RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive357

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 May 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>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>
, (new)(back)

Knowing the crappy economic climate and the current idiots in government.........[edit]

Should I be ready to become a warlord? If the US goes under I have a backup plan. It could be like a Mad Max movie. Okay my sense of humor is very dark but then again, my sense of humor has always been dark. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I've already been preparing for that for some time. I've studied the great conquerors of history, the first kings of what we in hindsight call dark age Europe...even if Trump loses this scenario is more likely than you might think. It would be wise to at least have some plan in mind for what you would do in a post USA world, because it is quite likely no matter what happens this year.Flandres (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Statistically you are much more likely to become a serf.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
So you would think. Of course, I've prepared for that.-Flandres (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
In my case I know that I would quickly become a corpse in that type of event. I would run out of my medications and lose my mind. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
You could move to Canada, if that's an option? Gunther8787 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I imagine that will be a popular option. If the USA collapses Canada is in for quite the refugee crisis.-Flandres (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah to get into Canada legally you'd have to apply (costs a fair bit of money and takes time and you need to get enough points based on age, marital status, university degree, special skills, language skills, ability to support yourself financially for quite a few months without work, work history and so on and so on. Not that many people qualify and there is still competition. Americans get absolutely zero preference over other countries (which goes the same way the other way around). Even if you get the minimum points required and pay the huge application fee...no guarantee it will be accepted. You can fast track if you have good points and a ton of cash in your account. If you wanna try the illegal way, won't be that fun. No health care, difficult to get a license or rent a place. Will have a shitty job and always have to be careful not to have an accident or for any reason to call attention to yourself. Police won't look the other way if they realise you're an American working there illegally unless you're picking apples temporarily etc. If you're serious...start applying now. Canada accepts quite a number of refugees every year but I'm pretty sure they'd put war refugees and political prisoners over Americans unhappy with the way their political or economic system has gone. ShabiDOO 13:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I often wonder when I hear of all the people declaring they move abroad if some arse is re elected, not through fear persecution or for any indignities that they personally would have to endure - like actual refugees - why would any country be happy to home such gadflys who would so readily upsticks at the first sign of inconvenience rather than work to make things better? Sure abandon your friends and country men when someone you don't let me gets or you dislike their policies. they have even less opposition then, and the people who truly suffer under them and are unable free can suffer even more. Good job ex pats. — Unsigned, by: AMassiveGay / talk / contribs

Indeed Amassivegay is right. Just move to Vermont. You'll get the Canada light experience. ShabiDOO 11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If a worst case scenario happened, I am only like 150 miles away from Canada. There would be the fun part of traveling through Detroit. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 as something genetically modified or whatever[edit]

Ok, let's assume for a moment that shit really came from a laboratory and/or was genetically modified as the Donald claims and has been engineered as a bioweapon.

If they wanted to use it that way against US, I wonder why China would decide to release the virus on its own population with no vaccine (that we know of at the very least) and let it spread through the entire world, not just US, knowing the measures needed to stop the virus would hit them hard given how globalized is trade, that someone would sooner or later discover it was not something natural, and that said vaccine could be developed by scientists in other countries so if even China had it the world would not have to buy it to them except at the start.

I can buy blaming China for COVID-19 having appeared in a black market with no sanitary controls as well as them having been so opaque when the pandemic appeared, but COVID-19 is a bioweapon looks as plain BS to me. Panzerfaust (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought most of the conspiracy therapies said it was engineered for use against the USA but was accidentally released on their own people. As for the other parts, this is the same thing you run into with every conspiracy theory-its dumb but they believe it and since facts did not bring them to this conclusion facts will not lead them away from it.-Flandres (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Did not know about the part of "accidentally being released on their own people", but the disadvantages of bioweapons and chemical ones is that they do not distinguish between friends and foes. I also forget to mention that once it was discovered it's artificial a lot of people would be quite pissed, and I very much doubt things would just stop at economical sanctions and the like against China. Panzerfaust (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
If other countries found out that COVID-19 was used as an act of terrorism, it would be deemed as an act of war (rightfully so). But that would be suicide on China's part as troops would land in the country and the capital would fall. China would have every country against them. Not the case though. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
would probably be an act of war if it were a deliberate act, I cant see an actual war emerging from that though. china isn't Iraq. and we are in the midst of a global plague.
this is all idle speculation to hide the reality that even a deliberate and proven bioterrorist attack does little to shift the responsibilty of over 64000 deaths from trump. he is murdering you through selfish and callous caprice. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Trump's comments about the whole thing are proof that schools need to teach science better. I swear that everyone else worldwide is laughing at the American education system. Injecting yourself with cleaning products will get you killed (obvious common knowledge) yet Trump fails to get that....somehow. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Does raise the question if Trump ever payed attention during lessions or not. Heck, who says that his diploma's are real (I'm starting to doubt this)? Gunther8787 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If we were to make the bizarre assumption that China deliberately made and then released Covid 19 we would certainly ask ourselves "Why"? But the very fact that there is no sensible answer to that "why" is one of the things that makes the assumption bizarre. Another reason for it being a bizarre assumption is that there are various lines of evidence showing that it had a natural origin and there are no lines of evidence indicating that ti was artificial.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

suspicion of the dastardly Chinese government and their growing power and influence is all that is needed for this to fly. they are already a bond villain in the eyes of many, repeat it the claim enough times and it will go from something 'you wouldn't put it past them' to they definitely did it, its so obvious. I imagine the originators of the idea would be a mix of people keen to shift blame and attention onto a convenient foe, while others probably are just conspiracy theorists for who nothing happens on its own, and everything is a sinister plot. a less than truthful communist government doesn't even need reptilians behind the throne, though probs are.

if we are looking to fabricate motive, we can point to their suspect infection rates and the rapid and total lockdown to better control their fabrication of an epidemic, while the rest of world reels from the real virus, its enemies are weakened economically, and they gain influence and gratitude while they dole out conveniently plentiful medical supplies that are scarce elsewhere. the rotters. there is no evidence for any of this, they are too smart. they even engineered that slow response to look like they too inept. you could probably work in something about 5g in their too. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Skinwalker Ranch[edit]

Anyone see this show on Hulu? I've been hearing buzz about it around the internet but it just seems like more alien nonsense to me.Machina (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Machina It’s one of the stables on Jason Colavito’s blog and its updates on American pop pseudohistory TV shows. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Can conspiracy theories be reconciled with Romans 13?[edit]

We're all aware that hardcore conspiracism has a pretty high correlation to Bible thumping. I've been aware of Romans 13:1-4 (a Biblical passage) for a while now, and I've alwasy thought that it's completely incompatible with any kind of conspiracy theory. It directly declares that the authorities are instituted by God and are incapable of wrongdoing. How can Bible-thumping conspiracy nuts reconcile that with their ideas? Do they even know about it? Wouldn't the existence of their imagined conspiracies refute Romans 13:1-4, and ultimately the reliability of the Bible? Seriously, this would create a short-circuit in the brains of most conspiracy nuts on Earth.... Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said a couple threads up, People who believe in conspiracy theories tend not to arrive at their conclusions based on facts or evidence. If it fits in with a paranoid worldview that they already have they will just believe it regardless of something else they claim to treasure contradicting it. People who do not arrive at conclusions with facts and arguments are rarely swayed by them, for they have already made up their mind no matter how this seems mutually exclusive with some other part of their life.-Flandres (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but I really think that Romans 13 would give a Bible-thimping conspiracist a seizure. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It's easy enough to just cherry pick from the Bible to get it to say whatever one wants. Bongolian (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
R 13 is really incompatible with any kind of political disagreement. For that matter it's not compatible with democracy, because whoever happens to be ruling is automatically right. But it's far from the only absurdity which has to be argued away by literal bible-believers.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
So Romans 13 poses a serious problem for Biblical literalism I guess... Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure. But I would say that the first two chapters of Genesis have way more combined absurdity. But for those who are only literal about the New Testament it's pretty good.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of absurdity in Genesis, I added a section in our page on Genesis to a verse that points to astrology. Perhaps you haven't heard of that. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Anything can be reconciled with anything as long as you don't care about logical consistency. How does that passage square with other aspects of mainstream Christian theology? Does Satan exist and is he bad? If people in power want me to do evil things, should I obey them? The notes on that page even point out some of this. The fact is, the only way you can reconcile an omnipotent god with the existence of "bad stuff" is if that god doesn't care about the bad stuff. Christian theodicy consists primarliy of playing word games and spewing out large reams of text to obscure this basic fact. -- (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I've heard those verses being used to both claiming democracy is bad and imperfect next to the Kingdom of God, when everyone will be happy under God's rule when Jesus comes back, and submitting not only to governments but also to church authorities ('nuff said).
But it's not surprising given the context of the NT. There was certainly no democracy in the Roman Empire (that I know of) and the NT has no problem whatsoever with the concept of slavery. Which is why it's kind of absurd to really take any Biblical instruction seriously unless it is checked against modern ethical and political standards.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
One more thing: in the former case, I think, (I'm running from memory) it was also mentioned it will happen and you'll be subjected to that, like it or not, with all governments being destroyed and subjected to God plus the usual SFX of trumpet sounding and a white throne descending from the skies, etc. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
In the former case, it does not take too much of a stretch to extend them also to those who claim to be God's middlemen until time of Jesus' arrival. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

But who killed Jesus? The Roman state played a role too. And so did the Jewish authorities. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Better off Before?[edit]


Soooo......I'm kind of bummed out after reading this who link by this guy. He seems to suggest that for all our advancement and progress that we aren't really that much better off. We ravage the world, isolate each other, I mean it's pretty clear that he thinks humans were better off before. Psychologically speaking (which I'm not sure of since I can't really speak to the psychology of hunter gatherers) he suggests that humans had a healthier state of being in the past and that our population boom and civilization seemed to have marked our "fall" from how we were supposed to be.

I tried to get through to the end but it was just a bummer to read through, I think I made it 3/4 of the way. I'm not sure how right any of this is. I don't know if HG were more violent in the past or maybe we were wrong. He seems to suggest that the recent study of HG of the past has "toppled our house of cards"? Whatever that means.Machina (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I read the first bit: found it patronising the 'primitives' and gave up. Anna Livia (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
you really know how to seek out complete arse. there is nothing here but empty assertions for the 'authenticity' of hgs, their supposed happiness, never explaining what it is of their life that was superior nor really the failings of our own.
and its all whitey's fault, and gorillas do not need lippy.
and its moot anyhow. a return to such life would see the deaths of billions. there is too many of us to be supported by the land in such a fashion. if he starts sending bombs to random people, hes the unibomber. right now this is dross. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you called it, this is flirting near anarcho-primitivism in my view (with a shout out to the noble savage trope). Such is the way it is, this guy's in the moonbat area of things. I know only some about how so-called "artificial intelligence" works (I've actually coded a naive bayes algorithm once, yay), but enough to have a laugh at that section of this website. (Though part of that problem is the Silicon Valley oversell, I admit.) Soundwave106 (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
So....it's not true? I'll admit I don't know much about AI at all so I can't say either way.Machina (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
"Artificial intelligence" is pattern-matching math and statistics. I'll point to the wiki on Naive BayesWikipedia as an example. The simpler stuff like this is actually stat math. For the portion that is sort of new in vogue (due to the sheer vast amount of data available), neural networks, you often need people to "train" the models. Technology already can do some replication-esque tasks (genetic algorithms as an example, when set up by humans) but it's not going to "dismantle all nuclear arsenals and use the fissile materials for reactors that could provide their power in perpetuity". This person basically gave an Arthur C Clarke third law reading of the subject. Soundwave106 (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The argument being presented is that HGs were more balanced in terms of psychology and outlook and happier in a sense. I'm pretty sure all that was in there the last time I read it over. Though it's pretty long, and yes much of it seems like opinion. In the case of better off nutritionally that's not exactly true. I saw a segment on PBS that showed that humans were adventurous eaters, to varying degrees of success. I mean some of them ate toxic fish or even a carcass at times really. As for the violence, I'm not sure about that. I get mixed results from that claim.Machina (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Actual early humans erupting into Europe found a landscape full of mammoths, rhinos, and other megafauna. They immediately upped their stone-tool game as they learned how to tear into them more efficiently. They threw the world's best barbecue. They did this so efficiently that the megafauna died out. Then most of the humans did too, but not before they drew us pictures on cave walls to show us exactly what they were up to. And this is a pattern that repeats over and over again: Australia, the Americas, Madagascar, New Zealand. Primitive humans were not wise and at one with nature. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe there's a general consensus that pre-agricultural diets were more nutritionally-balanced than those of most agricultural humans until recently. The non-elites in most ancient agricultural societies ate mostly staple crops, and for grains usually "white" which makes them even less nutritious. (For instance recently I saw a factoid saying ~70% of the Roman peasant's calories were from bread, though I don't know how accurate that is.) Heck, vitamin deficiencies are still widespread globally, and were even worse before the 20th century (e.g. pellagra was widespread among the poor in the U.S. South). But yes, this was just because agricultural societies were founded on monoculture staples and no one had modern science. If you ate something unknown because you were hungry or curious, if you were unlucky you fuckin' died. Similarly, there's a consensus that HGs on average had more leisure time than many people today. These are believed to be facts; saying that this means we should disband civilization without saying "why" is the is ought fallacy. Why should we? I'll take our vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, electricity, computers, safe drinking water... -- (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Well from what I gather the extra leisure time wasn't what people think. IF you couldn't find food in the area then you really did have a lot of time on your hands (which was bad). Starvation was quite common back then so that extra leisure time meant death. Also the nutritional balance of HG varied depending on where you were. It's more complex than people think it was.Machina (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

looks at URL* "quantum" Sooo is this some science website that...*looks at replies* Nope! See quote at top of quantum woo. Not worth it in my opinion to waste precious time reading kooks, unless it's for things like practicing debunking skills. If you want to learn more about human prehistory read good books about the topic. HG societies are/were generally waaaaayyyyyyyy more violent. -- (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Things would be not as idyllic as they claim. Not only because of the risk of eating something nasty and having at best a very bad day, but also predators aside of parasites in the water and the like. Also, HG humans would still be as humans as their agricultural societies counterparts. Meaning there'd be wars and even if them would be much less destructive than current ones with no technology, aftereffects would be nastier with none of the ways we've developed to cure serious wounds and lesions and don't get me started with being fully at mercy of the Universe even more than now where we can at least track dangerous asteroids and think on strategies to defend of them.
As much as I like nature and the way it sounds these people seem to think they'd live like elves in those fantasy worlds or Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit, where land would provide pretty much everything, there'd be no parasites or predators, and lots of time to contemplate our navels. The real world, sadly, is very different. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It was probably super easy to live in peace and harmony back when every one were hunter gathers, and the world so sparsely populated that there was no competition for resources. No reason to go to war when there's enough stuff to go around and you have to walk for days to find anyone to war with. The guy speaks glowing of the few more or less uncontacted peoples being happy and super chill, despite on occasion meetings with some such Tribes result in the visitors ending up in the cooking pot.
He also says early on that hunter gathers were always happy and content until something happens or go wrong. No shit. It's always civilisation fault that ruins there idyllic life, not famines or drought, or other tribes kidnaping their women (I imagine rape was super popular back before we had Xboxes to fill our time), and never the stench from those putrid sores they got when the boredom from all the peace and harmony convinced the tribe it would kill some time if they took turns fucking that wild pig they caught. Winter was probably really wank too.
I suspect that guy writing of all of this, while sitting with his laptop in Starbucks eulogising such a life, isn't convinced of his is ideas enough to go live in the forest and spend 4 hours a day chasing down a deer. But as he notes, I'm probably too white to understand his wisdom. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The asmat people in Papua New Guinea, whose remoteness meant encountering 'civilisation' very rarely, were or do regularly war with each, head hunting being a reason why contact with outside world was so rare. They reported to have eaten Rockefeller's son after he washed up on the beach after a plane crash/shipwreck. Super chill. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The answer is simple - set up a theme park in which these people can enjoy the primitive life they expound - and see whether they enjoy things when the crops fail and they have no access to denstistry, and the situation resembles Thomas Hobbes' 'nasty brutish and short' description/Lord of the Flies. Anna Livia (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, see my link above. HG societies are by our standards astoundingly violent—not just war between tribes but inter-community violence. And remember most of that is without modern weaponry! -- (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

He also made a related post in regard to Romantic love:http://twenty-six.dividedquantum.info/ The short answer being that our current practice of love is imbalanced and that if we were truly well functioning adult and humans then romantic love would disappear. He cites that HG didn't have romantic love.Machina (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

When they say 'well functioning' they mean unfeeling automatons beyond any biological needs to satisfy nor any emotional response to anything or anyone at all through the power of buddhism. I suspect true nirvana looks like a catatonic state to the casual observer. When you say he cites that the had no need for romantic love, does he actually cute someone or someone or merely assert something that what he believes to be an idyllic state has no need for something he personally doesn't like?AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
These hunter gatherers most likely needed no romantic love when all they needed was bit of raping and a pointy stick to make sure it's only you who got to do the raping. Such early societies had no concept of property, but if you touched their shit they'd bury a stone ax in your head.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
It's true that before man left central-Africa it was relatively peaceful. Lots of space and resources relatively few encounters with others. Sexual mate selection was unlikely regulated by family but personal choice. A lot of the social problems that we face didn't not exist because they are borne out of the culture of expansion and worse of settling down. Concentrating humans into spaces and the power structures that come with it and the scarcity of resources truly do bring out the monsters in humanity. But that doesn't mean life was cruelty free even in the best of circumstances back then or that life wasn't terrible. You still had to be on your guard ALL THE TIME per animals and possible crazy humans doing crazy things. You had to still be very careful using your extremely limited knowledge and reasoning skills to stay alive. Adapting to sudden change was extremely difficult. Life was very short and the number of ways you could have a very unpleasant end was enormous. The trade-offs are huge. There are literally no societies on Earth that remotely resemble primative-man in central Africa. Not even those untouched by "modernity". They already changed greatly on their way out of Africa and a lot more since. The fact that they made it to the Amazon or New Guinea tells you how much they had to change and adapt just to get there. ShabiDOO 11:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

David Icke[edit]

Anyone going to update the page for the Facebook ban? Antigem (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Has reptilian soccer guy ascended yet? Oxyaena Harass 22:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Why did they ban him? Gunther8787 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Mostly false information about coronavirus including the 5G tower nonsense. YouTube also dropped him. They had to since he was getting too close to the truth. Antigem (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Can one make a folk-false-entomology connection between 'Icke' and 'icky'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
People are upset about his free speech, but right now COVID-19 misinformation can be fatal. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Really, it has to take a pandemic for Facebook to do anything. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
A bit on his COVID-19 shenanigans has been added. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
During his whole COVID-19 nuttery, I couldn't help but to think about Pink Guy/Filthy Frank/Joji's song about him. RockfordRoe (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Elect Oxy as Dictator for Life[edit]

I will bring proletarian justice to this wiki, and boot out the bourgeois troublemakers once and for all! VIVA LA OXYLUTION!!! Oxyaena Harass 22:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could appoint me as dictator for life. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I will meet you on the field of battle then, Duce. Oxyaena Harass 00:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Democracy, free speech, free expression and right to own private property for all! --Racia zombio94 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
ACAB. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Property is theft. Oxyaena Harass 01:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Breathing is theft. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Fight the commie scum! Protect your freedom! --Racia zombio94 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena. If a society is divided into many socialist collectives, those collectives which are most successful become proxies for the bourgeoisie, and you still have the rich and the poor, unless a central government redistributes profits of industry. At that point you are likely to have a state of de facto feudalism, where the state has supreme power and everyone else is unmotivated and poor.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Feudalism, and not socialism, seems to be what's destined to replace capitalism anyways, alas. Oxyaena Harass 07:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I found myself missing Marcus Cicero's Revolutionary Communiqués, and then this turns up. It'll do. hi MC if you're still with us, you old aspie virgin fascist cunt. Avida Dollarsher again 18:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Aspies of the world unite! Oxyaena Harass 21:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose a government in which all decisions are decided by rolling dice and picking results at random. It shall be called a Randocracy, and the first leader shall be decided by pulling their name out of a hat! MirrorIrorriM (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you read "The Dice Man"? I member it being a good read. A long time ago.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
What about a timeshare dictatorship?
What ambitions can you have as a dictator - and how do you balance 'effective subordinates' and 'would be successors'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be called "Dicecracy" instead (Democracy decided by the powers of a dice)? Then again, some people might think it's some form of Democracy that was invented by a certain health "guru"...
..."Randocracy" it is, then. Gunther8787 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The day after Oxy becomes "Dictator for Life", I propose a bloody and decisive coup.Start painting the "Death to ALL tyrants!!" banners now, we can impale their bloody remains upon the poles Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cardinal Chang I support that! --Racia zombio94 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Can't I wait until just after we start to paint mine? So I can paint it in said tyrant's blood? I want to hit all the cliches. Kencolt (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh no[edit]

Oxyaena Harass 09:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

How big is the chance he'd flip-flop on Iran, like he did on Iraq? Gunther8787 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
He's a politician - stop thinking he's supposed to be a saint FFS. He may be less of a cockwomble (yes it's a word - look it up!) than Trump.... pretty sure that's an easy bet.... but he's still a politician. Aloysius the Gaul 21:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Who's thinking that? That was a genuine question! FFS, I'm not Pro-Biden and I think he's a smooth talker... Gunther8787 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
My point is politicians all flip flop if it suites them - they can't help it. The chances of Biden flip flopping are 100% if he thinks it is worth it. Aloysius the Gaul 21:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh Yes![edit]

Now that we know about the Sanders supporter's accusation, Women's groups now want to hear from the twenty or so women who Donald Trump allegedly has assaulted. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sweet Dehumanization, Bro. Revolverman (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
De-what now? Both videos were produced by the same people.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1. Whataboutism. 2. I didn't know Gutian and MSNBC were the same person. TheEOE (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1. I hope you don't presume you have offered a point of discussion. 2. If so, could you be clearer? 3. The second video provides evidence that there is a general acceptance from a number of women's groups that Biden has addressed the issue, while Trump has not. Nothing "whatabout" about that.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I assumed the first video was just the MSNBC video I had watched live previously. I see now that it is a work of art. Why does anyone care about Gutian? Is she/he pro Putin also?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It is kind of in poor faith to speculate as to motive when the act itself is still being debated. Also, there's this thing called poisoning the well that you might need a refresher on Ariel, given you just offhandedly imply that someone is acting in bad faith on a politically and emotionally charged topic, without evidence I might add. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I don't recall speculating. The video I posted is just a factual exposition. The interesting part is the part about women's groups who feel Biden has addressed the claim while Trump has acted like the shit he is. For the poisoning well fallacy to be in effect something irrelevant must be presented as relevant. Biases are relevant. Don't mistake disagreement for an imputation of bad faith. I presume that this Gutian is an anti-western exponent interested in histrionic persuasion. I expect this person really believes what they say, as unbelievable as that may be to others. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
And this means what exactly? How does contrasting him with Trump give me more accurate data? It's needless whataboutism, which only serves to muddy the any good points made. I can compare Kevin Spacey's response to Trump's but what does that tell me about the claims? The way this is framed makes them look like they're trying to imply that even if the claim is true, that Trump exists, and that this is bad, and we should vote for Biden anyway. Like, if that's your argument, fucking make it. But don't do a bunch of fucking waffle comparing the two men, since that distracts the audience from the main topic. So, assuming good faith, I'm forced to use Hanlon's razor to conclude that these outlets are fucking idiots who didn't think this weighted commentary through. Which, to be honest, still fucks with their credibility for me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I brought this up as "oh, we're supposed to believe Kavanaugh and not Biden now?" and the fucking gymnastics. "Well, at least they investigated the Kavanaugh thing. They got his calendars." and I fucking choked laughing trying to say "We kept calendars, it was a family hobby." "well, didn't that lady admit she was just doing it for money?" "No, I think we would have heard about it if she did." This is so fucking awful, I'm starting a lesser of three evils platform, starting with sexual impropriety, which means Donald Trump doesn't get a vote either.
Any candidate, before receiving a vote, will remain innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. However the capacity to hold power of effective governance over people requires a level of trust from the people such that uncertainty in a case of sexual impropriety is a tangible hindrance. The lesser of three evils party will not support any electable official who is reasonably accused of sexual impropriety until said claim or claims is or are reasonably and reliably adjudicated in a non-partisan public court and addressed in public policy, with or without legal ramifications to the conclusions, regardless of statutes of limitations in propriety to said claims.
I know what you're saying, ah, shit that just sounds like we already do, but actively and vocally withholding your vote is a power move. It's a little reckless, but so is voting Trump or Biden, so it's not exactly not taking part in the lesser of evil conflict. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Providing most accurate information is essential to our project. How you choose to interpret it is up to each of you. I wouldn't dream of moving anyone away from the dictates of their conscience. Nothing could be worth that. My view is it will be Trump versus Biden. There are no other viable choices, i.e., candidates who might win election in November. That's just an opinion. It has no moral valence. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'm not totally separated from that reality. Just, what if there was a party that said exactly that, we don't have a candidate, but we have a non-partisan contract that either party must meet. Like, I've always thought campaign funds should be used at some minimum to finance public works. I brought this up to a friend who was working with a democratic campaign and he kinda spat in my face, saying "Oh, you think if we just get out there and pat-pat-pat fill some potholes that's going to win the election?" and I said "No, but it would be a good look, and even if you lose the election at least something good was done with the money." So second point, lesser of three evils party, at least 15% of campaign contributions must be spent on public works; any and all money spent by a campaign on public works must be thoroughly vetted, accounted for, and provable to be funded by at least 15% of campaign contributions. All eligible public works projects will be designated by state legislative consensus, in the case state legislation cannot reach consensus on any public works, the electable official will be allowed to designate their own public work, as long as at least 15% of campaign contribution is used towards said work and all other contributions are clearly and openly recorded. Lesser of three evils party. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is all resolution, by the way, none of this would be legally binding. I think politicians should be at least a little accountable to working towards a better society, nothing saying "you can't take money from big corporations" just a resolution to acknowledge a firm reluctance to elevate anyone who can't answer to credible claims of impropriety of modern mores, and a resolution that campaign money should be, at 15%, at least nominally goin into the promises and projects that any electable official might promise they will fight for. The point is not to win a political battle, it is to define non-partisan policy objectives that should be met for a candidate to be a viable option and would be comfortable to reach for anyone. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC).
Joe Biden is your dad's close friend who for some unexplained reason is never left alone in the same room with you.CoryUsar (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Bought an audio book version of George Orwell's 1984[edit]

Interesting yet a confusing world at the same time. Started listening last night and will listen to it some more today. Cost me $15. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Being something of a reading snob, I would have suggested getting the real thing-- but I can see why people use the audio versions. And yes. At first it's a little confusing. Later it becomes depressing. Then horrifying. And all worth it. You are not in for a wild ride... but you are in for an enlightening one... Kencolt (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming that Rationalzombie94 has a passing knowledge of the Russian revolution.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I do have knowledge of the Russian Revolution which helps. I am enjoying 1984. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Better off reading Sinclair Lewis' It Couldn't Happen Here, to be honest. It's far more prescient and on the button. And give Antonio Tabucchi's Pereira Maintains a read too. Far too many people forget Portugal's bloody and vicious Fascist state under Salazar.Cardinal Chang (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I am always shocked when the socially conservative talking heads want to reference laws protecting or expanding civil liberty as leading to an "Orwellian" society. Like, a society Orwell would have literally fought for, is that what you mean? Like, did we read the same book? "They want us to question our institutions!" No, motherfucker, we want you to prove your institutions aren't build on bias. "They want us to call everyone by their preferred pronoun," Mother the fuck, why not? "It's a battle for the most oppressed, it's Orwellian!" No, it's a question of the old system, sometimes it's overzealous, but y'all did it too with the KKK.
The fear of fascism is real, and important. In my younger and more vulnerable years, on the point of fascism, I imagined it could be useful in a fight against some disease like cancer, just as an idea not as an endless practice. I was a sweet kid. But it's so impossible to get the right people into power, and harder once you toe a party line. In my younger and more vulnerable years, I almost registered as a non-voter. Like, literally, that's what I thought about registering as, "non-voting party." Then I thought "maybe socialist, but that would probably put me on a black list," so I registered Independent. This was 2005. The Lesser of Two Evils is about mitigating damage, I understand that better now. But my fucking bad to this day, maybe I should have just registered as a non-voter.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Brave New World is also a prescient book. Instead of oppressing us with war and lies, the authorities distract us with pop-cultural ephemera. Avida Dollarsher again 09:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I've always thought the world depicted in brave new world was ok, people being breed for and happy with there position in life. The guy who kills himself at the end, was essentially not part of that society, born outside of it, and could just as easily stayed outside of it. The other two characters who were not happy were sent to life their lives outside of it, to live how they pleased. But this one chap, whose prudishness made him despise the society he willing chose to live right in the middle of. He could have left with the two and got his solitude that he desired, but chose to remain where it was an impossibility. He was not happy either, it be noted, when he was living on the reserve either. He had the option of life he might have been happy with but chose one where he could never have been. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... yeah, pretty much. It can be argued that the "horror" of BNW is entirely a matter of perspective-- we might find it wrong (even if we can't say why it's wrong without resorting to platitudes and ideological appeals) but it works just fine for the vast majority of it's citizens. Even the parts I find most disturbing, the artificial alteration of fetal children in vitro to literally be substandard and almost subhuman works for said substandard subhumans-- they don't know anything different, they're content with their lot, they have all of their (rather simplistic) needs taken care of.
In many ways the society of Brave New World is the socialist/communist ideal taken to a almost parodic extreme-- quite literally "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", with those abilities and needs being precisely and artifically determined by the State. It's not the ideal any of our local socialist posters have in mind (at least, I hope not, personally) but it is the sort of world that can be extrapolated from the concepts without too much difficulty and only a bit of imagination, and it is the future that the Far Right is convinced the Left desires-- well, one of them. (The other is Happy Stalin-land with a dose of North Korea for spice.) It's really the most utopian of dystopias-- if you can even call a world where the vast majority is content, and efforts are made to acommdiate the extremely small minority that aren't, a dystopia. Kencolt (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)



Essentially arguing that it is immoral to bring new life into the world since we cannot control what would happen to it (I think). It puts a negative value to life by arguing that it is better to never have been born, which is debatable and not something you can really argue since I have never "not" been. Plus it seriously implies suicide or advocating people do it as opposed to living. I mean you are essentially arguing that it is better off to never have been born so I don't see how they skirt the charge of being pro-death without major cognitive dissonance/hair splitting.Machina (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've never read anything about anitnatalism, but it is kinda interesting. It has more grounding than Pastafarianism, but it seems like a really dark take. I don't think it's about being pro-death, but there is some merit to the idea that without existence, you don't have to deal with it, and with existence, there is always some level of suffering, even if it could only be closed off to the natural ageing process. Still have to die, cut our teeth, experience pain. It feels like a new coat of paint on eugenics that avoids the tough question of "who gets to reproduce." Nobody gets to reproduce.
I find the argument a little clumsy in its hardcore attachment to empathy. I am an atheist, and some kind of nihilist, totally in for family planning and not calling zygotes babies, and I am totally in on advancing towards a society that mitigates pain as best as possible via medicine, economic, and social structures. But, if you want to boil it down to an argument that says "it hurts a dumbass little baby when their teeth come in" and "it's difficult to die" to an argument like it is morally unjust to allow a dumbass little kid to go through that pain and then grow up just to die, I'm out. Few creatures in this world get a dignified end. There's no requirement that humans should be above that dirty death, other than we are apex predators in our spare time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, in a weird way, it's the hard parts of life that make it worthwhile to live really. I mean if I lived in the ideal society they described I would off myself. It's like being stuck in perma easy mode, I'd rather sell the game.Machina (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That "perma-easy mode" is partly descended from eugenics... Malthusians and the like are not good people. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I took a quick walk and thought about it, the problem is it is airtight, but it's self sealing. At least from my initial take. Suffering is a negative, procreation enables suffering, therefore procreation is a negative. Like, ok, cool, but it's a little silly. I get that you want to attack it on "suffering is negative" but I want to attack it on a causal basis, at least attempt it, just to be a dick I guess. Procreation implies suffering, it does not cause suffering, just as genetics implies suffering and does not cause suffering, and just as GrammarCommie pointed out, to be born into a population or society that causes UNDUE suffering does not equate to some kind of negative gain, or buildup of cost via procreation. Again, I am still so very pro choice, and I think a lot of problems could be solved with better reproductive health practices. This, however, doesn't need to be justified as "it would be better to never be born." Like, yes, I can't quite figure out where the exhaust port on this death star is. because that's not how philosophy works, there might not be one, and it might just be my own nostalgia for literally existing that makes Antinatalism uncomfortable for me, but I really think it relies on the concept that EXISTENCE is something so special that it might be better to not have it. And I think that's a little much, human existence fucking sucks as a property, but just because we can perceive, remember, and communicate how much it sucks doesn't mean we should exclude ourselves from it, and it doesn't mean that birth of humans perpetuates UNDUE suffering only as humans can perceive it, and it doesn't mean that human perceived suffering is even something special or important or something to big picture cancel the next generation over. Like I said, I haven't read on it, so maybe this is a bad take. But I think it's predicated on a specific type of suffering holding a specific type of importance, and I think it's holding that importance in such high regard that it's eating itself as an argument. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It is becoming morally ambiguous to have children with global warming coming especially if the world will be on fire soon. Ambiguous through multiple moral/ethical systems. ShabiDOO 08:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'd like to spell out the position of Malthusians and a number of anti-natalist groups. As a rule of thumb they don't want all people to stop breeding. They (especially the Malthusians) want non-white people to stop breeding. Again, I point out the rather dirty origins of this idea. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Machina. Taking the moral position that it would be better for all higher life to be exterminated seems more extreme than the plans the Nazis had. Funny how the way one presents a bad idea strongly affects the way we respond to it. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/lTMu7SRaHHQ I found a video that is in a similar vein that argues for the ending of wild animal suffering. Sort of implying that being pro life is pro suffering and that you don’t care about the suffering of animals. Like...what care about human suffering but not animal suffering?Machina (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty true that for some species of animals life is really shitty. Some small animals live nerve racking terrifying lives never relaxed for a second. Others spend their whole lives frantically trying to eat. Almost every animal meets and ugly and usually painful death. A broken bone means a truly awful agony until eventually getting eaten alive. Nature is very cruel and there seems to be few moments of peace or content in the wild. I'm not sure humans had much of that until recently either. And even then...only us privileged ones. So should we drop a bio-bomb and kill out all animals to end their suffering? That would also seal our own fate which is perhaps what some anti-natilists want? ShabiDOO 23:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean...I don't think it's our call to make. It just sounds like we are trying to force our reality onto everything else around us.Machina (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

12 Monkeys is an interesting take on bio-terrorism, time travel, psychology, and who a power structure would actually send back in time if the process was messy and dangerous. Basically, the idea is some pro-nature bio-terrorists released a human contagion so that the earth could revert to a natural state. The people in charge figure out time travel and criminalize something, and that's where our sci-fi story begins. They have kept Bruce Willis in a cage and tell him he's going back in time and they will get him later so he'd better complete his mission before they get him, and he needs a biological sample. He winds up in a mental institution with Brad Pitt. I mean, it's messy, it's a good movie, Brad Pitt gives a good performance if I remember right. I don't mean to use 90's cinema to decry a philosophical stance, the movie absolutely had more things to say about human survival in a sci-fi dystopia than simply "let's kill all humans is bad," but that's the big bad and I haven't watched it in the last decade. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
God I love your 5% relevant digressions Gol Sarnitt. They are usually entertaining and sometimes have info I've never even fathomed before. ShabiDOO 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know Machina. If you can across a deer in the forest (abandoned by all other deer) that has been terribly wounded, bound to spend the next day (or several days) in agony, terror, nerve-wracking struggle, hunger, dehydration and eventually being eaten alive...an overwhelming number of people through just about every moral system I know...would agree it's entirely reasonable to help end the animal's horror fest. ShabiDOO 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
So here I go speaking out of turn again, you really shouldn't encourage my digressions, it only makes me blush. I was living in a run down duplex, roommates had a rescue dog, Cool Dave, that was neurotic beyond belief. One night, I turned down plans because I had just got a hold of Tekken 6 and I wasn't about to slow down on it, it was party every night, I could miss one. We had a mouse infestation (regularly), and had told the landlord about it, so he gave us poison traps. At some point, Cool Dave went bouncing into kitchen, and I was like "That is very weird walk for Cool Dave" so I followed him. There was a mouse, just, kicking its back legs, spinning in circles. I shooed Cool Dave, got a washcloth and soaked it with hot water, picked the mouse up with it, twisted its neck as hard as I could, put it in the trash, and then took the trash out. That was the first time I shouted out loud "I TOOK A LIFE. But they will make more." Took out the poison traps. For a couple years after, any time I found a mouse in a trap or swatted a fly, I called out "I took a life!" The guilt versus the practicality, if I had been away at that party or if I had just let that mouse die slower from poison, what would the overall difference be? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, I read "A Day No Pigs Would Die" like, forever ago, I asked everyone at work if they'd read it. I'll try to read that one again soon. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Another interesting perspective on the matter involving an AI super intelligence: https://www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baanMachina (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone[edit]

I am semi-new here (had a couple of previous accounts that never really did much). While I do have some vague experience editing wikis and I’ve lurked enough to have a general idea of who’s who, I guess I would just like to introduce myself properly and maybe say hi to people, possibly get a little guidance editing the wiki? I have an interest in politics (esp. the politics of totalitarianism), drugs (as you can probably tell from my name lmoa), music (rn big into Shpongle, Peter Gabriel, post-metal, vapourwave, noise, etc),, Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure, and fuckin Dune by Frank Herbert (best book series ever written holy shit). If anyone would like to discuss these things with me or w/e I’d love to do so. Hell, if anyone’s interested in experimental/ambient/noise/psychedelic shit or whatever, I’d even be happy to share my own music, and I’d LOVE to hear any music you’ll might’ve written or released. Also, please apologise for my rambling writing style, I do not always write like this — just excited and intoxicated. Anyway!!! Glad to meet you’ll and yeah. Meth Right’s Activist (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh also, I haven’t designed a proper wiki signature for years — last time I tried, it all fell apart bc I think something in the code or whatever has changed since 2014??? Anyway, if anyone would like to help me make a cool-ass sig, I’d be eternally grateful. Meth Right’s Activist (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RW top pages by traffic in Google[edit]

If anyone is interested, these are the top 30 pages by search traffic in google globally, according to AHREFS. Traffic is monthly. Please note this excludes direct URL traffic so it’s just through google. Pos = position in google for that keyword. AHREFS is pretty accurate hence it costs so much.

This could mean some of these pages are worth checking for improvement considering they drive almost 10% of all RW search engine traffic. If anyone wants me to export a bigger data sheet I think I can do that. Ofc most RW traffic is split over thousands of pages but it is funny how certain individuals garner so much traffic since the pages are created early, and other sites don’t compete too much on their names as search terms. —Debunky (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The really interesting part of this is not the popularity of the pages but the "value" column that shows you which keywords are actively promoted by some right wing noise machine and which ones are mostly natural internet buzz. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
And seeing that those with the biggest values are Crowder, PJW, The Farms & Chen proves that the haters are indeed obsessed with us. Same for the Daily Express (angry readers who don't like it that their newsoutlet gets criticized) & Free Republic (the woke ones). Any normal person wouldn't do something that they hate (in this case, revisit a site that they despise). Gunther8787 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Nah, that's because people pay an assload of money for SEO of those names in general. Not specifically with respect to rationalwiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
^Exactly. The value column shows how much it would cost to get equivalent to the traffic RationalWiki gets for that term, and it only costs that much because others are bidding for those keywords. As you can see, stonetoss doesn't run ads but a lot of YouTube commentators (or their employers) do. This also helps them divert traffic away from any negative google results and towards their own websites. --Debunky (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rocking Robotics[edit]

Oxyaena Harass 14:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"Aerodynamite" is also pretty good. Gunther8787 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I have the same problem with loops/beats heavy music as I do with modern pop. It's not that it isn't clever or good, it's that you're listening to a song based on a single beat or hook or chorus and the bridge mixes you up a little, but otherwise it's little less than an ear-worm. I will wake up, get in the shower, and sing songs I don't even like or haven't thought about in years, just because that's what's hitting me while I'm trying to shake off that dream-brain. Daft Punk pioneered a good feeling club sound with less intensity than Skrillex and dubstep, but now EDM is kinda eponymous with "basic." I think Daft Punk is pioneering, but definitely not the first in loops. I had this song hit my brain today at work
I don't like it, personally. It can be done well, Robyn does it like a pro. But it's club fare, which isn't wrong, music is meant as entertainment, but Daft Punk is very good at capturing Euro Club. Just, for me, bleh, and club beat gave rise to EDM and chorus centric pop, which is wrecking the idea of rap, but I'm old. I can ruin anything fun. For what it's worth, that Robyn song was actually factually running through my head today. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
How old? Like, "get-off-my-lawn" old? Also, you can always go a bit harder and less mainstream. Those songs tends to have less loops/repetitive beats in a short term. Freeform would be a good example for this (FINRG in Finland):
Or some stuff produced in Germany:
Gunther8787 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This is how I remember "techno" prior to Daft Punk, when the Tool/Nine Inch Nails crowd had their little schism, and all the techno kids dove into Nine Inch Nails and buckles/straps on their big giant pants that could fit anybody and mesh was really cool, and then Tool turned into A Perfect Circle, and that wasn't anything good or exciting but it sold, so there is a really weird group today that will buy Tool merch even if Maynard James evolved from it, but Resnor's industrial got absolutely swallowed by EDM. I dunno, it was odd, I am old. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Epoch Times[edit]

Today, received The Epoch Times, a "newspaper" that suggests coronavirus should be called the "CCP virus" and questions whether the virus could have been created as a bioweapon by the Chinese military.Cms13ca (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on them. Short version? Cultists. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)