RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive353

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 16 April 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>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <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>
, (new)(back)

BoJo has the Coro[edit]

I would like to have sympathy for even people that I don't like, but in the case of Boris Johnson, it's very difficult. He dithered about coronavirus, making dangerous and ill-informed statements. He claimed that herd immunity would work in the UK,[1] i.e. that an as yet unknown class of susceptible people should die to protect everyone else's jobs. By pushing this bullshit, he delayed the only sensible policy of instituting social distancing in the UK, and now BoJo himself is in intensive care with coronavirus. If he dies, I won't mourn: he endangered people's lives for money; it would be a fitting suicide by a clown. The BBC had one of his Tory colleagues on the air who suspected that BoJo even delayed his entry into the hospital so as not to interrupt the Queen's speech — very patriotic idiotic. Bongolian (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

the queens speech was less than 8 minutes long. if he 'delayed' is entry to hospital, its was hardly by much AMassiveGay (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Won't he just be succeeded by someone worse? I don't see why this merits any positive feeling-exit right winger one, enter right-winger 2. They both do the same awful things with the same doom bringing repercussions-Flandres (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
If nothing else, consider that laughing at him while he's this sick isn't likely to garner a lot of support for whatever cause you're (generic you) after. Look how many people happily think of JFK just because he was shot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
Sure, but his cabinet colleagues have criticised BoJo for not designating an interim substitute in case he gets worse and is unable to carry out his responsibilities as the crisis demands. Then again, considering the long and proud traditions of Tory backstabbing, I can see why BoJo is wary of such a move. After all, BoJo’s first and final priority has always been the career of BoJo. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
There will be procedures in general (given the Brighton Bomb, various Prime Ministers going in for medical procedures etc; the theoretical Houses of Parliament building collapse etc) and 'the process for this particular Prime Minister (whomsoever he/she/ze/they be)' which are two different kettles of fish.
Look at the positive side - 'they' will be encouraged to do something now that they themselves are being affected rather than merely us hoi polloi. Anna Livia (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Never been one to worry when the powerful and awful suffer. Lots of suffering lower down on the totem poll that gets no news reporting. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Good. This shouldn't be newsworthy, fuck him. Oxyaena Harass 12:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
hes the prime minister of the uk. how is it not news? AMassiveGay (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Innumerable working people far better than him get sick and die without even nary a mention in the news. Oxyaena Harass 13:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
They do not command the government of a major power now do they?-Flandres (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
They do enable society to function while getting little appreciation in return. What does Bojo do? Oxyaena Harass 14:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Uh, rule them. Hence why I said he controlled the government of a major power. That makes him kinda important whether you love him or hate him. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand.-Flandres (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
lots of ordinary working people are getting mentions. drs and nurses especially. bus drivers even. but theres limited space for them all to get headlines. the person primarily responsible for the measures we are currently living under - the prime minister - getting sick and getting sent to ICU is news. you don't have to like him. its also news because it brings home that anyone can get ill from this virus, and that we should all be taking it seriously. its also news because while he is in intensive care, there is no one with the authority to enact any measures, or tighten the ones we have, without seeking the permission of the cabinet. with time being a factor, that's hardly an ideal situation.
but boris is a prick and you don't know how things work so it isn't news. look at the shit show that is trump and the shit show that's he created with his 'response' to this virus. his failures alone should highlight what is required of such people. after all, general elections are not for shits and giggles AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Does meditation "cure" homosexuality?[edit]

A quick google search showed me a few pages that claim that it did (well sexuality in general to be honest) and having tried it for myself it did work for a while afterwards. Wondering if anyone else has thoughts on this.Machina (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Does reading a book "cure" sleepiness? -- (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
A quick Google search will tell you that the Earth is flat, that men never walked on the Moon, that God created the Universe in six days and that Charles Manson was a fucking great soul and guru for fuck's sake! I think even asking that question makes you a twat at best and a fucking troll at worst. Spud (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
No, what a stupid question. Oxyaena Harass 08:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The question is predicated on the implicit false assumption that homosexuality is an infirmity which needs a "cure".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Pray Meditate the gay away --RWRW (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What Google search was this? A quick Google search showed no such thing, apart from some bullshit stories from a "Baba Ramdev" character who seems to be an Indian yogi equivalent of one of our American fundie preacher rube fleecer types. (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Homosexuality does not need a cure- plain and simple. Trying to cure homosexuality would require rewriting someone's genetic code entirely. My point- it would be pointless to even attempt to cure it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The default human condition of being stupid asshole trolls is something that would in a more idea world be something to "cure", though, although sadly this probably also requires rewriting genetic codes. At any rate, you are correct, but I'm trying to figure out where this troll is coming from. Googling "meditation sexuality" leads to many articles, Cosmo style, on how meditation can help you have mind blowing sex, and even an entire practice called "orgasmic meditation" to boot that someone invented, oh those wacky humans and their imagination! No articles on homosexuality and meditation, of course. Some of this is probably bullshit-ish (although the argument in one article that meditation=less stress, less stress=better sex was probably legit) but certainly a more worthwhile pursuit then JAQing off over homosexuality. Googling "meditation homosexuality" leads to a Wiki article on Buddhism and homosexuality (executive summary: they have a much easier time accepting it than those Abrahamic fundie types), and a few dumb things from Baba Ramdev and shady "religious" sites (eg a link from the Catholic Trump-tard "church militant" website). Probably I'm wasting my time here. (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Pedantry: it's an open question as to how much of same-sex attraction is up to genotype versus environmental influences like hormonal influence during gestation. Of course the relative influence of these doesn't affect whether homosexuality is "natural". Humans are part of nature. Also sexual orientation in humans appears to be set at birth, so actually it'd be more complicated than just altering genotype; you'd have to "rewire" the brain. -- (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Machina I want you to listen to me very carefully. Most of your posts up until this one have been those of someone trying to figure out whether or not they believe the stuff they've been reading. This one crosses a line. I've assumed good faith which is why I'm explaining this to you. I'm at least bi-curious, and there is nothing short of killing me that anyone could do to change that. Further, the very idea that sexuality can be changed originates from bad faith arguments from people who have ultierer motives. The answer is no, and I suggest you think about some of the tropes you're playing into by asking such a question. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Well first off, homosexuality isn't a disease or disorder so it doesn't need a "cure." Second off, no, it doesn't. As you can see from my username I follow a religion that focuses a lot on meditation so I think I have at least some authority in saying that meditation is contemplative and calming rather than "curing" RationalHindu (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hobbies and distractions can put sexualities in the quiet box for a while. It will come back. And homosexuality does not need a 'cure'. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
While we are at it- why not cure heterosexuality? Same logic. Now as a bisexual, I have no intention of being "cured" of it. I know that I am figuring a few things about my sexual identity but it is not a disease. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You and me/Have a disease/You affect me/You infect me -- (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Does Homosexuality cure Meditation? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw few threads saying otherwise when I googled it, plus there is my experience with doing so. Also Hindu isn't your religion pretty much against homosexuality?Machina (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Machina you were the one who originally made the post implying homosexuality is a disease. You did not cite scientific research papers and made claims without proof; so now you resort to personal attacks. FYI, Hinduism is not tightly organized like Christianity. There are many different versions. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, from what I gathered Hinduism views homosexuality as wrong. Buddhism is the one that is iffy on it.Machina (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The opinion of any religion on homosexuality is almost certainly not going to based on anything scientific. It's not where you should be getting your ideas - and certainly not your ideas on sexuality - from.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm a cis-hetero-male who's kinda queer, I guess? I think the notion of using meditation to fix ones thinking is a little out of context if the method of meditation is defined beyond challenging your notions. Meditation can CHANGE sexual preference, but it can't CURE homosexuality. Because homosexuality is a PREFERENCE that, yes, deserves meditation and experimentation, because the ability does not exclude the preference. I'm barely a point off from asexual, I have so many triggers that I can't see as "hot" anymore. A couple years ago, somebody asked me if I would bang Tomi Lahren if I had the chance. The answer I gave was "no, she is an ugly person." Celerity, and why not live with that typo, but Celebrity crush monogamy, hit me up Winona Ryder, I just want a dinner date, I respect your husband and your marriage. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Idk if this was in response to me or OP but I'll try and refute the claim that Hinduism sees homosexuality as wrong. Hinduism isn't a monolith of a religion. Different denominations act like completely different religions at times. Hinduism can be confusing when it comes to social issues (I know that's a loaded term but I'm using it as a catchall of sorts). Depending on how you interpret texts and depending on which texts you believe to be canon, Hinduism can either be as homophobic as the Christian right or extremely queer-friendly. I choose to follow the queer-friendly side of Hinduism but not every Hindu does. TL;DR: Is Hinduism homophobic? Yesn't and non't. RationalHindu (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
From what I can tell there is a lot of stuff in Hinduism about transmuting sexual "energy" into something more productive. Sounds like they have an issue with sex in general but especially homosexuality. I mean India right now isn't doing well.Machina (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not something I want to be the case since now I don't see it as something to be cured or even needing to be. But I tried it once and got scared by the results and tried googling it to see if it was really something that was true. It's not something I want to lose though, however some other responses I got were that meditation can do a lot but it can't make you straight. Others said that it's not meditation because meditation is about acceptance and wanting to be something other than gay is going against your nature.Machina (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thousands of LGTB have tried numerous methods to change their sexuality (those who prefer not to come out or to stay out of the closet and those in countries where doing so is deadly) and while it may work for a while, such as reconditioning, abstinence, attempts with new fantasies and previously undesired partners, sham relationships, porn and other techniques...it doesn't last and the urges return with a vengeance. And it comes back with embarrassment and shame and psychological damage. It's one thing to wish you could take a straight pill to make various social-pressures go away...it's another thing to think a straight pill actually exists. It does not. Meditation is a great way to lower blood pressure. It is not a straight pill. As amassivegay has told you many times in extensive detail...you have a very warped idea of what the LGTB world is, a terrible sterotype of LGTB people and I have no doubt, while you may just be discussing some "google search" you did...you are having negative experiences with your sexuality, with other partners (or potential partners) and don't see much hope for the future. As amassivegay has said multiple times, actually listening to literally thousands of other people who have different experiences might be a good start. ShabiDOO 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the experiences of other people are if I haven't experienced anything similar to them. To me it's just like hearing lies.Machina (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems rather unfair. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Look, if you want to code and incept, I will tell you, truthfully, I have had sex with two men. I absolutely prefer sex with women, and after some encounters, there are women I don't like having sex with. If there are some dudes you like, don't kill yourself, and don't go around telling us we're made up liars. I mean, we'll take the abuse, but look at who you're talking to. The whole thing is a spectrum, just because you think a dude is hot doesn't make you trans, it doesn't even make you less masculine. Like, just go for it, meditate on it, use protection and if you come out of it a little queer, welcome to the rest of the world, my guy. I'd rather you had a bad time and learn about yourself than than see you turn into a caricature of your own fears, like you're trying to do now. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There must be some language that would be worth studying Machina. Dutch is really easy to learn and takes the fewest hours. Spanish is slightly more labor intensive but a lot more useful. With Japanese you could read Manga in their original language. With French or Italian you can go to Paris or Rome and be utterly romanced the fuck out of. There are likely free resources at your university and all sorts of easily available useful resources online. They even offer indiginous languages at some North American universities likes Sioux or Ojibwe. ShabiDOO 05:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


I published an essay on Medium.com and got a lot of good feedback on it, wanted to share it here with y'all. Also ignore the earlier post I made back in May, I was being a needy bastard, insecurity and all. That, and I was still angry over the ratcord fiasco. Oxyaena Harass 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I have my disagreements with some of the stuff said, still beautiful nonetheless. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Read the essay, it kinda reads like a personal rant about the way society functions, and while the title can imply something positive about the ups of being an individual human, the essay doesn't really go deep into that, simply labeling the negatives of a capitalistic system. The solution proposed, "the system needs change and we need a revolution" while true, is a bit vague. You did admit that you were just a human living among a bunch of others suffering under the current system in the essay, yet the essay puts a great deal of focus on how a single, anonymous voice feels rather than the power of the collective of people who share a similar experience with you (your solution proposed, revolution, requires power of the collective!); while it is true that you do touch upon it on points, I feel like they're not the main focus of this piece. You've also made some statements such as "Their stock options matter more than one million Americans, they've told us that." and while I do think it's true, it would be best to cite examples of how they're doing that rather than made some blanket statement: pieces on the internet contain a lot of links for a reason so statements like that can be verified and sourced. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The movie Contagion is the perfect representation of the current situation[edit]

People dying, politicians squabbling, conspiracy theorists ranting and civil unrest. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the basic sentiment but I would also add that descriptor could honestly just apply to this whole era(whatever we chose to call it), both for the past few years and for at least the USA going forward. We do not live in a happy time, though hopefully the civilizations of tomorrow would at lest get a kick out of it and write a play or something.-Flandres (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Funny you mention that actually. Recently the trailer for that movie appeared in my recommended on YouTube. It had like 26 millions views or some ridiculous number like that. It was obvious that it was only trending in light of current circumstances. Immediately I was like "NOPE", was not gonna go and read any of the comments on that video (EDIT: I just searched for Contagion on Wikipedia and there's literally a new section of the article documenting its renewed interest during the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic, I'm not even kidding). I'm still waiting for the day when this virus passes and then I can go search up the opening scene from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and then laugh at all the idiots in the comments section saying "OMG THIS IS REAL ITS HAPPENING WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" because, at Flandres said, this virus is gonna come and go. Yeah it sucks now but before we know it this outbreak will be ancient history. I'd like to add to his comment about turning this into a play: the whole toilet paper crisis is just a goldmine for a future comedy. Seriously I've been to about 4 different grocery stores during this whole pandemic and every single time: plenty of water bottles, but not a single roll of toilet paper or even paper towels. That kind of stupidity is on par with the flat Earth for me. Aaronmichael5 19:25 7 April (UTC).
I hear the DJ's on the radio station makes toilet paper jokes. One time a person called in and was a nurse who asked if people intended on living in toilet paper forts. Funny how thermometers have not run out of stock yet toilet paper and placebos have. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
It's only natural-that's what people do when they panic. While they may not channel this into anything effective(though in their defense why would they know how) and this specific event(the pandemic) is not the civilization ending catastrophe some think it is, people from the USA preparing for a catastrophe is perfectly sensible because the USA is headed for a catastrophe, just for different reasons. At least the coronavirus got us in the right mood, although it also shows we would completely fuck up handling something worse.-Flandres (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Bet Matt Stone and Trey Parker (creators of South Park) will have plenty to work with in terms of making jokes about the situation. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone excited for Godzilla vs. Kong?[edit]

Me, at least.--Delibirda the annoying grammar nazi (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not. I care more for the new James Bond film. Besides, movies are actually getting postponed because of you-know-what.Jeh2ow Damn son! 19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow A new James Bond movie, huh. But I do not think Godzilla vs. Kong is cancelled. Can you at least gimme a source? I misread your comment. Sorry--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting in vain for Destroy All Monsters — The Rematch. Bongolian (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
How about a film with Godzilla, Bond, King Kong, vampires, zombies and several Star Wars persons all in it? Anna Livia (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
its happening as soon as Disney acquires all the required properties. next year probably AMassiveGay (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for another remake of Bambi Vs. Godzilla.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also a new Fast and Furious movie. I saw the first F&F in theaters because they put cars out in front of the theater, and me and my middle school friends got to see it. And it was OK, I didn't like it as much as my gearhead friends did. I went with my gearhead friends to see Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift, they were all "ricing" out their Hondas and Toyotas, I missed 2 Fast 2 Furious and it didn't really matter. I never saw 4 5 or 6, but I saw 7, and somehow in 4 5 and 6 the main characters ascended to demi-gods who use cars to fight each other, and 7 and 8 were just so much better for me as an adult than 1 and 3 were for me as a kid. I'm not watching a street-car-racing movie to watch people race street legal cars, if I can help it, and apparently nobody else is either by Furious 7. But Demi-Gods with magical powers specifically involving cars? Helllll yeah. And they all fight each other with cars!?! I had an absolutely great time with 7 and 8, especially because I don't know how they got their magic powers. If I ever watch 2, 4, 5, 6, or 9, I think the magic will disappear. But big Kaijou battles are not normally Western fare, the Rock didn't just go ahead and crash an ambulance into an Apache helicopter and pick up the wing-gun and use it without God powers in F7 or F8 (I dunno which one that happened in, exactly). I dunno, I'll maybe see what they've done to the works of King Kong and Godzilla that are before my time... I will predict/spoil Kong v Godzilla if somebody shows me how to troll collapse. I didn't pay attention, I didn't learn that one. But if you're stoked for it, go ahead and be stoked for it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Fallacious argument styles vs. Category:Fallacious arguments[edit]

I can't tell the difference between these two categories: "Category:Fallacious argument styles" and "Category:Fallacious arguments". I'm planning to merge the former into the latter. If anyone thinks otherwise, please say so here. Bongolian (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I neither see a difference.--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting story of dangerous antibiotics and lack of health insurance[edit]


Goes to show what a crappy healthcare system can lead to. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

John Prine has died[edit]

It's OK, I think he was ready. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


Apparently, Sanders has finally dropped out. In other words, I won't really be voting anyone this year unless Biden all of a sudden starts appealing to progressive voters, which I'll doubt will happen. It's another four years of Donald Trump, and that is one of the last things I need. Maybe, when the coronavirus finally gets eradicated, I'll move to Germany. I mean, they got cars, right?Jeh2ow Damn son! 15:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

four years of trump, after all hes putting you through now and is going to have put you all through? hes literally killing people. biden must be really be awful that you'd rather let trump carry on. theres a reason why nothing changes in the us AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
If you ignore the online noise which usually is just a single opinion and look at state polls, Biden's chances are IMHO pretty decent. Trump's approval / disapproval rating tends to not move much in these hyper-partisan times. Biden's generally up +6 nationally and is currently significantly up in the "rust belt" states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania -- get a few of these and that's enough to flip. Lots of people probably will be voting "against Trump" instead of "for Biden" but that kind of is the way it worked the last time (people voting against Hillary, not for Trump), noisy MAGA-tards aside. It will be close of course as betting odds imply. I think the odds also are pretty good that Trump will continue to fuck up the COVID-19 response, I have no idea in these Fox News times whether what a president does in office actually matters in public opinion polls, but we'll see. We'll also see if the blowhards to the right of Fox *still* calling this a hoax, and the shitty preachers not social distancing -- all prime white, senior citizen, and Republican demographic territory -- matters as well. (Now is a time to listen to scientists, not charlatans, but who in the Jesus / conspiracy crowd is going to do that?) (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Biden does have an advantage, or at least is stronger than people give him credit for, but another important question to ponder in order to understand some of the anger you are seeing is "would Biden be a good president in his own right".-Flandres (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Considering that presidents are merely figureheads, delegators, and only head certain elements (foreign policy, military, etc.) I think he'll be fine. I think there's a terrible over-focus in this country on the presidency these days, when the president's power is limited (as Trump shows, you can't become a Putin or Erdogan or Orban as easily here, and states can cover for your fuckups to a huge degree as many governors are currently showing Trump on COVID-19). Down-ballot advocacy is just as important if not more so. Something to keep in mind even if you think the presidency race is bad choice A vs bad choice B at the moment. (I'll also add that it's also easier to get involved in politics at a local level directly, too.) (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Mercedes... just to name a few... 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:212C:9E2E:F893:D825 (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I had a freakout upon hearing this, I`m truly a disturbed person. I feel betrayed. I don't know how to feel know. I had an anxiety attack. Still reeling from it. I just found out. Oh my god this is awful.... Oxyaena Harass 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you have the money to migrate to Canada? Your userpage says that you would rather be Canadian. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:212C:9E2E:F893:D825 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't, I`m poor, disabled, and trans. I just started receiving SSI. Four more years.... I`m broken. I`m fucking crying. Oxyaena Harass 16:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, and to think just two months ago I actually thought he could win. I really just did not anticipate Amy and Pete dropping out so soon, and I will admit as a former socialist who backed Bernie in 2016 I was maybe falling victim to confirmation bias when looking at the data. This primary has been a learning experience. In hindsight I feel somewhat embarrassed I ever thought he could pull through when he was only ever winning pluralities and essentially tied with a slight edge in Iowa and New Hampshire, I should have known the combined moderates would kick his ass.-Flandres (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote for/write in None Of The Above/Re-Open Nominations/Protest Vote (insert party name here) Parties and encourage others to do so. Anna Livia (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
And thereby act as Stein/Nader-style spoiler voters?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
A write-in candidate has never won the presidency. There has only ever been a single senator elected with a write-in ballot. A write-in will never win when the majority of democrats have already chosen Biden. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget the UK has a long tradition of 'creative candidacy' in elections (the SDP disbanded when it won fewer votes in a constituency than the Monster Raving Loonies; Lord Buckethead versus Count Binface etc). Anna Livia (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Flandres You know that a lot of voter suppression was involved, right, and why do you say "former socialist?" Oxyaena Harass 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Voter suppression or not Bernie lost by a pretty large margin and thats what counts, and note I never made the claim the primary was fair. And when I said former socialist I, well, meant I was once a socialist. People change. A lot has changed about how I see the world.-Flandres (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You once said you gave into defeatism iirc. Yeah I know that, but socialism is the only way to correct injustices and honestly save humanity at this point. And remember that even tho more people voted for Biden, the number of people who voted for Bernie still counts in the millions. Oxyaena Harass 19:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"but socialism is the only way to correct injustices and honestly save humanity at this point" would actually be a statement I could take seriously if you guys demonstrated any sort of political competence when it came to actually taking power. Yes, millions like you(well maybe, or maybe they just like edgier social democracy), but you always lose whenever it counts. For an ideology that is objectively the best ever socialism sure has a funny track record of failing against capitalism, pure evil incarnate.-Flandres (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriMYeah, but biden is also a snowball's chance in hell, because he's a sleasy anti-choice rapist right wing piece of shit, who doesn't actually appeal to anyone. So you might as well spare your conscience voting for a loser and instead vote for someone who won't leave a black mark on your soul. It's gonna be a trump sweep regardless. Don't waste your vote on him. Voting Biden actively makes you a worse person. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ikanreed, Biden won the nomination, and Trump is currently highly unpopular. The economy will likely go down, and sink him with it. It is very unlikely that Justice Ginsburg can live for another four years, and if Trump replaces her, America as we know is dead. Voting for Biden is at worst a necessary evil.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

But see, voting Biden would prevent Trump from doing any more harm to the US and the world, and some people would rather throw away their principles and see the country burn than try to minimize harm. Because Bernie Bros are mad, they want to see the whole world suffer. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Summa Atheologicano, at best it's a necessary evil. At worst it forever entombs the country with two right wing parties because the democrats think they can make a narrow defeat out of a mentally damaged rapist right winger, while simultaneously failing to acheive your aim of removing trump because biden fucking sucks and I'm not the only person in the country with fucking eyes.
@DuceMoosolini God a what a trashy loser. "It doesn't matter that it's morally reprehensible to vote for a democrat who won't even commit to undoing the worst evil's of the trump administration, thus ensconing child prison camps forever, because you're mad". Fuck off. You're evil and you can't shame me into voting for evil too. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm evil now, huh? Tell me more how much you hate me, how much you hate everyone. You see, I have you figured out. You don't actually have any principles or values. You wouldn't have voted for anyone even if it was Bernie who got nominated. No, all you want to do is bully people on the internet and use fake leftism to pretend like you have some kind of moral high ground. That's why you don't do anything here but insult people. You don't believe in the wiki's mission. You're just here to hurt people, because that's all you really care about. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"You don't have principles" says the pro-rape shithead. Go on. Tell me about your deep convictions like "rah go blue team". You can tell me how we'll solve climate change by compromising with it. Or maybe how we'll all happily go back to ignoring the immigrant camps built under biden, once we're safely away from trump. Go on. Give me real righteous core of Duce. Or maybe you can "hey no fair fighting back, time to LANCB again." You're fucking evil if the extent of your principles is "not trump". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe in voting against the person expresses glee at crimes against humanity and hopes to commit more while dismantling the republic. You believe in insulting people and hating people. That's all you are. Look below. The extent of your ideology is "I'll just fantasize about killing people and hopefully dying myself". You don't want to minimize harm or help anyone. You just want to hurt as many people as you can. You wouldn't have even voted for Bernie because that would prevent you from having an excuse to yell at people online. Because you hate everyone, and you actively despise human life. That's why you're a small-minded person, and that's why I truly pity you. Ikanreed, have you ever considered that the person you really hate is yourself? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
When were the concentration camps built? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I knew Bernie getting the nomination would be too good to be true to pit against Trump, and we'd get a repeat of the 2016 election, with now the presidential nominee going to the questionable right-wing establishment Democrat yet again, as if no one learned a thing from the disastrous 2016 election. At least my city got what they wanted. Thank you Democrats for pushing yet another tired, boring, status quo, corporate shill figure who I'm sure will take the country by storm like Hilary did. 🙄 БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeat of 2016, BUT also a repeat of 2004. John Kerry, lukewarm Dem candidate. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!
In view of the fact that Sanders now supports Biden, in fact, they have always been friends, if you were a Sanders supporter but can't stomach Biden, then you seem to be in the position of having to admit you were wrong, and supported a good friend and supporter of a "sleasy, anti-choice rapist right wing piece of shit." Very bad...if that's what you really believe.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, no one supports sanders because we take everything he says as gospel. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Biden has committed to reentering the Paris agreement and reversing Trump's fucking around with Obamacare, among other things.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Sanders says a bunch of things he doesn't mean, which is why you can trust him because he's honest and the things he says that I don't agree with he doesn't really mean. You can't trust anything Biden says, because he says a bunch of things he doesn't mean. -- (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
What is this brainless horseshit? "I believe sanders is honest" even if it were a statement I made, isn't the opposite of "sometimes sanders is wrong, like when he supports terrible candidates for political stability." This isn't even a straw man, it's a hay bale sitting in a field with googly eyes tacked on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks to me more like ironic mockery of partisan mental gymnastics. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
That's fucking stupid. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile on twitter[edit]

https://twitter.com/stupitalupita/status/1247918516445085701 https://twitter.com/ilakster/status/1247922581174235138

So, according to twitter: "If you're not for Biden, you're a MAGA"... I remember why I hated the US again, fucking hell... Gunther8787 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Because of the way our elections work, you basically are.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it's called being principled. Oxyaena Harass 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Go bask in your cocoon of self-righteousness while America becomes an alt-right dictatorship.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Same to you. Only difference will be you'll have self-righteously voted for a rapist and ended up in a alt-right dictatorship for it, and I'll have a clean conscience. You're not entitled to my fucking vote. I'd rather take up arms and die against an insurgent trump dictatorship than vote for biden. Sorry for your complete lack of principles. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no way in which a Biden victory will increase the risk of an alt-right takeover. It is far easier to stop Trump on Election Day than in a rebellion. And, to quote that Florida candidate woman, "Biden still has a lot of raping to do to catch up to Trump."𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, the things you people say are fucking vile. And you think it's clever. I cannot fathom, in any circumstances, saying what you just quoted. Fuck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Me, vile? You literally just stated you would rather fix America by engaging in treason than by checking a box on a piece of paper.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
(EC)Yes, as I said. The *thing you said* was fucking disgusting. And you have to know it somewhere deep inside your mind. Somewhere deep inside you, there has to be a piece of you that says "maybe rape is not something you can just 'both sides' away". Somewhere inside of you there has to be a part that felt a pang of disgust when you typed that sentence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is none. Remember, too, that no court has found Biden guilty of any crime, nor did he admit to it.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The hatred in Ikanreed’s heart calls for blood and tears, not meaningful change. It’s why he will never vote for anyone. He just wants to fantasize about mass murder and bitch at people on this wiki. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
15 fucking elections I've voted almost exclusively for dems, and this is what you complete morons do when you go too far right for anyone with a conscience. Absolutely gormless seething hate for moral character. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I asked you earlier if you voted in the primary, and you have still not answered. If the Democrats are going a certain way politically, it's due to what their voters want.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't answer the question because I knew this was your point, and boy is it a dumb one. If the primary voters choose someone too fucking vile for decent people to vote for, they fucked up. They're human. They get to learn a lesson about how "electable" far right idiots are. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So you'll let a near-fascist win just to show how "unelectable" Democrats you disagree with are. How noble of you.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Treason to an oppressive, imperialistic state that shouldn't even exist? Treason is worse than rape? Who gets harmed by treason? WHO?! Taking up arms because a government needs to be put down like a mad dog is not treason. What is wrong with you that you "both sides" rape, you piece of shit. I WAS RAPED, YOU MOTHERFUCKER. Oxyaena Harass 21:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A civil war in a nation of 300 million would cost millions of lives, while a vote for a man who won't survive a full term in office to stop a fascist-enabler would cost nothing except a little lost dignity on your part. On another note, could you describe the political body that would replace the U.S.A.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The result when Democrats nominate someone who isn't "far right". Compare to 2016.
Everything about your graph deserves a hearty "fuck you" from the fact that a solid majority of people who voted in that election are fucking dead. Fuck you. From the fact that that's a county map that always distorts to pro-republican. Fuck you. To the fact that we have 4 years ago to see how an unlikable centrist fares against trump. Fuck you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────.I solved for the pro-GOP bias by making the comparison to 2016, where there was the same bias. On another note, here's the map by state and popular vote.

This should cancel out any pro-GOP bias.

𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever considered Hillary lost because she was widely hated as a person and not because she was a centrist? Remember, a lot of Bernie 2016 people flipped to Biden 2020, mostly the older ones. Just look at the Michigan results.-Flandres (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You know, I'll ask him. Say, Ikanreed, did you vote in the primary this year? Or in 2016?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I hate US politics too, but for a different reason than you. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────:Biden won't beat Trump. He doesn't have the charisma or pedigree. As for the (alleged) rape, saying "well no one has convicted him and he hasn't admitted it" shows a profound naivety in how sex crimes including rape are treated in the US. The victim is presumed wrong no matter what. Especially if their assailant is in a position of power or said assailant's supporters doen't want to believe the victim because they have a vested interest in the assailant being innocent. If you don't believe me, check out how the Atheist community has handled some of its biggest names getting accused of sex crimes. Lawrence Krauss comes to mind quite readily. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

So what about the whole "is ahead of trump by six points" thing? Not to mention Biden is ahead in most of the swing states.-Flandres (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
What about the rape? What about the fact that polls are notoriously unreliable? The polls said HRC would win 2016. What about the fact that Biden laughed at people suffering from student debt? What about the fact a 17 year old died because they were too poor to afford healthcare? If Biden wins, you can expect more deaths because people can't afford the basic right of seeing a doctor. Oxyaena Harass 21:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I was not talking about the morality of Joe biden, or saying he was a good or even not terrible candidate, I was not saying the daily horror of american life would stop under him. Do try and actually learn my political views before you distort and strawman them. Also, polls have been more accurate this time compared to last time-just look at Michigan.-Flandres (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You never clarify your views, so you expect me to know them? Under Bernie the horrors of daily living could stop. I was raped, I`m not voting for a rapist. I won't, I couldn't live with myself knowing I helped a fucking rapist win power. Oxyaena Harass 21:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
True, I should work on clarifying my views(an essayspace page, perhaps?Hmmm....). Also, no, Bernie would not stop the nightmare that is the USA. All his more noble policies would die in congress or be killed by the courts. He would be a ineffective martyr at best, a cataclysm for my type of misanthropy at worst. There is no way to change the USA by working within the system, Bernie included. Its all a lie people tell themselves so the don't have to admit the cold unfeeling depressing truth(speaking as someone who struggles with depression). Also, I just want you to know unlike most in this thread I am not against you choosing not to vote and respect the basis for your decision. hell, I probably wont vote, just for different reasons than you and Ikanreed.Flandres (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for flipping out on you. Oxyaena Harass 21:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Polls have a confidence interval. So of course the polls don't say "Biden is going to win". The polls also don't say "Trump is going to win" either. I'd say Biden has a small advantage but it's close. I will note that Trump won by emphasizing tribalism. Now he has a (bad) governing record and I'm not sure he can get too many brownie points beyond the converted by blaming his poor COVID-19 response on the Chinese. The makeup of Congress needs to be Democratic for the national health care system to change, so don't focus on just the presidency for that. (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
But where's the fun in paying attention to Congress (and state legislatures!) and investing time/money in working to get progressives/leftists elected compared to Internet arguing? -- (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Polls are not "notoriously unreliable". They're actually pretty reliable. This is a false idea that has apparently become a bit of "wisdom" among some politically-engaged types. As should go without saying, not all polls are equal in quality, which is why people who study them look at things like the methodology and margin of error. Look at actual polls themselves and what people who have statistics knowledge say about them, instead of whatever clickbait the political media churn out based on top-line poll numbers. -- (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Uhh, Krauss who lost his job and is now persona non grata in any vaguely progressive-ish atheist community? The English-speaking "atheist community" has pretty much separated among political lines, which is fine and should have been expected as the only thing such people ever really agreed on was atheism and opposition to state endorsement of religion. There ever being a perceived singular "atheist community" was a temporary circumstance due to a reaction against the tide of religious fundamentalism. Which I think was a good thing and necessary BTW, but now that the Christian fundies are, correctly, increasingly perceived as mainly motivated by patriarchal white supremacy, a unified anti-religious front has become less salient. This was always what motivated them of course, which is very obvious if you know your history and have a resistance to bullshit: fundies in the U.S. got politically re-involved to oppose desegregation, and then picked up anti-abortion, which of course is about subjugating women. But a lot of people don't know history and fall for bullshit, so for a while they were able to sell themselves in "polite society" as being motivated by anodyne "family values". -- (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Krauss was still getting invites to events in the more reactionary part of the Atheist movement last I heard, though that was last fall so things could have changed since then. And I'm glad that the likes of Krauss get at least some pushback. It still seems like even past #Metoo people are perfectly willing to believe to push the potential victims of sex crimes to the side if it suits their needs. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not a total surprise to me that the woman who has accused Biden of assaulting her has been reported to have expressed an affinity for Vladimir Putin in an article written in 2018: "However, in the article “Bring on the Light,” which Reade wrote in December of 2018, and has since deleted, she stated that she left politics and Washington DC because she was sick of American imperialism and because she “love[d] Russia with all her heart.” Figures.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes... these leftist types do tend to be cozy with him.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 01:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
God your stupid conspiracies are almost as bad as the chuds'. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You're an idiot. Oxyaena Harass 04:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── More than half the states have yet to vote and the delegate difference was incredibly small. Him dropping out was a stupid idea. Oxyaena Harass 05:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The DNC and the rest of the “centrists” have learned from the Tea Party and Trump, Sanders hasn’t and possibly his supporters haven’t either. If you want to change the party status quo, you have to be willing to primary everyone and not to meekly fall in line and vote with the party as in “Vote blue no matter who” mantra. Similarly, you have to be willing to keep the possibility open that you may not ultimately support the “consensus candidate” or you lose all leverage from the get go. Meanwhile, the “centrists” and the DNC threw their lots behind Biden and the shift was remarkably quick (learning from the GOP’s indecisiveness in 2016). What’s more ironic, however, is that the “centrists” are already preparing their defeat narrative, rehashing 2016 and emulating Trump (who did not expect to win), blaming those feckless lefties for not supporting a party that has shown them nothing but scorn.
I fully understand “voting against Trump” by voting for Biden and the choice is depressing and unenviable. However, the decision to not vote for Biden is also valid from the view that a Biden victory will cement an Obama/Clinton Overton window of what constitutes progressive/leftist politics that might otherwise be changing in Sanders’ favour. The countervailing consideration is how much (more) damage another four years of Trump may do and ending up voting for the lesser evil.
In the end, turnout will probably decide the November contest and that doesn’t look good for Biden. Trump is extremely popular among the GOP base and Biden is far from an inspiring candidate, though at least he doesn’t have the “personal dislike factor” of Hillary Clinton. His only real asset is his avuncular “Uncle Joe” image (which is as much of a construct as Boris Johnson’s lovable buffoon, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s Downtown Abbey’ish poshness or, for that matter, Trump’s sharp business tycoon shtick). That the “centrist” establishment have chosen Biden simply shows how much they do not want to change anything and instead prefer to increase the odds of a Trump victory than risk losing control of the Democratic Party. As for the polling shoving Biden ahead, they also show less of a lead than Hillary had at the same time in 2016. Biden’s biggest hope is that Trump may have disappointed enough of the voters, especially in the rust belt states, that voted for him last time as a big fuck you to the status quo that they may not turn out at all this time (this particular variant of low turnout is the one scenario of a low turnout that may benefit Biden).
Ultimately, a(n economically) progressive US voter faces a difficult choice and probably a bad outcome, no matter the result in November: Progressives will definitely be blamed if Biden loses, but if he wins, this will be claimed as proof that only “centrist” candidates, policies and politics work. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I've seen some Bernie supporters on Twitter saying that they will vote for Howie Hawkins. We don't seem to have a page on him and it seems he might be the 2020 candidate for the Greens... Gunther8787 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

In all this arguing, all of it[edit]

I just re-read; not one single person articulated a single reason they think Biden is a good candidate. Not once. And that's the fundamental and intractable difference here. There were cases, stretched and dubious that they may have been, that people made even for Hillary. There's not even one ounce of genuine enthusiasm or serious belief in Biden. This is setting aside the serious problems that have been outlined over and over and don't need re-litigation. We can all see you don't like him either. Not trump is never going to be enough. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden was the Vice President in a administration still popular(with democratic voters), whether it was good or not(I think Obama was mediocre and so will president Biden but that is beside the point). He can use this to provide the sort of political comfort food that voters, morons that they are, want to hear after the trauma of the Trump administration, appealing to a "happier time" and whatnot. Biden is starting to move to the left on a few positions(I would argue not enough but that is again beside the point) and that shows he is at least willing to work with progressives in a small degree. Unlike Bernie he could, maybe, maybe, at least have a chance of passing any sort of meaningful legislation(the public option mostly, though even his version of the Green New Deal is off the table). He polls ahead in swing states, and winning them is really all he is supposed to do. Remember, all "candidate Biden" is supposed to do is win the election and any edge he has makes him good in that regard. At least Biden could maybe actually win Florida.-Flandres (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I meant by "Good candidate". "Polling well" is not an intrinsic positive characteristic. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I think your definition of "good candidate" woefully flawed. A good candidate is one who can win, not one who is moral or supports all the right polices or whatever. Biden polling ahead by 6 percent is at worst a good sign. Once again, I remind you politics is not about morality being awesome in your own right without considering your opponent. It is about winning power and keeping it, and if they are good at that they are a "good candidate." The failure to understand this is part of why Biden supporters can be smug on twitter and you are relegated to bitching on the saloon.-Flandres (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
God you people are going to be so baffled when it's a trump blowout. "How could this candidate no one actually likes lose, when we called people on the phone they said they guess they'll vote for him?" It wouldn't be so bad if you were just wrong about facts. But your callous immorality in demanding I vote for a fucking anti-choice anti-social-security pro-iraq war rapist is astounding. At least it's not bloomberg where trump would literally be the lesser evil, I guess. You're both born losers and utterly immoral psychoes. At least the chuds aren't hypocrites. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
As with oxy in the thread above this one you completely misunderstand my position. I was not saying Biden is guaranteed to win I was just saying he has more chance than you give him credit for. DID YOU EVEN READ SOME OF THE POSTS ABOVE THIS THREAD!? I was not even voting for Biden, I was just saying your idealism clouds your politics too much. Also, I am an immoral hypocrite and I proudly admit it, so that argument falls flat on its face. Background knowledge about who you are debating is not your strong suit, much like political strategy.-Flandres (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Your position is stupidly cynical, and that's all I'll say on that. Oxyaena Harass 14:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Sanders and his supporters are too often overly combative idealogues and it is a weakness they unfortunately do not see. It's why Sanders actually was the weaker progressive candidate in this round -- he was too willing to make politically naive flubs (see his remarks on Cuba) and the lack of outreach among his supporters to the center bloc and minority bloc might have been enough to turn off key voting blocs that, for all the noise on the Internet, still are bigger overall. The progressives did move the "Overton window" to the left in 2020, and I think COVID-19 has a chance of further doing the same by showing the weakness of libertarian corporatism, so it's not like there is no progressive impact this time around. Policy matters more than candidates, and shall I emphasize the down-ticket vote again? Flipping a state blue can have huge impacts after all (see Virginia). Biden's not "star material" but this election (ala 2018) probably will be more about Trump than anything else. I'd be baffled by a blowout from anyone because the polls show a close race. Maybe I'd be baffled if I didn't know that statistics shows a range, as some idiots were baffled in 2016. (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by "good candidate". If you mean a candidate that is able to cause legislation you would approve of to be passed by congress, then there is no such person, and there never has been. If you mean a candidate who will say all the right things while Congress goes its own way, leaving the POTUS out in left field, there are any number of distinguished possibilities. You can write any of them onto your ballot, if it comforts you to do so.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"I'd rather take up arms and die against an insurgent trump dictatorship" -- insurgent how, exactly? Winning an election is hardly an insurgency. Frankly, I see such ... threats? ... as morally questionable, since any (literally) militant effort to oust the president would meet with extraordinary resistance, and if the US did enter a civil war, most of the people fighting and dying even on the right wouldn't be fascists or Nazis, they would mostly be people who have fallen victim to years and decades of propaganda. Given that the US education system is largely a failure, and doesn't cover civics, I don't see going to war against the other side of the aisle to be righteous, since I couldn't convince myself I was really fighting anything inherently evil, or doing anything really necessary. Besides which fact, it certainly wouldn't help to solve all the already urgent problems facing this country, as it would almost certainly fail, and the stigma that would come forward against the left would likely inhibit any progress for years. Granted, the democratic process in America is broken, but it frankly has been broken for a long time. Biden is lame as a politician, and abhorrent as a person. I will, nevertheless, vote for him in November, because I'm cynical, liberal, and morally righteous enough to do every god damned thing I can to fix this broken system before I try (and fail) to overturn it completely. I don't see this as compromising on my values. What I would see as compromising on my values would be failing to do everything I could to stop the worst from happening. Voting for a moderate doesn't mean you can't keep fighting for more progressive policy going forward, and given the long term trends in American political sentiment, that's not such a bad idea. My view might be criticized as cynical, but frankly so is bemoaning losing the election months before its started. There's a lot of time still left, and there are legitimate reasons to go for Biden. All of them, admittedly, amount to "he's not Trump," but that's important if you value the impact of the Supreme Court, the president's veto power, the president's executive order power, an at least minimally sane foreign policy, or anything progressive. Remember, even if Biden does nothing to make things better, the current administration, left unchecked, would actively make things worse, causing irreparable harm to millions of people who are alive right now, even relative to the current situation. I hope that nobody here is wishing that Trump be reelected solely in the hope that he cause so much damage as to spark a violent uprising. Apologies for rambling, but my thoughts on the matter are not organized as an essay in my head. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
The government only has authority because people believe it has authority, remove that belief, and the government vanishes literally overnight. We're seeing it now, the federal government is collapsing while states and communities take on more prominent roles in fighting this pandemic. Oxyaena Harass 09:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
And, you know, because they can back that claim up with guns and tanks. Ceaucescu only lost when the army threw him to the wolves. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think governments spend so much time on putting out propaganda and punishing dissidents? Oxyaena Harass 16:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Slightly cheaper than killing them. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The weaponry and the propaganda are to help provide them legitimacy, to shore up that perception of authority. It needs a perception of authority and a monopoly on force, and nothing else. Oxyaena Harass 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Watch Nicolae Ceausescu's face on the balcony December 1989 as he realises 'power has returned to the people.' Anna Livia (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary drama crap[edit]

ikanreed, stop posting if you can't help yourself[edit]

Every post you make makes this discussion worse and worse. Please stay far away from discussing 2020 primaries unless you can change how you approach someone who votes for Biden, someone that doesn't strictly align with your interests. I'm an enabler of evil, I'm a godawful moderator, fuck LGM, whatever, but going around flaming people silly, my patience on your behavior on this is pretty thin now. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't. I'm genuinely sorry that I can't get along with people who are causing such serious harm and then wantonly condescending about it. And it's because it's pretty far past "doesn't align with my interests". It's killing people. It's putting people in fucking camps. So no matter how sorry I am about the conflict existing, it's not going away. And pretending it is feels too much like lying. Do what you will. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
tfw... Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It's like you can't read a word I say about what my motives are. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Bernie supporters, myself included, aren't surprised. In my case, Bernie and his policies still resonate for me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Coda, maybe[edit]

Sanders endorsed Biden today. But I'll add an addendum: it's worth noting that Sanders and Biden actually seem to get along decently personally, despite policy differences. This is quite unlike the Sanders-H. Clinton relationship which was fairly sour from what I've read. This probably IMHO ups the chance that some of what Sanders was advocating will make it into the Democratic party platform as well as in Joe's campaign. So while Sanders lost, I still expect him and his ideas to still be around. "We'll see", eh? (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. He's got to continue to work with this shitty increasingly right wing fucking party. I don't. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, yes he can move the platform leftward and yes Bernie's vision might dominate the democratic party due to generational changes by,say,2040 or so(though that might be a bit too late) but be careful not to overstate this, BoN. Biden openly styles himself after people like Obama or Clinton who ran to the left but tended to break their more left wing promises once elected. He has openly sated his goal is to return to Obama's america(hardly a left-wing paradise) and reassured his wealthier donors that nothing would fundamental change under him, and if this goal is served by lying to Sanders supporters so much the better. Even if he tries to keep these promises the road ahead is rather rough-even if the GOP is a minority in congress they still have the filibuster and even the blue wave models for 2020 put the dems at around 51 senators(so not sixty) which is what forced Obama to the right and made him abandon the public option on healthcare and crippled any major environmental progress. "Biden creates a left wing party platform" is different than "Biden governs as a left-winger," and we really have no historical precedent that says Biden would be a progressive president.-Flandres (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but we also have his entire legislative history to see that he's a right winger, who's not only "not left enough" but dangerously far right on about every issue I've ever cared about from women's rights to social safety nets to gay marriage. Everything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh my gosh[edit]

Can we please have a conversation about sumfin' good for a change? Like how the inventor of autocorrect deserves to burn in hello?--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No. We will exclusively discuss how Biden is a fascist and Bernie holdouts are Trump enablers. You should know this by now. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you seriously come to RationalWiki expecting positive stuff? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
plenty of positive stuff here, and also plenty of sharing of opinion - all of which is good IMO. Sorry if your mileage varies. Aloysius the Gaul 21:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
So like about that, why don't more people turn it off? It took me, was it two or three taps on my Samsung Galaxy. Do people not realize it can be disabled? Wouldn't be surprised I guess, though I think I'm more aware than a lot of "tech" people how little the general public understands about computers and even still I'm sometimes amazed how people refuse to even do a simple ten-second Web search. Do people just expect computers to literally read their minds, get angry when they don't, but feel powerless to even try finding out how to change settings? -- (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean, it probably doesn't help that most of the recommendation algorithms are programed to find similar stuff to what we search and view the most, meaning that they'll just start feeding you stressful stuff if that's whaat you've been viewing recently, thus creating a feedback loop. Solution, have sites you know will be wholesome and fulfilling. Or play Slime Rancher. I highly recommend Slime Rancher. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I know that you can disable autocorrect, BoN.--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

How's this; after more than a week working hands-on with COVID-positive people, because even if they're positive they still need to be cleaned and cared for, my health is still holding up. I'm getting seriously annoyed at of all the gushing of thanks for the people "on the front lines", though, I only want to hear thanks from other people who are actually out there with me because that at least tells me I'm doing my job right. Will be very happy when it's behind us, that's for damn sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Some people remind me the practice of watching sinners suffering in hell used to be considered fun for the saints in heaven. Here is a nice theological article explaining why that should be so...and these guys are only Presbyterians. Have a laugh.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

RFID chip and 5G cellphone tower madness[edit]

Saw this on Facebook- 5G cellphone towers are meant to control people by injecting an RFID chip into people using a bogus vaccine. Previously it was the 5G cellphone towers giving off radiation. Can't these idiots make up their minds? Radiation or RFID chips controlling you? Or maybe these people are huffing paint thinner? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

no they cannot. if you subscribe to one conspiracy you subscribe to them all. they are incapable of any kind scepticism unless its over proven fact. anyone conspiracy theory cant stand up on their own. they require other theories to be true if one single theory is to be believed. so you get cover ups, false flags, shadowy super secret organisations, that control everything, behind everything, all is connected and nothing happens by accident, and everything is a lie if it doesn't confirm what they think. if one tiny detail, no matter how inconsequential, no matter how irrelevant, has the tiniest shred of truth then its all true, while the most minor of errors, any hint of uncertainty in the commonly accepted narrative and its all a cover up, you are both a deluded fool and a tool of a sinister hydra that is so devious and skilled in covering its tracks that no evidence is evidence, their machinations so far reaching, their control so complete that only of the few of us they havent been able control, those of us strong enough to resist their lies and their chem trails, smart enough to see their works, to connect the dots. you spot on little sign here, one over there and you start to stir, you start to wake up, you see them everywhere. ridicule is one of their most powerful tactics of control. if you laugh it me it shows they are scared. some nomark has a shitty website and their control is not so complete. we've woken to many people up. that's why they made this virus to wrestle back their control. they cant silence us, we are too strong. resist.
im not saying im a hero but I am definitely a hero and you should all build statues of me. also, turns out smoking lots of tina every day not really a good strategy for dealing with a lockdown and might actually detrimental. through the looking glass people. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Made a video mocking COVID-19 conspiracies- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPVypr_JcxA --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Lol, "Moron Emergency". Gunther8787 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dopamine Fasting[edit]

I present to you Dopamine Fasting.Wikipedia It's more or less fasting from anything fun, which includes sexual activity and technology. It's kind of like NoFap and has an anti-technology sentiment. Here's one article I found from the Guardian about it:

Dopamine is often thought of as a reward, but Joydeep Bhattacharya, who leads the research group of cognitive and neuroscience at Goldsmiths, University of London, points out that dopamine is really “about learning the anticipation of the reward, and not the pleasure itself. It is primarily released in this anticipation phase.”

This could counteract dopamine fasting because abstinence might trigger a greater number of thoughts about the things from which a person is abstaining. “The moment we try to abstain, naturally our brain will crave that – so there will be more of a dopamine release.” Similarly, anyone who abstains and has a sense of occasion about the abstinence would be in danger of triggering the production of dopamine, as would a person who periodically congratulates themselves on their abstinence during the abstinence.

So basically a bunch of people (who are not neuroscientists) are telling us to dopamine fast. Excellent. However, I don't think abstaining from social media is a bad thing. It's mostly a waste of time and filled with garbage opinions.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure whether i should file this under "Massive overextrapolations of real phenomena" or "Hey let's reinvent stoicism and call it modern". Both drawers are pretty full. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Puritanism is back in style, in other words? :-p
So we are supposed to be miserable and unhappy? Okay. The people who created this are extremely stupid. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The earliest reference I found to this was a link on "The Fa$tlane Forum" (a "wantrepreneur" (as one negative review put it) forum centered on a guy who authored a depressingly popular book on how to "crack the code to wealth" and instantly change your life to become millionaire whee!!!) that links to a Youtube video from "Improvement Pill" posted on November 10 2018. Since some later articles referenced this as a Silicon Valley trend, I looked at a forum for the SV types (Hacker News) and I wasn't surprised to find a thread on it over there, including a link to a Medium article on someone who claims to have popularized "dopamine fasting 2.0" that simultaneously whines about the New York Times making fun of us poor poor men or something. Are the people who created this stupid? No, fleecing the *rich* rubes (if you can get it right) is potentially more profitable than fleecing the poor rubes. Although in this case I bet some of them actually believe it, to use their own bullshit bingo phrase it's "management / entrepreneur paradigm" in action, some of these types eat this type of shit up. There is at least a little more truth here as time management is a valuable thing, but using "addiction" for all the categories here is rubbish. (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I kinda did this for a year, unless I'm off base. I lived in a studio apartment without internet and said "I'm gonna write, every single moment." Well, that didn't cure writer's block, and it lent itself to me getting smelly and drunk beyond my means. I've done my best to shake off the habits I learned on the "no fun" diet, but I was raised on that, so I value and respect the balance, I'm just not as good at it as I'd always wanted to be. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Do plants feel pain?[edit]

A few articles I found showed me plants aren’t what I generally thought they were. Not saying they feel pain but...: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-record-stressed-out-plants-emitting-ultrasonic-squeals-180973716/

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/507590v4.fullMachina (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Machina did you ever think about learning a language or investigating one particular topic indepth? ShabiDOO 06:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
No. Oxyaena Harass 06:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfair to just say no, though the totality of my own belief is indeed no. First you'd have to define "feel" and "pain" in a way that's meaningful. You know that "fresh cut grass" smell? That's a biochemical response to tissue damage. Pain receptors activating in mammals is a biochemical response to tissue damage. The difference is ours gets routed to a central nervous system that interprets and understands the pain, whereas the grass doesn't.
To seriously answer the question, I think Machina would have to ask themselves why they care about the pain of plants. There's deep ethical questions to decide on there. "Why is human suffering bad? What makes something suffering rather than acceptable short term pain?" So on and so forth. Once you've developed a framework, then you can ask "Well, does this apply to non-human life?" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Plants don't have a central nervous system, they're not conscious creatures. Non-human animals are a different case entirely, with something like a worm I wouldn't give two rat's asses about, but, say, one of the higher vertebrates I would. Yes, I`m an amniote chauvinist, boo hoo. Oxyaena Harass 14:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM -- (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Saying plants feel pain is a bit of a stretch to draw from that claim and article. But I can't say that plants are the simpletons that we believe them to be though.Machina (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Plants absolutely have some beautiful, reactive, and, (my favorite thing about root systems) cool symbiotic systems with fungus, another thing people don't think of as alive. The specific methods of vegetation is it moves water, it pulls nutrients out of the soil to build itself, it has genetically impressive defense mechanisms and is alive because it DOES react to a stimulus and necessarily self-replicates. But as pointed out above, there's not a central nervousness, instead there's a really cool system that I would liken to a series of canals, locks and valves, powered by ambient energy. Ambient energy, sunlight via photosynthesis, pushes chemical receptors around to say there's sun all day now, that extra energy opens the lock, the water didn't slow down in lower temperatures to stop this lock, and the splitting of other elements due to intense volcanic heat lets a proto-plant do things like create seeds, a couple million years later, the sun is up on some hearty plants like trees that spend a ton of resources on building a stalk that doesn't have to die or hibernate, and we're ready to bud, baby! First big green buds this morning on the trees outside my apartment. Where the water is used to transfer minerals looking to combine again, and carbon are most prevalent, there's the barest point, the root, which can let water and carbon and nitrogen anything else the plant has evolved to like in. Some seeds need a freeze before they can bust out, some flowers will die if they are watered too much. I know it's a little tricky, and we can anthropomorphize things that we like, and I don't think there's any harm in being emotionally attached to a garden. For a little while, years ago, when I stomped a cockroach I said "I've taken a life, I'm sorry but you'll make more." I once watched a roommate's dog bounce into our kitchen excited about something, and I followed. The landlord had put out poison traps for mice, and there was a mouse, just, kicking itself around in circles, the front half of it paralyzed, the back half trying to get away from... whatever, it felt gross to me. I got a rag, wet it with warm water, picked the critter up, snapped its neck, put it in the trash and took the trash out. Plants, as beautiful and complex as their systems are, probably don't feel pain. For a plant to react to a stimulus is different from a plant surviving predation, it might have a lock or a damn welled up and ready to blow to deliver some kind of bitter or poisonous agent, but that's how the plant evolved, but the whole "I've been chewed on, I'm bleeding here" kind of mitigation happens with our bodies, whack your elbow on something and get a bruise, that goes away, and it does so without our conscious decisions. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Mammals, at least, need the following to feel pain - specific receptors for pain-like stimulation, a nervous system to transmit the signals to the brain, a brain to interpret these signals and label them as "pain" to the consciousness. I don't think plants have any of these so - whatever they many be doing - labelling it as "pain" is going to be wrong.
Obviously you could invent a new broader interpretation of "pain" to explicitly include whatever is going on with plants. But I'd call cheating. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
yeh yeh, we've all seen this kind of speciest talk before, adolf. not saying vegetarians are bad people, but they for defs worse than hitler. what kind of unfeeling monster cannot feel the suffering of onions as they are brutally skinned, hacked to pieces and senselessly caramelised for our selfish enjoyment. its a heinous practice that has me literally in tears. when we 'trim', an awful euphemism - mutilate more like, a garden hedge wih barbaric instruments of torture we 'trim' any notion that we are civilised. j'accuse AMassiveGay (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I can see now I was a little thoughtless. In future I will confine my food intake to oxygen, water, sunlight and inorganic minerals. It will be a difficult diet but I feel I will own the moral high ground.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Inorganic materials? Are you "othering" objects that don't live up to your life-centric standards? Is a drop of water somehow more suitable to assault, consume or do what you please with because it isn't composed of specific strings of atoms that make up what you deem acceptable to be called "living"? Just ask yourself how a grain of sand feels while its being exploited. ShabiDOO 13:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I guess that I'm driven to breatharianism. My life may be short but I'll get a hell of a lot of karma!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
you can still eat beef. cows are notorious racists and homophobes. the sunday roast is a moral duty. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Eating cows is actually an anti-life-centric statement of empowerment for all those helpless oppressed "lifeless" objects. ShabiDOO 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
If you were just breathing pure oxygen I'd be with you on that Bob...but the air you breathe is actually mostly nitrogen and tons of other compounds. Some of them organic. When you breathe your lungs violently rip apart oxygen atoms from its various brothers and then forces it, without even asking, into your blood stream where it is eventually inserted into a some cell of the body to perform several actions without even being asked. It is then thrown around again in a blood vessel and then forced into a union with another oxygen and carbon molecule and then carelessly tossed out of the body without the slightest thought of its needs. It will then spend the rest of its life floating around until either a plant also uses it for whatever its needs are or it collects into the sky forced to help set this planet on fire. I'm sorry Bob. But breathing is the ultimate act of exploitation and indifference. ShabiDOO 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Then I guess I'm down to living on Prana - sunlight really.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed Unsolved[edit]

This episode is a crock of shit, we should have an article on these guys, seriously. Oxyaena Harass 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

They brought in the fucking ancient aliens guy lmao. Oxyaena Harass 20:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen more people around the internet complaining about Buzzfeed. Gunther8787 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the Phoenix Lights tale has... FLARED... up again. (Insert groan here.) (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh I know, let's make a draft!--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
They brought in the Ancient Aliens guy? Is such a thing even possible? -- (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A Joke[edit]

Q: What is Satan's favorite font?

A: Helvetica

Thank you, I'll be here all night. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You're going straight to Höllgrotten, Switzerland[2] for that joke! Bongolian (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Puns are not jokes unless they're built on tremendously long setup, then they'll a joke on the person you're telling it to. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You think that's bad!? This is my idea of what a black helicopter looks like. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Black Roflcopter.gif

Pastors defying Stay At Home orders and illegally holding services (yes I am ranting)[edit]

God these preachers are so fucking stupid. If any of these idiots get the virus, die or end up with severe lung damage I will not shed a tear. Any kids being dragged to church I feel bad for knowing that they are being put in danger by their parents- just for fairy tails.

Hope any preaching holding services during a pandemic gets cuffed and locked in prison for endangerment. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna level. If this is about the US, I cannot fathom a world where it's "illegal" to hold religious services. Pretty explicitly defined right, all in all. It's fucking stupid and wrong to do it, but "illegal" it isn't. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It is in the US and during the current emergency, in person church services are suspended by government order. Virtual services are fine as long as large groups are not gathered. These preachers hosting in person services are the same either calling the virus a demon, faith healers or virus denialists. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a complex legal case in there, but I think I'll be content to agree with your anger. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It's actually crystal clear, legally speaking. No government in the United States may prohibit the free exercise of religion or peaceful assembly. To the extent that the United States is a nation of laws, religious gatherings are not illegal. Any attempts to enforce such things in the US are backed only by popular support due to pandemic mode common sense. Which can be important, but it's a bad precedent to rely on. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not crystal clear. Amendment 1 says nothing directly about the right to assemble. The courts have clarified the right to assemble however through various court rulings. But Amendment 1 has also been balanced with public health and safety interests via other rulings in the past. There is no ruling I can directly pull up on what the balance should be in a pandemic, so let the cases from this work through the courts to clarify. At any rate, worldwide, there have been *significant* amounts of viral hot spots directly linked to religious gatherings (famously the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel, the Shincheonji in South Korea, and the Christian Open Door Church in France among others). If they want to endanger themselves and others, whatever, I look forward to the next US fundie retard church that becomes famous for a viral outbreak, and ensures that our lockdown lasts much longer than other nations with more social distancing sense. (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble." Yes, it's obviously a bad idea to hold large gatherings now, but legal enforcement of religious assembly bans will be stomped on appeal. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, second statement looks stupid now, need more coffee. :p However the rest of the statement applies: there are limited restrictions on the 1st Amendment (as everything else) due to past rulings. For instance, municipalities can require permits for gatherings and doing things like assembling to block a major Interstate is a no-no. So I'll quote from the second link:
"That said, First Amendment protections, while broad, are not absolute. Regan v. Boogertman, 984 F.2d 577, 579 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 360, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976)). It is axiomatic, for instance, that government officials may stop or disperse public demonstrations or protests where "clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940). Indeed, where a public gathering threatened to escalate into racial violence and members of a hostile crowd began voicing physical threats, the Supreme Court expressly sanctioned police action that ended the demonstration and arrested the speaker, who defied police orders to cease and desist. Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315, 317-21, 71 S. Ct. 303, 95 L. Ed. 295 (1951). The police, the Court reasoned, were not "powerless to prevent a breach of the peace" in light of the "imminence of greater disorder" that the situation created. Id. at 321, 71 S. Ct. 303."
I cannot find direct case law that addresses a church gathering during a pandemic lockdown, of course. So the question of course will be if the courts interpret COVID-19 as a "threat to public safety", which via rulings like this probably is enough to justify current quarantine law. Place your bets. I wouldn't bet on Constitutional absolutism personally. If you want to be the preacher that fights the courts on this, feel free. (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Blocking traffic can be construed as a breach of the peace, so regulation regarding the use of public ways is reasonable. Religious gatherings are typically held indoors on private property. And look at the terms used in your quotes: “clear and present danger of riot”, “immediate threat”, “members of a hostile crowd began voicing physical threats” “imminence of greater disorder”. These actions are against specific people in a particular time and place. The government doesn’t get to just suspend the Bill of Rights until further notice. It’s not as though epidemics were unknown in the 18th Century. There was a major one during the Revolutionary War, for example, which killed perhaps 125,000 North Americans. The framers of the US Constitution did not make an exception here, since they didn’t want the government to have that power. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The Bill of Rights didn't apply to state governments under the "original intent" of the Framers. They were a bunch of rich white dudes throwing together a federation to stop the states from turning into 13 nations possibly going to war with each other or getting taken over/annexed by other countries. They weren't evil villians, but they also weren't perfect gods with some knowledge of Eternal Truth. -- (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No, but that’s largely unrelated to the matter at hand. The incorporation of the relevant rights has been long-established. And, as legal constructs of the state governments, local governments can’t be delegated authority that the states themselves do not possess. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
My point is, you're going on about original intent, but who cares? Yes, I know all about the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. Incorporation is not in the strict literal text of the amendment, and the judiciary has selectively applied it to only some things in the Bill of Rights anyway, so once we're into incorporated rights we're already way into law created by the judiciary. Of course this is a distinctive feature of common law systems and not inherently bad, but people who tout "original intent" also tend to be people who rant about "judges legislating from the bench". -- (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 Why dafuq are they doing that?!--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't very well pass the collection basket from quarantine. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed there is the option of using credit cards and or bank cards. Churches would still get money without putting people in danger of infection though they would be in danger of getting their bank accounts sucked dry. Doubt quack preachers would care though. It is all about the money. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
im sure they must get some kind of brownie points for their display of courage and (self) righteousness. the lives of their flock and all who they come in contact with is a small price to pay for the massaging of holy egos and self promotion. only a commie would waste this heaven sent opportunity, in a time where religiously minded people are more than ever likely to seek their guidance. they can hardly bathe in the heightened sense of power and self importance by considering the greater good and cancel services. they might even get a spot on fox news or that whole circuit of right wing opinion havers. god willing, it might warrant another private jet. jesus never had a private jet, and some of these fuckers have a whole fleet. they are better at jesusing than jesus, the fucking prole. water into wine? walk on water? fuck off, those beauties are fully stocked with the finest champers and you don't even have to get your slippers wet. the meek and the humble not so blessed as to deserve a gulfstream jet. you need top tier jesusing for that. who are we to deny gods bounty to his most blessed agents when death amongst the faithful would sure guarantee a ticket to heaven. not the good part where these pastors will go, but the part reserved for peasants. its probably a bit like blackpool. maybe a little bit shabbier. you'll love it. try to be bit more humble. like that jesus fella. he'll probably be manning the donkey rides on the beach.AMassiveGay (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see why anyone is surprised. If you actually take Christian doctrine seriously, why would you care about the virus? God is all-powerful, so anything that happens happens because he approves of it. That's basically the problem of evil. And anyway if you die you just go to eternal paradise. People who are Christians but are afraid of the virus are the ones not really buying into their religion wholeheartedly, because some instinctive part of them knows their belief doesn't actually do anything to affect the universe. Doublethink is an essential part of most religions to some extent. How many Christians obey their God and sell everything they have and give it to the poor? -- (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I knew this topic was gonna be brought up sooner or later. Now is a good chance to throw my hat in the ring on this.
The part that I don't understand is this: why not just hold your service virtually? This is perfectly legal: because its the mass in-person congregation that's the problem, not the services themselves. Nearly every church here in my area (the DFW area) is holding services live through streaming platforms like Facebook. They literally just hold services in empty sanctuaries and live-stream through whatever platform they stream from, and everybody watches from their homes. Why is this so difficult? Why is there such a big obsession with having IN PERSON services? This isn't rocket science. And these pastors act like the government is trying to take their right to worship away. Uh...NO, they're trying to save lives. For example, the pastor from Louisiana (don't remember his name nor do I have the will to search for it) acts like Governor Edwards is attacking religious rights...when HE IS A BELIEVER HIMSELF. So does he think that a Christian governor is persecuting Christians?! It's just ridiculous.
Fortunately, even other pastors are calling these idiots out for their reckless behavior, hopefully that will encourage at least some people not to flock out to a church just because they're gathering in person. Aaronmichael5 21:13 11 April 2020 (UTC)
That just goes back to what I said. If you're altering your behavior because of the virus, you're demonstrating your lack of faith in God. In this kind of thinking, if God's plan is for you to die, that's what will happen and there's no point in worrying about it. There's also a tribalist thing going on where it's become a symbol of tribe membership on the U.S. right to assert the disease is not that bad and being exaggerated by the evil "leftists" as part of their evil plans. Making visible displays of rebelling against public health measures related to it is a ritual showing your allegiance to the tribe. And layer on top of that the Christian right's persecution complex where anything other than capitulation to their desires is treated as oppression. Do you think these nuts really believe Edwards is a "real Christian"? Religious people have killed each other over tiny differences in doctrine. Attacking each other as heretics is like one of the oldest and most reliable features of religion. -- (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Good post! Indeed, a large amount of this is tribalistic, with the right-wing evangelicals (and similar groups) "protesting" against the quarantine. Personally, my main concern is them getting sick and worsening the situation for themselves and others. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
honestly at this point, im surprised its only a few pastors. trumps daily press conference pantomimes and his cheerleaders at fox doing all they can to spread misinformation to make this all an overreaction that make millions of death preferable. I can imagine a lot of folk are going to think no has any clue whats going on, every one is doing different things a different levels then fuck it im going church. they at least trust those fuck nuts an church is usually the place you go for reassurance and comfort from the closeness of your friends in a crisis. this thing has taken away the one place that they would depend on to get them through such times, and they cannot even sit with friends or even give a comforting hug. that's almost an inhumane thing to insist on when the people responsible for ensuring you everything is being done for the best possible reasons, reassure people, we can get through this, stay strong. they do worse than nothing. yeh, self isolation, lockdowns and its assorted misery its causing is a necessary thing, but I can rely on government who at least look they are trying. they are not bigging up tv ratings and denying they said something they literally just said. and I don't have my trusted news sources telling them they should do us a favour and just die. nope no one who should be relied upon in all this has told them anything that would help, just go home and don't you dare hug your mother you monster. with nothing to do except watch the death toll rise. these pastor are equal amount charlatan, lunatic, and publicity whores but at least their self serving courage and idiotic principled stance is something to focus on that isn't just wondering if you will go bankrupt before or after you die alone never being told anything. its inhumane and ive just defended these cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)