RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive343

This is an archive page, last updated 17 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>, <341>, <342>, <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)

Is Cross-Dressing sexist?

I found an ad on TV where Gordon Ramsay dresses up as a girl in a disguise to trick the restaurant. During this, he said this was somehow sexist. I personally don't mind men dressing up as girls, as long as they don't impersonate them and make stereotypes, as then it would actually be misogyny. What do you think? Is it sexist™ to dress up as a woman?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This question relies heavily on context. Is this in public or in private? Is the subject doing this because they want to simply dress up or because they seek to prepare for some further activity? What, if any, is the further activity? Is the subject Trans? That last one is rather important because it negates the premise that the subject is "cross dressing". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely it should be 'dresses up as a woman'; and to some extent it depends upon 'clothing conventions' - eg women wearing trousers used to be seen as transgressional. Anna Livia (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't sexism the imposition of negatively-valued generalizations about sex-or-gender-related behaviors? Women often wear dresses. Generally true, but not a negative stereotype. So, if the person cross-dressing is not attempting to appear ridiculous, I wouldn't think badly of them.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Context. The other question is: is it ever really that funny? I've seen it in Kids in the Hall, Monty Python, Almadovar and Woody Allen and never laughed...maybe sort of chuckled. The only time I found it hilarious was in one South Park episode (with a cross dressing undercover COP) only cause the social commentary was so layered and it was over-the-top outrageous. But that's me. Other people seem to find it in general really funny. Or do they? ShabiDOO 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I generally don't find that sort of joke funny partly due to the baggage of it being used in acting and the fact that in my experience cross dressing jokes a generally talentless and lazy. That being said, I have seen a few exceptions over the years. The South Park skit sounds like it might be a candidate for that list though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm the type that finds cross-dressing in of itself funny, particularly when men wear dresses, probably because of the delicate, frivolousness of dresses juxtaposed with a world that doesn't care they're wearing a dress and kicking ass while wearing a dress. But I don't want to come off as degrading women because I genuinely like seeing my favorite characters in a dress. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As a trans person I find crossdressing jokes transphobic. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. One time I dressed up as an Iron Cross for Halloween am I'm pretty sure I was trying to be antisemitic not sexist.VerminWiki (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's strange . I've been dressed up by girls and faux cat walked in women's clothes for a laugh between some guys and some girls, but it wasn't a question of whether I'm cis or not. That was kind of the hilarity of it, and I was able to express a natural take on my own femininity that didn't sacrifice my identity as a cis male. I can't do shit like that without coming away with an introspective take, but I agree, everyone, including myself, performed as a dive into the joke that guys aren't supposed to dress like girls. Reiterate, we dove into the joke. So when it's so personal and it feels like representations are always jokes, that's delegitimizing, to see cis men loving the joke aspect of dressing in women's clothes, I can also understand that the lived experience of gender dysphoria is different. I would never go out in public in drag, for the sole reason that I don't want to. But I had fun, and maybe that was exhilarating based on transphobia, maybe it was ignorant of transphobia. It's not like trans wasn't a thing we all knew about. Nothing was done in bad faith, just boys done up in the clothes/makeup by girls, and then do your best girl walk. For fun, for laughs.

I would say, the word "transphobic" isn't a good bridge to the conversation, which sucks. I would say the phrase "gender dysphoria" isn't a good bridge to the conversation either. They've become snarl terms, not exactly on purpose but one has "phobic" right in there and the other is considered mental, and we know how the hard line conservatives feel about mental health. I'll hear it out personally even if you call me transphobic because I can read (which it's strange most of the people I occasionally argue with about racism, sexism, transphobia don't get very mad about a literacy dig), but a lot of people I know would take it personally and not hear it out as soon as I said the word "transphobic." People like to take exception to bad labels, like "I'm not racist, but..." I think it's the exception that, who's that little guy, Shapiro and, oh, that comedian who is so smug that he never makes jokes, uhh, Crowder feel entitled to talk up because it's not anything they actually care about. The word has been poisoned, and I'm probably virtue-signaling for not losing my mind every time I hear it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I find drag to be more problematic when straight men do it in public (e.g., Milton Berle, Some Like It Hot, etc.), but not problematic when cis gay men do drag. For example, I have enjoyed the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at various public events. The sisters are a mixed order of gay and trans. I even got my first — and only — communion from one of the sisters… it was a hit off of a joint. I also don't find Monty Python's drag offensive, perhaps because the late Graham Chapman was gay, even though the most frequent member to do drag was the late Terry Jones. Bongolian (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's probably safe to say cis het men engage more in cross-dressing as a form of mockery than genuine transgression of gender norms, which might be why trans people generally aren't fond of it. I don't think those are per-se mutually exclusive scenarios though. lan (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Cis het men cross-dressing or doing drag is fine with me, as long as it's just for fun or going against gender norms. Mockery of trans folk, such as myself, or women in general is where I draw the line. RationalHindu (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

cross dressing covers a lot of ground and there is a hug difference between the personal preferences of any one individual and cross dressing for some kind of entertainment. as entertainment, drag acts, panto and various comedy skits on the telly - pretty much panto more or less. excluding drag acts, is various plays on a comedy convention going back to medieval mummers plays, were the audience is in on the gag of what amounts to the performer in a silly costume, to heighten a sense of ridiculousness. we are not expected to perceive characters as women or trans, but men doing a bit. kids are sophisticated enough to know it not to be taken seriously, hence the existence of panto dames. it doesn't push stereotypes nor intrinsically mocking, it just absurd. any kind of challenging of gender norms is the reserve these days of drag acts, its position still on the fringe and within a changing lgbt community allows the better examples to confound convention, though probably cross dressing is a little to simplistic a label for drag.

it should not offend unless what is done with it is offensive, not in nor of itself. it is not for want of a better comparison, blackface.

cross dressing for any personal reason is not sexist, it is for some an expression of personality, manifested in a myriad of ways. who am I to question how someone chooses to live their life? I almost ended with a quote from 'vicar in tutu' but fuck morrisey AMassiveGay (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Morrisey really has made it hard to like his songs, hasn't he? I can't even listen to covers without being like "but that's the guy that doesn't want anyone to listen to his songs." I never really found the Smiths that engaging, but I wasn't there, I don't know. But "Pretty Girls Make Graves" ran through my AIM cohort like nuts as a clever info between quotes, sometimes it was even set by girls. I just gave it another listen now, after a decade or so, it's... very cool in it's massive and incessant progression. But it's also like the incel anthem of the year. I didn't like it before I involved myself rock music, now that I can appreciate the things about it that I didn't get before, yeah, fuck Morrisey. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I came late to the smiths, long after they had split up in the early 2000s. just came out, exploring what it was I actually liked that wasn't trying to fit with other people. 'what difference does it make' was literally the story of my life. cant listen it to it now. Morrissey was always a prick and that was ok, as I had no wish to meet and hang out. then came unabashed support for racists and I cant blame the dickishness on him just being a prima donna or the artist temperament. so once more with feeling, fuck Morrissey AMassiveGay (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Smiths is (generalizing here) one half Johnny Marr and by all means he doesn't seem like an asshole at all. Agree with the "fuck Morrissey" consensus but I have no problem with the Smiths if you just listen to the music and avoid the whiny adolescent-angst lyrics. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Smiths (and Morrisey) lost me as soon as they released an album under the title Meat Is Murder, and apparently meant it. Not going to be watching any more Joaquin Phoenix movies either; he joined Tom Cruise on the cultist shit-list. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's mean and off point. It's not the same thing as saying "Smerdis fucked up" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Is being cute weak?

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-find-things-cute

I find cute to be rather insulting to be called because it usually associates me with being weak and helpless. WHy do people consider it a compliment though?Machina (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I can think of many cute animals that are actually incredibly deadly. Hippos, for instance. Colossal Squid (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you're making the assumption that everyone wants to appear strong - there are plenty of people (admittedly less men due to the more toxic ideals of masculinity) who just want to look cute. Minish (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Cute has a variety of meanings. Ben Cohen (rugby player) is frequently called cute. And there is nothing weak or helpless about him. On a side note, despite being hetero he has a massive LGTBQ+ following, partly because he encourages it but also because he himself embodies most of the positive male masculine qualities without the toxic ones (it's hard to find anyone who considers him an asshole or too-cool-for-school). And yet he is still outrageously cute despite the fact that he plays a game that breaks people's bones and chip their teeth. He has super masculine features and is confident as shit. Cute covers everything from babyish, to charming to chizzled to elegant to gritty yet handsome and so on. I think Minish's response above though is extremely intelligent. What's wrong with having weak qualities? Who gives a shit if people find you weak? Don't forget that being cute/handsome/hot is also largely dependent on a genetic lottery which comes down purely to luck. Why thank you sir for complimenting my fortunate mix of my parents genes. I don't think it's good at all to become dependent on people complimenting you for your looks. I see it all the time on LGTBQ+ facebook and instagram profiles. I have a buddy utterly addicted to snapping a nice photo of himself every day and getting 500+ likes from strangers. He's become psychologically reliant on it which I consider a sort of sickness. It's one thing to be aware of how lucky you've been and proud of how you take care of yourself it is another to base your self-exteem on social-media likes or the compliments you get in bars. ShabiDOO 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec)I believe he is also making the assumption that cute has the same associations for all. ive never called anyone 'cute' to imply weak and helpless. ive never seen used that way either. as compliments go, its pretty non commital, its not quite as strong as saying 'you are hot', but enough to convey you find someone pleasing without embarrassment if they are not into you, while the right response means you sound em out further. and chaste enough to be used a with a bother or sister in an entirely wholesome and non sexual way.

as with all things it very much depends on context, and the people involved. I can think of only a few circumstances where anyone would take offence, at worst bemusement if something more, certain lets say, was required.

the right response is to take compliments with good grace. it takes seconds of friendly conversation to suss what is meant or if they have the wrong impression. don't let your insecurities make you always assume the worst. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "cute" for some reason has become a colloquialism for "man with features a woman finds attractive", which actually has a somewhat different meaning than the term "cute" applied to human babies, or animals that have pseudo-human-baby features. In the former case I don't think "weak and helpless" is implied at all. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s because people are often ignorant of what cute really means and what is behind it. They don’t understand it is a put down. Like I get guys calling me cute and I hate it. Like the link I showed explains it implies being weak and soft. Evolution confirms this as what we find cute tends to bear some resemblance to our infants. When found them cute and that feeling compelled us to keep them safe and looked after because they can’t do anything on their own. Being called cute means I’m harmless or childish, it’s quite insulting and I think many people are ignorant of that fact. They don’t understand the origins and history behind it or why we find things as such. To call it context also speaks to ignorance of what it really means which is weak or harmless. Calling a hippo cute is because they appear so but the reality is far from that (though most don’t know). People need to find a new word for attraction. Also having weak qualities is a problem because then people treat you with a level of pity.Machina (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I like being cute and I don't associate cuteness with pity or weakness. I can see where you're coming from, though. I would hate it if someone called me cute and proceeded to patronise me on the basis of likening me to an infant. It's just that typically I get called cute without being compared to an infant and that feels positive.82.36.198.177 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Words mean whatever we think they mean at the time.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

'ignorant of what cute really means' or you are assigning to much meaning to such a vague compliment. I could push out a thousand words on what it might mean to different people in different situations. also if people are ignorant of this apparent 'true' meaning, then they cant be using the word with that meaning. probably because no does use it with that meaning. learn to take a compliment. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wolves are cute, but they are also capable of ripping a person's throat out. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You're dealing too much in absolutes here Machina. Ive gotten many sincere "cute" compliments and they were never remotely negative. I'm overtly sportive and hang out in bars and have circle of friends and exes who are for sporty no-nonsense masculine LGTBQ+ and cute is never used as another way to say "precious or weak". Go join a gay sportsteam or search meetup.com for a local LGTBQ+ art lovers or gamers or geeks or travel group or whatever. There's definitely a group of nice friendly queers like you who will help shakeup your generalisations of gay culture and counterbalance the unfortunate toxic experiences you've had.Might learn to take a compliment and realize that what you see as pity could just be someone whose just actually being friendly. ShabiDOO 19:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sadly I have looked at meetup and around my local university but all they do is confirm not shakeup the generalizations about gay culture. It's always pity because in person I am awkward with conversation and not nearly as eloquent as when I write or type. Also I have the baby face curse, and even with a beard I don't look too much older. I got asked what grade I was in and had to reply that I am 28, I get carded to buy M rated games. It's not a compliment, it's an insult. Being cute is something women can enjoy (unless they are over a certain age and at which point it's an insult because it's referring to them as weak or inexperienced) but rarely do I see men take it well. I don't, but that's mostly from reading up on why we find things cute.Machina (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

and maybe not take the pendantic assholery of some weird spartan buddhist as dating advise. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s not the truth though. Being called cute is always a put down but in a benign way. People think they are paying a compliment but they don’t know better. They don’t know why we find things cute and how that came to pass. So they use the word in ignorance. It’s like the link I posted said, things we perceived as weak are cute and things that are not aren’t. It’s why we don’t perceive wasps as such or crocodiles. I cannot “take a compliment” when I know better.Machina (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nor can I "take a compliment," because I don't like to be judged by things I'm not actively working on. I started saying "don't compliment me, you'll only make me blush" as a way to both play into and play off compliments that made me uncomfortable in a group. The response always starts as a way to nettle you with compliments. Just sit through it and ignore it, not liking compliments is a weakness and it's not deadly. Just expect to be the outsider, since most people do things to impress others, not themselves. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You are kind of right about that, it's like they have nothing better to do and they know it bugs you. It's also often times insincere and more just trying to be polite. It's like when your parents tell you they love you, not really insincere but it's more expected and that they are supposed to do that so it carries little value. It's the same with compliments with others, they often do it as a way to earn some level of favor and they almost always expect it in return in some manner. So yes, it's about them and not you (like someone telling another person they are attractive, it's really about you not them because you want them). In the case of cute, as I have shown in the link, the origin of it that most people don't know is that we find weak things cute or things we perceive as such (since they bear a similarity to our infants). The object need not be entirely like a human infant but it usually bears some of the characteristics of it. Ever since I learned that I woke up to the fact that I was low key being insulted or put down by being likened to a child just because I don't look my age or like traditional "adult" stuff. People really need to stop using that word as they are ignorant of where the feelings behind it originate.Machina (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Also the rugby player proves my point as his face has a sort of boyish element to it, so while he might not be weak or helpless the face is what triggers that response in us.Machina (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

its still arse what you are talking here, concerning cute. one definition of cute is it reminds one of a baby in some way evoking nurturing instincts, but is not the only meaning, not the only usage. unless you are a cat or have a baby face, chances are its the other meaning of pleasantly appealing', 'quite nice', 'quite attractive'. people arnt 'ignorant' of its true meaning, you just don't know how people use words. if you feel insulted by being called cute that's all you. as with the compliments thing, theres not liking compliments or being uncomfortable with them and there is disregarding peoples opinions, that you are interested in their opinions. as with your rigid and extreme interpretation of a word most people are using to just to as a way of say, 'I like you' attaching no underlying mean, is the same disregarding of other peoples opinion. you continue to create reasons ignore and disregard anything that doesn't fit your own outlook, assuming motive and insincerity and ignorance from literally nothing. parents telling you they love you is insincere? give it a fucking rest.

where does all this 'insight' into the minds of others come from when you go to great pains disregard everything they say and do? a quote from qoura? a dogshit one at that? honestly, there is no part of that quote that has any merit - heaven forbid that you should find something pleasing to your eye, clearly we are wrong to like what we like. a discussion of someones subjective likes deciding they are wrong according to some arseholes pendantic and subjective values (and shitty understanding of biology to boot) ends with 'Either there is Truth, or there is falseness.' they left out the third option 'bullshit'. you got your cute = weakness from here? jesus fuck. your poor understanding of people wont change when you grasp at straws to not have listen to anyone, and your own view of yourself is meaningless in isolation and you keep what you have constructed from being challenged by finding more ways to ignore any opinion to the contrary. we are the worst judges of our own character and it is the only one you permitAMassiveGay (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything anyone else can possibly do or say to demonstrate the logical errors in the kind of absolute conclusions you make. Your mind is thoroughly made up. I'm sorry you continue having such shitty experiences in the LGTBQ+ world. It seems you've been terribly unlucky. I'd speculate that you might also be approaching things with the wrong attitude but I do also know for a fact that some people can have lots of sequentially really shitty experiences and not remotely be at fault. Which is terrible. But consider the possibility that the lens you view things through might be terribly tainted. The last thing I'll say on the matter is you have a pretty far-out view of what "cute" means and while it is somehow statistically possible (like in the 0.00000001% range) I think it's extremely unlikely people have generally called you cute out of some kind of pity or treating you as a soft-teddy-bear-like-object. And even if they did...I doubt it is from malice. Learning how to let the way others perceive you stop disrupting how you perceive yourself (a fairly important skill in life) is, yet one more more way CBT can benefit you. ShabiDOO 16:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Massive, I have found a number of other sources to confirm that the origin of cute is a survival instinct from our early days when it compelled us to care for our young. People use the word cute to describe things not knowing that. A lot of people don’t know the origins behind certain feelings and words and just take them for granted. From what I see, cute in the gay community is usually in terms or youth or youthful qualities. And yes compliments from others are more about them and not you, after all it’s about currying favor with you so you’ll reciprocate. In the case of parents compliments from them mean little since that is expected of them. But in the case of others it’s often because they want something. In my case with other men it’s been because I essentially look like I could be in high school or because of my tastes and excitement about a lot of things. It’s essentially calling me a kid and they don’t even realize just how insulting being called cute is. That’s not even getting to how they always end up wanting something from me, usually my body. They never listen to what I have to say and think a few nice words means I owe them. It’s the same with other people, paying a compliment to me means they want something. I’m sorry you haven’t realized that yet but I don’t truly blame them. We sometimes do things ignorant of what is actually happening. As is the case with compliments we do it without knowing that really it’s about us and not them. The same goes with being cute, people don’t understand why that’s an insult because they don’t get the origin of where that feeling is from. And Shabi, it’s not really a blame thing but there are no logical errors. My experience with the community has been an outsider looking in. I didn’t get anything they were into and I didn’t particularly like much of it. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that not everyone is like that but everywhere I went the stereotype was confirmed time and again. So in all honesty I think you words might be he falsehood and not mine.Machina (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Cute does not equal inexperient and weak. You can find plenty of examples of people calling a very old married couple "cute", referring to the relationship itself, that's not what I would call weak, young, inexperient or anything like that. It is just a feeling people have, it may have originated as a way to protect infants, but that doesn't mean it is the only application of it. Emotions and people are more complex than that. 2804:431:C7F2:4AA5:D8A5:78D9:2D85:A89 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Or they are not and people just say they emotions and people are complex because they don’t like to be “figured out” or that makes them appear to be like a machine. Old married couples are cute because they are weak. They’re slower, not as capable but still able in some ways. It’s why old people are seen as cute because it’s as though the pendulum swung bad to being an infant. That feeling that they have is based on the qualities infants have. Whenever they use cute they unknowingly make a reference to such a thing. It’s not a compliment. People aren’t that complex they just like to believe they are.Machina (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's just a dubious opinion firmly stated. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s pretty much fact. Humans believe themselves more complex than they truly are but in the end we aren’t that different from machines.Machina (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

oh you are so cute AMassiveGay (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No I am not and I have explicitly stated why that is the case. Cute is weak and inexperienced of which I am neither.Machina (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to regret asking this, but what actually qualifies as an acceptable complimentary adjective in that weird little head of yours? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to guess 'strong' and 'experienced', judging by all of the above. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not weird it's based on the actual facts and science. I would appreciate being skilled or capable, smart, handsome, really anything that isn't cute.Machina (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever, it happens. Do I really have to tell you that being handsome ins't a route to your conclusion and personal pain? Asking every human online is a good way to get answers, and I'm on board with that. Getting called cute is a test of what you do when the power is balanced against you. Can you be yourself, can you be cute, and can you be yourself and cute? Judging yourself online is a compliment to what, narcissism? Sitting around waiting for your shit to be judged looks like bad behavior. Like, state your opinion if you won't listen to the answers YOU ARE ASKING FOR. If you want to know what it's like getting grabbed at in singles bars. go to a singles bars. I would on one hand tell you to not go to singles bars, but on the other hand, you should go to a singles bar because you might find something there that I didn't. High schoolers are mean, singles bars are sometimes a little less than mean. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey quick question about Iowa

I’ve read a whole bunch about it but I have no fuckin CLUE what the deal is. So they used some kind of shitty app that Pete Butt funded or something? And now they’ve gotta recount because the data was wrong or something? Wtf is happening someone please explain I’d appreciate it thanks 💗 ASELA^{និយាយ} 💗 13:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

They hired a company that made a crap app that lost a bunch of data packets in transmission so they didn't know the results of the caucus - they're trying to get those packets back now. People are making conspiracy theories about how the CEO is an ardent Buttigieg/Clinton supporter but the only thing this fiasco shows is how incompetent pro-establishment dems are literally everywhere in the nomination process Minish (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Tara McGowan, owner of ACRONYM, is Married to Buttigeig's campaign chair" isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a trivially verifiable fact. As is the fact that ACRONYM received more money from Buttigeig's campaign for an unknown reason than they received from Iowa to develop the Shadow app. To call either of those incredibly obvious and serious conflicts of interest conspiracy theories is completely unreasonable.

Yes, it is true that the state party is indeed incompetent, and they incompetently counted votes in a way that took literally thousands of votes from sanders, but serious conflicts of interest in vote counting is an insane thing, as is propietary software used for counting votes. In my world, even if nothing suspicious happened, that alone would be reason to send people to jail for corruption. Elections aren't toys. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Valid argument. At least there weren't any coin flips this time Minish (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. None of this nonsense should have happened. Now, that being said, if there is mischief at play then it will become obvious over time. I however reserve judgment until further data is gathered. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes there were, coin flips are an integral part of the Iowa Caucus decision making process. Where did you hear there weren't? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is everyone acting like a conspiracy theorist? The app was simply defective, and Iowa's Democrats had to count the votes the old-fashioned way: by counting on paper.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

They counted on paper every caucus prior to this in history, and had turn around times of same night. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the strange bit by bit release during paper counting that is taking days. Also there are suspicious miscounts, like Black Hawk County where Deval Patrick supposedly skyrocketed in delegates. How do you not catch obvious mistakes like that before releasing? I mean, I'm willing to give them the benefit of incompetence over malice right up till the bitter end, but I've given up on faulting people for being suspicious. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Because this is the USA post 2016. Conspiracy theories flourish in a opaque socio-political environment where mistrust or hatred of the "powers that be(who furthermore have a proven track record of inadequacy)" induces people to always attribute active malevolence toward them, usually from people who support a specific ideological tendency and want to explain away problems with it. This describes the USA very well right now. This epidemic of conspiracy theories will only get worse as time goes on(not that we have much time left).Flandres (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

An Alex Jones quote spammer follows me on Twitter. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

if after two years, energy and money spent, the chosen candidate fails to unseat trump, how worth while will all that effort have been? I mean, the leader of the uk labour party once chosen has a job to do beside contesting a general election. its not entirely wasted effort if they lose, and they don't spend years just campaigning AMassiveGay (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

this is perhaps compelling evidence. Random mistakes would generate random variation in delegate assignments from records. I can't think of a non-conspiratorial way to interpret this data. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Jubilee

There is a YouTube channel I found called Jubilee. Some of their videos are clickbait, but at the same time, they have some really interesting videos, some that actually are worth watching, especially their "Middle Ground" and "Odd One Out" series. Here's one of the channel's videos:

— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no middle ground on equal rights. Anyone trying to say otherwise is an idiot or a liar. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

is there not? with abortion it seems like it ranges from life at conception and no abortion what ever, to ok depending on what stage, risk to mother, cases of rape etc. granted in other cases full equality is not a crazy extreme, and middle grounds means some rights not applicable to all so no equal rights. I guess abortion not about equal rights, nor free speech, nor gun rights, or many things that could fit the format AMassiveGay (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I always figured that with abortion, in America, the "middle ground" would be something akin to what happened post-Prohibition where rules could be decided on a county-by-county basis. The more religious, generally rural-ish and Southern-ish would ENACT THE TOTAL BAN and nothing much in the cities would change (except in a true federalism situation, many cities in more Bible-Belty states would probably unshackle some of the current nannyism state regulations). This is probably what would happen if Roe vs. Wade was defeated in the first place (although nannyism at a state legislature level would still continue, since Republicans these days, concerned about FREEDOM!, hate giving the freedom to more liberal cities to enact legislation they don't like.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay The closest thing to a "middle ground" is emergency abortions, especially during the heavily regulated third trimester. I say these are as close as you get to a "middle ground" because Pro-life advocates are absolutists, while pro-choice advocates bake those options in. Or, to put another way, Pro-choice advocates want there to be what we think of as a "middle ground", and pro-life advocates oppose it. Ergo, there is no middle ground. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally support abortion rights for everyone, and some of Jubilee's videos are admittedly supportive of the Balance fallacy, but there are other videos Jubilee has. When the pro-life right hates abortion, we need debates on whether or not it's necessary. Debates like this are evidence that we might not always find ways to agree. It is saddening that there are still pro-life bigots in the world, though. I wish more people would understand that abortion is needed if you are a dying pregnant woman.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 14:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Why I hate conspiracy theorists.

So this is partly directed at our newest stalker who keeps vandalizing our articles on Targeted Individuals and conspiracy theories. Yes, I know you'll read this eventually, no I'm not reading your mind. Yes it is very ironic that you, a person paranoid about stalkers, is a stalker. So why do we care so much about TIs? We don't. We haven't focused on debunking their crap in years. The truth is no one gives that much of a fuck about you. No one is plotting to make you miserable, because no one cares about your pathetic, trivial, pointless existence.

Moving on to the bit for the rest of the site. As you may have noticed by the above, I have thing against conspiracy theorists. This is mainly due to the fact that their mindless yammering acts as a smokescreen which other people can use to get away with crimes. Hillary Clinton? Immune to criticism due to the number of bullshit stories people fabricated to make her look bad. Obama? All those pejoratives drowned out his rather hawkish foreign policy, and now civilians in the Middle East pay for our stupidity in blood and corpses. Islam? Bigots spouting poorly repackaged racist and xenophobic canards have given Islamic Fundamentalists and religious apologists a bulletproof shield to hide behind. That's the danger of conspiracy theories. They help cover up actual problems by drowning genuine evidence based criticism in mindless white noise. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I reserve my strongest feelings for the ones who further victimize the most vulnerable. I’m talking about Sandy Hook/other mass shooting/9-11 truthers who harass so-called “crisis actors”. In a very very close second place are genocide deniers. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

when you say conspiracy theorist, do you mean the people pushing them or the people who eat them up? is there a difference? I read somewhere that belief in such theories is comforting for folk, some dastardly master plan is apparently easier to deal with than the chaotic randomness of life with the extra bonus that they get to flatter their egos with the idea that have some greater knowledge, that they 'know' how things really work, and 'knowledge' is power and all. maybe why they never just subscribe to one crazy theory, but to all of them. there a lot of chaos in the world. one theory on its own wont cover all the scary randomness. and maybe its why you get all the truthers harassing victims of one tragedy or another - the shadowy reptilians controlling things are out of reach, the guy the news who saw his kids shot death? that's human face to the conspiracy, a point of attack. maybe online abuse will get them to say they never had kids in the first place and you're a hero of the resistance (and not just a cunt to everyone else). AMassiveGay (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

dunno why the idea of crisis actors took hold though. surely be easier to actually go massacre a bunch of kids in a school? framing some patsy gotta be easier than staging the whole thing, with grieving families and news reports to fake, and putting your actions easily contactable. I cant imagine they believe reptillians to be squeamish AMassiveGay (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect additional layers of complexity is a feature, not a bug, for these nuts. Also, how else are they going to refute multiple first-hand accounts of what really happened? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay All of them. Truthers are like theists, even the followers are compelled to spread their ideas. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Truthers are also like followers in batshit cults like Scientology and Nation of Islam, which, ironically, make conspiracies as well.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 14:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Took some research to determine, but the 9/11 conspiracy guy, Dylan Avery, appears to be an atheist. Crazy comes from everywhere and if you start relying on bundling people into groups to determine who is good and who is bad, all you do is set yourself up for bigotry. That's not to say I think there's no connection between religiosity and conspiratorial ideation, but it's not as simple as one simply causes the other. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dylan Avery? The guy behind the Loose Change films? I can understand that some atheists don't have really good views, and some of them we actually support on RW, (i.e. Dawkins and Harris) but the guy who lied to everyone about one of the darkest days of America? Why don't we have a page on this fucker yet?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think one can ever assume the designation of atheist should impart confidence in others they are dealing with any particular type of person. Anyone with ideological leanings can find themselves slip into the moorings of religious certainty. Conspiracy theories, religions, and ideologies all operate in more or less the same way. That is, to create the frail facade of an understanding as an emotional crutch.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Note: Dylan Avery currently redirects to Loose Change. It there's anything more that's significant about him, a separate page could be created. Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Nah, he's pretty much done nothing of note since then. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Fuck antivax

fuck antivax fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. fuck anti vax. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

fuck anti vax;)— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit, this was one of the more entertaining rebuttals to these antivax nutjobs I've ever seen. And unlike a lot of people, she's stood her ground and refused to budge against the torrent of abuse the antivaxxer drones are unleashing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's safe to say, nature answered her call: this anti-vaxxer killed her kids. Nothing more natural than child mortality from diseases, something we suffered as a species for a very long time until recently. She did jack shit with loving the sound of her own voice ahem "prayer" rather than proper medical attention (which calls to mind Ezekiel Stephan). The people giving suggestions like boiling thyme, ingesting vitamin C until kids get diarrhea are no better. Andrea Louzan-Halliday is a particularly disgusting type to suggest that they're "better off" ingesting Vitamin D and C, elderberry, Zinc. Andrea Ayon can fuck off especially with her advice to have kids, when they have a fever, take off their clothes and put potato slices or cucumber skin on their forehead and rub alcohol around their body.

Is the legal justice system going to do anything for her? She needs to have her kids taken away. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sums it up well. As much as I detest The Big A, both having it and having to deal with others who have it, it's sure better that than the alternatives. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

FUCK ANTI VAX Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Show the antivaxxer the image at the beginning of the Wikipedia article on smallpox and ask them why they are anti-vax. (Apologies to the squeamish.) Anna Livia (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I must create a charity called "Send A Science Book To An Idiot Foundation". It will be used to send elementary school level science books to people who have no clue about how science works. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm not actually going to e-harass someone who just killed their child through neglect. I'm gonna hate that anti-vax facebook group forever, but the proper channel for dealing with that women is the court system. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a palindrome, but hey FUCK IT UP ikanreed!!! I had to stop reading the bad shit, too. The stories of parents who administer MMS to their autistic children, praying for it to make them like normal children, I used to be able to take it. It's fucking hard, I worked daycare at a church and there was an autistic kid, like, not spectrum or Aspergers, old school no questions autistic, and he was hard to deal with. He was also just another little kid, when you're looking after 30 different personalities, that one screams during the credit of the movie and only plays chutes and ladders is not that different from the kid that kicks people on purpose during soccer or that kid who cries, like, always. I'm disgusted by the idea that anyone is going to "fix" an autistic child with "miracles" that also happen to have the same practical description as "bleach enemas."Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why, but....

...I apparently have the fear of getting doxxed by a random idiot on RW. Maybe because my political views are too contrarian?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't let people dox here. Kiwifarms has picked a couple of our users to target and harass, but like always, it seems to come from them being visible minorities, not anything about their posts. And you're not contrarian, you're... how do I put this... overeager to have unique and profound insight in a way that comes across as desperate and cloying? Something like that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know what that means, and I attended several seminars by Lawrence Krauss at Case Western, so I guess you're supposed to know everything when your professor is both a New Atheist and an accused sex offender. Who knows? Maybe I won't get doxxed, or maybe I would dox someone like Oxyaena.^{Do You Believe That?}— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to find anything about me online, I cover my tracts very well. Other than that, why single me out? — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't know why. Just thought of one random user. Sorry, anyways.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 18:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No it's fine, I get it. Don't worry. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not difficult to figure out who I am in RL if you want to. I guess we all have different priorities.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Doxxing you now, your name is... ROBERT! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Shit! I had no idea it was that easy! Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Pfff. ikanreed that was totally lame doxxing someone. There is no excuse to ever dox anyone ever. For that treachery I'm going to dox you. I paid good money for this information and now everyone will know that you are: PEPPA PIG and you live on THE MOON, SOL, MILKYWAY. I'm not sorry I did it. ShabiDOO 20:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Been on RW for about 6 years and I am still paranoid about being doxxed. Not sure if it is because I am clinically paranoid or because someone hates what most people consider left-libertarian views (I prefer center-left though). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t get into internet fights very often, so I’ve never been concerned. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek Picard

Any thoughts? ShabiDOO 16:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s alright so far.Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Amazon is only on episode three. I'm waiting for it to get going.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Flame on, brother. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to say Discovery disapointed the shit out of me. But I've loved every espisode of Picard and look forward to the next. Just about everyone I know on Facebook says it is a "Triumph". But the internet doesn't really seem to agree. ShabiDOO 22:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I loved episode one of Picard, two disappointed me a bit, but three got me back into it Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek is necessarily utopian. That's the key to its appeal. I find it difficult to imagine the Federation acting the way it has in the two episodes I watched. I do think it's all been downhill since Roddenberry died. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe transporters work - but I still enjoy the stories.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In response to Smerdis. I like Deep Space Nine... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, DS9 is my favorite Star Trek, even though TNG is the Trek I grew up with. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Having watched Season 1 and 2 of TNG, nah. Revolverman (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

In The Original Series, you had the Federation/Starfleet engaging in a proxy war with the Klingons by arming a technologically inferior species, ("A Private Little War"), being negligent in overseeing a psychiatric facility where the boss went amok and started altering minds ("Dagger of the Mind"), had senior ambassadors from member planets willing to physically attack each other ("Journey to Babel"), captains and observers interfering in local cultures ("The Omega Glory", "Patterns of Force"), and stealing foreign property ("The Enterprise Incident"). In TNG, they leave a plague ship to go off on its merry way ("Haven"), had Starfleet infiltrated ("Coming of Age"/"Conspiracy", the story idea being Roddenberry's incidentally), and so on. Star Trek was never as utopian as some people seem to think it was.User:KeithM

The fourth episode was very good. And since I don't watch trailers and avoid all info about films and TV shows, I did not see the ending of that episode coming at all. Nice surprise! ShabiDOO 08:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, episode four was pretty good. I like getting more world building and lore for the Romulans. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

nerds AMassiveGay (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you think?

To try to make something positive of this, Daryl Davis would be an awesome article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Resident nihilist here. It's all made up. THAT GIVES YOU NO RIGHT. Be respectful, be mindful, use language like you know what it's there for. Okay, let's work on class.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I may have lost my fucking mind... Literally

I'm taking an MRI to make sure I'm healthy. Wish me luck.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 23:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope your mind will be there with you for the MRI. But seriously, hope all goes well; MRIs are nowhere near as intimidating as many people make them out to be, if you've never had one you just lay down and let them do their work. And lay as still as you possibly can. Here's to good results. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have zero disorders; however, my attention span is concerning some doctors.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A fundie school so extreme that it makes Pensacola Christian College look liberal

The Ozark Bible Institute and College! http://www.obicollege.com/generalinfo.php

You will find the rules in the catalog and it is much worse than either Pensacola Christian College or Bob Jones University. The very poor quality of the website is the rotten cherry on top of the shit sundae. Totally worth a RationalWiki article. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No visiting roller-skating rinks? But how else can I hang out with my ethnic-Jewish abortion-doctor gay lover and make love in the bathroom using beer bottles while listening to Gospel-rock? I mean...we don't mind having a chaperone come along nor do I mind deducting the five hours we spent in the bathroom stall from our allotted "social time" hours. But this really is the kind of Pentecostal Christian conservative bible study school that's right for me. So I'll give up roller-derby-express for a few months I guess. ShabiDOO 01:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Their motto actually sounds sinister ("A Place Where God Can Help Himself to Young Lives")! Is God feasting at the buffet of humans? Bongolian (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Could it be a reference to that 'Old Tyme Religion', i.e. the Bible volcano god theory (Exodus 7:20, Exodus 9:24, Exodus 14:24, Exodus 19:3, Exodus 19:9, Exodus 19:11-12, Exodus 19:16, Exodus 19:18, Exodus 19:21, Exodus 20:18-19, Exodus 22:20, etc.). Could there be a subversive working at that college? Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You know, usually I just kind of shrug and nod at these. Go to that kind of school, you're pretty much expecting the rules and such. I tend to assume that you accept the restrictions before you apply.

That being said, this reads like the bastard child of Primitive Baptists day camp and the Sea Org... Kencolt (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't even a "college" as most people think of one, unlike even the fundie colleges like Bob Jones or Pensacola Christian I see nothing about academic programs or degrees. Let alone internships and placement programs and whatnot. They do have plenty of web space devoted to what appears to be Pentecostal-ish missionary bullshit, so if your purpose in life is to spread your cult to Guatemala and Guiana then this is your place. :p I guess the main "good news" about this place is, over-controlling student life aside, they seem to be to be more God-motivational style babblers and seem to avoid (at least in their Facebook, on a skim) some of the nastier homophobic crap you can get from this type of lot. (I'm sure they are not okay with it, but some fundie types go out of their way to denounce homosexuals as much as they can, as if this was the one and only Biblical mission in life.) Soundwave106 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

So it's more like Patriot Bible University? — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A dean at the school is a Missouri representative. His main concern in the last sessions was making it so public libraries had to form a commission to help ban books and "special visitors" they didn't like....most notably "drag queen story hour". His twitter feed is full of alt-right christian toxic ranting. I don't think Jesus would take too kindly to his trashing and hatefilled rants towards so many people. And it's "what Jesus would have wanted" what it's all supposed to be about? ShabiDOO 17:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't a 'bastard child' against the rules of all the various participants? Anna Livia (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nasty turn in Democrat leadership campaigning

I don't remember the 2016 or 2008 leadership campaign turning so nasty so quickly. I found myself extremely disgusted by the leading candidates after the Iowa results. I know in many countries the major political parties would never allow candidates to trash one another so pointlessly and so toxic (the UK conservative party leadership being a minor exception). It seems so many parties in so many other lands realized, as I would hope democrats realized that all it does is sabotage the candidate who wins and their chances of beating Trump. Sanders seems to be the worst of them with Biden not far behind. Negative attack adds against fellow candidates in the same party? A small barb here or there is one thing. But openly listing reasons why that person would make a bad president? What's next? They'll accuse each other of having Alzheimer's? ShabiDOO 07:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

DNC has decided that its quite fine with Trump getting a second term, it seems. Revolverman (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This may actually be not far from the truth. Some of them might actually hate one another so much they'd rather have Trump win. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

We know the establishment has it out for Bernie, and from the looks of it they hate Bernie so much they'll be perfectly happy to give Trump another four years. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it toxic though? As near as I can tell the point of the primaries, and indeed the election as a whole from the perspective of the voters is to put the most competent and useful politician in office. If they only list their upsides, how can we know the full picture? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Heaven help me, they're describing very very very very real flaws in a candidate before they're destroyed by trump! My heart! It's simply too much! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly defines “nastiness” in this context? Biden and Klobuchar both have a point in highlighting Buttigieg’s rather unimpressive political career, as has Sanders in raising concerns about whether Buttigieg can be trusted to provide meaningful change, considering his donors (let alone some of his statements). Conversely, while Klobuchar struggles to simply remain a viable candidates, whereas Biden and Sanders each have their own weaknesses, even if Buttigieg’s attempt at a counter to Sanders sounds like so much hot air “let’s all come together m’kay?” spin to me (kind of like the far too common and usually vapid calls to “move beyond left and right politics”). I haven’t kept close track on recent developments, so I may have missed something, but as long as the criticism among Democratic candidates are about these aspects, which I consider pertinent to both what kind of policies primary voters are supporting and what kind of candidates they are voting for, I don’t think it’s likely to do any significant damage. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I think Sanders’s response to the Iowa mess was far more seemly than Buttigieg’s, but then again Buttigieg had a lot more riding on the outcome. It is also a rather sad lesson that Sanders’s measured response and victory in terms of the popular vote gained him very little in the broader media coverage which has been dominated by Buttigieg as the dark horse victor. Even worse, the mess has not only handed an easy and easily messaged story about Democratic incompetence to Trump, it has also allowed him to trot out the “establishment conspiracy” narrative (“It’s rigged!”) that portrays himself as the plucky outsider who will “drain the swamp”. A potentially really nefarious aspect is that this narrative might allow Trump to piggyback on the frustration fuelled by suspicions based on the 2016 primaries among Sanders supporters and others who already view the DNC and the party’s handling of the primary process with a high degree of scepticism. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Given their incompetence, and its external appearance as being indistinguishable from malice, it isn't hard to see why some people might view the Iowa results with suspicion. Disdain for conspiracy theories and adherence to Hanlon's razor do provide clarity, though at the cost of comfort. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone could watch Biden's video and find it anything but toxic for the democrat party. I think Americans have become so addicted to negative adds and attack adds you cannot even tell the difference anymore between healthy debate and trashing one another. You also seem to be so hateful of other candidates I honestly really do believe you'd rather have Trump than your non-favourite candidate. ShabiDOO 22:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a recently registered Democrat, I’m really frustrated by how determined the party is to lose. Half of them don’t fucking vote unless it’s their absolute favorite person, more of em only fill the bubble for president because they don’t understand how separation of powers works, and all of them have the absolute fucking nerve to bitch about what the GOP does even though they did nothing to stop it. If the fucking left-wing is so morally and intellectually superior to the right, then why are left-wing candidates so fucking bad at winning elections. Fucking shit. And this is why I would bet just about anything that Trump wins in November. Because the whole American left is made up of narcissistic politicians and cynical dumbass voters. I almost miss being a Republican at this point. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

All of this can be traced back the Democratic party not being a unified group with one ideological tendency, but rather a vast fragmented coalition of groups with "dislikes Republicans" being their only common trait. Sure, more people hate trump than like him, but they do not like their fellow Democrats either. No presidential candidate can unite them based on policy alone because other than "not republican" they disagree on every aspect of how the USA should be run. Democratic presidential primaries will only get more toxic in the future because the divisions between progressives and moderates(and others) will only get more pronounced. Soon, it will essentially look like another general election between candidates just as irreconcilable as the eventual nominee will be with the Republican candidate.Flandres (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not like any of the DNC candidates at all. Even more fun is that there is only one Republican who I would vote for- Roque De La Fuente Guerra. From what I see though, he probably will not make it. Knowing that I will probably go with Bill Weld. Not going with the DNC. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The news media is an entertainment business pretending to offer a public service. Nuance won't play well there: what they want is a horse race. Since Buttegieg's surprising showing and Biden's failure are the two most startling outcomes, that's what you will hear about. Now, as to the Democrat candidates generally, the only one I won't be able to hold my nose tight enough to vote for is Bloomberg. No way I am going to vote for the soda-pop tax man. He is the Tipper Gore of public-healthism. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You cannot blame this on the media. Biden released a video attacking his opponent and he repeated those in an interview. Sanders also attacked But. in an interview. But. defended himself and criticized the others. Doing this kind of thing would get you denounced by the rest of the political party in most countries (if the party is intelligent). Why you think you're better? Okay. Why you're better than your opponent? Could be good. Why your opponent who might win the candidacy and represent your party would be a terrible person to vote for? Are you serious? ShabiDOO 05:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

with election campaigns lasting years, is it not any wonder mud slinging is the norm in us politics? surely everyone knows all candidates position on most issues after month or so. what else can they do to fill the rest of the time on the campaign trail to keep their lead/cause their opponents to lose support? it must be terribly divisive for any party choosing its pres candidate this way. and must give a presidential incumbent a massive advantage, not having to worry about trying to unite their right before a the main event.

its probably even worse these days with social media and all AMassiveGay (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m not an American and furthermore from a country that bans political TV commercials and has very little tradition for attack ads (especially of the aggressive US type à la Willie Horton), so the notion that I’ve been deadened to them is rather far fetched.

I admit not having watched the Biden ad in question, but again: Criticising Buttigieg for having very little experience and highlighting that his credentials when it comes to setting a fundamentally different agenda in Washington than that of Obama, the Clintons etc. is hardly beyond the pale. Furthermore, so far this campaign has been extremely issue based, so I really can’t recognise the doom and gloom picture. Indeed, candidates have generally spent a lot of time talking about what they would do, should they win the White House.

I’ll also freely admit that I don’t like Buttigieg, so I’m not an unbiased observer here, but I think that basically demanding that candidates refrain from criticising each other will only benefit the likes of Buttigieg, who seems to me the embodiment of style over substance and who needs to clearly answer whether he subscribes to the Clinton/Obama status quo or wants some kind of significant reforms and not just deliver verbal flimflammery. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

^I agree with everything there including the bit about Buttigieg, though at this point it would take a lot for me to trust anything he says. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Federal Debt

While I was driving on I-77, I found a billboard that had an electronic counter showing the Federal Debt to be over 23 trillion dollars. Apparently, some paleoconservatives and libertarians believe that the reason why it's so high is because there aren't enough tax cuts, which is ridiculously insane. We need taxes if we wanna get rid of the Federal Debt, but it will never be easy.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Typically with these national debt boards, you are seeing the work of Peter G. Peterson. Let's call this side the "big billionaire" part of American politics -- there are "big billionaires" that are lefties too, but if you are a "big billionaire" that over-worries about your tax bill and wants to gut, say, Social Security or Medicare to reduce taxes and free up more billionaire income (the military never seems to be a concern of these chumps for some reason), you are on Peter G. Peterson's side. The Federal Debt has become huge in part because it is easy for the GOP to chop taxes for Peter G. Peterson, but it is politically difficult to cut Social Security or Medicare to make up for the revenue loss -- even the GOP relies on relatively poor elderly / evangelical votes. So here we are. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The federal debt is a non-issue. It's just a way for the government to make short term revenue. If the government really wanted to reduce the debt, all they'd have to do is stop selling it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of conspiracy-ish. We do indeed have a federal debt, and the reason why is also probably because we spend too much on things no one really needs. (Iraq, anyone?) We should instead spend on things that will actually help people (Medicare for All) and tax the rich to pay off the debt.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy at all. That's just the way debt works. The government sells bonds to investors to make cash in the short term, then pays interest in the long term. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good article on the issue. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's be a little more precise. The government has cash reserves, like any other large organization. It also has a budget. Bonds are issued when outlays(mostly spending) are larger than income(mostly taxes), according to the laws congress has outlined. This is not the only way the government could account for a shortfall. Being the government they have several other totally legal options, which include: invalidating or reducing existing debt(considered a bad idea because who would buy treasury bonds after that. Also maybe unconstitutional), printing money(for some reason the federal government has outsourced deciding how much currency should be printed to the federal reserve, a semi-private organization, the exact process of them choosing to print money is complicated and doesn't always entail physical currency), or selling government assets(dumb for obvious reasons). The hole that Modern Monetary Theory leftists want to exploit is the printing money one. They feel as though the fed's central aim of "limiting inflation" is a dubious goal compared to the many competing interests the government should be concerned with, and a certain amount of printing money to cover government costs could be done indefinitely without any taxes. The risk of that attitude is that economy-destroying hyperinflation is one miscalculation away. Besides which, taxes fill an essential role of being able to be progressively structured and thus put the burden of governance proportionately on those who benefit most from its existence. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The national debt irresponsibility is no different than our reckless CO2 dumping. We know our children's children will have to pay for it...and suffer it. And we don't care. Not enough to make the harsh decisions necessary to do it. We just don't give enough of a shit about a few generations from now...enough to suffer the cuts and radical lifestyle changes required. Aint going to happen. If people dismiss or ignore the climate-change doom clock...why on Earth would they give a second thought to some debt that some people who will be born well after we die will have to deal with? ShabiDOO 16:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fucking stupid, and glosses over how money actually works in the 21st century. Instantly tripling the national debt to end climate change would be a literally no brainer if it were an option. There's no material reality to debt, it's pure abstraction, and to panic over abstractions you literally have legal control of is real fucking dumb. I mean it, that's a dumb thing to concern yourself with. Now, it would still be better to tax the richest about 10 times as much as we do now, and cut utterly pointless, valueless spending like unnecessary wars, and simplify that problem, but the people who pretend to care about national debt are the biggest single obstacle to any sort of practical solution. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I like how you sometimes jump steep into the deep end like that ikanreed. It's helarious. I was simply pointing out that people give as much of a shit about other people having to pay off the debt in the future as they do about people having to suffer for their CO2 emmissions in the future. They don't give a shit. And if they don't give a shit about the planet setting on fire (very bad) why would they give a shit about a deb (which wouldn't be end of the world but still a burden). The two are the same issue. Just very different degrees of seriousness. In neither case do people give much of a shit. How on Earth you assumed that I'd be against quadrupling the debt if it meant saving the planet...I have no idea. I've gone over my comment five times and I don't see it. If America ballooned the debt to 100 times its size to help avert climate change i would think that is a damn fantastic idea. That kind of political/economic/social planning makes sense. But that's not how the debt accumulated in America nor how it IS accumulating. Its status-quo and putting off paying down the debt for another generation. I am aware that debt isn't the most urgent problem...but you know.....someone has to pay it eventually. It doesn't go away. It doesn't become some petty cash pocket change will cover unless something amazing happens. You're deferring your expenditures for people in the future. And if you aren't even using it to make the future one where paying off the debt will be even remotely easier (you arent, haven't been, nor likely will any time soon) then yes...you're offloading your problems into the future. Unless there is some magic mechanism to default and not blow your economy or some supernatural trick to make the debt go away. Economists all agree...the debt isn't A BIG DEAL but it's still something people in the future will have to pay off whether you're budget made it easier for them or not. If you're doing to raise the debt...do it extremely responsibly and not forever. ShabiDOO 17:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo You're assuming capitalism will still exist in the future when that's not necessarily the case.... did feudalism last forever? As we can see today's people are starting to turn against capitalism, and the general direction of history has always been to move left. Paine, Voltaire, Jefferson... in their day they were the far left. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It would certainly be a nice Deus Ex Machina for the debt problem. I'm the first to say our rare moment of even partial democracy and a set of human rights the world has never seen before...are so fragile that they could go in the snap of a finger. They "could". That's why I try to live every day of my life as an atheist and LGTB as for the millions who cannot in other countries and possible many more if a culture that permits these rights (even to its limited extent) crumbles. I hope not...wouldn't be shocked). But I definitely think it's really silly to plan for the future and dismiss difficult burdens on the future because maybe it will all be radically different some time or a magical solution will appear. I don't think it's unreasonable to plan as though capitalism will still be the dominant national form in 50 years (be it moving to a more mixed style, or with heavy redistribution or become a brutal Ayn Rand capitalist distopia). What kind of system would you prefer? ShabiDOO 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Forget a deus ex machina, forget capitalism vs socialism. It's a real problem inasmuch as we decide it should be. The actual material realities of monetary policy allows you to trivially inflate your way out of excessive (governmental) debt if you decide to. Spending a fortune every year on debt service kind of terrible and pointlessly destructive, and therefor arranging a closer to balanced budget is reasonably pragmatic, but to treat it as at all comparable to climate change is absolutely loopy. And all it does is arm the political forces responsible for it existing in the first place. Reagan style neoliberalism created the debt bomb, entirely by cutting taxes, and naive budget hawkery is the sole domain of the same assholes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ CAUTION! Ludicrously over simplified list of questions/caveats when assessing public debt:

• What is the to GDP ratio and growth prospects? (Even though macroeconomics ARE NOT THE SAME as microeconomics)
  • Is your economy operating at or near capacity? (If not, then public spending might stimulate growth and thus make good financial sense)
• Do you lend in a currency that your government ultimately controls? (Yes, I’m looking at you, Eurozone)
  • Who do you lend to? (Japan has quite a large debt/GDP ratio but most loans are “internal”, i.e. denominated in the country’s own currency)
• Do you happen to issue the world’s reserve currency? (Because if you do, you might not be playing in the same league as everyone else)

End of ludicrously over simplified shopping list. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Asking these sorts of questions? Now, there's an actual reasonable and concerned approach to debt crises and questions of what harm could be done. Context is good, friends. It's still a neoliberal framing, but it's less annoyingly naive(and frankly speaking, less wrong) than "We have to pay the debt someday!" 21:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

These are all explanations for why: you don't have to fear raising the debt. It only makes sense if you borrow wisely and spend wisely and not drift away into the "debt repayment is just ... like a frame of mind man". When you look at the last 20 years in most Anglo-Saxon countries what kind of a reportcard would you give the US, UK, Canada, Australia etc? ShabiDOO 07:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Really rough impressions of:

• US: Spent some but not quite enough in the wake of 2008 and spent a lot of it poorly (apart from the ongoing wasteful military spending, the stimulus was wasted buying up toxic assets and basically converting private corporate into public debt, but the kind of public works programmes of the New Deal that would have provided direct demand from consumers by bolstering their spending capacity were scant). As consumers keep getting squeezed through stagnant/declining real wages and the public sector is not willing to take up the slack in demand, things don’t look good.
• UK: Seems hell bent on “austeritising” itself into a similar two-tier economy (one of brutal Dickensianism for most and one of lavish crony capitalism for the few) à la the US, killing off the sorry remains of the welfare state that survived Thatcher and Blair in the process. The demand suppression is even worse than in the US as there was not even a stimulus package in 2008; except for no. 10 also buying up The City’s crap and thus converting it into public debt, a manoeuvre that exploded the public debt far more than across the pond due to the outsized City in relation to the UK economy.
• Australia: I’m not familiar or up to date with how they’re doing down under, but my general impression is somewhere between the US and UK, though with less casino capitalism(?)
• Eurozone (aka the Bundesbank in blue and gold stars): Stimulus? We don’t need not stinkin’ stimulus! Let’s austerity the shit out of everyone and we’ll all become export oriented trade surplus Wirtschaftswunder economies like Germany. If anyone doubted that the Euro was a really bad idea, you couldn’t ask for a better demonstration. Bonus example: Greece, which ended up being ultra-austeritised into oblivion with the various “rescue packages” actually being forwarded to the foreign banks (with German ones featuring prominently) that had lent to Greece and only minimal haircuts. So once again, the taxpayers ended up on the hook for the worthless “assets” that the banks sat on, while budgets were then slashed, which was justified by the “too much public debt” shtick.

In general, the big expansion of public debt across the Western world (and especially in Europe) was a direct consequence of ‘08 and those who insisted on austerity on top of that exacerbated this development by hampering growth, thus increasing debt/GDP ratios and delaying recovery (hence: fewer taxes and more expenses pertaining to unemployment etc.). The problem is not the size of the debt, as very few Western countries actually have debts that are unmanageable per se (Greece being a notable exception). Instead, the problem is that the debt was not only created by rather useless (in the longer term) bailouts of corporate toxic assets, but that this has created the mother of all moral hazards and an ominous precedent for the next time casino capitalism blows up: Privatise the winnings and socialise the losses [clink champagne glasses]. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogus Church or Fake News: Which would make more cash? No I would not literally do either

Both sound like that they would make mountains of cash. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The church seems easier to monetize. A fake news outlet needs to either attract advertisers or be in the payroll of another organization, while a church can easily, and legally, solicit donations directly. Getting people to donate directly for news is harder; just ask the Stormer. Pyro (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogus church sounds easier, but it probably has a lower cash potential. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 06:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogus church is the way to go. 1) You get better Constitutional protection (A twofer: freedom of speech + freedom of religion). 2) You don't have to pay any taxes on anything if you structure it right. Bongolian (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

a bogus church looks like a real ball ache to set up. you'd need to be at least vaguely charismatic, needing to lure people to join, donate, and to keep donating. and you'd have to have the acumen to know how to profit from donations to your church and without getting done for embezzlement or to avoid getting usurped by someone in the congregation.

fake news site? piece of piss. getting advertising for websites is no big deal. target your fake news at particular audience - alt-right, conspiracy theorists and the like - and give em news that feeds their prejudices, they'll feed you views as they drop links all the over the net as they use your 'reportage' in online arguments. and a healthy dose of click bait. and you wont have to talk to the rubes you scamming and retain your anonymity should it all go pear shaped. and you get to flex your creative writing ambitions. or just regurgitate fake news from other sources if blocked, which probably gives a thin veneer of credibility if other fake news corroborate your bullshit.

they are both crowded markets though, so the fake news gets my vote as it requires the less effort with zero amounts of going out telling people how much you and your pal jesus care about them before asking for cash, and with none of the inherent risks of being public figure of some description. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

unless you are a shameless whore and exhibitionist, then bogus church all the way, you'd probably already started one. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can write 'reasonably proper' (ie not too many text-processing-program spelling and grammar underlinings consider a self-help book (followed by 'how to do better at X' and 'if X didn't work, try Y' etc). Anna Livia (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If you’re at least somewhat charismatic and willing to put in a little effort towards practicing your presentational skills, then I agree that the church way is the “best” choice, at least in the US (cf. televangelists who live in tax free mansions as long as they call them parsonages).

If you have no people skills (or just don’t want the hassle of regular stage performance, i.e. preaching) but can at least write a passable text, then I agree that Anna Livia’s idea of becoming a self help guru is probably a “good” idea.

If you can’t be bothered to go on stage or write a text longer than a page or so, then fake news is the way to go, although it should be noted that the likes of Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson basically have to resort to techniques similar to both televangelists and self helpers when hawking various crap (e.g. vitamin) to make ends meet. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And there are also possibilities with bloggers/vloggers and suchlike - 'Please support the fount of all wisdom generously.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. With the church you have the schmooze the shit out of everyone...the sheep, the wolves, the skeptics, the needy, the help etc. With news you only have to schmooze the shit out of other people who are also schmoozing the shit out of you (sponsors, politicians, activists, journalists, farcical-church-owners, fake-newsies, bullshit artists). I think it would depend a lot on how willing you are to endlessly lie right to the face of hopeful people sincerely following you and your message to improve their lives and hand over their money (possible what little they have). In otherwards...you really have direct face-to-face interaction with your victims instead of millions of idiot new-readers you'll never see behind their screens. To fuck over someone while shaking their hands requires a very particular kind of sociopathy that not all snake-actors can handle over the long term. But...if you take pleasure taking stupid people for a ride...I think the church thing is definitely for you. ShabiDOO 13:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You don't even have to believe in the faith you have created [1].

You could also invest in the (e)book printers and equivalents - less thinking about obscure detail required (and you can also take on the publications of the anti-this-church-ists etc). Anna Livia (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to make the cash (suggest usury or a central bank) before you can buy up the media and push the fake news. Red Lion (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

What is love? (Serious response please)

I know the common joke is to cite the song but I am being serious about this. It's a term I hear often and when people say it I can't really be sure what they mean or if I have even felt it. I felt attraction sure, sexual and otherwise, and affection for my dogs, but I'm not sure about love. I get many different responses like it's none of those and it's deeper and lasting, but it's all kind of vague and just leaves me where I started. I even asked on Actualized.org and they told me it was attention but I am not sure about that. Any ideas?Machina (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahem. "Love" is a social construct originating to some degree from biological impulses and sociological synergy. It is generally (but not always) mutual. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping for something more poetic but is that really all?Machina (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Something more poetic. YMMV on seriousness. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Why do you expect a poetic answer from a bunch of literal minded skeptics? It's a word we use to describe a subjective phenomenon emerging out of several physical phenomena. The poetry of it obfuscates the reality, but feels better, I guess. Trying to make it poetic, I think, creates impossible expectations for love. It's not transcendent, supernatural, or unknowable. If you're not experiencing love, there's a good chance you're looking for something beyond caring deeply for how another specific person feels, and wanting them to be happy and be with you while they are. You're looking for a relationship without lows, difficulties, and practical problems, and those don't exist. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You love someone when you care about their happiness all or most of the time due to the specific reason that their happiness directly cheers you up. I should add that this is my own experience of love, and therefore subjective. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Love is a rather changeable, highly context-sensitive and extremely subjective human emotion. Given this you are not going to get any simple one-size-fits-all definition.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SO it's not attention then?Machina (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Consider the following possible statements: I love myself. I love my sexual partner. I love my mother. I love God. I love Harry Potter. I love my job. I love my smartphone. I love my dog.

It would seem to be obvious that the word "love" has a somewhat or wholly different meaning in each case. It is also clear that the feeling may, or may not be reciprocated.

You really need to define the context in which you are using the word before you ask for a definition.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

An out of control chemical reaction in the mind. Driven partly by evolutionary pressures to form strong family or partner bonds. It made sense when humans were pre-civ small groups living in hostile natural environment with little human competition and infrequent contact with other humans. You'd meet a few hundred people in your life. It's extremely complex but I think it mostly has to do with avoiding child abandonment, partner abandonment, mutual survival, helping raise relatives (cousins and nephews etc who still have part of your own DNA to pass on) etc. To mention only a few of the reasons it evolved and to hyper simplify it to say the least. We aren't well equipped to deal with large scale human settlement, culture and interaction (and that's not just love but everything about us). So yeah, love becomes infinitely more complex as we settled down into groups or civilizations. Very complex. I doubt its ever been more complex before now, that there is some degree of sexual freedom (in partner selection and sexual expression) ever seen before. But I think...as with every single human behavior, it helps a LOT to see the context it evolved in (primitive man in small groups scattered over a lot of territory) and what it means for us now in an intense dense human zoo. I don't think you can understand love without considering those two things...among so many other factors (like how the greats have expressed it over time). It helps to have had a loving family bond and/or partner and/or intense friendship. Why do you want to know? ShabiDOO 07:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-Human Intelligent Life

It bothers me that whenever anyone brings up the prospect of intelligent life, be it extraterrestrials, ravens, or squid, the most common response I've observed is to treat them as a potential threat to overthrow humanity (even if jokingly). Leaving aside the karmic aspect of human cultures that built their societies on colonialism getting colonized themselves, I'd be excited to know that other sapient beings exist, to learn their alternative way of perceiving the universe. Colossal Squid (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Colossal Squid I hope we never encounter other intelligent life. It would cause massive social and economic upheaval in our society even if the aliens don't want to colonize our planet. Not to mention the consequences if a degenerate decides its a good idea to fuck one of them. eww 68.0.189.224 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, we are on a site obsessed with goats. Surprised one of us hasn't yet spawned some ape-goat hybrid. Colossal Squid (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you know we haven't? Kencolt (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this will result in the birth of a new race of Fauns, or even the second coming of the god Pan. —Vermilion (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope we never find alien life, but for far, far different reasons. What is the solution to the Fermi Paradox, or, if there are billions if not trillions of planets in the Milky Way, where the heck are all the alien civilizations? Surely after a few billions years, at least a few of them should've survived long enough to create an interstellar empire that would've grown until it encompassed the entire galaxy, Earth included. The answer? The Great Filter. That is, somewhere between "giant primordial soup of random amino acids" and "interstellar space empire" is something that prevents life from going to the next step, something so horrific and so universal that virtually all life simply can not pass. If we humans are incredibly lucky, it's because we were, well, incredibly lucky to have passed the Great Filter which was some step so insurmountable that no other planet has passed, such as a simple cell absorbing a mitochondria and making cellular life as we know it possible, multicellular life, or runaway sexual selection that resulted in sapience. But if we find life outside of Earth? Well, now the Great Filter is less likely to be something we passed, and more what we are about to face. Something that happens to virtually all intelligent life, that is unavoidable and renders them unable to ever recover from. Heck, there could be multiple Great Filters. Is catastrophic climate change ubiquitous to all intelligent life, that in every instance a species learns how to burn carbon compounds they eventually burn so much as to render their planet uninhabitable? Is it nuclear war, that a species vicious enough to take control of the planet's resources is all but universally doomed to break down into factions that eventually result in a nuclear attack chain reactions that ends civilization forever? Is it virtual reality, where the promise of unlimited pleasure and fulfillment in virtual worlds becomes too tempting to resist and the civilization ceases to expand beyond their planet? It's entirely possible that every single step on the path to a space-faring civilization is blocked by a Great Filter, that virtually every primordial soup fails to develop the precursors of life, and of the scant few places that do develop the primitive bacteria-analogues virtually all of them fail to absorb a mitochondria-analogue, and of the scant few instances that happens virtually all of them fail to produce multi-cellular life, and of the instances where such life advances it's virtually impossible to develop sapience. Whatever it is, the more aliens we discover, the less likely we are to be the unique species that finally expands beyond our own terrestrial cradle. CoryUsar (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Fear the Reapers — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Colossal Squid. I think it's because we, humans, kinda like being afraid. We have been preys for a long time, now we're on top, and we're wary of a life without a great evil to defeat. Devils, Aliens, Zombies... Also, imho the threat posed by aliens is near-0. Because conquering Earth makes very little economic sense for a society advanced enough to reach Earth through space. I mean, conquering space makes little economic sense for *us*. (And that's sad). The only advantage I see is if the aliens have life compatible with Earth-like conditions, and haven't reached a technological level to terraform a planet that hasn't a native intelligent lifeform to defend it, and reaaaaally want a planet.193.56.36.21 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Or they have mixed feelings on sentient beings, ranging from digust and abhorrence to fear of being contaminated by a self-recursive meme that would transmit sentience to them. 2402:4000:2182:8:68EF:7C92:45C:1480 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

All sentient, sapient beings deserve equal rights. I quietly hope that any species that reaches interstellar capabilities would have developed this moral ethos(if bad at following it like us). Also interstellar capabilities might be impossible. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as we know there are no space-faring civilisations. At least none have come knocking.

But I would suspect that any alien we meet would neither be benevolent nor malevolent. They would more likely be incomprehensible.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Other alternatives: viable interstellar travel has not yet been invented - sentience requires second generation stars [2] of a suitable lifespan and with suitable planets (so we are among the first sentients with even basic spacegoing technology); the scarcity of spacegoing populations (there may be habitable Jupiter-likes but the sentient species cannot leave); there is a form of the Prime Directive (make contact when the locals are ready for it and have the technology to become fully integrated); 'there is a reason why so much broadcast entertainment is so bad'; they are here but we are not aware of it; or they look like something totally harmless. Anna Livia (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Interstellar travel is not impossible, just really, really, *really* expensive and really, really, *really* slow; quite possibly no one is patient enough for it. Without faster than light travel, it takes more energy to ship a gram of matter from one star to another within a century than it does to create another gram of matter from nothing using pure energy. In other words, it makes zero economic sense to ship any resources between solar systems with even theoretical propulsion technologies; the rate of return is just too low. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Relevant:

Nearest achievable idea: All our nations make peace in face of giant approaching space rock, and construct hundreds of nukes to detonate behind hastily engineered space ship in order to head to nearest star system within the next century. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Would it also be OK to claim humans have achieved intersteallar travel if we launched AI designed by humans to only activate in time to interact with another solar system? I mean, we're not putting a person on this trip, we don't know how. Let me call it out, I'm of the mind that an AI designed by humans is good enough to claim human interaction. But I'm also of the mind that, if we say, send out AI from today with our current philosophies and morals, it might not count as modern human interaction if said AI finds intelligent life that can interact with it. So speculating on anything incoming or observing from above, we find ourselves in a philosophical trap. Were it so, would we be interesting if scouted and also ignored, or have we already been spotted and we're just not that important? To fill either role, to really call it interaction, there must be action. As for extraterrestrial life, nah, as our means for observing the universe increases, our sighting of extraterrestrial intervention decreases. For non-human interaction, AI doesn't quite meet the parameters I have for non-humans interacting with humans. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-Intelligent Human Life

How 'bout them alternative medicine practitioners. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Not doing so hot at the moment according to Rotten Tomatoes, ... for what it's worth: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_goop_lab_with_gwyneth_paltrow/s01 82.36.198.177 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Something relevant to the discussion about civility above

— Oxyaena ^Harass 18:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was literally just watching that and thinking how close this is in tone to RW's snarky POV. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Civility has a place. When honesty is established, you can genuinely build a framework of mutual respect with people you disagree with. But even the most minimal amount of intellectual dishonesty respect itself starts to become a pretense. A lie you're telling others about having a dialog, when you can't trust a goddamn word you're hearing. Trying to go the other direction, starting with respect and working towards honesty? It both rewards charlatans and punishes the sincere. The disrespect that foments can't last, and it snaps. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Honesty is a great come on. I am taken in by it until they ask for money. One problem Sanders has apropos of people who feel they are being lied to is the common impression he ostensibly makes proposals he can't possibly enact into law. They all do it, I suppose, but not quite like Mr. Sanders. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hillary's point in that article is most likely that the rest of the political establishment will staunchly oppose any change Sanders tries to enact. Well, you don't know it's impossible until you try. At the risk of sounding like I'm regurgitating far left (according to the US anyways) talking points, real change only comes when you get a movement of the people going to put pressure on the establishment. As president, Sanders would be able to support such a movement like never before. The difference between Sanders and, say, Obama, is Sanders may actually be prepared to do what is necessary and go against the establishment like this, while Obama would not. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Since Sanders is neither a democrat nor a republican, exactly what pressure do you suppose he could apply on the establishment to "do what is necessary?" In other words, what do you suppose would be necessary that he could actually do? The Republicans would love to impeach the next democratic president. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The same kind of pressure that made all the other civil rights changes happen (gay rights, women's rights, anti-segregation, etc.), a mass movement that galvanizes public opinion. Sanders should encourage grassroots activism, actively rally the people to put pressure on specific politicians that are standing in the way of progress. "If you do not give in, you won't get the votes you need." That's what he's preaching anyways. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Incivility has a place when 1) One is punching up, not punching down 2) One is not using ad hominem attacks or name calling and 3) One is using it to enlighten by showing how foolish the target's views are. Bongolian (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I really think the youtube video is a generational thing. I know younger viewers like watching people with full on energy practically yell out their spiel to the audience...30 minutes of that is a little too much for me. Could you say when the SPOV related material starts or, if anyone has the time...give a summary of how it relates to SPOV please? ShabiDOO 06:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Nah, that's what Fox News pretty much is like and we know the demographics of that channel. :p That is one of my criticisms of Youtube in general -- too much gotcha-oriented over-emotive bullshit. However, I understand that "Some More News" was started by former Cracked.com staff, and Cracked pretty much has a snarky style to begin with, so it kind of goes with the territory here. I prefer reading words myself. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Broom Challenge

So, apparently "making a broom stand on its bristles" was widely believed to be a NASA encouraged "One day a year" experience. I had a young guy, just out of high school run into my warehouse and show it off. It was a hit, and he tried to explain how it had something to do with the spin and angle of the earth, and it really only works if you align the handle right, and I, being woefully not current said "That sounds made up. The amount of gravity coming from the earth makes the spin and angle of the earth completely irrelevant." Thankfully, somebody else had already looked into it and referenced the center of gravity. So I remembered my Encyclopedia Brown books and said "Oh, yeah, let me show you something."

I picked up the broom and balanced it by the tip of its handle straight up, and said "see, when you have a chance to actually change the motion of the platform, the center of gravity moves slowest, and you have enough time to balance it because you can move your hand. If the motion and angle of the earth had anything over its gravitational pull for something as small as a broom, well, I don't know, we'd all be pinned to the ground." Not quite convincing to the Hype Beast (these terms are new to me).

Hype Veast brought it out again later in the day, and same dissenter said "It has a wider and lower center of gravity at the bottom than the top, it's designed to stand!" and a dude shouted "your mom has a wider and lower center of gravity" and I said "But that's totally different, that's why his mom lays down." I feel bad about it, it was a mean joke in a mean warehouse, but I couldn't pass it up. I'm going to tell him I'm sorry tomorrow, he didn't need a next level joke on his mom, he understood the meme faster than I did. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Video Games

It's funny how people used to talk about video games as something only recluses of a specific demographic did in their spare time, but nowadays, most millennials I know have a childhood video game story. I wonder sometimes if certain gamers are so angry because these days, being a gamer isn't anything special. Colossal Squid (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Smh at being caught by spam filter so many times I had to log in for this post: Can you be more specific and list an example? I know a lot of sadness and anger comes from the fall of companies we used to like and game franchises that used to be good. Anti-consumer practices, unpolished/broken releases, ridiculous nickel and diming, and crunch culture are all becoming more rampant. Nullahnung (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, the Mass Effect 3 fiasco comes to mind. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, luckily we have a model in hollywood that, sure in it's teenage years, video games became highly anticompetitive, highly anti-consumer, and entrenched with middlemen who dictate destiny to dreamers, but if it follows the same course, by -error, divide by zero exception, calculation failed- it will have matured back to a good industry. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the Gamergate crowd, gamers are more diverse than ever. I hope those developers make games with more characters, including those who aren't WASPs. Right now, the alt-right is killing the game industry, while not understanding that games are a progressive form of art.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Their complaints are so hilariously petty that they come off as addicts. Like, if you're that desperate to jack off, instead of writing 2000 words about minor changes to a female character's outfit, couldn't you be spending that time searching the Internet for other material? Alt-right losers aside, I think a major challenge for video games is how normalized their exploitative business models are. Pay-to-win mobile games are the most recent incarnation of this, but it's been going on since the arcade days and Capcom's multiple Street Fighter revisions. It helps, though, that cheaper indie games are more accessible than ever. Colossal Squid (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is why I don't get why so many gamers of a certain age are nostalgic for arcades. Their business models helped birth some of the worst practices of both the video game industry and gamer culture. Quarter-munchers were made ferociously difficult and dependent on hair-trigger reflexes in order to beat, ensuring that most people playing them would drop plenty of money into them in order to keep going all the way to the high score. From there, you get gamer culture's fetishization of difficulty, particularly that which emphasizes quick reflexes and responses, as a measure of a game's quality, and their ability to beat these kinds of games as a sign of their superiority, which produced the attitude of exclusivity and elitism that IMO led directly to Gamergate. Many of these arcade machines also existed side-by-side with games designed to give out tickets to be redeemed for prizes -- games that anybody familiar with arcades, boardwalks, carnivals, and other such places would know were often rigged. (Many early arcade game companies, especially the American ones, started out with such games; where else did Midway Games get its name from?) And when the arcades started closing down, many of the companies making games for such easily pivoted into slot machines, video poker, and other electronic casino games. Modern games that incorporate loot boxes and other such gambling-like mechanics are merely combining the Metal Slug machine with the carnival games. The worst excesses of modern mobile and AAA gaming are simply the revenge of the arcades, back from the dead on a greater scale than ever. KevinR1990 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You might have a point, but also consider that human beings thrive on challenge and competition, and it can be fulfilling in a positive way to sharpen your skills at something that gives you instant feedback (ergo a video game) and then compete against one another's high scores or battle it out on the E-sports stage for money and/or fame. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The only think I'm nostalgic for is another kind of Sierra Quest series. Something as good as Space Quest III or Kings Quest III. For me those were two stand out games and I've never seen games since that were as good. I've seen attempts but they never really were the same. Has anyone ever come across a game quite like them since? ShabiDOO 00:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

KevinR1990: Yeah, arcade culture's always been just a money sink to me. I've never really been enticed by the fleeting nature of the games whereas I can spend hours playing one or two games. Arcades are really noisy and overwhelming on my attention span, too. I just don't want to play anything barring Mario Kart Arcade, which is just a ticket sucker to begin with. What I really don't like about arcades is the glut of gambling machines everywhere. Isn't this sort of stuff supposed to be regulated? I smell a loophole being exploited, a means of having kids gamble, and it's really disturbing to me and impacts more the enjoyment I'm supposed to have at arcades. ^{— Unsigned, by: LeftyGreenMario / talk / contribs}

It's not every Boomer that liked games. It's not every Gen Xer that grew up on games. But millennials definitely had video games. I remember being what, 4 years old and the game RACTER was really cool to me, and I held on to that floppy. If you engage with it in good faith, it passes the Turing test. archive.org has a library of DOS games and some of them work, RACTER is my favorite when I'm nostalging about DOS, Red Baron is a close second but it crashes on archive. My grandpa was in the Navy in the Pacific in WWII and loved computers and flight sims and remote control planes. And Freecell.

I once, with no real understanding of Freecell, lost like 5 games in a row on my grandpa's computer. Didn't even take a day, I got pulled aside and asked "did you play Freecell on Grampy's computer?" "Yeah." "OK, he's never lost a game of Freecell and that's very important to him. Don't play Freecell on his computer ever again." I didn't get it, but I knew I was in trouble, but now I'm like, crap, I fucked up his stats. I mean, I wouldn't hit a little kid either, but damn, the heartbreak I must have caused, ten million wins and no losses versus ten million wins and, woah, what, 5 losses!?! Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Emergency broadcasts and idiot people

Okay when there is a severe storm or a general threat to the area, either the news will interrupt what is on TV/radio or the Emergency Alert System will be activated to give people important information vital to their safety. Now so many brain dead people will complain that their shows got interrupted by emergency broadcasts. The point of news updates and Emergency Alert System activation's is to save lives. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this pubic service announcement.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean we're talking about people who watch broadcast TV in 2020. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is technology is easy enough these days to allow the brain-dead to angrily rant "death threats" from the comfort of their couch on Twitter. On Twitter, it's the toxic shit that gets the most prominence. I haven't seen any recent stories this year though? There was stories involving an interrupted golf *re-run*, and interruptions of (of all things) "The Bachelorette" and "The Masked Singer" last year. As well as a football game that *didn't* break coverage during a storm that induced tornadoes. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me add to the above post. The problem with technology, or more specifically speaking social media, is it gives you instant access to communication. Whereas in the past people had some cooldown time to mull over their thinking and get a second often more thorough and smarter thought going before they were able to send off their letter, nowadays it's instant and people are content posting small bites of info/emotion. This necessarily means communication will get less thought-through, communicated opinions are less refined and less nuanced, and there is an overall loss in intelligence. (Just a quick musing, I didn't think this through for half an hour. Yes, I'm a hypocrite.) 82.36.198.177 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Will mention [3] and [4] Anna Livia (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Query

Does anyone have any links to LGBT teens being murdered by their Christian parents? Google and DuckDuckGo are remarkably unhelpful as far as this goes. Thanks in advance. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem to be an aspect of filicide and familicide research, so I've got nothing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Does suicide after "conversion therapy" count? Soundwave106 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh there's volumes and volumes of information about LGBT suicide, and I assume that's not what oxy is after. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There's an open-source United States Extremist Crime Database that might have what you need.[5] The paper "Exploring Anti-LGBT Homicide by Mode of Victim Selection"[6] was written based upon the database, but it's unclear whether there is enough detail in the database to analyze familial murders. You can contact the first author of the paper at: jgruenew@uark.edu. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it's so fucking hard finding anything even on Google News, I enlisted GC but alas he couldn't find anything. Good work, Bongolian. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, Oxyaena. If you want to know how I found this, I searched PubMed,[7] which covers health and medicine research very broadly. The full text of that paper was not actually available from that site, but I did find it on Researchgate,[8] where I have an account. If you want the full text of that paper, you can either try joining or ask the author by email. Bongolian (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Or use sci hub. Sci hub is good. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

But not so good if you don't like piracy (Sci-Hub). Researchgate, in contrast, allows the paper's author(s) to decide whether to release the paper to the public. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Christie Blatchford is dead

For those not in the know, she's an infamous Canadian editorial writer at the National Post who gleefully mocked First Nations and rape victims, even when one of them had recently died due to bullying, as well as mocking people who mourned Jack Layton's death. I know that grave-dancing is generally considered bad form, but I feel anyone who regularly engaged in grave-dancing against the marginalized should be exempt from such immunity. In any case, it's nauseating to read the loving tributes to such an awful person. Colossal Squid (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm a Mod I feel I need to show restraint in my response. Good, I'm glad she's dead. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since it's my job to give hot takes... The deaths of conservatives is a strictly necessary process for the improvement of society. I weep as I do for the harvest of corn killing corn stalks. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A Canadian Glenn Beck.... even in a lovable Canuck society, they're not immune to people like Blatchford.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I never heard of her. Individuals die, POVs live on. Someone just like the deceased is already taking her place. I find no advantage in postmortem resentments. I don't hope that people who disagree with me will die before I do. Too many people would be dead. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've spoken to actual Canadians who tell you point blank Canada's only "slightly better than the US." Their treatment of their indigenous peoples comes to mind. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

What I wrote is a non-offensive stereotype on Canadians. After all, it is kinda true that they like things such as maple syrup and ice hockey. And that they apologize after saying every sentence. And that they like maple syrup and ice hockey. And that Tim Horton's is kinda like crack in Canada. And that they are genetically adapted to survive the really cold winters. And did I mention that they like maple syrup and ice hockey?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Oxy, is there any society you don’t hate? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As a Canadian, she's exactly right. Not quite sure how that's "Hating Canadians" Revolverman (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Heck, as we speak, the RCMP is invading Wet'suwet'en territory over a gas pipeline. Colossal Squid (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How I met your mother captured Canadians so perfectly in an episode where they visit a Canadian bar in New York. After bumping into someone and the apology comes and Robin notes to Ted "You bumped right into him and yet he appologized to you...So Canadian. Feels like home". So true. So hilariously Canadian. How many times in Toronto did people appologize when it was me who accidentally inconvenienced them. At the same time, those lovable Canucks are so extremely indifferent to Aboriginal Canadian suffering, they vaguely support the natives in their land grab and are aware and feel for how endlessly screwed over they've been...but immediately give up what little sympathy they have when it becomes inconvenient (a cancelled train for example or the displeasure of having to read about it too many days in a row in the newspaper which becomes too tiresome). They want to care but...it just requires too much effort and it couldn't be a more tedious topic for them. ShabiDOO 06:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I`m autistic so pardon me for the confusion, is that sarcasm, Shabidoo? @DuceMoosolini Not quite sure how I "hate Canadians," an illegitimate settler state built on stolen land, as Revolverman pointed out. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. Is there any society you don't consider a "hellhole"? I remember you saying that about Europe and it seems like you feel the same way about Canada. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No. This world is a literal dystopia, and the fact that so many people are willing to preserve this dystopia and even praise it is mind-boggling. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Said people are either those who benefit most from dystopic conditions or have been hypnotized into worshipping them and believing they could be one of them. Colossal Squid (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh I'm being dead serious. I could bump into ten Canadians and most of them would appologize. And yes, while there is some vague sympathy towards native Canadians (better than it was decades ago) it ends after a couple days of protest or when that protest makes life the slightest inconvenient. Worst political dissapointment of the century Trudeau promised a "new kind of relationship with Native Canadians" and, despite actually doing more Native friendly gestures than many other Prime Ministers, has done little follow up on the Missing Indiginous Women inquiry, is trying to get out of paying huge compensation for victims of stealing children (in this century), less so but the same for an even worse case last century and couldn't have acted more quickly to let the RCMP shut down current protest on the pipe line building through aboriginal land. And he's honestly about the best you can get for a Canadian political leader on the topic. So yeah. I'm being serious. ShabiDOO 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that most of the Canadian Rail network is still shutdown, you might be underestimating it. The BC legislature also was closed due to protests. Revolverman (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You seemed too sympathetic towards white Canadians is why I asked. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Too sympathetic towards white Canadians?" Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Oh no the poor whiteys who just can't be bothered to care about something they're literally at fault for boo hoo." — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Consciousness could not have evolved?

https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved-auid-1302

The argument being that consciousness doesn't serve any sort of evolutionary advantage and therefor could not have evolved, therefor some think it might have always existed and whatnot. I'm not really sure about that since it seems like consciousness is a product of the brain and there is much evidence to suggest that.Machina (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well thanks for wasting 10 minutes of my time. I tried to make sense of that word soup until I got to the mention of "qualia" and I realised...there's no point to this article. Just to confuse and insert doubt where there isn't any. ShabiDOO 06:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This really does get tedious, @Machina. Have you read our relevant pages (Consciousness, Brain, Non-materialist neuroscience, Irreducible complexity)? It's always a good idea to do that first before trying to start a conversation here. Bongolian (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Consciousness absolutely evolved. Being qualitative doesn't mean "not physically real" it means "not easily described in objective terms". This writer is an absolute failure at philosophy and dodges on a philosophical point that was first established 2400 years ago, known as the sorites paradox.

How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile of sand? Surely not one grain. Surely not two grains. And adding a single grain of sand to something that's not a pile doesn't seem like it'd make it a pile. So nothing can be a pile of sand. Except, of course, there are absolutely physically extant piles of sand in the world, and the failure of this reasoning is it demands black and white from a gradient.

So too with your friend Kastrup, who demands that consciousness be strictly quantifiable to be evolved. It's an insane demand of the world. As a new parent, newborn babies lack consciousness as we know it. They can't make abstract inferences about the world, they only react to stimuli: belly empty->cry, diaper wet->cry, warm, fed, comfortable->sleep. Far less capable of genuine reasoning than my dog, who understands doorknobs open doors, and food comes in bowls. And to work the way this man does would be to argue that babies won't develop what we call consciousness because no one day is the day the go from not having it to having it. It's an absurd simplicity. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well this was the thread where I got it from: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26476792/fpart/1/vc/1Machina (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

File that under links I should not have clicked on a work computer. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you experimenting with shrooms? ShabiDOO 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No but I used to visit that site because I was learning more about drugs for my psychology course and ended up stumbling into their philosophy section and now I am left with a severely challenged worldview.Machina (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Dream third U.S. political party

If we just take it as a given a third political party would be taken seriously by U.S. voters...what kind of party would you form? Platform, where you fit on the spectrum, target voters etc. ShabiDOO 06:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As a non american, I'd say my third party is pretty much where Sanders is now. The Democrats Fundamentally represent a oh-so-slightly right, very Liberal position that is just way too far from what's probably a majority of under 30 year olds.McUrist (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I would also be happy with a green-but-not-pseudoscience party that likes nuclear power and dislikes natural medicine. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

^That. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

After the Democratic Party moves so far left that they become unelectable, the moderate Democrats will join the Republican Party making it a centrist/libertarian party. That will cause the few extreme Republicans to form their own strongly conservative party. 2601:644:301:DD70:DD23:16A6:FD46:21E6 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)