RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive361

This is an archive page, last updated 18 June 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>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

The fear that is put into protest

I watched the video of George Floyd. I watched the other angle.

I intend only to describe what happened, from my point of view. I don't care who riots or counters riot or whatever, I have a single read, and it's what I've seen. So here goes.

A man was detained in a prone position. There were enough officers there to detain the suspect, however one officer was sufficient. The officer used normal maneuvers to restrain a non-compliant suspect. The other officers were necessary to keep the area clear. The suspect died of heart failure, no evidence of trauma Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a fucking execution, I don't have time to dance around it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can dance myself into any to say Fuck you. Goof on it, the world is getting bad. 06:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

so which is it? is it normal maneuvers to restrain a non-compliant suspect or is it and execution?

also I want to see what users here think about the ethical status of rioting and looting in this situation. Oxyaena is def going to be all "burn the state" but some of you other people might have different positions.

I think the rioting is wondrous personally, though I must admit concepts like "ethics" rarely hold dominant sway over my thought process...-Flandres (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Looting? No. Destroying public property? No. Burning down a police station? No. I don't think it's acceptable outside of, perhaps, and its a big perhaps, civil collapse (which is hardly the case in America...yet). If you condone that kind of violence then you don't have much of a moral framework to condemn the police violence. Do you? The violence, while understandable, shouldn't be condoned. But the choke-hold was murder. I know police officers from other countries (Canada and Spain) who unambiguously call it murder. And yet there is silence from American police unions and chiefs. Police forces in Western Europe go about their days dealing with crime (in some cities terrible violent crime) without murdering unarmed people (and yes they can be armed). The rare time it does happen the officer is inevitably charged and prosecuted. Their police corpse don't defend them. The code of silence doesn't work in these cases. It does in most American police forces. They act as though their tough job warrants occasional aggressive psychological warfare and brutality. And yet, its usually (if ever) not necessary. There's a reason why the police are respected in many countries and despised and called pigs in others. And that comes down to the police forces, their inability to evolve, adapt, recognize change is needed. And part of it comes from the fact that some citizens have no problem with harsh police tactics (as long as they never get caught up in it). And then there is race. You're blind if you don't think race changes everything. So yeah 1) This was murder. You're a sociopath if you think otherwise. 2) The overly-violent part of the protests is not cool. You're on terrible ethical ground if you think otherwise. And a bonus: it is extremely likely he was in the position that he was because he was African-American. You're a fool if you dismiss that. ShabiDOO 08:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

its not simply police violence at issue here, though as a symptom of bigger issue its an egregiously ugly one. black americans suffer from the violence of an economic and legal system that seems designed to oppress them while denying them justice and to rights taken for granted for white America. police violence is the natural result of body for whom upholding the law means enforcing the systemic racism that sees black American disproportionately more criminalised, imprisoned, and disadvantaged in every area used to indicate success - income, education, health etc, and where not actively oppressed, wholly neglected. if not for the proliferation of mobile phones able to catch some of these police murders on camera, its likely many of us would still be ignorant of any injustice at all. police murders are likely to have been going unreported for years. 'do the right thing' came out in 1989 and depicts the exact same incident as what happened to George Floyd. explosions of impotent rage that these riots seem to be, its only violence that gets our attention but it doesn't fix and only distracts from the issues. and if trump has his way, violence dealt with more punitive violence.

but I am not American. it feels to me that all this is has been getting progressively worse, but looking back it seems like police brutality and racist oppression have always been a feature of American life. are things really regressing? has there actually been some kind of progress? or has the American dream always been a sick lie?

jesus fuck, is there nothing to be hopeful about in the world anymore? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Do you know what caused the riots? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a series of vicious police brutality against African-Americans, in several cases nothing being done about it and/or being condoned and justified by the police/politicians. Over the course of years. People finally expressing their outrage on a national level. I'm fairly shocked it's taken this long to become so violent. That doesn't mean the destruction and crime should be condoned. Understandable perhaps. But it is an extremely unwise president to set that its okay to destroy, loot and burn when one desperately needs laws and policies to change. That's what fierce activism, disruption, peaceful resistance and legal and policy advocacy are for. ShabiDOO 15:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: AMassiveGay. Yes I couldn't agree with you more. I was responding to the two comments by the BON who was defending the police's "choke hold" and taunting users here to glorify the violence. I also pointed out at the end that he completely left out race. How could you possibly engage in this tragedy without the elephant in the room. ShabiDOO 15:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't live in the States so I can't exactly tell, but I'd assume African American activists (like BLM) have been peacefully protesting against police brutality in front of police stations or down on the streets all the time, but they were not getting heard. It takes rioting and national broadcasting to make people to finally debate about this issue. Dogeatsdog (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure Martin Luther King would highly disagree that change need come with violence. He was instrumental in bringing about such change. Much much much bigger change than this. It's fine if a society decides that violence is okay under some circumstances. It's just an extremely extremely extremely dangerous precedent to set. It's up to Americans to decide that...not outsiders like us. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country where that's okay. ShabiDOO 17:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and now that this dangerous precedent is broken, we will assuredly see similar events elsewhere in the future even if Biden wins-hence why I this rioting is wondrous.-Flandres (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

what precedent? America has had riots before. its had race riots before. some pretty fucking deadly ones. its just as likely to blow itself out as it has so many times before. at best it will settle into more peaceful protest, more sustainable, more focused. if not? the national guard are on route. what the fuck do you think is going to happen? what the fuck do you think is going to be achieved? do you think people will suddenly realise racism is bad because target is on fire? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I what I think will happen is that either way the USA will be pushed towards collapse when this is not met with a Federal response that actually improves the life of the black community and the more left wing voters who support these causes(given their age, the next generation of Americans) to lose faith in the Electoral process. The USA dying is all I want right now,Hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The precedent is that the violence is met with a much larger public approval or at least ambivalence. ShabiDOO 17:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

America's had a lot of riots caused by police brutality against minorities (from the Watts Riots in 1965, sparked by a police beating... to the Rodney King riots in 1992, again sparked by a police beating... to now). Not much has changed between them in some ways. Now, I'm seeing a couple of differences with this one, if not huge but enough. The first was the officer that committed the murder is actually being charged this time with full blown murder. The second is a trend -- now that everyone has a recording device in their pocket, more of the "dumb fascist" side of the American police force has been captured over the last decade, which is why this is even a thing -- people can record more of the bullshit. IMHO the response to the police now having more watchmen so far is not encouraging from a police perspective; if anything, American police seem to be growing dumber and more fascist over time. (I don't know whose bright idea it was for someone to arrest a CNN reporter for Reporting While Black, but I expect to see America fall another several notches in our Reporters Without Borders press freedom index next time around, partially as a result.) Generally speaking, the situation in America is that white people trust the cops and minorities do not -- the usual tribalism la-te-das that got someone as dumb as Trump in office etc. are in play here. I don't think this will change that situation at all, frankly, and the only way I see major reform happening is if white people also stop trusting cops. But we'll see... Soundwave106 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Racism is just a constant undergoing current and I'm still astounded this crap is politicized like every other issue and still manages to get people elected. How will these riots pan out for the elections? Is this going to be like Rodney King where nothing really happens, just as how cries for gun control and healthcare are met with callous disregard especially from Republican politicians? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Shabidoo MLK was becoming more radical when he died, and direct action like this is something he approved of. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a chance that something legislative may come of this case. Uniform "use of force" legislation regulating police behavior is necessary. There will always be racism. There need not always be unnecessary police violence.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oxyaena could you provide a source that directly quotes MLK condoning for calling for violence? Even if it were the case (which is pretty surprising) what he achieved was through non-violence. I'm just curious where to draw the line here where violence is permitted. Should illegal-immigrants be permitted to riot, loot and burn down civil buildings to try to end the detention of children? What about trans people fighting police mistreatment, the murder of trans-gendered people and general discriminatory laws against them and general abuse in public? How about Native-Americans? Should they set fire to downtown Chicago in order to fight for their land that the US government contractually owes them but never gave them? I'm simply curious what are the sufficient conditions of oppression to condone violence and destruction in the street in a (supposed) attempt to bring change? ShabiDOO 19:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ [1] When all other tactics fail, violence becomes a necessary tool. It's called the "last resort" for a reason, it's still a resort. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems a lot of the destructive parts of these riots that's being committed is coming from white dudebros (just look at some of the videos about who are starting it), which... concerning and yikes. Very few of the people on my twitter feed who are visibly POC (as in, they use their face as their pfp) seem to condone the torching, and it's mostly white dudebros defending it. I say mostly since it's not universal, but... yeah. Undercover cops escalating are a whole 'nother issue, but there's definite cases of white dudebros doing it as well. Shit like damaging a CNN building is being celebrated by dirtbaggers and disliked by POC protestors, which is just so telling. The only folks that stick up for that shit usually push some form of class reductionism since "CNN is corporate media, they don't get to play victim here" (since one of their reporters got arrested live on-camera whereas another was treated much nicer. One was POC, the other wasn't), whereas several of the POC protestors I've seen aren't happy about it since it means the situation is being pointlessly escalated and giving the cops/Trumpites a reason to hate them (not the property damage or looting itself). Thorny situation to be certain. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The point, which I will explain now, because it is so fucking hard, is there are lots of words to describe things, and words have value. They can muddy what actually happened. I hope we've all seen what actually happened, and the point is, as hard as it is to accept, what we are looking at is really close to an execution. I would call it one, but I don't think words don't matter. Very fucking close though, if you watch it. All the jargon and the qualifying, I did that because that's what's going to happen in court.

I watched a man kill another man. Somehow, there's no value in that statement. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The only relevant quote in that article has MLK explaining the riots, not defending them. Explaining the mindset of the minset of rioters (their last resort). Again, he never condoned it. He ceaselessly quoted that the riots will shock but not be effective. Meanwhile the Martin Luther King research foundation begs to differe as well as every analysis of his later quotes I've read. For example:

""…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.""

Explaining why and how it happens, but he never defends it. I'm unfamiliar with timeline. Their repetition of the word "fetishized" in the article makes me extremely skeptical of this author evoking a fairly post-modern evasive narrative. I tried to see how reliable it is as a source (not re: bias but dependibility) but I cannot find out any outside information about the website. The author isn't an academic or experienced political/historical journalist but a poet and a critic of music. ShabiDOO 08:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I, personally, would own those title, so I'd take ownership of the criticism. I wouldn't say social issu4s are invalidated by the lame usage of incendiary tactics, fuck me here comes proper language, the things by which we identify, rather than defining us, speak to our needs and wants. shit, that is vague. Isn't that the issue? The words become so vague the idea is lost? Speaking as an armature poet and armchair critic of music. I recently saw "armchair" used in place of "armature" and I love it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth taking a listen to

Jocko podcast with Gary Sinese. Humbling . ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:24c7:c6a2:8d03:b45a / talk / contribs}

In Minneapolis at least

the vandalism was started by an undercover cop who's been identified. Most of the protests are peaceful. In Fort Wayne the protesters were peaceful, but they got tear gassed by pigs anyways. There's a full on pig riot in NYC. The problem isn't the "rioters," it's the system. Get your heads out of your asses. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but systemic problems call for systemic protests not throwing fireworks at cops (I mean why not break courtroom glass). I sympathize with the rioting though, just that I don't want people that weren't directly involved with murdering get hurt either. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Riots and revolutions rarely achieve their aims. Burning down businesses will impoverish the local community.AndreyL (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I know that in Flint, Lansing and Detroit the protests there have not gotten violent (last time I checked). Sad to see that chaos is brewing. I am reminded of the Los Angeles Race Riots from high school history class. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oxyaena could you give us your source on the undercover police starting the vandalism? ShabiDOO 19:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 This isn't that. Trust me, we are nowhere near L.A. Riot levels yet. @Shabidoo Oxy is repeated an unconfirmed report based off a suspicious figure earlier on in the riots. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena For the record, the Minneapolis protests did indeed turn into riots. Justified riots, given the cops reportedly shot tear gas into crowds of unarmed, peaceful, protesters, but riots nonetheless. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Unconfirmed". I hope you don't get accused of cop apologia for suggesting that.

I'm worried it'll be like LA Riot levels where people got robbed and hurt (hell Korean shopkeepers got armed and this is somehow encouraged in social media to own guns? Really?) and this directly affected my parents to get the hell out of Downey. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's "suspicious" in some ways. The main thing we know right now is a white man dressed all in black with a mask smashed an Autozone next to a police station when things were relatively peaceful. Not confirmed, but a little shady. There is indeed also strong suspicion among government officials though that most of the people causing the violence are indeed "outsiders". White supremacists and lefty anarchists are being blamed but at this point I think there's a lot of shit-talking based on established prejudice, we'll see what happens after the dust clears. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Those reports are semi-inaccurate, quite a lot of it is by tired and pissed off locals. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 I think we can safely say, based on the current evidence, that whoever that guy is, he's a troublemaker and a provocateur. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well educated societies with strong families and a strong work ethic produce good leaders. Riots are rooted in poor leadership. Well-trained police with good management typically don't have serious police brutality problems.

Societies that produce good leaders typically don't riot if some bad apple police pop up from time to time and are the exception. Rioting is a sign that a society is dysfunctional. An exception is revolutions due to oppressive foreign occupiers.AndreyL (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is grossly inaccurate. There are two major types of riots. Protests that turn violent and extrajudicial mobs. Both result from reactions to systemic problems within a given society. The competency of the leadership is largely irrelevant. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the jobs of leaders is to deal with systemic problems. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, my apologies. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Which, by default of being the leaders of a corrupt and failing system in the first place, they do piss poor jobs at dealing with. Your knowledge of basic politics is atrociously naive. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

AndreyL's comment seems relelvant here. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, people over twitter and all are discussing too much about riots, much more attention should be dedicated to what part of system should be changed, you know the specific goal. Dogeatsdog (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

What would Enoch say? Anna Livia (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think these riots are more of a signal and symbol than anything. I'm hoping that'll be a signal for a more left-wing era that tries its best to address the failings of the past presidents to deal with festering problems. Right now, the riots won't do jack anything. Heck, as long as Republicans remain in power, nothing will be changed. They're the ones that often stall or even rollback on the most important issues such as worker protections, healthcare, student loan crisis, the housing crisis, the climate change crisis, income inequality, police brutality, gun control. They're the ones that limit our actual solutions to these problems by shoving the Overton window where something sensible is seen as radical left-wing. We have to get them off the debate bank, remove their putrid ideas that are taking up space in the discourse, and this should be a priority. People need to vote Republicans out, deprive them of their power until the Republicans clean up their act and emerge as a more moderate party. But how is THAT going to change, I don't know, but getting them out of office is still a choice, and has been a choice I've been pleading for since George W. Bush screwed up everything and seemed to have tainted the Republican brand. But even Reagan was really bad too, but I wasn't alive to witness the disaster of his making, only that he deregulated banks and created an infrastructure that eased into a collapse, the Great Recession. Something Trump is repeating today with his tax cuts and more deregulation. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How, exactly, is this new left wing era to come about? The republicans had the whole primary process this year to demonstrate if a large mass of them think their party should go to the center and they laughed it off. Even now, they blame his flaws on others or try to deny them entirely, and if Biden wins they will just say he stole the election with the help of illegals or something. Speaking of Biden, he is not exactly the next FDR. Furthermore the Republicans regrew from the catastrophic bush 43 administration in, like, two years.-Flandres (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the problem, the voter base is too ignorant and complacent to realize that "the other party", the "alternate choice if you don't like the Democrats", the Republicans have moved really far off but people don't realize they've actually been pretty far off since the Goldwater days honestly. The idiotic "this is socialism" talking point is still here since like the 80s because it works. I don't know when it'll lose its power. The Republicans have rigged their voter base, too, though, keep that in mind. And they've successfully politicized basic decency at this point. Biden not being like the next FDR is why my support of him is very tepid and I'm still not considering to vote for him at all. How is a riot going to help any of these long-term deeply embedded problems? I don't think the point of a riot is to effect change but, again, they're a signal, hopefully to future politicians that are similar to Bernie Sanders, that neoliberalism and conservatism are abject failures. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Short term one of the basic shifts I'm seeing is that some moderate conservatives are starting to tepidly drift into voting Democrat. In other words, the type of voter that was "Never Trump" in the 2016 primaries (often the suburban type of voter firmly in Reagan's grasp in the 1980s) has finally given up, and some of them are starting to tepidly vote for Democrats because its better than Trump Republicanism. This is one of the advantages electorally of a Biden over a Sanders (the other is catching the Boomer senior citizens a little more), with partisanship so strong in this country this can be overstated, but the suburban voter is generally thought to have carried the Democrats in 2018. Personally, I think though that left-leaning politics will overall increase as the Boomers move on. The millennial generation on back in the US has a leftward lean, particularly *huge* among women. From my perspective, even Biden, should he win, is at least being pressured leftward by enough people that he'll be a little to the left of Clinton (as the current Democrat coalition is a strain between progressives and centrists, I expect fun should the Democrats actually take all chambers, but at least some shit will get done). More will probably come... "a week in politics is a long time" and things can change, but sheesh, Pew found among millennial women there was a 47 point Democratic advantage in 2017. That's huge. Boomer politicians these days are hanging on for way longer than necessary, but in ten years (when many millennials will be in their 40s and 50s) I can't help but think that the political power can't help but skew in their direction, and from what I see, that direction is more leftward. Soundwave106 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As a mid20s woman, that I'm not alone in that millenial demographic pleases me..--It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

So...what happens to these "Moderate Conservatives"(lmfao!) when Trump is no longer at the top of the ticket and 2 years of Biden has us focused on other problems? I just want you to consider more than a few of these seats won in 2018 might flip in 2022, soundwave.-Flandres (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. If the Democrats actually take power in 2020 the odds are pretty good that some seats will flip in 2022. American politics seems to like to ping-pong. This is more kind of the "long view", and more armchair speculation based on current polls. It's not like nationalist Trumptards are going to go away completely, of course. In the past I would say the type of person I'm framing as a "moderate conservative" is a very American view of "moderate" -- a commentator like David Frum or Andrew Sullivan would have been flat out Conservative with a capital C in Europe / Canada, but they are more the "moderate" side of conservatism over here -- actually, in the case of Andrew Sullivan he is so old-school British Tory that he is seen by many Americans as liberal. However, re-imagining fascism / nationalism has become quite the thing in Europe, too (see: Brexit, National Front, Vox, AfD, Northern League, Fidesz, etc.), so I'm not sure that's quite the case anymore. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

its probably not especially useful when considering the disparities of the various political systems and of the differing histories of far right, fascism, and nationalism in each of the countries these parties exist in, to lump them together with the broadest of terms obscure significant differences. Europe is not one homogenous whole. its makes even less sense to include Brexit in that group. that has its supporters and critics from across the political spectrum, as does Euroscepticism and across Europe too. it doesn't make sense to compare anything from the uk right now. fuck knows what left or right will look like in a years time over here. fuck knows what the uk will look like. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a refutation page dedicated to debunking Autism woo and pseudoscience?

I think that it could be a good idea personally. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We do have an article specifically about Autism Speaks; not sure if it exhausts the subject. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

what are you looking for that isn't included on the Autism page or cannot be added? is a long exhaustive list necessary, if that's what you are after? I know we do like a good list here at rw, are they really necessary? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Just does not seem to go into through detail. Having a hard time explaining. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Write a draft and show it off, that ought to help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the word for when you're given unrealistic goals for proving something?

For context. Apparently CNN asked if Russia had something to do with the riots and it kinda blew up in the Twittersphere.

Anyway, One guy claims that anyone blaming Russia would have to name someone and provide a document clearly detailing the plan. How could anyone even get either of these? It kinda reminds me of the "Were you there?" argument in creationism debates.--DoomTay (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

bad faith And argument can't rest on an unfalsifiable claim. An argument is not a point, and isn't the crux of conversation. But it happens, yea? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Non-sequitur is another look, I mean, the problem here is we're intending to prove something. Any tool used to "prove" something is hard to use, which one you using? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As presented, that’s fairly reasonable. CNN apparently didn’t present any evidence when asking the question, so supporting the claim would require evidence of some kind. Something like an agent provocateur being identified or official documentation of a plan would actually be strong evidence of such a thing being done. In the absence of such evidence, why entertain the notion at all? And that looks like an OR operator rather than AND, since either would be evidence of Russian involvement on its own. And this isn’t math. News doesn’t get proven. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Libs are gonna lib. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If someone is making a claim that something is true then the person making the claim has to provide the evidence. If they cannot provide the evidence then the claim can, and should, be dismissed.

The creationist response to the age of the earth: "How do you know? Were you there?" is two questions. The first one is quite valid and can easily be answered in a large number of ways. The second question can also be easily answered as the response is obviously "No". This is not the same class of thing as asking for evidence of an alleged conspiracy. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

what is lacking from doomtay's post is what cnn has actually said. the links provided are for a couple of responses to cnn's asking about possible Russia involvement. what did cnn ask exactly? was it completely, as implied by the tweets, from leftfield and only they are only asking because they think Russia is behind everything, or was there a reason for asking like, some rumour going around, or addressing someones elses claim, or maybe due claims of Russian involvement in a group that is related to the rioting, say blm for example?

all I can find is this which doesn't ask if Russia are involved, but that events are not being orchestrated by nefarious outside influences, and are in fact a genuine response to egregious abuses. Russia is used to as a prime example of the usual suspects being employed to try and characterise protests as being fake, not significant, or the people on the ground are agent provocateurs trying to exploit or create civil unrest where there was none. Russia, apparently have form with similar protests previously, pushing false information to stoke trouble and strife. the article reiterates the protest is real and the protesters are real and we should not pretend otherwise. what can be discerned from this, is that fucknuts on twitter can spread misinformation pretty well on their own if they strip everything of context. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds like the opposite of what that initial tweet claimed. I couldn't find an example of this "CNN asking Russia" thing myself. --DoomTay (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what the internet, or better yet Social Media, is known for since a decade: "spreading misinformation". Some clowns we have pages on do it all the time... Beyond Reality (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

People are most likely to toe what they want to hear

People are most likely t0 say what they want to hear, I'm doi9ng it now, Does that mean what anyone wants to hear is valuable? And does that mean that the words they use have vale? Resident nihilist here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Say what? Jejasas258 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably yes or no.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, I dunno. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pigs firing live rounds now

Major content warning — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Police killing and assaulting civilians is sick, twisted and deplorable. Things are going to shit quick. The peaceful protests in Grand Rapids, Michigan have turned into riots. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Twitter. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario It's an actual video of someone being shot at by a cop with live rounds. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And now the pigs are using child soldiers1!!1!-"Shut up, Brx." 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The first problem with "an actual video" is that whichever side your on, you must be aware of "an actual video" which turned out to be now that it's claimed. Maybe it was that "actual video of evil BLM protestors murdering someone in a wheel chair", which turned out to be Boko Haram in Nigeria doing the murdering. Maybe it was that "actual video of evil police murdering a peaceful BLM protestors in cold blood", which turned out to be some Somalian militia murdering someone, or worse a scene from The Shield.

These examples also show another problem, even if the video is mostly what it claimed to be, there's no guarantee the time frame is right. Maybe it happened 5 years ago, everyone who saw it was rightfully horrified and the people responsible are now in jail for murder or whatever. Some analysis of the content can help e.g. are there any voices heard on the video, any indications of a location or time frame. Clearly any reference to George Floyd would strongly suggest it's recent, or a recent intentional fake.

And "fake" here has to be considered in context. Given current level of technology, it's not realistically possible to completely render a video from nothing without it being obvious that's what it is. But especially in the age of machine learning and deep fakes, you can easily do a lot of fakery.

For example, that video appears to be a screen cap of an Instagram live video. It should hopefully be obvious the Instagram stuff is nearly completely useless in determining anything about the video. Anyone with even a basic level of competence could product a fake "screen cap" of that sort, e.g. you could produce one where people are watching a video of Star Wars and talking about it like it's real. The only use of the Instagram stuff is if you plan to hunt down the people featured and try and work out if they seem to be real people, and then ask them for more details.

But just as important, even stuff in the video needs to be treated with care. Yes we've all seen those Photoshop fails, and editing a video successfully is harder, still people have been able to various editing e.g. modify a sign so it looks like it's saying something fairly different from what it actually said, in a manner which even an expert has difficult detecting the modification especially from a poor quality screen cap; let alone random people viewing it on Twitter. Likewise adding voices etc. Deep fakes and machine learning has made the problem even more acute. And unfortunately there are a lot of bad actors whether Russians state services, MAGA trolls, antifa trolls etc with a fair amount of technical competence and resources.

Now all that being said, I actually have no problem with accepting that this video really is of someone who was shot during a recent protest relating to George Floyd. My concern is "with what". Perhaps I'm weird, but for me when someone screams "pigs firing live rounds now" I'm thinking normal ammunition i.e. the kind explicitly designed to kill. Yet AFAICT, even on Twitter there seems to be consensus that almost definitely wasn't that such a bullet. It was almost definitely a less-lethal round, probably plastic bullet (often called rubber bullets although as I understand it, actual rubber bullets aren't used very often any more) or maybe a bean bag round. And while I'm very far from an expert on bullet rounds (or the sounds of guns) even from my quick look at that video IIRC before I read anything, my conclusion was "this doesn't look like a wound from normal ammunition", so I don't think you even needed to read the Twitter stuff to know that.

By some definitions "live rounds" may include such ammunition, although we should be careful of etymological fallacies here. However as I said, when I read what you wrote, my understanding is you were referring to normal ammunition, and I actual doubt I'm the only one. It would be simple for you to have include a clarification what you were talking about. Don't get me wrong, I agree there is a good debate to be had about the appropriateness of using such rounds, in the context and way it was used. For starters, the term "less-lethal" is preferred for a reason, these can and do kill; and as that video shows can also cause significant injury.

However, I get enough click-bait nonsense in the wider world. If you want to engage in discussion on such issues, don't do click-bait nonsense on RationalWiki. So if you want to debate the use of such less-lethal rounds, make it clear that's what you're talking about rather than just saying "pig firing live rounds". Edit: Realised I completely forgot to mention that another reason why your headline is just weird is it's not like it's major news. I think anyone paying attention is aware that police are using plastic bullets (again often called rubber bullet) and bean bags and other less lethal ammunition against protesters. While again I agree there is good room for debate over such tactics, the way you treated this like some major news or surprise just doesn't make sense.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the same advice I caution about but I got called collectively yelled at for being an apologist. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 09:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I raised an eyebrow when I noticed the lack of journalists interviewing protestors who got shot. Unless it's all part of the conspiracy, right? The pigs, the corporate shills, and the centrists all working together¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!-"Shut up, Brx." 09:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So now the police is firing against people in their own property, and even libertarians on Reddit are voicing against this, while conservatives on twitter are rushing to defend the police actions. Again, I'm very confused, aren't conservatives supposedly the ones who don't want the government or the authority to tell them what to do? (e.g. see their outcry against "plandemic" and lockdown) But now they are completely fine with the police expanding their authority and breaching individual freedom.Dogeatsdog (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

IDK man, conservatives have no coherent values, but be careful about sweeping conservatives apparent hypocrisy because they'll easily turn around and say "liberals say we have to stay indoors and now they're fine with people rioting outdoors?" --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

They do have some amount of coherent values, it's just that one of those values is "we hate everyone who isn't on our team", no matter the reasoning behind it. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a simple thesis statement but if you prod them for actual beliefs behind that, it's far from coherent. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Some people lumped into the binary of "conservative" lean more authoritarian and some people lumped into this lean more libertarian. Radley Balko has been one of the strongest critics of American police militarization for years, and he's definitely on the libertarian side of things -- he wrote policy analysis at Koch's Cato Institute, fer crissakes! Then of course, there are Trump's biggest fans... hell, a black person protesting the police by merely kneeling at a fucking football game is too much for some of these guys. Early onward, the vast majority of Americans, including a plurality of conservatives, were fine with the whole stay indoors thing. This is changing, but still, I doubt too many people would actually compare the protests / riots to the COVID-19 lockdown unless they are deliberately trying to stir the pot and make a shitty comparison. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing like being a beat cop, dressing up in military fatigues riding in an armoured car, all in a small town of 50,000 people to pull off a raid in a barber shop for a guy who didn't pay a hospital bill. Seems like the small-government don't pay a cent for the homeless wasting away in the gutter are happy to give their boys some pointless expensive and counter-productive toys...because...well...tough-on-crime or some other shit. ShabiDOO 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an entirely irrelevant aside. It does my heart good to see young people calling the police 'pigs', because it was relatively common in my day, and we've had twenty years of nonsense about how 'first responders' are all 'heroes' and it has never sat well with me. Really, the worst street gang you can join, although they do a good job at protecting their own. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Dehumanizing a group of people isn't a good thing. Calling cops "heroes" is wrong. So is calling them "pigs". Don't. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 09:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, not a huge fan of the dehumanizing language here either. Pigs is just a shorthand for "it's ok to make fun of them when they get hurt" (which tends to be the conclusion I see a lot from people who push that language). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous

Anyone seeing the stuff being posted by Anonymous? Seriously, this stuff is wild. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A link of a tweet, apparently Now this is a new twist to throw on the conspiracy crowd! I look forward to the Anonymous vs. QAnon steel cage no-holds-barred death-match in the future. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That Twitter account is pseudonymous, not anomymous. The person running would be a “namefag” in the relevant parlance if it were posted to an anonymous site instead of Twitter. As for what anonymous is actually posting, the most recent thing here is this. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You're link leads to a rationalwiki article Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It leads to a diff of an edit made anonymously by a person connecting from 2A02:C7F:187C:9800:4132:7AA9:EB32:483. Doing something anonymously, particularly on the Internet, is all it takes to be “anonymous”. The term became used as a personal name in discussions of such activities because that’s how anonymous posts are attributed on English-language Futaba-style discussion boards. People unfamiliar with that picked up and ran with the idea that “anomymous” was some organized group with leaders or an agenda, producing silly things like this. That Twitter account is just some person trying to cause a fuss, and is not representative of the people who post things anonymously on the Internet. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What about the video that circulated the Internet of a dude in a Guy Fawkes mask declaring war on he Minneapolis PD? Was that legit? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a demonstration is in order. Hold on for a minute while I grab my mask. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is I, Anonymous. You can tell by my name that I speak for the infamous hacker collective, Anonymous. Watch and listen as I present a video patterned after the Chanology ones. You can tell I’m serious because I said expecto patronum. My personal army will be along shortly to wreck up the place. Αnonymous (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The point being that “anonymous” declarations are cheap, and they don’t signify much on their own. They only carry weight if people are convinced to join in the effort as a lot of people were in Project Chanology targeting the Church of Scientology. After that wound down, some groups continued activism in a similar vein on smaller scales for various things, though organizing such activities has long been banned on many of the popular boards. A perennial misconception is that Anonymous has leaders or spokespeople. It just has people who do or say things, and these people may convince some others to follow along for a bit. Any actual functional organizations are just the people in those organizations, and they do not reflect the larger population of people who post anonymously on the Internet, even if they may claim to speak for them. The person behind the recent video may have some support lined up to follow through, but it seems that a point of the video is to convince unaffiliated people to help out as the Chanology videos did. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are the claims that Anonymous took down the Minneapolis PD website accurate? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The website apparently went down, but saying that Anonymous is behind it is kind of like calling something you see in the sky a UFO (it's unidentified, not necessarily an alien spaceship). It was apparently a DDoS attack, and the party or parties responsible haven't claimed responsibility. As such, it was an anonymous action, but there is no indication as yet that the people responsible for the video were involved. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What about the Chicago PD radios being hijacked to play 'Fuck the Police' by NWA? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL, the "Anonymous" Twitter account has been cited by the fuckin' Guardian as being involved with "Anonymous" since 2006. Also cited in Mother Jones and Daily Kos and Slate. So it is "Anonymous", but you are correct in essentially highlighting the problem with a fucking decentralized mob of edgelordy 4chan types -- your mileage and motives will vary. A better example of being a True Anonymous is the Panama Papers hacktivist. Ain't no weird conspiracy theories there. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is currently documenting their outlandish tweets as real accusations. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of raping a 13 year old at a party hosted by Epstein is not news -- frankly, that lawsuit was known during the 2016 election campaign. The Snopes article is a bit better at allowing you to make up your own mind at the probability of truth IMHO. As far as the rest goes, one of the accounts involved in posting this information is *cough* a bit over-obsessed with (as they see it) the "paedo-sadist industry" being the Dune-style "spice" of the "entire global oligarchy", so... Soundwave106 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So do you think the people who posted the video directed at the Minneapolis PD have conducted any significant cyber-attacks? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 and Soundwave106 That Twitter account is now claiming responsibility for hacking and releasing some of Brazilian President Jair Bolosnaro's personal information, and also claiming responsibility for leaking information on China's detainment camps. Is there any way to verify these claims? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The China Cables is not Anonymous's work. A few recent news articles claim that indeed "Anonymous Brasil" doxxed Bolsonaro though. Who knows if that's correct, digital information is (annoyingly) pretty loose these days and doxxing is not a hard thing to do, so it could be anyone for all I know. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I expect that Five Eyes knows what's going on, at least if they bothered to look into it. Tracing someone competent at masking their identity is generally not feasible without serious global network analytics. So conclusive evidence is not likely to be forthcoming unless the people responsible were not competent at masking their identities. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-interventionism + Russia

I find it kinda ironic that some people who are "anti-war" (á la Tulsi Gabbard and Marine Le Pen) happen to side with Russia, a country that loves to invade others. Why not just criticize war without going to the other side of the coin? That would be smart.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 19:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure Le Pen is funded by Russian oligarchs (as are many right wing populists in Europe). I had heard claims that Gabbard was accepting Russia money as well but no sources on that. That probably "influenced" their opinion on Russia a bit. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

its a lot less ironic when you consider it is not a question of a anti-war vs pro-war binary, and that they are not especially anti-war in the first place. anti war is not what springs to mind when mention then name of probably-still-a-facist le pen. you might find it helpful to look beyond our own pages on these people. they are not the best, what with anything useful to be gleaned obscured by piss poor snark AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't trust Tulsi. But my understanding is that a lot of leftists of the Noam Chomsky variety think there's enough criticism of America's current carousel of boogeymen that they don't need to add to the flame, and that saying they agree with the liberals that China or Russia have bad governments would just be repeating the propaganda. They therefore try to save their breath and focus instead on amplifying the less-heard criticisms of America's imperialism or shady military practices & dark operations, which basically don't have a voice on the cable news networks. Itsnotthatsimple (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a separate matter, and I think the answer is much easier summarized as "fucking tankies". A lot of the somewhat lefty-ish spaces (/r/socialism jumps to mind) tend to side with China/North Korea based only on the reason that they're against the United States and claim to be socialistic. I think the Chomsky rule argument is after the fact, because as someone who agrees with that rule in theory, it doesn't preclude you from criticizing a foreign government, it just makes your priorities much more clear. It's easily possible to both condemn the US and condemn foreign states, and if you're confronted about it (which yeah, that will happen because people aren't that good at connecting the fact that your criticism of one doesn't preclude the other), saying that those countries aren't so bad and the US is far worse, even though they factually have poorer human rights records... yeah it's not hard to see why the conclusion tends to be "fucking tankies". Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think Tulsi was funded by Russians, but it's true that people who criticize American foreign policy have a tendency to be sympathetic to other world governments. Meanwhile, tabloid magazines like the National Enquirer keep pushing headlines like "CHINESE AMBASSADOR DEAD IN ISRAEL! MAY HAVE BEEN KILLED BY EITHER CHINA OR MOSSAD!". Thanks to the media, foreign relations are a mess.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

this is all nonsense. there is a hell of a lot to be critical of with us foreign policy. its more than just Syria. it doesn't mean you are uncritically pro Russia or china. nor does support for Russia or china mean unequivocal support. you can like some things the us does and not other things. the same for russia or china. it doesn't even matter if you are for or against something. what matters is what it is you are for or against and why. with the tulsi and le pen examples, taking position of 'you either for us or against us', with criticism of the us being taken as either hypocritical or in the pocket of foreign governments, or unquestioningly ideological is just stupid. what some fringe group might say for what ever reason is irrelevant if its not them being looked at. and oversimplified and broad assumptions on peoples motivations are worse than useless. and the original question was pretty dumb to be begin with.

look at what people are actually saying before you decide why they are saying it, for fucks sake.

and no, us foreign policy is not a mess because of the media. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

>"it's true that people who criticize American foreign policy have a tendency to be sympathetic to other world governments"

Do you have any study to back up the claim that the tendency is "true"? Dogeatsdog (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Snark in political articles is worse than useless. When topics are actually morally ambiguous, the attempt at satire is often disconcerting and affects confidence. If you can afford the time, please do some editing where you think it would help clarify this type of article. I would love to see political articles improve.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I can afford the time, but I not be the best person for such tasks. pointing out what displeases me in the work of others is all I am good for. and I can only do that when I feel like I know something abut the subject, which isn't too often. you are lucky if I can string a sentence together to be honest. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That's total bullshit. I honestly don't know a single European or Canadian who is NOT critical of many elements of US foreign policy nor a single one of them who is sympathetic to China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia or looking for some new world order. Parts of U.S. policy are so excessively grotesque I don't think any rational person would not criticize it. And no you don't need to be a communist, Jihadist, post-modernist or anti-anything to arrive at that conclusion. Naturally governments follow self-interests and some governments push those interests to truly twisted levels, and even that isn't such a surprise, but when the policies don't even align with the countries own interests (and alienate just about every ally you have) then there is something seriously terribly wrong. ShabiDOO 12:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the biggest irony here is Jeh2ow initially mentioned people like Tulsi and Le Pen and then subsequently expanded to lump together all the people critical of U.S. foreign policy. I'm pretty sure Sanders for example doesn't want to be lumped together with Le Pen in any political context. Dogeatsdog (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The Historicity of Religious Figures Taken for Granted

I've been on a theological bent lately and have been reading a lot about religion, especially ancient ones. One thing that surprised me is the lack of reliable records on many supposed founders of major world religions. Aside from the 10 Sikh Gurus(Sikhism started in the 1400s CE) we often have fragmentary evidence at best for the origins of other religions. Most of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are legendary figures, King David seems to have been real based on very limited archeological research. We have a good page on the Jesus myth theory and the page on Mohammed. I personally believe both figures existed but that we really can't say anything with great certainty about either. Actually, I think rationalwiki is a bit overly hostile to the likelihood of a historical Jesus, but thats a different matter.

There are, however, two figures who I'm curious about existing. Siddhattha Gotama(The Buddha) and Zoroaster. The first is said to have lived from about 480 BCE to 400 BCE. The other is believed to have lived from sometime between 1500 and 1000 BCE, an enormous range. I was wondering if anyone has ever actually scrutinized these two with the same level of precision and detail as Jesus. I'm not saying they weren't real, even though it took about 200 years before anyone wrote anything about The Buddha down(longer than Jesus or Mohammed), but is there any evidence of them actually existing? It does seem hard to believe that there isn't some figure at the root of these traditions, but it's also strange they seem so shrouded in mystery.Neo Stalinist (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of these figures live(d) in the fog of ancient history, and in the case of Zoroaster, quite possibly prehistory, since the Persians were still a bunch of nomadic steppe warriors during the latter half of the second millennium BCE. Why is it so troubling to you? — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In terms of Historicity I'd give Quran Mohamed a 90%, scriptural Bhudda a 20%, historical Lao Tzu a 0.1% and Biblical Jesus a freakin 0.000000000000000000001

The extent of non-religious sources on Jesus...at its most generous interpretation...is that some religious trouble making person named Jesus was crucified. Biblical Jesus (the one who made all those sermons, claimed to be king of the Jews, the son of God and all the other conflicting shit written down well after the fact by ideological religion starters. No ..there is t a shred of evidence that Jesus existed. Not one tiny shred. No contemporary corroborating sources. Just dubious unreliable texts written well after by religion starters. Jesus was not an uncommon name. And we have no idea why that guy was crucified. Maybe he accidentally ran over a Rabbi with his cart. Whatever. One of the stupidest most absurd religions ever. Zoroaster I am familiar with the religion but know zero about the sources. Problem with sources are the most avid readers and researchers are also believers. So yeah good luck on that. You'll have to write professors on the topic. Look up researchers on Zoroastrianism. ShabiDOO 21:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism no longer being a major world religion, asking whether or not Zoroaster ever existed is less like asking if Jesus was real and more like asking if Heracles was real. Spud (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

In my readings I chanced upon some people(I think it was the Jesus mythicist Robert M. Price) who very boldly claimed that Hercules could have very well been based on some remarkably strong person. As an aside, Gilgamesh is actually considered a real person by historians who think he was later deified.Neo Stalinist (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"No ..there is t a shred of evidence that Jesus existed. Not one tiny shred. No contemporary corroborating sources. Just dubious unreliable texts written well after by religion starters." Paul of Tarsus knew his brother and the apostle Peter and mentioned them in passing. Some of those mentions occur in his surviving letters, 6 or 7 of which are considered real. There are 6 other forgeries. The Earliest NT Gospel dates to about AD 70. It's not that shocking that the historical Jesus was only remembered via oral tradition for 40 years, as opposed to suddenly being made up.Neo Stalinist (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

that is not a contemporary source. Written by people crafting a religion. Why oh why would people constructing a world view and proto-doctrines ever wanna distort "history"? What could they possibly gain? ShabiDOO 09:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know... here it comes... WERE YOU THERE? Damn, that does feel fucking good, Hovind at least knows how to cash smugness in for dopamine. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There's actually more evidence that Jesus existed compared to someone like, say, Gautama Buddha (Tacitus mentioning Christus when shit-talking Christians is a pretty good one since he likely had no ulterior motive). But exactly *what* he said will never be known. It's clear that any exact details are lost in time to the mythos that was shaped over the next several centuries after Christianity started to become established. That's life back then. The ability to separate The Myth and the reality increases as time moves on and more information (not just information for and of the elite) is recorded. People like to tell stories, so you're still going to get wild tales in modern times, but these days it's easier to "be the party pooper" and fact-check the wild tales, finding out what stuff probably isn't true. That's not possible with the early Christianity stories (the same with a lot of ancient literature to be honest). All you have is the Tall Tales that made it, versus the apocrypha (the Tall Tales that did not) and various little tidbits from other sources of the small amount of writing that actually existed then. Mere nuggets compared to what we have today. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, the thing that modern people really need to get is back then the vast majority of people were barely if at all literate. Reading and writing was a full-on career (scribe) because so few could do it well and it was time-consuming. No computer, no printing press. The extent of most people's education was whatever they picked up from family, those around them, and religious/political leaders. All this stuff was transmitted orally for at least decades before what survives today was written down.`Given that as well as the indifferent attitude people often had towards historical preservation it's kind of a miracle we have as much as we do. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes and no. For some ancient events, we have remarkably contemporary accounts (say, Caesar’s Gallic Wars, for instance, despite that work obviously being his own propaganda account). For others, we know that such accounts once existed, but are now lost or survive only in fragments in other works.

However, since most accounts of religious figures stem from when they became famous later on (with Mohammad a partial exception, since he became a political force during his own life time), the sources on them tend to be particularly poor and suspect.

It’s also not that ancient people were generally haphazard slobs when it came to preserving the past, but more about subsequent huge sociopolitical shifts or catastrophes. Subsequent Moslem rulers tended to care little for the preservation of Byzantine and other Christian history. Subsequent Christian rulers tended to care little for the preservation of Pagan history. Some rulers actively destroyed history as part of solidifying their hold on power and while the accounts of Qin Shi Huang burning prior histories are probably either embellished or mythical, the attitude was not unheard of. Similarly, some pharaohs attempted to remove their predecessors from history in a parallel to what the Romans would later call damnatio memoriae. As for catastrophes, the time consuming task of manually copying texts prior to the invention of printing, meant that copies were often scarce and expensive and the risk of rare works perishing in fires or simply due to “attrition” (the ravages of time, rodents etc.) was very real. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition, there are the various non written sources that historians rely on when reconstructing past events (coinage, pottery and other archaeological finds, various dating techniques, monuments etc.), but these are usually silent about religious figures altogether, at least when it comes to the question of contemporary sources about their lives. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well yeah? I don't see anywhere we're really disagreeing. Caesar was an elite in a society that valued education, including rhetoric, for elites. (He didn't do the actual labor of writing-down; wealthy Romans dictated to their scribes.) I'm an atheist; I was just attempting to give a bit more historical background. The fact that ancient sources are less-available to us than modern ones obviously doesn't mean we therefore have to believe whatever ancient sources say because there must have been other lost sources that more reliably corroborated them, which is what a lot of religious apologists argue implicitly. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to the study of ancient history, you're not really using the scientific method, many of my ancestors are lost to history because they were illiterate nobodies. The lack of any record of them doesn't mean they weren't there. There is no empirical test to falsify their existence. The absence of evidence may not be the evidence of absence regarding historical figures or events. You can however, use bayesian inference to try and ascertain the probability of events or figures. Richard Carrier did this with Jesus in a book he wrote and came to the conclusion that there was a 1/3 to 1/12000 chance he was real. I never read the book and I've heard not every mathematician who read his book was a huge fan, but he at least tried it.Neo Stalinist (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, when you research history, you (should) apply the historical method, which draws on various scientific methods, as well as textual analysis, arguments from analogy and a certain degree of uniformitarianism (e.g. that we have no reason to suspect that historical events were not constrained by similar laws of physics etc. as the present, hence the scepticism about supernatural claims of any kind) in order to make its inferences. While I respect Carrier’s work and agree with his inferences and conclusions, his use of Bayesian statistics has always seemed needlessly arcane and complex to me. In making the inferences themselves, he’s really not doing anything that other historians aren’t doing and presenting his case in the guise of statistics adds little to the veracity of his arguments, but simply present them in a more formulaic manner. One could almost suspect a case of physics envy in this approach... ScepticWombat (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Going to be completely honest here

Anytime I see a cop around I actually fear for my safety. I know that I am considered white but the police have been known to attack people with disabilities. There is plenty of times my Autistic behaviors and mental illness symptoms become obvious. Is it bad that I actually fear for my safety when I see a cop? Considering the police brutality track record I would not be shocked if others with disabilities fear for their safety. There was one case where a cop used a taser on a guy with a severe learning disability (white dude FYI) which traumatized him. There was also the case where two cops beat the shit out of a deaf guy for 45 minutes.

Please understand where I am coming from. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. I have the privilege to pass as white, 5'1 and overall tiny for a woman. That's not going to get cops noticing what I do. I'm not scared of them, just scared I might do something that I don't realize will get them acting up. I'll just do my best to listen what they have to say, even if what they order to me is crazy like stripping off my clothes. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My city set an 8 o'clock curfew to avoid violence. I just got back from a round trip 12 mile hike because I was hoping to score a beer and a sandwich. Everyone was closed. All the gas stations, the Wal-Mart. Everything, lights off doors blocked. Not a bad part of town. I'm not going to claim I was out marching around for a noble reason, breaking curfew to spit at the systemic violence, I wanted one more beer, I will live without it. But I would like to point out, none of these places closed for an untraceable, highly transmissible, potentially deadly virus. America is scared of what? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

They set up an 8 o'clock curfew here too and it's some reactionary nonsense-"Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Where are yall that had curfews tnite? I saw a bunch of major metros (twelve or so?) but I haven't heard about smaller municipalities. (edit) and yes you should absofuckinglutely fear for your safety. Stay safe rats!138.207.198.74 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Like, who thinks the curfew is necessary but the stay at home order is not? I have emergency wine, but damn this is some really obvious racial bullshit. We can't have the blacks just out there angry, what if they break windows? We can't have the consumers stay at home, what if they don't spend enough money? Fucking garbage. A cop killed a man, I had cops slowing down and taking two passes at me, nothing, none of them even stopped to tell me there was a curfew as I was walking towards the hotspot. I found an Alanis Morrissette CD though, that was kinda fun. And I pulled some old Hollister jeans out of the street because people were steering around them with traffic so light. I almost kept the Alanis CD, but I saw it was so scratched up it couldn't play and I knew all the tracks, so I figure leave it, somebody else might look it up, it was cool but it wasn't mine. I left the jeans on the sidewalk hopefully they fit somebody who needs them, the city without people was actually a little fun. No small adventures here, fuck me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've always felt that way instinctively about cops, because there is a kind of coldness to them. And they always have that damn pistol right next to them. How can you really trust someone who has a weapon of death right next to them at all times? Cops have a history of being trigger happy, and even when I get mad I can sometimes push someone. So what if I had a weapon on me, and cop culture was to brag about beating up people to enforce law and order and show them who was boss? I've heard them brag about using inane laws to police people who speak back to them, because they basically enjoy being fascists.

I've felt that instinctive fear a little less when I was in some other countries where the cops aren't armed with guns because the population doesn't have them (then they keep them locked in gun lockers, or in their car trunks or whatever.) I also naively thought that being a foreigner meant they'd have more understanding and be less corrupt because it might cause some kind of trouble. I had thought that if you got jailed wrongly the American embassy would be willing to back me up. I didn't realize that the stories I'd read of interpol were only of them helping out the families of mega-rich people with connections, and that a regular Joe would probably be out of luck. Itsnotthatsimple (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cops are trained to see ordinary Americans as their enemies. We are their enemy. Cops hate us for it, and they will not hesitate to murder us if they feel like they have a reason. Please, all of you, stay away from the cops. They will main you. They will kill you. They will enjoy killing you. They will do it for no reason at all. Because cops are trained to see all of us as subhuman. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 08:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Slightly autistic myself, and also pass for white. Haven't really ever had to fear cops, at least no more than the average "white" person.. When in a new, uncomfortable situation, do you freeze up, or freak out? Because if the former, most cops I've seen are actually very good with those kinds of mental disabilities, but in the case of the latter, well...CoryUsar (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Kind of glad I don't live in the states. Stay safe guys.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Duce: Constructing a "enemy (a profession made of millions of people) based on sweeping generalizations vs us victims" fantasy, especially based on you simply sticking to a conclusion on a viral cop video and firmly staying there when told to be critical of them, is extremely dangerous and simplistic. I don't think your advice is helpful or good nor should anyone be adopting that worldview, as opposed to seeing the problem as complicated, a manifestation of the worst of human nature, an ugly combination of gun culture, violence glorification, propaganda, income inequality, desensitization, capitalism, corrupt politicians, broken laws and philosophy, and rugged individualism. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 09:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a fairly useful one. Pigs are not your friend, they are your enemy. Stay away from them. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah no. I've seen too much Twitter shit that has that capability to sway you but turns out they're lying. I've seen people jeer at bricks being thrown at a cop who suffered a face injury from a brick and then justify violence toward individuals with the "participants of a system" "excuse". I'm not going down that path. If you are going to get robbed, get mugged, get harassed, or otherwise need law enforcement, call the law enforcement. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly hope there is change and reform in the US police. Jesus can they ever seem fucking scary. ShabiDOO 09:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I don't trust them 100% to not shoot me but chances are good that in majority of cases, just listen to them and don't do anything that make them believe you're going to shoot oe hurt them, even if their requests sound ridiculous. In the meantime, the cops can't do anything in this system. We know we can't do anything. We as a society have to answer to police reform but the effective reform has to address guns, income inequality, drug "war", racism, broken window philosophy, and more. Sure, we perhaps should throw out everything and start from scratch but as long as that underlying rotten foundation is there, those problems are going to remain. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Never felt that way about police officers in any developed nation except America. Some American police officers have a tendency to yell and huff and act extremely aggressive. I can see how this scares people. From my perspective, they are acting like untrained, dumb wimps, military wannabes that aren't smart enough to pass the ASVAB. Any police officer that can't handle a fuckin' dog without shooting it really shouldn't be a police officer. But this is America and here we are. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I found them half as bad in Canada. I didn't see much love for them there (though neither are they as despised). Though neither do they want to deal with their racial problems either (think police brutality against indigenous people). I found UK police could be lippy and snarky though not remotely like North America. I was in Ottawa when I was 15, asked a policeman for directions, he asked me to open up my back-pack to see if I had anything criminal inside. No particular reason to ask me. Around the same month I was on a park bench with friends and the police came asking us what trouble making we were up to. These kinds of antagonisms quickly taught me and my friends to avoid the police and not trust them. To consider them looking for trouble. However inconvenient that was, it was nothing compared to Canadians who were in poor areas or marginalized. And however bad it was for them I knew it was SO MUCH worse in the US. It's just such a different world when you are in a country where you actually feel safer having easy-going cops walking around not looking for trouble and trying to avoid arrests or unpleasantness as much as possible. Arrests are considered failures. ShabiDOO 13:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I was flat-out arrested once and was treated the most courteously and professionally I could have possibly been. Yes, cuffed, put in car, booked, mug shot, fingerprinted. This was a Cali university police department, which miiiight have had something to do with it. I am a big extremely white dude and was completely cooperative as well. Not every single U.S. cop is totally bad I guess! Also the few times I've interacted with our moderately-sized-city police (who are actually county sheriff's deputies) for nothing serious they've been fairly pleasant. Obviously nothing in this anecdote refutes that a lot of U.S. police are at least fascism-curious. Just thought I'd tell my story for anyone interested. I was released "on my own recognizance" after booking because it was not a serious crime. First (and only) arrest and I had my wallet with driver's license so they had my identity. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

America, the anarchistic state?

Is this what could maybe happen in the US? I mean, apparently ANTIFA is getting involved aswell and Trump wants to put ANTIFA on a list of terrorist organisations. Riots everywhere (there's a dude from Jacksonville that stabbed a cop in his leg. Then there's a courtroom in Nashville that was put on fire...). Trump and his family fleeing into some sort of protected area in the White House (bit like a bunker or something), Sharpshooters on top of the white house, incase someone would breakthrough (is the White House Far-Right aswell? Before Trump became President, they always said that they didn't want Trump as a President)... Beyond Reality (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond Reality Are you asking about a failed state or an Anarchist "state"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing has happened before (see 1967-1968 for a really notable example). America has a racism problem, to state the obvious, and while some things have changed from 1967-68, a lot has not, as the election of Donald Trump proved. Racial-oriented riots actually are not unusual from a world perspective, though this is more typically the type of shit that happens in developing nations. (You know, the type of nation that Donald Trump ironically calls a shithole...) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Basically If what's currently happening could resulting in, and this might sound silly, people overthrowing the US Government. Apparently, Obama is asking people to stop the violence? Beyond Reality (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is doubtful the the government will be overthrown in this instance, but this will be seen as another link in a long chain of events that leads not to some era of comprehensive reform, but to the destruction of the United States. Give it a few decades.-Flandres (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond Reality That reply didn't really answer my question. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Peaceful civil rights demonstrations help Democrats win white votes. Urban rioting causes more white voters to vote Republican.[2]

Trump was elected 18 months after the Baltimore riots. The wave of urban riots close to November might sweep Trump into office.AndreyL (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did Biden seriously have a chance even before the riots? Dogeatsdog (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd actually put Biden as the mild favorite at this point due to an incredibly consistent +6ish polling over Trump. And I actually don't see this changing much (unlike past times) with the civil unrest. Trump got elected by using race as a bullhorn and it's my feeling that any "I'm not racist but" types who would ordinarily cross over are already firmly in Trump's camp. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the top betting websites Electionbettingodds.com has Donald Trump being a slight favorite to win the 2020 US presidential election.

Trump, who has some authoritarian tendencies, will do what it takes to quell the wave of rioting. He vows to send in the military if he feels it's necessary. He has designated Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. In uncertain times, people like a strong leader.

Richard Nixon used racial rioting to position himself as the law and order candidate and he was reelected in a landslide election. The white voter "silent majority" got Nixon reelected.

Biden might win the national vote in terms of popularity, but it is the battleground states that are going to get Trump reelected.

Trump will win the 2020 election.AndreyL (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden's actually the slight favorite in today's snapshot.

I expect Republicans to try to pull some dirty tricks, but Republican voter tricks actually backfired in Wisconsin.

This is not to say "Biden will win". I view any statement other than "slight favorite" with suspicion. It could go either way. The only certainty is that we live in "interesting times". Soundwave106 (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

trump isn't looking like a strong leader hes looking like someone not in control. hes been making demands through out the pandemic of things he couldn't deliver, with governors of various states flat out telling him no. hes been flapping around almost out of the loop while governors have been calling the shots, desperate to look like hes in charge. he cant designate antifa as a terrorist organisation - he can say it but he cant do it, and vowing to send in the military means little when its uncertain whether he can or not. all this when not hiding in bunker.

polling has biden ahead, while odds has trump on a downward trajectory, biden and trump level pegging virtually, what lead has trump there looking like he will soon be trailing.

not that it really matters right now. elections in November last I heard, and a week is a long time in politics. its a coin toss for president at this stage. it would be under normal circumstances, but now? any one certain of the outcome of anything, let alone the presidential election, in these times must have a time machine. for anyone else its a pure guess right now, and events have yet to run their course, and biden hasn't really started to campaign yet.

America of the 60s is not the same as America today. the America that saw trump elected is not the America today. how much of impact did rioting 18 months before the election actually have? the la riots didn't hurt Clinton and they were a bigger deal and a lot closer to the election. this all might be a distant memory in November.

why even make predictions right now? its coin toss and anything can happen in the run up to november. anyone predict in January we'd be all locked down from a pandemic? anyone here guess there would rioting in the streets 2 weeks ago? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

People vote with their pocketbooks.

Joe Biden is losing the economic argument to Trump as the U.S. economy begins to re-open.[3]

Donald Trump is going to win re-election in 2020 in the amidst of a surging economy. The smart money is predicting it and betting on it. The S&P 500 and and Dow Jones Industrial average are both moving upward. The stock market surged after Trump's election in 2020.AndreyL (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Financial markets have got out of whack with the economy. Something has to give." - The Economist, May 7 2020

there will also be massive unemployment by November, and you are assuming than polling now will not change, or that biden wont address any issues, or that economy will be surging when its not yet even begun to recover. a recovery that's hardly a sure thing especially if there is a second wave of contagion. the stock market is not quite as certain as you are.

the smart money doesn't pretend a gamble is a certainty. and none of it can predict what November will bring. go to the bookie a place a bet if you certain. you might make some cash if it bares fruit. it will still have been taking a punt on what is not by any means a sure thing, with so much still uncertain its still a coin toss.

why even call it now anyway? it doesn't show much political savvy to declare the winner when the election is so far off and so much can happen in the mean time. the smart money is wait and see. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the messages of critical thinking that doesn't get through to people very well is the concept of saying: "I don't know". This should most certainly be the case of making predictions in any volatile atmosphere. I refuse to believe that anyone could possibly call an election months away in any democratic country without a single dominant party. To call the US election now, is to show how little you know about how little you know. It somehow claims some remarkable special information that nobody else could rationally have. In other words you are an intellectual superman. Even if either candidate was polling at 75%, it would be absurd to call the election now. People are blind to the power of small and unpredictable events. COVID and the riots are two prime examples of massive game changers that instantly change everything...and there have been two of those since the last round of people here in the bar already calling the election months away. Then there are the thousands of little factors that all matter that also cumulatively influence the vote swing over time. It can also chip away at a seemingly "forgone conclusion". Only intellectual false-prophets call elections months away. ShabiDOO 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo This is indeed largely a toss up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Missional?

Is it on mission to have a page on this current event? Beyond Reality (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait until the conspiracy theories based on the movie of the events start emerging. Anna Livia (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't do current events very well. This is an example of what happens.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we should implement a tl;dr rule in mainspace. At least break up the big articles into smaller ones-"Shut up, Brx." 15:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This journal calls itself "peer-reviewed and academic" but it is mainly publishing woo

I am talking about the journal of Evolution&Technology. I mean have a look at this paper published in that journal for instance: Forever and Again: Necessary Conditions for “Quantum Immortality” and its Practical Implications.

It manages to combine a very wacky cosmology together with a very wacky epistemology and also all of the following:

Quantum woo, Quantum suicide, science woo and, to some degree, more science woo. (There is more, I just don't have the time to go on here.)

It then concludes with a Pascal's_wager type of argument against suicide... Dahell??

Maybe there should be an article on that Journal too.... --TiltedAtBullshit (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

See Transhumanism. The journal and their sponsoring organization is mentioned there. I'd suggest that you consider adding content to that article before creating a new page just for this publication. Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed journal" was always a bare minimum standard. This is an ongoing ideological war. Any objective standard you can set to demonstrate good faith can and will be faked with enough bad faith. They're almost never going to be faked well, but that puts the onus on the reader to recognize that fact, and propagandists don't want to win over critical thinkers anyway. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If one's peers are also lunatics, it's not much of a peer review. Wikipedia has an interesting paragraph on the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, the journal's parent institute/think tank. It cites intelligent design looney Wesley J. Smith's critique of them, which is approaching a stopped clock moment. Bongolian (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The author of the paper is a known member of LessWrong, and has written a 35000 word paper on explanations of UFOs. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC) This man Turchin is a noted transhumanist and has started a life-logging company named Digital Immortality Now. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Liars for Jesus NASA

I apologize in advance for starting a thread I very likely don't have a lot of time to contribute to.

Anyhoo, I fairly often get into debates roughly like so (I'm the doubter):

"NASA is doing wonderful things.  Did you see the rocket launch?"
"Eh.  I'm not sure what the point of puttering around in near space is."
"It's the first step to exploring the universe.  We can't stay on Earth forever."
"Nowhere else in our solar system is worth colonizing and lifting a big can of hydrocarbons and/or oxygen and hydrogen out of a huge gravity well and then shooting it backwards really hard isn't a first step towards interstellar travel at all.  We should have some sort of plan that involves actual physics first.  It's like perfecting horse nutrition in the hopes of developing high-speed rail."
"Look at all the things NASA has developed."
"All of those are coincidental side results.  If discoveries are the goal, the money would have been better spent directly funding research on, say, materials and weather prediction. Maybe we'd have superconductors and gasoline equivalent batteries by now."
"NASA is the best source of inspiration for our young and upcoming scientists!"

And then I pause. They're not wrong, but it's also an admission that we're feeding the next generation a line of inspirational yet demonstrably effective bullshit. I'm all about utilitarianism. Do I just let it go at this point? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The outer space exploration type stuff is not the only thing NASA does, they have done the bulk of satellite launches over the years (which means things like GPS and weather forecasting bear their imprint) They are involved with projects to, say, preventing a dinosaur-style catastrophe should an asteroid come our way, which are more fantastic but still to a useful end. So the agency is more than just what gets in the press. That being said, stuff like manned space programs generally are done for political reasons and politics tends to rely on demonstrably effective pomp-and-circumstance bullshit, so... Soundwave106 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think endeavors to satiate human curiosity is a good way to make us, well, better people. Material benefit isn't the only thing we gain from space exploration or underwater exploration. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, things like Space travel are.. for lack of a better word... romantic. And by romantic I mean in the classical style, grand adventure, great deeds, heroic endeavors.

Sure, someone can argue that "It would make more sense to focus on a laboratory" and the like, but that doesn't inspire. A great number of the greatest scientists and inventors became that not because of any intellectual motive, but because they looked at things like the exploration of space or the charting of unknown seas, or even the ideas of radio and television, and thought "That's cool." Utilitarianism, simply put, rarely inspires. It's the mad dream of putting a flag on Mars of being the first to explore the wreck of the Titanic that forges those who find unlikely solution to problems that didn't exist, and that solve so many that did-- and do.

Sadly, the other great impetus for innovation and creativity is war. We're really more likely to come up with advances in fuel cells from the need to power a tank than the dreams of Elon Musk. Oh, well, the world isn't a perfect place yet... Kencolt (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX, on the other hand, aims to build a civilization on Mars. Teerthaloke101 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This. I have the feeling that the returns due to "inspiration" alone justify the (not terribly high) cost, though I am willing to be convinced otherwise by evidence. People like impressive-looking things. Anecdote: my mom is nebulously pro-science but not a "nerd" type. She watched the manned Falcon launch of her own accord (meaning, I never brought it up to her) and was going on about how impressive it is and how great that sometimes we can do stuff like that instead of killing each other. So yeah. The original poster mentions doing more direct research funding instead. Why not do that too? We're not going to "run out of money". Look at the U.S. federal budget breakdown for perspective on what the U.S. spends publicly on different things. And Soundwave brought up something very important that few people take seriously. A ~300 m diameter asteroid impact on land would end civilization. Period. One shot, boom, done, ~99% of humans die, we had a nice run. Currently we are utterly helpless against that. Maybe we should do something about that? We're dragging our feet on even getting a telescope up to the Sun-Earth L1 to look for killer rocks, and today even if we found one we'd need years to attempt to do something about it. People don't like to contemplate this so they just ignore it, but the universe doesn't care if we all die. And there's plenty of other potentially-useful space stuff. Space-based solar power would be fantastic if we could get it to feasibility. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if I understand the thread. Space programs are: politically useful to whatever state, inspiring, a way of obtaining knowledge, a way of obtaining new technology either directly or as a consequence of spin-offs, both expensive and profitable depending on how you look at them. So - like everything in life - it's a mixed bag.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I did the bad thing. I was really excited and it got knocked on a point that didn't apply. I complained here. I did the bad thing.

BEING SAID, if you want to drag it to a political point, it's actually really easoy. If you want the next generation to be exited about it, get the people who excited the old generation. I mean, seriously, and honestly, this is fun, I never got to go to astronaut camp, this is FUN. Oh, it's a step too far on the mascot. Space travel cannot be described by actors Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Video Games

While the first BioShock was pro-Christianity, the sequel and Infinite were the exact opposite. Also, the upcoming game, The Last of Us: Part II involves Ellie being involved with a Christian cult. No wonder Conservapedia has a list on the worst liberal games.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Conservapedia has nothing better to do than bitch and complain. They don't like something so they force their views on people. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to report that a certain movie is still on CP's list of 'greatest conservative movies', evidence that CP remains easily (self?)-trolled. Also, there's still apparently a trove of 'unsafe'-for-kids stuff in CP if one is desperate enough to look for it. Not spending much time there, I stumbled upon one example, indicating there are likely many more. Bongolian (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How is BioShock pro-Christianity? Isn't it just satirizing Atlas Shrugged? i.e., here's what a Randian "utopia" would actually be like, also plasmids. FISFULL O' LOITNIN'! Yes I know it's a spiritual successor to System Shock 2. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I remember, the only plot point involving religion in BioShock was that the ruler of the city was executing smugglers for illegally importing Bibles, which were banned. I think that point was more to criticize libertarianism than to say anything about religion. WheelOfCheese (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My attempt at an AMV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buIgbjpCXhk

Did my best and I think it turned out okay. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It's getting what it wants done. It's effective. I'm not a big AMV fan. I'm not going to edit a bunch, but back when I watched AMV, I used to play Wolf Parade's Facny Claps instead of the season 1 Bleach OP If you sync up that video about 10 seconds into the song, and this it's almost prefab, beat for beat with the first two seasons OPs, I am surprised it worked on the second season. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Still, the only three OPs I can get behind Penpals were going for it and and we're all troublesome and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5RVyxFKRCg Jun}. 03:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Some tips: Start with the song. Put text at the end or unobtrusively somewhere while the AMV gets going, not in a separate section tacked on to the beginning. Don’t use subbed video. People familiar with the content will already know what’s going on, and people unfamiliar with it won’t be able to tell from random snippets, and the visual focus should be on the action. Speaking of action, the actual show is not composed for the purpose of an AMV, so you’ll generally need to compile different sections and cut out a lot of stuff in order to produce something with a specific theme or topic. Know what that is before starting the editing. Here’s an example of good editing: https://youtu.be/ChBFFoP-Ijc 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 and the protests

I'm seeing a rise in Coronavirus denialism due to the public protests. What do you guys think? Something I dislike about Covid denialism is that the next time a possibly deadlier disease hits we'll end up with a 'Boy who cried wolf' scenario and paranoid people won't take it seriously. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The US learning the worst possible lesson from history? Why, I've never seen that pattern repeat dozens of times in just the last couple decades. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the denialism, should we expect to see a spike in Covid cases due to the protests/riots? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What lesson did we learn from our financial crisis, 9/11, Katrina, or a multitude of other self-infliced disasters? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You can expect it, but you'll have to wait and see first though. Christ, the States really are a basket case, bad enough the response to a pandemic was, to put it bluntly, fucking pathetic, and the reasons given by the publicly elected official who sought the office (And seems convinced that Anti-Fa is an actual organisation with structural hierarchy and operating under foreign influence) have been beyond parody. And now the twin problems, which aren't exclusive to America, but the blind eye most Yanks turn to it possibly is, of systemic and endemic racism and an ever more militarised police force, have converged into one explosive reaction. These people haven't been heard, haven't been helped, have been pushed down, marginalised, ridiculed and killed, no wonder they have taken to the streets and reacted the way they have. The only problem is unfortunately timing. Why now, why not two or three years back (when Fuckface Von Clownstick claimed the "alt-left" was causing issues in Charlottesville, and the peaceful protest of "taking a knee" was "unpatriotic") Instead, right now, you've got a large section of the country who've had enough and voicing it in the only way they have left, in the middle of a pandemic. The country is fucked. Cardinal Chang (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The US does seem to be at an unfortunate intersection of long-term, medium-term and short-term crises at the moment. But to respond to the question asked, it will be interesting to see what happens to the Covid numbers in five to ten days when any potential infections start to show up.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As an American, I find it sad that the country I was born in, lived in and raised to love is going down the crapper. Police violently suppressing protests, terrible pandemic response that lead to the deaths of over 100,000 people and the worst unemployment crisis in US history. Nice work Trump, what other shit can you do? Declare war on Canada, fire some nukes at the UK, how about invading China? --Racia zombio94 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we add a section on total denialism to our COVID-19 page? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a section on "economy > virus" (which is where Jair Bolsonaro, an outright denialist, was stuffed) and "Lord > virus" (which includes some tasty nuggets of denialists thinking that they could use the Lord as a get-out-of-virus-free card), as some of the insane conspiracy theories like "Virus bioengineered by Bill Gates for population control etc.". So there's a lot covered, but if there are any other major categories, perhaps they could be included. For instance I'm going to suspect anti-vaccine conspiracy theories are going to run wild later, should a COVID-19 vaccine be available (40% of Republicans aren't planning on getting one with "don't trust vaccines" being the #1 reason of not getting one). Perhaps enough to warrant its own category for all I know. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What I don't understand about total denialists is what they think the motive is. Fake a pandemic, crash the global economy, for.. what exactly? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So they can force socialism/Globalist doctrine down our god fearing throats, obviously! Conspiracy theorists and right wingers have been saying disasters are caused by the left so they can exploit the ensuing chaos as long as I have been alive, even as they do the exact same thing. And you have seen Medicare for All and the Green New Deal rise in support around now so they can just "make the connection," knowing their target audience will not actually give this a deep look because it confirms their own preconceived notions.-Flandres (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Overall, how will the public protests effect the number of COVID-19 cases? The people protesting seem to have completely forgotten about social distancing, and unpunished public congreation of this type is fueling total denialism. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That will be exceptionally difficult to quantify. Remember, a lot of these people who are protesting come from backgrounds which do not give them enough money to be tested, so even if they die of COVID, well, corpses are not tested so we won't know. In fact, I imagine the death toll and case count is a LOT higher than recorded simply because poorer demographics have trouble getting access to already scarce testing supplies.-Flandres (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flandres True. It's just that the frequency and scale of these demonstrations are making people expect a massive boom in cases. Also, the blatant disregard of social distancing by the demonstrators will make it hard for people to believe COVID-19 is a serious threat. It's easy for paranoid people to glance at these public gatherings and convince themselves that the virus was never as bad as people made it out to be. Also, the conspiracy crown might not be able to figure this out, but I think it would be simpler to actually engineer and release a virus then to fake a virus outbreak. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Want some real denialism?

I could not stomach five full minutes of this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0uemkf9c88 (Do Viruses Exist)

So much to debunk in a short period of time. Warning: This video contains an annoying repeat of the same tune, bad grammar, conspiracy theories and zero science. It is 45 minutes long. Watch at your own risk. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I value my sanity and brain cells so I'm going to have to pass on that one. Thanks for the recommendation though. I've seen denialists like that debunked by Professor Stick. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I like Professor Stick, his videos are great! --Racia zombio94 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

True. Not sure how he stays sane while dealing with the kinds of people he does. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A pissed off YouTuber (No not me although does similar content as me)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8UYoYactkE

Watched the video where the YouTuber talks about how Pro-Plague people took one of his EAS scenarios and called it evidence for vaccines being evil. The EAS scenario was about where a poorly tested COVID-19 vaccine makes the virus far more deadly. It is pretty damn obvious that it was a work of fiction but Pro-Plague people do not like reality.

While idiots are at it, why not take a few of the global freeze EAS scenarios and call it proof of global warming being a hoax? Same logic. God people are stupid. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

何にしますか — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you only just now discovered that the majority of this planet is filled with idiots & morons? This is something I already realized since I was 14... Beyond Reality (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I am 14. --Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of military against civilians is point of no return

This is pretty bad. Look I live in a country that until fourty years ago was a dictatorship and I can tell when the military is used against civilians that's it, democracy is dead. You might still have "elections" (though America's elections have been rigged for decades TBH) but your country is no longer democratic.Tuxer (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What effect would Biden winning have on your prediction? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I am just curious.-Flandres (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bonus Army - I hope no one strawmans me as saying "no big deal lol", but, it's hardly the first time in U.S. history. Of course before 1965 the U.S. was effectively a "whites only democracy", which is what a lot of Republicans want to take it back to. "Democracy" doesn't necessarily have to mean "universal suffrage". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The major difference is that Trump is significantly more authoritarian than Hoover and represents a much more authoritarian party, and furthermore most Republicans are okay with this drift.-Flandres (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering Biden's extremely conservative record and that congressional districts are rigged and there's widespread voter suppresion, America can only claim to be at least a liberal oligarchy.Tuxer (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, and thank you for bringing Biden's terrible record up(not enough people are), now what do you think of Biden campaigning to the left lately? I am referring to his "next FDR" pretensions, his claims this pandemic has made more than a return to normalcy desirable, his unity task forces with progressives, that sort of thing. Again, not disagreeing with you, just making sure I have a good grasp of you position.-Flandres (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If things reach the complete point of no return and full scale revolt takes place, I will get my running shoes and flee to Canada. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I will probably join one of the more powerful local factions and take it over from within. Ever since childhood i've been a man of, how shall we say...lofty aspirations, Hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well friends, in America we have always, so far, returned. Fixed elections? That's what the Trumpists all say. Here is one of my favorites from 1965.

https://youtu.be/Ml4yXWIjgGI Ariel31459 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You know, all empires come back from the brink, suffer crises, return more powerful then ever, and then just the right chain of events happens and they just... don't. You are a idealistic imbecile if you believe the USA will just always "come back."-Flandres (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We're getting close to that point. The US has been declining in power since at least the Bush years, and Trump has only accelerated this trend. I'm not going to lie, it may not end well. Stay safe everyone. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Lots of people hope for the best. Try it, it doesn't hurt. I expect the world is going to improve. It has done so for many centuries. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Only if you are a white person. Did all those people in the former African colonies have their lives improve? What about Latin america? the Arab world? Hoping for the best and expecting the world will improve NOW of all times is...breathtakingly stupid.-Flandres (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The other point, which I almost said last night but I couldn't quite get it out. There's a type of person who goes into law enforcement, there's a culture of law enforcement in America. There's a huge confusion between military and duty and gun ownership in America, and you've got these people who, just as rhetoric, think their duty is to keep the peace through militaristic force with a small tear in their eye about what military force means. Listen in on it via the On Point program. There is a reference to black gloves. And I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Is theree a known trope in the law enforcement community that black gloves mean it's time to beat ass? She says she would not allow anyone in those black gloves. But that's a difference between "don't do that now" and "don't do that when this is all blown over." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

as has been pointed out all over the place, the military have been "used against civilians" in the US on numerous occasions in the past - eg here on the BBC, unless you think they are fake news of course! So no, it is not any sort of "point of no return" at all. Aloysius the Gaul 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's just grant you that for now and then point out all of those OTHER things going wrong, like hyper-partisanship meaning the Democrats will need a super majority in the senate to get ANYTHING done, or catastrophic climate change, or the rise in right wing domestic terrorism, or the Pseudo-Fascist radicalization of the Republican party for the foreseeable future. You have a only skin deep understanding of what is going on- the USA is screwed not because of this but because so many maladies are piling on at once and there is no cure for all of them. I have not even come close to naming them all.-Flandres (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There are enough people who think the world will get better. The millions of people across America who have been coming out and peacefully demonstrating, what about them? Do you think they are stupid too? Do you think black men ask for change not believing in their hearts that change is possible? Did you see the videos of the trouble makers get subdued by the protesters? Do you think that is because they have given up on a better America? You may think you are seeing a disintegration of cities. Those folks are out there right now, people of every sort and color, trying to pull it back together. I hope they can do it. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the protesters still have hope in this country, but from what I've seen, most don't. They protest not because they have hope, but because they lost that long ago. Just like they initially rioted because they lost hope. And the worst part of all of this is there still is so much worse we as a nation can sink to. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are projecting GC. People don't go out and peacefully demonstrate when they have no hope. Millions have been demonstrating peacefully. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes ariel, those people are at best, tragically naive in their optimism that the world will get better. This idealism is merely something they hold onto as a comfort so they do not have to come to grips with the fact the world is burning around them. It is sad really, that they earnestly want things to get better, but at best they will only improve for a short time. Most of us just want to live normal and happy lives, and we do not chose to be born in an era of destruction. GrammarCommie's post also makes a good point. People are not dreaming of a better world so much as reaching critical mass and the system will not listen to them no matter what they do. If anything, YOU are the one projecting on the protesters.-Flandres (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Political leaders have played the black against white and urban against rural divides against each other for so long that I despair of them seeing how much they share in their despair. The cities were hollowed out when the owner class decided to move the factories to rural areas, hoping that the people there were docile and trained to be hostile to unions, mostly. Then those rural industries were hollowed out when the owners decided that labor was even cheaper in China, Mexico, Malaysia, and etc. What happened to the one sixty years ago happened to the other thirty years ago. It's all part of one long process. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Flanders

Only if you are a white person. Did all those people in the former African colonies have their lives improve? What about Latin america? the Arab world? —

Yes, overall. Things in Africa are far better today than they were under either colonial or pre-colonial rule. And if you think pre-colonial rule was great, well, I'll bet you're the type who reads King Arthur and says "gee, I wish I could have lived as a peasant in medieval times!". While yes, there's a lot of poverty in Africa, there are a crapton of middle class and rich people there as well, Africa isn't just one endless slum. The same goes for Latin America; it might surprise you to learn that countries such as Mexico are mostly white (the poor Mexicans sneak into the US for work) and many of them actually do have things such as electricity and plumbing, thankyouverymuch. Ditto the Arab world; I strongly recommend you read "The Innocents Abroad" by Mark Twain if you ever want to know what life was like for the Arabs under Ottoman rule, in addition to realizing how after a century and a half, Europe really hasn't changed all that much. CoryUsar (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying they do not have access to modern conveniences, I am pointing out they are still victims of imperialism, and go through a history of have puppet dictatorships foisted upon who then proceeded to engage in mass murder and economic misrule. The benefits of this "Better world" are spread nothing close to equally. Anti-american resentment is widespread for a reason.-Flandres (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

True, but is there some better alternative out there? China and Russia sure aren't going to do a better job. Anecdotally, as a man who works with disabled adults, for all the genuine complaints about how we treat our most vulnerable we do way better than anywhere else; try, for instance, finding autism support in Europe, it's nonexistent. It isn't a perfect world, wont be a perfect world, and we have to just do our best to make it better; a certain Canadian trio once warned about being so full of what is right that you can't see what is good, it helps to remember there's at least some foundation of good there. And to people complaining about the US, if nothing else this country sure has improved; when last I looked, there's no legalized slavery or legalized segregation. Clearly not perfect, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is still in force while Dred Scott isn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Uhhhhh...what's this about non-existant autism support in Europe? The two countries I know of (Belgium and Spain) have special schools for autistic children AND support workers for autistic kids going to regular schools. Belgium in particular accommodates any disability when dealing with the government (bureaucracy or implementation of social programs) and will provide an assistance officer when necessary. In both countries people with severe autism are given a pension by the government for life and even in these cases, with Belgium the government has a part time "volunteering" program so that they can participate in society to some extent (no...not going menial slave-labour). The police are trained to deal with people with various cognitive issues (especially volatile severe ones, hence the relatively low rate of people getting shot by the police for misunderstandings). In both Belgium and Spain I have friends with Autistic kids going to school and they've never voiced frustrations with deficiencies. None of that is to say it's likely sufficient. Funding should always be more generous for everything. But to say it is non-existent is utterly baffling. ShabiDOO 09:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A) I'm sure the victims of Pinochet rest peacefully knowing the the USA has a better human rights record than China.B) No, there will be no better alternative because politics is about power, not helping people. Stronger countries force regimes upon weaker countries and the global community, even Europe, supporting human rights does nothing to change that. Again, my point still stands that life improvements lopsidedly benefit the Western countries. Also, I like your implication black people should be happy being second class citizens who get shot in the streets because it is better than being property-Flandres (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Pinochet is dead so I'm not sure how that's relevant today. And if I wanted to say that I would have, paredolia (thanks to The Big A I have somewhat less of it, with my hyperfocus on detail) strikes again. And yeah, a lot of improvements lopsidedly benefit people; it doesn't meant they're not improvements. I'm quarantining after 1 1/2 months of looking after disabled COVID patients for 16-17+ hour consecutive shifts, and I've neither physically (I haven't gotten COVID, but I'm pretty sure the horrible ear infection I got wouldn't have happened under normal circumstances) nor mentally recovered from that; some of us see something going wrong (i.e. people bailing on a group home en masse when someone is COVID positive) and try to do the best they can to fix society's problems. Others just blame [insert entity here] and never do get to fixing things. The world won't be perfect, you (generic you) still have to work with what's there. Attacking people who did you no wrong is about the worst solution possible, that's the Orangutan-in-Chief's MO. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Because Pinochet was supported by the United States;if you lack basic background knowledge about USA imperialism maybe this is the wrong argument for you. And working with what you have has less relevance when the status quo that we have is on the verge of death.-Flandres (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of American influence in Chile (although people tend to get a little starry-eyed about Allende, much like lots of information about Mossaddegh in Iran conveniently gets left out), and in the rest of the world (overthrowing Arbenz in Guatemala was completely inexcusable, to be sure). I highly doubt anyone is rioting in the streets of the US today because of what the US did in Guatemala or Chile, though. And as to what I've done, I'm just doing the best I can; I'm unwilling to look my clients in the face and tell them to die because I'm too busy with something else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with america because the current president is a Pinochet fanboy who seeks to emulate his policies the USA convinced him to adopt, and those polices are quite unpopular.-Flandres (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh, and the US was never the victim of British imperialism? Just where do you think you got all the cotton and other resources that fed the Industrial Revolution? The US was dirt poor (and kept that way intentionally by the British) until a number of American IP thieves entrepreneurs in New England managed to sneak some power loom designs into the country. CoryUsar (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it was... centuries before the global status quo we are talking about. This should not be that difficult, CorruptUser.-Flandres (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tired, and rather than deal with all your wrong, here, enjoy this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g CoryUsar (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I have not actually been wrong in our exchange(the third world suffers from neocolonialism and is worse off than the west), but I graciously accept your concession of defeat.-Flandres (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Irrespective of anything else, I once won $20 from roommates who bet against my memory and thought I couldn't sing and play the bass to that song. It's the rare song that's much harder to sing than play. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) That's not what I'm disagreeing with you on. The point is that the Third World is improving, and Billy Joel is there to rebut any claims about how things are worse than ever.

(Blade)Isn't each section for the bass just 2 notes per bar? I've sung that song a couple of times in Karaoke, it's not that hard considering that it's not really sung, you just have to keep up with the fast-paced lyrics, sort of like rap. Planning on singing Butthole Surfers' Pepper once I can go to Karaoke again, that looks like it's even easier for a guy like me who has a terrible singing voice. CoryUsar (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, Climate Change threatening the biosphere seems a pretty good "worse than ever" mark, especially when few countries are actually taking appropriate action to mitigate it, according to the IPCC, which is a bit of a authority on the matter.-Flandres (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A fine point (in both fronts) and fine song selection. And the main issue with the bass is that the verses are mostly slapping, and when you're playing a 5-string and primarily focused on spitting out the lyrics it's easy to accidentally hit one string lower than you mean to and throw everything off. The words aren't so bad once you get them down, it's memorizing them that's the trick; the method of loci that the ancient Greeks and Romans described proved quite useful for it. But even though my idol is Geddy Lee, my voice is more Peter Steele or David Draiman so getting his tone down was a chore. Still worth it, I'll take $20 from anyone willing to give it! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

is the world getting worse? some parts are I guess. depending on the metric. I wouldn't generalise to the whole world is getting worse. my neck of the wood seems to be. or will be once we can see what the world looks like after coronavirus. my country was getting worse before the pandemic, with Brexit and all. but its not the worst its ever been. it a decline from a previous high point. else where in the world might be doing great. relatively. I fear the worst because im a glass half empty type of guy. but in truth, its not so much the world collapsing into chaos, its just a reordering of the world and its not certain where it will take us and who will be the winners or losers, or even who the players are. I have no idea what the world will look like next year. or even my part of it. and this lockdown has me going properly mental. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually think a fair bit of Asia has improved over the last couple decades, to be honest. Although of course there are problems - there always will be. Most people are pessimists by nature, this makes it more striking how optimistic China was about the future in a 2016 Yougov poll. But I personally thought Malaysia 2018 was a fair bit nicer than Malaysia 2005, the poll notwithstanding. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a big issue, and that the hope doesn't work to make it better. There are a lot of people who want to say "We hear it," but the problem is, things aren't getting better. So, as I've always said, if you're treated as and assumed as a criminal whether you are breaking the law or not, what is the difference? And when police pick and choose who is the criminal and how to escalate or de-escalate a situation. I think it's really disingenuous to listen to well educated white people saying "it's harming their community." It's not. The problem is, there's this weird mix of people, mostly really pretty young people, who don't know the difference. Breaking windows in the business districts is not harming their own communities, either way, and sometimes people live in those districts, so it's not a tactful move either.

Being said, I fully understand that anger can get to a point by which any means by anyone for any reason with any justification is the only thing that looks like a way forward. So, agreeing on the justification that people should be angry, but disagreeing on the means, we're left in a swirl of "Who would do this?" Apply the same logic to video after video of police being unreasonably harsh to unarmed black civilians, and case after case of police de-escalating armed white civilians, what is the difference, if you've been watched close as a criminal all your life for generational racism that not even your parents had a say in, yeah, I get it, I get the anger and the pain, not to say I've felt it. Wouldn't claim to feel it the same way as some of the allies do. But it's not useful to differentiate between thugs, bad actors, inciters, and a peaceful protest. This is what actual protest looks like and involves, it's OK to pick and choose how you like protest to go IF YOU ARE WORKING to change things. If your idea is, it doesn't matter in the long run, then you don't get to pick the terms of protest. Get a grip on that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

whats the end goal?

obviously for the police to stop murdering black americans is up there, but how is that achieved? its easy to say reform and leave it at that, but what form will that take? and according to one article they'd tried reform in Minneapolis already. they suggest defunding the police and shifting resources to various outreach and community led programs. it doesn't quite say what role the police would have here though, and the type of community programs suggested are the sort that americans don't seem to like paying for and have cutting for years.

there doesn't seem to be easy fix, but I got to thinking about reforms and community policing and the like, and it seems that such approaches are hindered by a profound lack of trust. all the best training in world wont change anything if its implementation is hampered because everyones got their hand on their gun, expecting it to kick off at any moment.

how do you build trust after all that has happened and is still happening? not easily im guessing, but the RUC had a similar issues of being thought illegitimate by a large segment of the population. the solution there was to get rid of the RUC, and set up a new police force, the PSNI. what has worked for northern Ireland might not be applicable for the us, but how likely is something like that could be part of a solution?

what other options are there? the systemic problems like with the prison and justice system arnt going away anytime soon, nor any of the socio economic problems. fixing the police cant be too effective on its own if the environment it exists in causes them to full back to old patterns.

ultimately I cant see a solution that ends the current strife with something concrete to build upon, something to suggest progress can be made. best bet that doesn't involve the national guard crushing all resistance with overwhelming force (superior numbers in this case, I would hope), is it runs out of steam and everyone goes home. nothing decided, all issues put on a back burner as it fades from the view of white folk, left with just periodic flare ups.

is there any organisation, any focus or plan to get something done with this? I cant seem to see a great deal, and I can only really see 'a demand for justice' as a goal not what that looks like or how to get there. im probably missing a lot of the various groups who actually are looking at all of this, hidden under headlines of tear gas and rubber bullets. I hope so at least. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, the police are just the worst street gang. Like any other, they are jealous of turf, wishing to acquire power and territory, fiercely defending those whom they consider blood brothers. The code of omerta is strong with them, made worse by the fact that they have enough training in law to know what to say in any situation, and enough internal cohesion to make lies stick. The chief difference is that they have the protection of unions and public-service bureacracy.

'Reforms' that will actually make a difference are going to have to go beyond 'training on implicit bias, mindfulness, de-escalation, and crisis intervention; diversified the department’s leadership; created tighter use-of-force standards; adopted body cameras; initiated a series of police-community dialogues; and enhanced early-warning systems to identify problem officers.' They are going to have to face skeptical, hostile, and persistent supervision by an agency more powerful than they are, that won't accept their lies, and with the ability to hand out summary rewards and punishments in a way that can crack the code of silence and expose the truth to public scrutiny. This probably will end up only kicking the problem up a level in the long run; but at least the general public won't be the victims. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 10:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Not from the US but as an outsider I'm not sure you have the right target as "the police". I understand the police may well have their own codes of conduct but ultimately I assume their attitudes, beliefs and prejudices derive from the society in which they grow up and operate. So the US may have a bigger task than just fixing the police. Though I guess it would be a good place to start.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The police typically draw on a subset of the population with identifiable, persistent personality traits, including a strong preference for uniformity in culture, behavior, and appearance, an a marked suspicion of strangers and outsiders. These personality traits are persistent over time and to some extent necessary for coherent societies, even if people who do not share them tend to attach pejorative labels to them. You see a marked uptick in the us versus them mentality in the police as opposed to the wider culture. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

seems just as likely to me that the nature of the job, certainly in thes version, might breed such distrust. faced with the worst of humanity on a daily basis it becomes the default setting. factor in a legal system that criminalises so many black americans, it must breed and reinforce racist associations in someones mind if they were not there before. if your only contact with black people comes through your work, and your work involves nicking them - that must do something to your view of the world. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the laws they are hired to enforce are a big part of the problem. Drug laws should be repealed lock stock and barrel. Traffic laws should reflect social reality rather than insurance company ideals. That said, I do think there are personality types who are drawn to the authority and the spit and polish mentality. The wrong people are drawn to the job. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot answer your main question but I'm quite impressed with how large the protest has become. Its been pulling the Overton window to the left (with many corporations joining the BLM bandwagon) and attracting international attention. I always thought "protest fatigue" is a real thing, seeing the examples of Arab Spring and anti-Trump protest after 2017 calming down. But now I see the biggest difference between the Arab Spring and BLM is that their leaders and organizers weren't thrown to jail, assassinated or expelled, and they remained active. I'm sure this systemic problem will take decades to fix, but as long as Trump (or any other even more radically white-supremacist president in the foreseeable future) won't go full Sisi or Putin and completely disable the BLM leadership, they will keep igniting protests until police brutality become no longer an issue. Dogeatsdog (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The most positive thing I've heard to come from the protests is politicians in New Jersey pushing a civilian oversight board with actual teeth (so with the right to subpoena documents, hear officers and bring cases of misconduct) for the police. Apparently they want to copy it from another state, which is currently getting held up in court by the police union in that other state. I think ultimately that would be the best answer. Civilian, not internal oversight. Basically, an oversight board that the police cannot influence. If I understand the current situation correctly, any oversight the police have is being maintained by well... the police themselves, which is why you see so many baffling cases of cops getting away with horrific shite. I've seen a lot of talk of completely abolishing the police/defunding them completely. That seems to me like having a hopelessly romantic view that humans won't hurt each other and will follow the laws of society on the good of their heart. Whilst that would be nice, sadly that isn't reality. If I had to think up a few things, one pretty big thing that I've been hearing come out of those protests is that apparently the police that patrol black communities typically aren't from those communities, which creates a pretty large divide between the citizens and the police. One possible answer to that would be to create local stations manned by the local populace. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

it certainly doesn't help that every battle needing to be fought will likely have to happen in each state, all with differing levels of fuck nuttery.

btw I mentioned above the RUC. they literally did abolish their police force in northern Ireland and set up a new one, the PSNI AMassiveGay (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the RUC and PSNI, but it seems that is just a rename of the organization + extra reforms. It's not an abolishment, the person leading the police force there was literally the same person during the change, which if I compare the two articles on WP, the PSNI is the RUC with more oversight. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 07:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

its fundamentally a different organisation in its structure, its composition, and its core focus. you are comparing wp articles not the ruc and psni. and its not merely 'more oversight' its oversight from the communities being policed. sein fein are on the police board. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's hoping something like this and its fallout never happen. Bloody Sunday Or the more disturbing events by the same parachute regiment a year earlier in Ballymurphy Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How to have an accurate Renaissance Festival (another one of my attempts at dark comedy)

• Infect a bunch of people with the plague and smallpox
• Burn women, men and children for being "witches"
• Terrorizing the Jews
• Have violent invasions
• Bring back slavery
• Bring back violent sexism

Now you got an accurate Renaissance Festival! --Racia zombio94 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Throw in the Inquisition! What a show! Semipenultimate (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

dysentery is all that is needed. many a great man of history, who shaped their worlds as well as ours. kings, emperors. myths and legends who we sing songs of today and inspire us. all literally shat themselves to death. AMassiveGay (talk)

Oregon Trail is the game for you, then. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

But what about the all the women dying during childbirth and their children croaking before they can walk? What kind of renaiscance fair would it be without that? ShabiDOO 02:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

in a plague pit where they belong AMassiveGay (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no. This isn't the recipe for a Renaissance Festival. It's the plans for a Renaissance Recreation. Kencolt (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Witch burnings were incredibly rare, and terrorizing jews continues to this day. The ongoing plague is hard to deny. The US is party to multiple ongoing invasions. Violent sexism never left, and slavery just got shipped overseas. I don't think you're very fair to how much we all suck today, with only modest improvements to those recurring issues. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, slavery wasn't really that big during Renaissance Europe. While yes, Italy owned a number of slaves (read up some Shakespeare), more Europeans were being enslaved by the Tartars and the Arabs than engaging in the practice itself. Depending on whether you consider the Ottomans to be European or Near-Eastern, of course. Bear in mind that Europe was the world's backwater at this time, and only after trade with the New World occurred and the sudden spike in population due to new crops did Europe come to dominate world affairs, and even then it took a couple more centuries to do so. CoryUsar (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Full Circle Dog Day

I was going to my car this morning, almost got mauled by a Labradoodle. Just as I was walking between the cars to get to my driver's side door, the mean Labradoodle in the apartment complex was walking by, and I can't deny it must have looked like I was headed straight for them, that's kinda how parking spots work. But I don't mean this dog was trying to come be friends, it was a charge, snarls and barks, and if I had been 2 steps early it would have had me. Good on the owner for catching the dog at the end of its leash, at least. I absolutely love dogs, I had one when I was a kid. I only had one because she lived to be almost 18 years old. Good dog. I've done dogsitting, I've helped raise a rescue in a house I was living at the time, my friends' dogs all like me, and I like all of their dogs. This morning, this dog tried to attack me. I'm not confused about dogs.

So, I told some of the people at work and they were like "a labrodoodle? Nahhhh." and I was like "I know it's embarrassing but it happened. I was 4 feet away from being chewed on, and then I would have to tell this lady it's not my fault her dog is getting put down? No thank you, that was almost BAD" I just went for a walk, thinking about all of it, and on my way home there was a lady walking a black lab puppy. Normally I go out into the street, because I don't like to mess with puppy stuff, that's a time to listen carefully to mama, but a car was also driving up the street. So I said "Cute pup" and mama said "She is but she's still working on manners" as the dog lunged at me. I put my arm out straight, palm forward, let the puppy hit it a couple times, got an excited nose boop or two at the elbow, but never broke stride, puppy met me, enough, as the dog kept lunging and the lady kept saying "heel." I said "I can tell she's tryin," while it occurred. As adorable as that puppy was, I've seen it around, it's been having people fawn on it, and I wanted to too. But it's formative, the lunges will last forever. Tonight was not that night, and there was nothing but friendly lunges. However, when mama says heel, you don't get to chase, puppy. Full fuckin circle in one day. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

None of that is metaphor. Let me just head that off right now. No small adventures, fuck me Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A few years ago I was attacked by a mastiff and had to spend two weeks in hospital. It was a really terrifying experience, if it hadn't backed off when it did it could easily have finished me off. It left me with some slight mobility issues in the hand I used to try to keep it off while lying on my back.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fucking shitty and I'm sorry, Bob. I didn't say that first, sorry for that. Mastiffs are big dogs, I can't imagine what I'd do being pinned by one.

I had a roommate with a Mastiff/Pit/Lab mix. The dog was OK, but I kept telling the guy, you gotta neuter him, you're running out of time. Things turned bad at the house we were living in, beautiful, friendly puppy. Brindled coat. I would take it out back and play fetch with a deflated soccer ball, it was great, I just had to kick it, not pick the slobbery thing up, and the dog loved sprinting out to get it. Exercise a big dog needs. Roommate got mad, said I was teaching the dog to only want to play, started kenneling the dog whenever he wasn't home and telling me I specifically could not interact with the dog. Now, keep in mind, the dog was being left in my 4-way joint lease duplex with two sub-letters at the BEST point. We got a new sub-letter, and the dog regularly attacked him. The dog owner said "I like that, though, he should attack strangers" and I was like "This guy is your roommate, not a stranger. If you want your dog to be wary of strangers, we need to get him a muzzle to wear around the house so that he can have positive interactions with people he doesn't know instead of kenneling him whenever you aren't here." Dude left in the middle of the night a couple days later and blew my phone up with a 26 page text with all sorts of hate. On the other side of it, I did use his dog to teach a rescue dog to catch a ball. But, like, why would you want to raise a junkyard dog if you don't have a junkyard to protect? Not a cool experiment. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Transphobic slurs

So, I've recently found out that "shemale" is a slur too. Yet, pornsites & production studios use words like "Tranny" & "Shemale" all the time (even some trans pornstars).

Is the porn industry borderline transphobic, then? Beyond Reality (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

its the porn industry, not a bastion of progressive values. its a purveyor of sexual objectification, racial fetishism and sexual racism. why would its approach to transgendered people be any different? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, am shocked that an industry dedicated to selling sex, breaking taboos and objectifying women would stoop to not using politically correct language! I also think that "interracial sex scenes" should be re-titled as "sex scenes between people of differing ethnic backgrounds".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, EvilAngel seems to be defending trans people in several tweets a few years ago (unless, it's just all for commercial purposes). Then there's this. There are also several users on pornhub who uploaded videos with titles that have "fag" & "transfag" in it & pornhub seems to be ok with that, despite the fact that they're supposed to be pro-equal rights...

And yes, I have encountered one video a few years ago (I think xhamster) that had the word "nigger" in the title. I reported it and 2 months later, the video was still there...

@Bob M I didn't know "interracial" was a slur aswell? Many media outlets seem to use this word to promote relationships between 2 people from different ethnicalities. Beyond Reality (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you're all reading into words that are supposed to be sexually demeaning. We have right-wing Christian family values prudes and "feminist" anti-objectification prudes. It's almost as if it'll take hundreds of more years to actually get to a sex positive society that understands sexuality and fetishes. Vaginal missionary with the lights out, eh?HairlessCat (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

When I think "respecting people" I sure thing "porn site". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Porn isn't respectful or disrespectful. It's not even a part of that dichotomy in any way unless a master-slave dynamic exists. HairlessCat (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Porn as seen on the internet is frequently disrespectful and dehumanizing, and if you think otherwise it's because you don't have eyes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, next time I meet a porn director, I'll tell them to give the actors more dynamic roles that truly depict the human psyche in an accurate light so that all the horny virgin dogs will be able to jerk off to a good story with well developed relatable characters and so that women and girls will have positive role models in porn that exhibit intelligence, bravery, and empathy. All pornos must now pass the Bechdel Test, and viewers must be responsible in viewing the actors as fellow respectable human beings and not random people having fake sex for the sole purpose of arousal. I will dwell on this in deep contemplation. HairlessCat (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Part of porn is appealing to transgression, so using non-PC terminology is likely to be part of that transgression (and is itself is a sub-genre of sadomasochism. There is also Pornography#Do Mormons and right wingers really hate porn as much as they claim? and Stalag fiction. Bongolian (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC) By the way, if anyone cares, the Wikipedia page on "Stalags" is inaccurate. That type of porn existed in the US as well and did so well-past the time of the Eichmann trial. Bongolian (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian Thank you. HairlessCat (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Porn is inherently objectifying and to a greater or lesser extent dehumanizing. But on the latter, so is modern media in general. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I, a man of culture, will inform all of you that lesbian porn does indeed usually pass the Bechdel test. (I say "usually" because sometimes the women don't talk to each other at all) Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you talk when you have sex, then? And moaning doesn't count. Beyond Reality (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. HairlessCat (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

So do I. And I don't moan much. Spud (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_bJB7m99js Eric Andre at 4:36] asks just after asking for the term for "horse pussy," christ, I haven't watched this in forever, to "do you think shaving encourages the infantilization of women?" You're not supposed to care about the answer, but this was the strangest question I've ever seen planted in a nonsense show. I don't do social media, so I don't know if was a talking point, but the question hit me when I was watching the thing.

It is not that hard to figure out. If you say something you aren't supposed to say as an accident, you'll learn you don't say it then and there. This conversation is actual hooey. I did wonder today if there was a start to slurs and vulgar words and if we've just hit the limit and those last ones have to be only alluded to. Phooey, hooey, frick, and shucks, if it means the same thing, why don't we use the words, Why is it important to to take a step back and think about what we are saying?

I gave this a second read, and it's probably about search terms. Why isn't the pornhub the same as the google? Eat. My. Ass. You frickin cracker jack. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Garble blarble argle-bargle

This man was convinced that the atheist movement is imploding. This is the evidence :

The Implosion of Atheism in USA

Teerthaloke101 (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A future to look forward to

The future

Thoughts? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If only things were that simple... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Idea of the year. Although if it could somehow head a little south on the east coast to encompass Maryland, I would appreciate that. Edit:

oops it already does encompass maryland. I may be a little drunk. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I do wonder what the future does hold in terms of geopolitics. Borders and countries do change over time. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A rough period of reordering as USA influence recedes, possibly involving bloodshed, with climate change playing a major role in shaping the future, probably more so than any one country or leader. Remember, even if we started strong mitigation policies tomorrow "catastrophic climate change" has become inevitable and is in many ways already starting, so it is just a question of how bad it will get before we begin slowly turning things around. Instability in equatorial countries, and a refugee crisis as a result, is quite likely.-Flandres (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Fuck you, that leaves me stranded in Jesusland. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We will accept refugees from Jesusland. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Be prepared to accept millions of black people mass migrating out of the South. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I guess we grew out of the "dumbfuckistan" label. Shame. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What, the US doesn't get Alberta? You are joking, right? CoryUsar (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

At least Michigan is in the USC! Yay for me! By the way, Michigan has plenty of hockey teams to donate. I will also happily sell the Detroit Lions football team to the highest bidder, it is for a good cause and because they suck. --Racia zombio94 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Understanding the point "first as tragedy, then as farce" being taken seriously would help, science and philosophy have to be intertwined now. Big ups to Hegel, Marx didn't cancel you, my dead guys. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Canada is still a colonialist shithole, just slightly less of one than the US. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

lol, good stuff. Classic-"Shut up, Brx." 05:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Judging from your profile, you would rather see the US become a communist state. Beyond Reality (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather see it become no state, and there's no such thing as a "communist state." Even the Soviet Union was merely, depending on who you ask, "socialist." It was more akin to state capitalist neo-monarchism, but I digress. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The United States is weirder than that map allows for. Within Jesusland, for instance, you find Austin Texas (the city that gives a middle finger at Nashville country music), New Orleans Louisiana (birthplace of Dixieland jazz, actual good cuisine in the Creole / Cajun guise, and a religious stance that at least allows for massive Mardi Gras parties), and Key West Florida (apologies for Jimmy Buffett, but traditionally an home for the castaway outsiders -- Fantasy Fest isn't exactly Jesusland friendly, is it?). Even places like the North Carolina research triangle (Raleigh-Durham) IMHO doesn't deserve to be put in Jesusland these days -- actually, Virginia would be part of the United States of Canada these days, come to think of it, due to the increasing DC influence. Meanwhile, once you are east of the Cascades, Oregon and Washington actually kind of turn into a Jesusland of sorts. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

All this classism aside, it must be remembered that the people in "Jesusland" are still human beings. Treat them accordingly. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow Oxy. That's a very mature sentiment. ShabiDOO 19:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena, do be warned; if you are incapable of holding a job in a Communist society, you would be declared a "social parasite" and sent to the gulags.CoryUsar (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess you can see Joe Arpaio's prison as a gulag depending on who you ask. Beyond Reality (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, that's only Marxism-Leninism. Not anarcho-communism, which I am. Communism is nothing but a stateless, classless society where everyone has equal access to resources, the Soviet Union was not a communist society even by their admission. Ut was merely a "transitional state." — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is is your contention that all self-professed communist states are not true Scotsmen communists?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

They billed themselves as "socialist states," and I`m saying that we ancoms and lib marxists don't like being labeled in with fucking tankies, cause we're not. These are genuine ideological differences here.

What if someone from the working class wants to buy a house, because they want to pay less taxes? Lots of commies hate people who own properties, despite not realizing that many of the people they wanna support want to have their own house, which they could pass on to their kids so they would have some extra money (incase they wanna sell it) or a house of their own, so they don't have to worry of ever having a fear of not being able to pay their taxes, due to a lower income. Beyond Reality (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is the system set up in the first place so that those who are landed pay less taxes than those who are not? There are more empty houses than there are homeless people in America, if you're not using your property in some way it should not be yours. Read theory, so you won't have to ask dumb questions like these. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If the US goes under, I propose the creation of the "Republic of Goatistan"

In the Republic of Goatistan there will be a democracy, little bureaucracy and red tape, sensible immigration laws, free healthcare and everyone above the age of 18 gets a free goat. The mascot will be Super Mecha Death Goat. --Insensitive Asshole (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh I wouldn't worry so much about living in what comes next after the US empire dies. I'd worry far more about the decades of strife that define dying empires struggling to hold onto power. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 12:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this trustable?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/hoax-misleading-claims-george-floyd-protests --Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. I'd run it through other fact checkers if a claim seems iffy to you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A quote that is all too relevant to current events (my all time favorite quote)

"There is no flag big enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people"- Howard Zinn --Insensitive Asshole (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Flags are symbols, and flags are for symbol-minded people."- George Carlin HairlessCat (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

""when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." - Lewis Sinclair 'It Can't Happen Here' (1935) Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to share this

HairlessCat (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Reddit's alt-right legacy

Seems like Reddit has finally announced a change to tackle the issues of gross hate and racism on the website. Too little, too late in my opinion. First and foremost it doesn't even address sexism, but even more problematic is the admin thinks the presence of alt-right in some subreddits is a "[reflection of] an unflattering but real resemblance to the world in the hate that Black users and communities see daily". This is a huge mistake- while I don't have any tangible data to back this, from my observation, Reddit is the very place where these modern hate-based conservative movements have grown mainstream. How would Gamergate or Manosphere have looked like without Reddit? I highly doubt they would've been as influential as they've become. Just a rant. Dogeatsdog (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And I take it that the alt-right has taken this decision very maturely? Or are they calling them things like "SJW fagcucks" (is this even a word that they use? Wouldn't be surprised if they did.)? Beyond Reality (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Antifa" seems to be the latest go-to label against anyone with leftist slant. Dogeatsdog (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Better than nothing.--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Reagan

— Oxyaena ^Harass 08:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

When do we elect mods?

--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In November. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Solipsism is True?

Warning! Solipsism conversation ahead may rot your brain.

https://www.quora.com/What-if-solipsism-is-true

"It is true, but it is a dead end to be an overtly uncompromising and dogmatic solipsist.

Indeed, all we can know is that we “experience”, that we are “aware” - beyond that there is no certainty of anything, as to true 100% certainty or empirical provability.

Even any words or symbols we use are constraints. constructs, and false as well - we cannot recognize (“be aware”, ”experience”) we know anything beyond that we do “have experience”.

Everything else is up in the air, in that only what is actually Real and True hath not nary a care.

Simply as solipsistical as that."

I don't know what it is about my brain that as soon as someone says something is true, like the above, then that makes it so. But is it true? Or is he referring to the soft form of solipsism?Machina (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The physical world is an illusion, but so is the self. Solipsism is correct in saying that logical positivism / materialism is not verifiable and is incomplete, but it's not right in saying everything is reducible to me. Or you, since you are also conscious. The philosophical school you're looking to research is idealism or nonduality, but you should probably start with something more physical-based like Russelian monism or generic materialistic panpsychism. HairlessCat (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonduality is a nonsense school that is still victim to what solipsism is since it is sensory data, or the illusion of oneness. The same applies to idealism and monism and panpsychism. The self is not and illusion and neither is the physical world. Please stay on topic.Machina (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the bit about "my brain thinks this way". That's putting your responsibility for your own thinking outside yourself. You the human being thinking are in control of your conclusions. You can make decisions based on your own reasoning. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not outside myself because I am the brain and I can't control my thoughts or what I find persuasive. I am not in control of anything, since free will is an illusion.Machina (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say that Solipsism is just like any number of non-falsifiable explanations of reality? Russell's teapot comes to mind. The idea that only ones personal reality exists is less artificial, but no more believable. If one believes in extreme solipsism, one may feel obliged to explain where the model of the world that exists only in ones mind came from? Where did one learn how to make it? When did this knowledge first occur? When we were born we knew nothing of the physical world one of us ( was it you?) would later invent from nothing. I suppose this is all your fault. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Machina You asked for answers and don't want them. It seems you've already reached your conclusion and are just mentally masturbating because of existential angst. You know, because the self is an illusion, and so is the physical world. You are begging the question when it comes to "sensory data." HairlessCat (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that your answer is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Nonduality is a nonsense philosophy based on experiences that we now know are just brain chemistry, same with the rest of your claims. None of them get over solipsism. You are wrong.Machina (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

At this point, the fuck? I have a lot of questions for you, specifically, if this is solipsism. And I assume you're not ethereal, if you're punching out your confession on a keyboard. And ya didn't answer my previous questions, I tried to talk to you, so let's boil this down to one, solipsism should have the answer here.

Is this my fault or your fault? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, this is not solipsism because idealism and such also match that description but without the solipsism label at the end. Solipsism is fucking idiotic, therefore nobody should care about it. Nonduality also is not a result of brain chemistry. If you had a nondual experience, you would know that the physical world DOESN'T EXIST and that perspectives/ideas/mind/consciousness is the ONLY THING THAT EXISTS. Your assumption that brains are real things that exist outside of your perception is not falsifiable.HairlessCat (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Non dual experiences have been shown to be nothing more than just a change in the area of the brain that regulates our body boundary sensation, which gives the illusion of nonduality when really nonduality is nonsense. You can't know the physical world doesn't exist, that's just a guess based on nothing. You can't even be sure about the rest of your things (perspectives, ideas, mind, consciousness), everything you have mentioned is just a guess not a certainty. Like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about so please stay on topic or just don't bother. As I said, nonduality is false. Also it should be noted that you are getting nonduality wrong by the way, it doesn't say the physical world doesn't exist.Machina (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to continue this conversation, learn. You keep begging the question by saying "nonduality is false because nonduality is perceived by a brain." If you are in a dream, you can imagine objects in the dream that affect your consciousness. Obviously. That's what a brain is. Saying "you can't know the physical world doesn't exist" is like saying "you can't know God doesn't exist." Granted, a theistic God is more absurd than some matter with properties, but they are both unfalsifiable to the same exact degree. Yes, you can be sure about the rest of the things like perspectives, ideas, mind, and consciousness because you can directly perceive them. They are self-evident, unless you are a p-zombie. Nonduality inherently says the physical world doesn't exist because all is one, mind being the known substance. HairlessCat (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonduality does not say that, you are wrong. I'm saying that you can't say that the physical world isn't real because then you would have to prove it. I can't say God isn't real because then I would have to prove how I know that. Ideas are not self evident, neither are perspectives, mind or consciousness. You cannot know you have a mind or if you are conscious, or even if you exist and aren't just a dream of someone or thing. Mind is not the known substance it is assumed, something that plenty of "nondual" philosophies have poked at. Again you reveal your ignorance on the subject. It's still nonsense but it still shows how little you grasp about it.Machina (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

if solipsism is true then you are talking to yourself. whether it is true or not is the wrong question to ask. you should ask what you do with that information. if all is a fantasy, its a pretty convincing one thats difficult to ignore. if you are hungry or cold or need a shit, if not real, you still have to engage with the fantasy as ignoring them will only result in you perceiving the effects of malnutrition and frost bite and the perception of sitting in your own faeces. it should take a immense level of certainty to deny your own perception and step into traffic. if its impossible to tell for certain either way, its still a herculean task to ignore everything your senses tell you, including the perception of increasing pain and discomfort as you ignore hunger and cold and on coming traffic. as illusions go its a convincing one. your perceptions of the world are your entire world true or false. you are locked in so may as well take a punt on there being a world outside of your own ego. its not like you can be proved wrong if you do. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's true, more like commenting on the quote that said so and my response to it. I know that the soft version is true, we cannot verify sensory data. The kicker is that if solipsism were true I can't prove it because solipsism won't let you by it's own axioms. But I'm just remarking on how someone saying "it's true" causes me to throw all logic out the window and take their word for it.Machina (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Goddamn, solipsism, even the soft kind, is not the idea that sensory information cannot be verified; it the idea that anything outside of the ego / sensory information cannot be verified. HairlessCat (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect, it's that sensory data cannot be verified. By that definition you can never prove it because to know what it is you have to know what it is not, and by it's own axioms that's impossible (which makes it even dumber to believe). Not to mention that it's axioms cannot be known. I cannot know the self to exist, or a mind, or even me personally. These are all assumed. Again you reveal your ignorance of solipsism and what it is. Please stop commenting. I almost think you are Leo from actualized.org. You cannot verify the ego either. Not to mention that by denying the existence of an external reality solipsism opens itself up to a bunch of holes in it's arguments. As a philosophy it's useless since you can never prove it to be true and nothing changes if it were true. I'm not taking advice from someone who says the physical world doesn't exist (in that case where did everything, even mind come from?) because that is NOT what nonduality says, that's what people who are stuck in nonduality say.Machina (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Machina you talk about ignorance about solipsism but then you keep using the term "soft" and "hard" with solipsism. Unfortunately I cannot find that anywhere in any philosophical works on the subject. I only found it on a couple websites, a few youtube videos dealing with religion that quote no actual philosophical sources, a post written by a religious person another on a blog like post that makes little sense to me. In academic literature I only found it in literary criticism of a novel by Banville (not a philosopher), a top 10 list of economic change (again no philosopher) and "the gourmet guide to the mind" also not a philosopher. It seems in both cases they are confusing all this with soft and hard "determinism" which is a very different subject. Which makes me wonder if you're basing all of this on a bad youtube video. I asked you last time you had this discussion where you got the term "hard solipsism" from and you ignored my question. Which is a pattern of yours, flippantly dismissing what people say and not answering questions. So, for someone who professes some deep understanding of solipsism and the nerve to call others ignorant of it, I would like you to please give me the name of a book or article (not a website written by a non-philosopher) that mentions soft or hard solipsism. Because as I see it...that distinction doesn't exist except among people ignorant of solipsism or who use it idiosyncratically. Please don't ignore this request again. ShabiDOO 12:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Solipsism: "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist." HairlessCat (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hard and soft are actual terms used to describe the degrees of it. Hard usually refers to metaphysical solipsism which says that everything is just a projection of your mind and doesn't exist. "Softer" versions of it say that such things just cannot be verified. They are actual terms but most would concede that "soft" solipsism is true if only that all we have is an experience and we cannot verify it as "real" or fake. Personally I just want to throw it out since you cannot prove solipsism to be true, especially since the self cannot be known to exist.Machina (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The self can be known to exist because you can directly observe the self. The reason the physical world is doubted in solipsism isn't because the sense is perceived to not be verifiable; it's because nothing can be verified outside of sense. Solipsism is NOT the rejection of sense and hence sense of self as unreliable; it the acceptance of sense of self and whatnot as the only thing. You keep repeating the same things. HairlessCat (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Machina that is either something you made up or sporked from some random website. You didn't answer my question and give me your source. So I don't get where you get off lecturing others about being ignorant about solipsism when your own sources are questionable at best...or worse...you're just making up your own terms. I honestly think users have said here just about everything meaningful or useful there is to say about solipsism. But don't let me stop you rehashing this yes again. ShabiDOO 01:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a fair question, though, and Machina has a right to ask. Is there a diference between

I think therefore I am

I am therefore I exist

I exist, so existence must be a thing

Existence is a thing, so I must be within it

Existence is not inherently verifiable, so it may be falsifiable

A falsifiable existence supports no conclusion. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Existence is self-evident. HairlessCat (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, triggered, editing. Existence is self evident in as much as any perception is evident. Descartes is not the 17th century metric you want to rest on. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Existence isn't self-evident Hairless. Also the self cannot be known to exist, it is merely assumed. All that can really be said is that there are thoughts but not really a thinker, Buddhism and a few other philosophers questioned the notion of a self. I can grant that the solipsist says they exist but then they have to prove they are real. How do they know they aren't just the dream of something else? Their axioms are just as uncertain and even shakier than the realist. You cannot observe the self (again Buddhism says a lot on this) because there isn't one to be found. You get it wrong Cat, that isn't what solipsism says. It rejects sensation which is says cannot be verified, it DOES doubt one's own senses as well. In the ultimate sense it is the denial of evidence. That being said the solipsist cannot even prove the existence of the self.Machina (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So, if we can't trust inherently that we exist, we can't trust our smallest constructs, including the self. However, if there is a perception of the constructs, those perceptions exist as well as anything does, and that is my personal reason to be willing to engage with them. But considering something bigger, higher, something that can't be described, well, it's the diminishing God problem, I would call it a paradox. If God were to exist, not just the Yahweh iteration, if a God had any reason for humanity, all of humanity is justified in all action. If a God existed and had no reason for or interest in humanity, it would be incorrect for humanity to search out a God justification over a better understanding of the physical world in which we, well, don't have a choice but inhabiting. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think is becoming far removed from what I originally was talking about.Machina (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Also it's worth noting that "I think therefor I am" has been thoroughly destroyed in recent years, even prior to him. Thinking doesn't imply a thinker, as Buddhism often critiques.Machina (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cops Assault Everyone/Homeless Man Shot In Face/The Rock Calls Out Trump/Kanye Protests (PTL 28)

HairlessCat (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense, if I wanted to watch Cult of Dusty, I'd find it in a video that is fewer than 2 hours long. He's a good guy, not dragging his content, but this opens with. what? Something I want to look at? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here's some individual brutality videos illustrating the rise of non-hyperbolic fascism. It's here. [9]

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] HairlessCat (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Twitter. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

HairlessCat (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, if you put some of these around your links they take up way less space []-"Shut up, Brx." 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

is this a dig? I do, really witth all of my heart stte,pt to post, And it hurts when I'm told otherwise.ButIm a weirdversion of tough Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You're geniuses, eat. my. asss. Figure that out.^{— Unsigned, by: Gol Sarnitt / talk / contribs}

Are you okay? ^{— Unsigned, by: brxbrx / talk / contribs} -06:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

i count 22 links to twitter showing 'individual brutality' but most of it not so much brutality more unreasonable bloody mindedness. probably not helpful and all, maybe intimidating in some cases even, but only few show actual brutality which have been all over the news already. we are not being graded on word count. the padding isnt needed. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We are being graded on word count, or conservatives will keep saying 99.9999999999999% of pigs are great and not authoritarian. I would concede by saying "restriction of first amendment rights" would've been a better word than "brutality." HairlessCat (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh. That 75 year old man who was shoved down in Buffalo (for no remotely justified reason) and hospitalized him...well 100 cops and firefighters protested outside city hall that they two were being investigated and charged. Those are all 100 bad first-responders. Cause you know...it's a hard job and when they're stressed out, hospitalizing an old man is totally fine.ShabiDOO 19:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Minneapolis is intending to "defund"/reorg the police department. Good for them. Buffalo needs to do the same. It worked for Camden, after all. The police should not be the Sturmabteilung yet too many of them are white nationalist scum. And I don't give a shit about the white Nextdoor racist "conservative" types that are responsible for this situation. So what if nothing will convince them? These types gave us Trump too, and look how well that's gone. At this point, even top military brass (not exactly liberal hippies, mind you!) are tired of Trump's bullshit. And, yeah, the cops that lean in this direction are fascist. Fuck em. Heil in their Fueher's face and make fun of their beloved orange fat idiot. (The United States was once *the* antifa, motherfuckers.) Soundwave106 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The protesting cops should be gassed and beaten. HairlessCat (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah 22 incidents that we don't know any context of nor the date of the video aren't going to convince them. It certainly is not within percentage of a million people. They're going to ask you for context, ask for a video that shows the minutes BEFORE these attacks, which can be difficult to demonstrate. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I never meant to

I'm not so mad anymore, it's my turn to listen to them. And How was supposed to play at SWSX, I am not good enough to play that venue. These guys are.

I can't be a part of it, but this song, it's everything I wanted to be a part of. And it's good. And How is a really good band, and I want them to succeed. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dang

Someone should have her see this.

HairlessCat (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I spent 9 hours researching about a specific UFO documentary instead of my assignments

Paranoia took the better of me, I've spent hours researching something that I forgot about until today. I feel disapionted in myself because I have 50 other things I could be doing that are more productive.

However I feel calmer but I also feel tired as hell, when I can, I will upload more on the fact of the matter, but for now, sleeeep. -- WMS (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It happens, I would get distracted instead of doing whatever I was supposed to be doing. --Insensitive Asshole (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So what da hell did you find? Teerthaloke101 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah! I was wondering that too.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Police

Beyond Reality (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I like that guy. HairlessCat (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The RationaWiki Facebook page

Yesterday I left the RationalWiki Facebook page in a fit of rage. Two days ago, I think, someone posted a meme, showing two panels of a still of the video where George Floyd is being murdered. Underneath Derek Chauvin, is the word "Republicans". The other panel shows one of the other cops who stood and watched, and underneath him is the word "Democrats". The post had 31 likes/sad reacts.

Now I object very strongly to the Democrats as a whole being compared to murderers. It's also another reminder of why I deeply despise a large number of Progressives in the United States, even though I agree with them on most everything. They are good at posting memes like that without any thoughtful explanation, that dunk on the Democrats. To me it is an expression of circlejerk groupthink, and I hoped that RationalWiki would be free of this sort of thing but of course it is not. They are not so good at building coalitions that can win, or looking outside of their bubble to ask questions like how it is that many black voters vote for establishment Democrats in elections, and what could be done about that. I thought about rejoining the group and starting a 1 vs. 30ish flame war, which could have been interesting, but of course I would have been drop-kicked out by a moderator almost immediately. At least today I can articulate myself a little better on the issue.

There's nothing really to be done about it, I just wanted to vent. Please feel free to roast me publicly, while I order a vodka cranberry rail drink and a glass of water. The Moose (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

First step: demonstrate why the meme is factually incorrect. HairlessCat (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Because a lot of Democrats are trying to do something about it and not standing around watching people get murdered? The Moose (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what are they doing that don't count as inept half-measures? — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Well, the ones in Minneapolis seem to be seriously considering abolishing the MPD. The Dem leadership is still shit though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There is the new bill that was introduced by Congressional Democrats,[32] which likely won't get through the Republican-controlled Senate or survive a likely veto, but it is preparation for reintroducing it, should Democrats retake the Senate. Bongolian (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoo runs the facebook page?-"Shut up, Brx." 18:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that it took independent life some time ago. Like the discord I imagine. But I can't speak with any real knowledge about either.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that the RW facebook page has been inactive for some time. I suspect that the OP is referring to the Facebook group, which isn't really the same issue. If he has issue with the individuals in said group, he should take it up with them-"Shut up, Brx." 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian So more half-measures? Got it. The Dems are useless. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Almost 3 weeks using vapes and no real cigarettes!

Doing pretty good and barely craving real cigarettes. My breathing has become much better too! Yay me!Give me coffee --Insensitive Asshole (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's real progress. Vaping might not be healthy per se, but it's at least an order of magnitude better than dumping a box of ash into your lungs each day. Good job. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! Keep at it. I've been off cigs for 18 years this fall. You can do it!! Semipenultimate (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well done that man!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not smoked for over seven years now after getting through twenty or thirty a day for over forty years. I stopped when I was airlifted to hospital after a heart attack. Not a recommended way of stopping. Stay quit - you'll notice the difference in your pocket as well as your health. Scream!! (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

im assuming you've properly quit ie. not vaping. i recommend any still smoking to vape, especially if like me efforts to quit cigarettes have all been still born. been vaping a few years. its a godsend. and you are not wrong about the cash savings from quitting. its almost a tenner for a pack of twenty these days. thats almost like proper drug prices. compared to the bottles of eliquid - a pound a go and last a few days. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Had a bit of a slip up yesterday and smoked actual smokes. Not doing that again. So outside the one mistake, I am doing fairly good. --Insensitive Asshole (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I fully support your decision to quit smoking. I've struggled with it, I keep deciding "Oh, everyone at my apartment is going to have their windows closed." I lost a good chunk of ash straight between the boards of my balcony, and it landed on a table of the balcony below me. I could see it through those gaps, right next to their wicker chair, like, yikes, if that had been hot. And I have to walk around responsible for a clump of ash on their table, knowing that they know where it came from and I know where it came from, very embarrassing. They did smoke pot all the time before the quarantine, but that's not a justification. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)