church along with it's sister churches Savior Baptist Church and the Holy Land Interdenomiational Church had complete control of Romney's workplace. For Romney, working at a religious hospital was bad enough. Now hearing ads for the church who owned the hospital was insult to injury. Much worse was the fact that Romney lost his faith in Christianity years ago but he had no options but act like a Christian. It was that or lose a high paying job. Harry Tanner, the head pastor of New Tomorrow used the church as a hurricane shelter. He did actually care about people but only to convert them to his religion. The end game for Harry and his church was to create a theocracy. Droves of people came flooding into into the church wanting shelter. For Harry, this was the perfect chance to convert people. Deacons happily welcomed people no matter what religion, race and sexuality among others. Obviously that was only a ploy to indoctrinate people. Beds were nicely arranged in the church sanctuary, soups and sandwiches were served for lunch and calming music was played on the speakers. The church seemed like paradise for Beatrice St. James in terms of it being a storm shelter. Beatrice saw her best friend Maya Amsel near the bathroom, she was playing a game on her smart phone. Without second thought she walked up to Maya and greeted her. Looking at Beatrice with an unhappy expression on her face she responded, "Hello Beatrice. Enjoying your management job"? Hearing that caught Beatrice off guard leaving her unable to respond. Six weeks ago she became the manager at the United American Bank. That created a what seemed like a small rift in their friendship but Beatrice never expected that her friend would be angry about it. Maya was also attempting to get the job and she was mad when she didn't. The tension between Beatrice and Maya was extremely intense, both gave each other dirty looks. Neither of them wanted to talk to each other. Maya flipped off Beatrice and walked off without another word. Talk about being a jerk was Beatrice's thought. Romney studied medical books for about an hour but he was feeling major stress. It was true that he was accepted to the University of Florida School of Medicine and he needed to study, but the storm raging outside was just too much right now. To relax, Romney grabbed his knitting kit and the sweater he was working on. Unknown to people who knew Romney, they never knew that he enjoyed knitting. He kept it a secret from his friends not wanting to be accused of being gay and getting fired. Even being accused of being a homosexual would get you fired from many places in town. Nonetheless Romney still enjoyed knitting. Storm surge battered the coastline as Hurricane Dominic rolled through. Rain came down like sharp needles and winds knocked trees to the ground. Forget about trees dancing around, they stood no chance against the storm. At the same time the lethal toxin from the ocean rolled ashore. As multiple coastal areas in Florida became contaminated with the toxin, people started to develop symptoms of Meningitis. Others went completely blind and some even showed symptoms of memory loss. This was only the start.

I would be thankful for constructive criticism. I have been working tooth and nail to working on this. I have a few other chapters, I am also trying to slowly build up towards the formation of the first zombies. That point has not been reached yet. Also, the zombies will be as I described in Essay:Zombie Biology. Hail the zombie lord --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Two things stick out immediately. First, formatting it into 1-2 sentence paragraphs makes it hard to follow and you can condense most of them. Second, you have a lot of redundant passages. "Unknown to people who knew Romney, they never knew that he enjoyed knitting...Nonetheless Romney still enjoyed knitting." is the most obvious one, but many other paragraphs take more sentences than necessary to explain one thing. A possible quick-and-dirty revision of the second paragraph: "As time past, the winds from the approaching storm only got stronger. Clouds rolled through the area as if they were an advancing army. Catastrophic destruction was coming." There are also several punctuation issues, mainly regarding missing commas (e.g. "Talk about being a jerk, was Beatrice's thought.)

As for the story aspects, all I get from the passage is that there's a hurricane and the characters are evangelicals trying to take advantage of it. I haven't read the context, but the characters could be a lot more fleshed out. In particular, giving away Harry's motive so early deflates a lot of the suspense, and it's better to imply it with the way he acts or the stuff he says. As they say, showing is better than telling. Colossal Squid (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I will work out those issues. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"As time passed," not "As time past." Nowhere Man (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Your first paragraph:Right after accounting all his supplies to last through the hurricane, Romney grabbed multiple medical books. Because of the extra time he had, Romney choose to study for medical school. Already being a physician's assistant, the time it would take to get a full medical degree would be much less."

If I understand it correctly, might be better as: "Immediately after checking his supplies would last for the duration of the hurricane, Romney grabbed a pile of medical books. Having time on hand he had cosen to study medicine and, as he was already a physician's assistant, he felt this would be the quickest degree he could obtain."

You need a second draft with a thorough re-evaluation of every single sentence with "Show don't tell. Show don't tell. Show don't tell." running through your head like a broken record.

For example look at "Hearing that caught Beatrice off guard leaving her unable to respond. Six weeks ago she became the manager at the United American Bank. That created a what seemed like a small rift in their friendship but Beatrice never expected that her friend would be angry about it. Maya was also attempting to get the job and she was mad when she didn't.", you're beating the audience over the head with raw information. Just absolutely clobbering us with it. Good fiction doesn't do that. Let's look at what you told us and how you could show us instead. There's a lot here.

1. "Hearing that caught beatrice off guard" is a full fucking sentence that overexplains both the reaction and the cause of it. Consider instead: "Beatrice flinched" it shows rather than tells us a reaction, and we as a reader engage and immediately determine that the previous sentence, which may have seemed harmless, carries some weight. We can infer that she was off guard and that hearing it affected her. But it doesn't merely tell us, the reader, what the character was feeling in minute detail, and worse, directly.
2. Next "Six weeks ago she became the manager at the United American Bank", aside from nitpicks like "The manager" not being a thing an major conglomerate would have, this sentence can stand. It still breaks the show don't tell rule, but it would take a bigger rewrite to get the name of the bank included through indirect exposition. I could see a final draft including the sentence.
3. "That created a what seemed like a small rift in their friendship but Beatrice never expected that her friend would be angry about it." Absolutely not. Do not tell me the relationship between your characters. If they have a strained friendship, show me how it's strained. When she says "Enjoying your management job?" (put question marks inside quotes if the quote is a question, btw) say something like "Her voice oozed sarcasm" or if that's too aggressive for the character, maybe "She looked away when speaking". Find a way to express a friendship that's on the rocks. If it's the words themselves that indicate the distance, maybe have the main character reflect on what they used to talk about. But under no circumstances should you put words describing the relationship two characters are having right now literally. Just don't do it. Can't stress this one enough.
4. "Beatrice never expected that her friend would be angry about it." Fine. I guess. If you must. But you could also delete the sentence entirely. "Beatrice flinched" still shows us it's unexpected, and it hurt. I don't think it does any good to ram it home with dry exposition.
5. "Maya was also attempting to get the job and she was mad when she didn't." I can see why you want to inform me, the reader, that they had been competing for the same job, but since we're obviously viewing the story from Beatrice's perspective, and since she didn't know that Maya was mad, don't tell us that. It's new information. Show us that. Make us feel like a person whose friend is mad at us. Tell us the ways that Maya expresses her anger. Is she passive aggressive? Is she snippy? Is she distant? Impatient? Volatile? I honestly don't know, because you're just telling me the plain dull fact that she's mad. Not the experience of her being mad.

So that's a bunch of fucking words, but, show don't tell. Show don't tell. Show don't tell.

If you feel like you don't have time to show-don't-tell the thing you're telling probably isn't important to the story. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Going to be honest here- I have an extremely difficult time with show don't tell. I probably will need all the help I can get. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's one of the reasons second drafts were invented. You can stop and read every single sentence critically, and ask "what am I telling the reader here, and can I show it without resorting to wordy purple prose?". I feel like half of every first draft ends up being more outline than content. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

PS [2] ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Extinction Rebellion

Got any interesting experiences with them? My impression is that Extinction Rebellion is largely as disorganized and muddled as our article suggests. They seem to have an obnoxious emphasis on organizational branding, they implicitly put down the accomplishments of other climate movements to prop up theirs, their UK founders seem like dodgy woo-meisters, and their emphasis on being beyond politics makes it hard for me to see what they're trying to achieve. If you ask me, they're like the Occupy Wall Street of climate movements. In comparison, I've been in climate movements in whose members are explicitly socialist and pro-indigenous, and which actually have clear goals set out, even if they tend to be fairly localized issues. Colossal Squid (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you have already got a fairly accurate opinion of them. I suppose they are "fighting the good fight," but that only works if you actually know *how* the good fight must be fought. The problems with Extinction Rebellion reflect the fact that while people are starting to realize the status quo will not address these climate related problems in time and are thus considering direct action, they do not necessarily have the logistics of direct action planned out. If you cannot organize a revolution your promises of economic justice and a green socialist economy are meaningless. Direct action campaigns like what we are seeing in Chile do not organize as well in the 21st century Anglo-sphere, so the movement just turns into something that is straw manned by deniers and has all the flaws of its spokespersons picked apart in the media to reinforce the option that climate activism is the province of well meaning but ignorant young people who can be easily bamboozled by doom saying crackpots. There will be many more groups like this before the eminent crisis is over.Flandres (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As someone who would love to see Chile-style activism sparked over in Canada, including the normalization of political consciousness and the idea that nothing from colonialist statues to university admission exams is immutable, what's the barrier towards such a thing happening? Colossal Squid (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Governments in the west are way more stable, and by that I mean they can keep their people in line and have inertia on their side. For example, even after all the horror of the Trump administration, a second american revolution is still seen as a fringe option by the public. Observe how everyone can see countries like Chile or Venezuela having a popular insurgency, but the idea of a leftist revolution in the USA (or western Europe for that matter) seems like the plot of a Dystopian novel if you just posed it to someone. People have it set in their minds direct action does not work in a developed country so they do not attempt it until it is too late-there is a massive psychological barrier in their heads that prevents them from organizing or achieving "political consciousness". Thus, the mechanism for a large scale radical movement to make the necessary changes has atrophied to the point of uselessness. Extinction Rebellion is a failed attempt to rediscover that skill.Flandres (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

One caveat that I need to mention is that even in North America, direct action is regularly conducted by indigenous groups and other minorities, but usually goes underreported due to racial bias and the overwhelming power of colonial institutions (with rare exceptions such as the Zapatistas and Black Lives Matter). Indigenous groups are also a major player when it comes to protests in Latin America. But what you say is true of the majority. I could also be pedantic and point out that Puerto Rico is technically part of the USA and has no problem trying to toss out their leaders, but of course, Puerto Rico is in much worse shape than the mainland. Colossal Squid (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flandres One can note though that governments in the west are working democracies, while Venezuela isn't really, it's more of a populist leftist dictatorship. "Direct action" usually means "terrorism" in the west. As horrible as Trump is (and he is), he has been elected fair and square. The solution is to convince enough people to remove him from power, not starting a civil war.193.56.36.22 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Even focusing on climate change their message must inevitably be a bit general. They are not a group of scientists or economists - but rather a group of concerned people who have seen where the science is pointing them and are saying "This can't be right. We are angry. You (somebody) must do something to change it."

So they know what result they would like to see but they cannot express the exact mechanisms to achieve this result. They would argue, I'm sure, that action is required at a personal level, a business level, a governmental level and at global levels. But, pretty, obviously, they are not going to be producing a detailed step-by-step plan for all of these entities and institutions. It is down to these entities and institutions to produce the plans necessary to reach the professed zero carbon goal.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pleas for "civility" are of little meaning to those who have been disadvantaged by the system, "civility" is one of the establishment's weapon to enforce the status quo, they used it against MLK, whenever there's a big social movement that utilizes direct action you'll hear bullshit cries for "civility." — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There's so much variation within the movement. Some people like Roger Hallam seem to have a fully worked-out theory of how to achieve a revolution. Others are just doing things without a wider strategy, whether in a carnivalesque way or out of nihilistic despair. Some seem to be doing Greenpeace-style direct action at particular companies, but others aren't (climate strikes, camps, attacking public transport, etc). Some activists are focused on persuading people through reason and niceness, but others are being obnoxious and trying to provoke a government crackdown. I think combatting climate change is fundamentally different to most protest movements, because giving women the vote or giving equal rights to blacks or LGBT people doesn't require a large sacrifice by most people. But combatting climate change requires large lifestyle changes from most people (and vast amounts of spending); having to enforce that kind of change permanently is unprecedented, so it's unsurprising people don't know how to do it. --Annanoon (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say that how countries behave in war, with strong leadership and directed economic goals and manufacturing processes/quality control, is what would be necessary to properly combat climate change. And in the context of war, countries certainly know how to do it. The problem is people still dont take the threat of climate change seriously. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that there's no guarantee that any austerity measures intended to alter the course of climate change will actually work. Frankly, these agitations give me the creeps. Any mob of people moved by moral dudgeon does. But the various austerities they want governments to enforce are probably not sustainable if people are allowed political input into the program - i.e. by voting and such. A campaign to enforce massive lifestyle changes to alter the course of climate change is inherently anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian. It will erase aspects of current society that I think are worth preserving. And if people are allowed to vote on it they will say 'no', no matter how much the campaigners assert that theirs is the path of virtue and their enemies are moved by selfish vice. I tend to think that line of reasoning is anti-social and morally wrong, whatever the cause. And this is why I think we're wasting our time trying to alter the course of climate change and would be much better served figuring out how we will cope with it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We cope with them by eventually dying. Everyone in the global south will 'cope' with them by fleeing, being refused refugee support and dying. Elon Musk will cope with them by flying to Mars. 'figuring out how we will cope with it' is a position of the privileged, of which we are both. Minish (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the prospect of exacerbating inequality into a potential selection process is the most terrifying thing, and it doesn't help that rich people like Jeff Bezos are already blaming everyone else for the crisis. As for massive lifestyle changes, would it really be so bad if we exchanged mindless consumerism and resource use for expanded public services? Cutting back doesn't need to mean deprivation; it'd be more about refocusing on better managing things that are actually essential like food, water, shelter, healthcare, and education. That's how Cuba got through their oil crisis in the 90s. Colossal Squid (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We won't all die, actually, that's extreme catastrophism and fear mongering. Even civilized society will most likely survive. Extinction is not going to happen. Massive social upheaval and disasters, now, on the other hand...193.56.36.22 (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Some probably will, though... generally speaking, relatively poor countries in hot climates that, for the most part, cannot afford artificial cooling systems (eg India, Middle East) are at the most risk for increased deadly heat waves. Even conservative estimates of roughly 30cm of sea level rise by 2100 likewise will be bad for certain cities built at a low level that can't afford protection (eg Jakarta). Increase that rise to the "worst case scenarios" (more like 150cm by 2100) and I have no idea what will happen, *huge* amounts of major metropolitan areas are built on the water, and this level would imply a significant large scale relocation. In general, though, I am more in favor of technological changes to mitigate climate change (eg changing electricity generation methods and transport fuel) over austerity simply because the later goes against human nature, unfortunately. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena So, democracy, the rule of law, majority decisions, it's all OK as long as you agree with the decisions taken. If you don't, then "direct action" is OK.[/sarcasm] The exact same "weapon" is claimed by "moral majority" fundies that think that since there's a big social movement behind banning abortion and gays, this justifies "direct action".193.56.36.22 (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

this is an inane comment. direct action is a valid tool if you feel its justified, if you are against a legal ruling, a political situation, seeking to effect some kind of action. for some groups or causes it might be the only option. what your cause and the form of direct action will mean its level of effect and the support you enjoy, its goal and ultimate success will vary. support for direct action of one cause does not mean you must support all causes or think its the best option, or warranted, and if to disruptive or violent, may be counter productive. assess the specific cases not some inane black and white logic.

of course you will think direct action of any kind is wrong if you are vehemently opposed to the cause, the same way you would support said action if you are a true believer. it is subjective but this is banal. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling you would've been one of the civil rights movement's naysayers? — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

who are you responding to there? if it is to me, there literally nothing I said to give you that impression, and would be completely wrong with an implication I greatly resent.

what is the issue with suggesting that the validity of direct action is dependent on the form it takes, the overall situation, and ones view of the cause itself? its an incredibly banal notion that I would not even think needed to be stated were it not replying to the comment above mine, which was in turn a reply to your own. black and white thinking and uncritical support does not help anything, and mention of the civil rights movement is meaningless without reference to how it applies here, where it is similar and where it differs. ive already stated my misgivings about the extinction rebellion below. its a very different thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@ikanreed. I agree 100% that the morality of direct action is not a black a white thing and depends on the circumstances. I'm however opposed to terrorism or otherwise violent pressure exerted inside democratic regimes. "mention of the civil rights movement is meaningless without reference to how it applies here" 100% agreement too. My point is that if democratic, peaceful forms of action ("direct action" being too often used as a weasel word for "violence") are available, then violent actions are unjustified. And you can't argue for democracy on one side and "direct action" on the other. It's incoherent.193.56.36.23 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Why do I have a feeling you're using the Motte And Bailey defense? [/sarcasm] Civil rights was a different context: some people were denied the possibility to participate in decisions on a equal footing. Since no other mean was available, violence imho would have been OK. Though in fact it's non-violence, MLK-style actions that won the day. (I'm also strongly in favor of non-violent solutions). Here you (and others) have an opinion about public policy in a democracy. You want to demonstrate? Fine. Organize boycotts? Fine too. Put up banners on your home? OK. Form uniformed militias and block the freedom of circulations of others unless they show support to your cause, like we had in France? [Expletive] you. You would be in China? Fine.193.56.36.23 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)~

Stop assuming things of me, asshole. MLK himself became more radical later on as he saw that nonviolent resistance was having little meaningful effect enacting change. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena "Stop assuming things of me", says the one who said of me "you would've been one of the civil rights movement's naysayers". Oh dear it's becoming more and more hilarious. Maybe I should slap you with a trout? [/sarcasm] Anyways, what did I assume exactly? I'm giving examples of direct actions, differentiating those I find OK in a democracy and those I find Not-OK, while saying that those latter actions can be OK under an authoritarian regime. Or is it that I've said that I think you're using Motte and Bailey fallacy? here's why: I raise that I believe that "direct actions" under a democracy too often are cover words for "terrorism" or political violence, you say that those disadvantaged have a right to direct action (bailey), I say that's not acceptable in a democracy, you say "But they said the same thing to MLK!" (motte). Btw, I find "asshole" a bit uncivil, I did not insult you.193.56.36.23 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hot take: a rebellion that doesn't kill anyone isn't a rebellion. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I get the feeling the disorganised activists that put up XR posters in Cheltenham don't want to kill the world's oil barons. Minish (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

its just so vague. the ultimate goal of forcing governments into action on climate change is just too general, as are the targets. parliament turning down the heating a little is acting on climate change, and most claim to be doing so there is no indication of what success looks like for the extinction rebellion. some indicator required because in the uk at least, their action has been most unfocused and ineffectual on occasion, while being a massive ball ache for caught up. blockading roads pisses people off especially with nothing to say what it achieved, and more so when you block public transport. people are already non board the general goals, and the government claims to be do much already (though probs not enough). without a clear plan to actually achieve their goals, they need more than disruption. its not the government that is disrupted nor offending companies to any real or sustained degree, but commuters, workers, and the general public. the people whose support they need. that's been lost in London. they need to get their shit together or they will ultimately be a detriment to their cause. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've worked with a couple of people connected to XR to run some secondary school events with teenagers. I'd say unfocused is probably the right word, and they want the school to declare a climate emergency, which, while fair enough in principle, comes across as fear mongering a bit and may turn people off. They are useful as organisers for education events around environmental issues though. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My hope is that either XR will inspire more, better climate movements, or that XR will take the time for deep introspection during this break before it's next 'Revolution' to better itself. Former more likely, but I'd like the latter - I do have respect for what they're trying to do. Minish (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A Question For Atheists

What do you consider the best argument in favor of God existing? Obviously, not one you believe, being an atheist, but the one you think is the best. If you had to present a case for God in a debate, what would it be? I'm always curious how people would defend a position they don't hold and I think it's a good thing to try and argue against yourself once in a while. Neo Stalinist (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we turn the tables for a moment. What do you consider the best argument in favor of Elvis still being alive? ShabiDOO 10:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You would really need to define "god" first.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems very Pascal's wager-ish. Although I can answer this question by noting that there are cases where the notion of a "god" has actually done humanity good, my overall starting point for this would be to ask, "which God?" Which hopefully should tell you what needs to be known about that. Soundwave106 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Tortelvis is the best reason in favor of Elvis still being alive. Bongolian (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

To prove it, you would construct the argument in a the way a rational person construct arguments for any phenomenon: Come up with a test for a behaviour or observation that requires a god to explain, one that is falsifiable and repeatable. Test this and use it as evidence for god. We can use the evidence to construct a theory to explain the results. The god hypothesis, if correct will shine through as the correct answer. Proving isn't debate and I really struggle with this, because of how disingenuous I'd feel debating for it: I'd have use semantics, gallops and various other BS to just construct an unfalsifiable argument, because as far as I'm concerned, that's all the game is. I hold the supernatural as the lowest of the low in terms of the possible, I'd rather argue that humans haven't set foot on the moon, because the astronauts were actually lizardmen. We have crocodiles and gene transfer, so it seems more probable. McUrist (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

it cannot be proved though, is that not the point? what is served by deciding which unconvincing argument is slightly less unconvincing than the others? any 'evidence' of god not based on pure faith is poor science and twisted logic. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found one that's convincing. At least that I can think of off the top of my head. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The closest in my opinion is Spinoza's argument, and that one is off by a wide margin in terms of explanatory power. It's saving grace? Being inventive and trying to cover multiple angles. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, see, here's the rub. It depends on the definition of "god". If we're talking about the biblical interventionist god who constantly meddles in earthly affairs, does miracles through holy people and the like, there's no proof that's most effective, because that's about as debunked as you can get. If we're talking about some deist theologian's "whatever cause is the first cause must be god", merely defining god that way makes something god, whether it has any utility or meaning to human life or not. The "quality" of the proof has little to do with its validity. The assumptions going into the proof, such as the meaning of the word "god," those matter a lot to the proof's validity. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As for defining God, there is the Satanic idea that we are our own Gods. Humans obviously exist. Defining what constitutes as a "God" is extremely subjective. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There are people that believe "god" as not the traditional or Christian kind, but some sort of unified abstract power in the universe. Is there a term for that? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you're describing pantheism. 71.188.73.238 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just got an edit conflict with the same suggestion.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the abstract versions of gods such as those in deism or pantheism is that they are both impossible to prove/disprove and completely irrelevant. As ikanreed - points out - the more that is claimed for a god the easier it is to demonstrate it's impossibility or non-existence.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

it makes the whole thing easier to managable if the god head so unknowable and so abstract that your subjects cannot converse with them directly and have to rely on the 'chosen by god himself' prophet. when the gods are more personified, it must a be a ball ache to have to keep track of what powers he has, which gods have bested him, which one has jurisdiction which embarrassing stories you want to forget. it would be like top trumps. it makes prophets less special if they are appearing to proles all the time. so what if you claim the crown because you can trace your linage to zeus impregnating an ancestor in the form of a swan. some goat herd is claiming they caught zeus in the form a goat fucking his wife and chosen by god is just a little bit less special. greek myth is full of gods in disguise as animals with sexing literally any one. they weren't picky. im sure presenting jesus as completely chaste makes for a better example of morality than the adulterous rape and beastiality of the greek gods. I am sure Christianity would be a very different religion if in the nativity, it was the little donkey that fathered jesus, and mary weren't no virgin. homosexuality might have been less of a big deal. instead though they went with an unrealistic paragon of virtue and purity, the koran removes all earthly connections all connection to human frailty for god. unachievable ideals probably good for keeping the faithful in check if humanity itself is a sin, the perfection of god so unrelatable, unquestioning obedience, grateful that something so perfect will let us crawl for it despite being so worthless. we are worse than pets. a dog gets told 'good boy' once in a while. you don't need to prove such a god exists - who are we to question when to simply obey is more than we are worth.

more worldly gods, show us flaws. for all their power and might, they are not perfect. no one is expected to be perfect, but with the Christian and muslim god of perfection and purity makes us ashamed of that and makes us slaves to it, craving for its blessing, its an abusive relationship. the more worldy gods show us they fuck up too. they can show what to strive for, learn from their mistakes. they are not desperate for our attention either. they let us be human. we can easier question dogma and morality if they are as infallible as us, its less stifling if they are not presented as the only way to live. it doesn't matter if as gods are easily proven to be myth - any lessens learned are not dependent on the stories being literal truth. Christ was fine with analogies and parables to make points, but at its centre, Christianity is dependent on you believing its core is the unequivocal and unquestionable truth, with the more abstract conception of god unassailable and unknowable so we cannot question it. it demands unthinking faith in its truths and obedience to a narrow constricting path of intolerance despising our own humanity.

I don't know enough of other religions to see how this all compares, and no ones worshiped the Olympians for centuries to see how that would have turned out today, it matters not to me if one god or another is true, however you want to depict them. if they are real, they haven't made enough of an impact for me to suspect that any exist. id be happy to go through the motions of Christianity without such evidence. im fine with cherry picking what I like. turn the other cheek, not casting the first stone stuff - I can live with that. I cannot live with rigid dogma though. not when it involves demonising others, attacking the very core of peoples identity over something they have cherry picked as justification, rigid and unquestioning, unrelenting. there is much in the bible, much they ignore, much they are quite lax with. and what they chose to be strict with is so hateful. proof of god is irrelevant. the bible, whatever its origins, was written down by man, edited by man, interpreted by man. over and over. maybe there is a god, maybe they are fantastic. I don't know. I don't need proof him. I need proof that those doing the talk actually talk for himAMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Not an atheist, but IMO the best argument for the proposition that something like a god exists is that all human societies create religions or quasi-religions. No human society has ever been found without some conception of a spirit world and an afterlife. Officially atheist governments never managed to get rid of cult images, revered martyrs, eschatology, and even the incorrupt body of Lenin. Religion is a human universal, it seems to scratch an innate itch. The fact that we're all born with this drive suggests that it must have some object. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

People are inherently curious as to what happens after death, because it's so incomprehensible to the living mind. Religion provides a comforting explanation for it. I don't think there's much more to it than that. Colossal Squid (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah and all human societies thought that the stars and planets were supernatural beings/forces that influenced/controlled/interfered with the lives of humans. Clearly since we cannot find one pre-science culture that didn't do so...that humans must have done this cause there is some truth to it. Perhaps science has just concealed that truth. Mars does have a meaningful effect on our love lives and Alpha Centauri is the divine representation of "forbearance and change". ShabiDOO 04:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. Astrology arose in Mesopotamia within recorded history and all of the versions from Europe to East Asia bear a family resemblance to their original. It required a literate society with a fairly sophisticated mathematics including the ability to solve some basic problems in spherical trig. The earliest Romans had nothing of the kind, nor did sub-Saharan Africa; in the New World it arose independently in Mesoamerica, but they too had the literacy and math things working for them. Pacific islanders had better things to do with their folk knowledge of the stars. Not every society has astrology; they all have religion in some form, though. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 06:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Astrology served/serves many functions - including 'I fancy/don't fancy doing X - and the star signs justify my decision' and the finance-minister-equivalent persuading the court astrologer to recommend against a war because the state finances are in a parlous state. Anna Livia (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The human body also isn't the most perfect sensory mechanism sometimes, are great at storytelling, and pattern recognize sometimes to a fault. If the conditions aren't right one may mold things to story instead of whatever the vague sensory phenomenon was (when scientists have dug down, for instance, Bigfoot / Sasquatch legends seem to be strongly linked to brown or black bear territory, coincidence?). The body certainly has its own opportunity to generate mystical phenomenon on its own. One fascinating thing to me, for instance, we actually have at least two classes of recreational psychedelic drugs (5-HT2A agonists and NMDA antagonists) that we have a vague idea of the mechanism of how it works, yet have been known to induce "visions of God" not only in drugs popular in modern times (LSD for the former, ketamine for the later), but also in drugs with actual long historic use in indigenous religious ceremonies (mushrooms, mescaline cacti, and DMT/ayahuasca for the former, ibogaine for the latter). And there's certainly even strong angles that are candidates for mysticism that the body generates without help (strong dreams for instance, right up to the point of lucid dreaming, as well as the near death experience experienced by some in moments of trauma). This is more the mysticism angle though; a large part of religion to me is tales, social construct and tribal binding. We have enough *non-religious* stuff in that angle where (*especially* in the polytheism / animism versions of religion which in deep history were far more popular than monotheism) simply adding a Spirit to the atypical stuff humans do (like say anthropomorphism for animals) makes sense to me. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No I did NOT make any claim that every society believed in Astrology but claimed that they had some sort of supernatural explanation of the stars. I used astrology as just one ridiculous conclusion of it. Pay closer attention to what I said. I defined humans treating the stars as having some kind of supernatural effect/explanation in the most broadest terms possible. And yes, people gave all sorts of bogus mystical explanations of what magical qualities the stars had or how they effected us in civilizations that never had any contact with "western civilization" nor were remotely as advanced. I was...in effect, using the fact that human societies have made up all sorts of bullshit about stars...therefore SPECIFIC myths about them like Hindu Astrology or the deification of a specific star...must have some truth to it. Because that's exactly what you did yourself. Oh Geese...people have found some sort of supernatural explanation for all this stuff they didn't understand...therefore there must be something to [subgroup of specific supernatural claims involving] God stuff. My analogy still stands and it still demonstrates how supremely ridiculous your explanation was. ShabiDOO 16:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You claimed, first, that all human societies believed "that the stars and planets were supernatural beings/forces that influenced/controlled/interfered with the lives of humans.". Now that broadens to a belief "that they had some sort of supernatural explanation of the stars." These things are not alike, and the latter would be fulfilled by a belief that the heavens were created by a god, without the hypothesis of their influence of control. Of course, this is beside the point: astrology is not found in every culture, religion is, and religion returns after attempts at its suppression. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Tlon I never thought you could get this petty. My first explanation is a subset of my second explanation. Zheesh. They aren't the same, the first is an example of the second. In any case...you've totally screwed up on your attempt to escape out of your bad argument. "astrology is not found in every culture, religion is, and religion returns after attempts at its suppression" doesn't work in the least in this case. You should have said "astrology is not found in every culture, God is, and God returns after attempts at its suppression". Just as I used "astrology" as an EXAMPLE of supernatural star-cruft, god is an EXAMPLE of religion. And yet God is not found everywhere. Just in, what is usually, the worst and most toxic of religions. Nice try. Star-woo is found in every single pre-western-secular culture and there isn't one without it. It doesn't make star-woo true and it most certainly doesn't make A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of star woo like "astrology" any more true either. Just as religion isn't the tiniest smudge credible just because stupid humans have always had and it doesn't make a specific and extremely toxic version of it (God bullshit) have even a hint of truth to it just because its one stupid example of woo stupid-humans believed in. Humans always believing in stupid shit doesn't make that stupid shit any less stupid. ShabiDOO 23:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

For the purposes of discussion I have chosen Chhinnamasta, Hindu-Buddhist Goddess of self sacrifice.

The picture says it all. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Neo Stalinist As it so happens, I'm in the midst of reading the book Monty Python and Philosophy (edited by Gary L. Hardcastle & George A. Reisch). The contributed chapters are a bit uneven, but some are quite good. The chapter "Monty Python and David Hume on Religion by John Huss (pp. 141-151) sort of answers this question by synopsizing Hume's view on the extant arguments for God's existence: the ontological argument, argument from design, and the miracle. Hume's conclusion was that none of these are viable arguments. On the other hand Hume could not rule out the existence of God, so Hume's argument is one that could be used in support of agnosticism. Hume further argued that the widespread belief in a diety across the world is not based on argumentation but rather based on widespread fear attempting to cope with it (page 150) (or "fear, uncertainty and doubt" in RW parlance).

Apart from this chapter, the rationalist/materialist/scientific view of the existence of God has increasingly gotten narrower and narrower as science has progressed, so that now all that remains for a possible God is what is unexplained by science: what caused the Big Bang, did anything exist before the Big Bang, and are there other universes? So, right now, in a sense, the best argument for God is what (or who) caused the Big Bang? Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's an argument: (1) In the long-run, evolution prefers true belief; (2) in the long-run, evolution prefers theistic belief; (3) therefore, theism is true. For a person who believes in evolution to deny premise (1) is fundamentally self-defeating – if, in the long-run, evolution doesn't prefer true belief, then why should we trust our present beliefs (or any beliefs we might ever hold in the future) to be true? As to (2), that is obviously the much more debatable premise, but I think there is scientific evidence to support it, for example this paper. DepressedAustralian (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Stated that way, the formal logic is a bit off. (IIRC that's an undistributed middle.) Now, whether thoughts in human heads can be 'true' or not, whether they map accurately against a world that is 'out there', is one of those questions that Western philosophy has gotten stuck in a rut over ever since Descartes. (Biological philosophy provides the simple answer: there are no 'minds', only brains, and a human brain is as much a part of the 'out there' world as a watermelon is.) But it remains true that human societies always generate religions or quasi-religions, so it does seem to be inherent in their programming. As such it must serve some purpose, or be ancillary to some purpose: either fostered by evolution, or a byproduct of something fostered by evolution. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with your "fuck dualists" policy, I must disagree on the reduction of all human thinking to "byproduct of evolution" which unfairly dismisses our ability to structure our thoughts with a rigorous system such as mathematics, logic, or the various scientific frameworks. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Fuck dualists" or "fuck non-materialists"? Do idealists and neutral monists also get fucked? DepressedAustralian (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is an undistributed middle. An undistributed middle: (1) All Z is B, (2) Y is B, (3) therefore Y is Z. My argument: (1) All {propositions to which evolution ultimately leads to belief in} is {true} (2) {Theism} is a {proposition to which evolution ultimately leads to belief in} (3) Therefore {theism} is {true}. To use letters: (1) All A is B (2) C is an A (3) Therefore C is a B. That's not an undistributed middle at all, the middle is distributed with perfect cromulence. DepressedAustralian (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Misconceptions of ASPD

There's a huge stigma against ASPD survivors that make it hard to seek treatment, like the misconception that everyone with ASPD is a murderous psychopath out to get you and your loved ones and your little dog too. In reality it's far more complicated, and tragic, than that. A good friend of mine suffers from ASPD, and he came from a household rife with abuse and infighting. He's been trying to reform himself ever since his father died, which he said was the first time he experienced guilt in his life, he specifically described it as a "raging black hole inside my [his] heart."

People with ASPD are no different than any other person with mental illness, everyone struggles because of it, and my friend has shown empathy and remorse many times before, even being worried that his brother now hated him and helped out my mom when she was in the mental hospital. He helps my mom out and treats her well because he credits her with saving his life, since before we took him in he was dead set on committing suicide, it was one of the worst periods of his life.

What motivated me to write this was this account written by a person afflicted with ASPD:

[3]

Please be more mindful in the future, everyone is human and deserves that respect. Treating people as monsters is often what makes them monsters, be more empathic in the future. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Marking this thread because this looks like an interesting article, and I want to come back to read it when I have time. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting article. It seems quite difficult to get much valuable data on APDS other than those who are jailed and or psychopaths. It actually seems its difficult to get much data because patients who aren't compelled to have treatment (those imprisoned or on parole) are unlikely to follow through with studies and treatment. It would be interesting to see how different the data is in different countries. Anglo-saxon countries tend to be extremely resistant to making legislation that compels patients at risk (to themselves or others) to treatment/therapy. ShabiDOO 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a section on ASPD already (Personality disorder#Antisocial personality disorder), but there's no reason it couldn't be expanded into a full article. Bongolian (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I know in the uk specifically mental health services are chronically underfunded, making follow up and keeping track of patients less than adequate. I dunno about specific legislation, but I know anything requiring compulsory treatment of any kind is always tricky. if you are too quick to have someone sectioned, less draconian monitoring unworkable, erring on the side of caution, you are effectively locking someone up just in case. if patients worry they are going be locked up for talking to their dr, they are not going to open with them. or just just not go to the dr at all. and whatever happens, if something goes wrong the dr will be vilified in the press. we've seen it happen time and time again. 'why was this monster allowed to walk free?' and the like. then papers are outraged if patients are needlessly detained, adding further stigma for the patient, exasperating their condition, damaging trust with the dr, adding more strain to the service, making patient in need drop out of sight. its a fine line, with the lack funding really limiting options. we see the same thing in social care, with at risk kids. its either a nanny state stealing kids from loving parents for non existent abuse, or oblivious case workers left baby to be murdered by father. I remember the vitriol over the baby p case. the staff were pilloried, slandered, demand sackings and shake ups. it was the same after the an outpatient in care in the community murdered someone. then the pendulum swings the other way. the vitriol doesnt encourage a measured response. it doesnt encourage people to seek the necessary treatment. fuck working in those jobs, they are truly thankless. im no expert, but fund things properly and better support the frontline staff, you might be able to get systems in place to help more people. its odd how outraged some newspapers are at the quality of care in the nhs, then complain about how wasteful nhs trusts before the next round of cost cutting starts to bite. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Papers don't care about being contradictory, only undermining the NHS. The more they harass and vilify NHS workers the closer Murdoch gets to his capitalist health insurance utopia Minish (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As someone who received life-changing psychiatric help in another country when I got GAD, the situation in the UK is utterly miserable. Only therapists live miles away, and they don't even have sessions available until April. And that's not even mentioning the only ones that HAVE slots available then are PRIVATE. I'm surprised the UK hasn't collapsed inward with how utterly crap mental health care is here. Minish (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I know, massivegay that it is a tricky problem to deal with. I simply know that if my brother had been in Belgium...we would have been able to commit him for a few days for observation and he would have been properly diagnosed and supported, for help he desperately needed. I'm not saying its even "easy" to commit people in Belgium...but it is certainly humanly possible to get doctors to consider mandatory observation period of a few days if a family can present a strong argument. ShabiDOO 05:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

if we are talking the uk, there is limit to what is worth considering if the facilities do not exist in the first place. I have heard of cases where patients were housed in jail cells because the was simply no else to put them. it will all be much simpler soon. your choice of swiss spa if you have the means or a homeless encampment under a motorway bridge. I believe it is the American model. the world leaders in kicking folk to the curb. the uk has much to learn. we might need to invest in more bridges for this brave new world. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a medical specialty that focuses on transgender people?

Call it Transgender Medicine because trans people (those who go through surgery) have different medical needs. I also found this NIH site that talks about it- https://www.endocrine.org/topics/transgender-medicine

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There aren't really separate medical specialties for men and women beyond those concerned with reproductive organs, childbearing, etc. --Annanoon (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait for our resident trans person Oxy to answer this and then agree with what she says. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, yes, these issues are complicated, having trans care be unified under one specific field would be extremely beneficial. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Oxyaena. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The only certainty is that it makes more sense as a medical specialty than "chiropractor" does ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

True, we're charting into unknown realms here, the science of gender is only a recent field to emerge, and it is still arguably in its infancy as of the time of this writing, anything could happen, but I think the pros outweigh the cons here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)