RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive364

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 July 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>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, (new)(back)


Contents

YouTube videos[edit]

Id like to suggest that we have an informal policy on the saloon that there be no embedded videos. All embedded videos will be converted to direct links. If this is too much for some people...at the very least there should be no embedded music videos, only videos which provide insightful commentary on a conversation or to introduce a new personality that we might write a new article on. The saloon crashes for some browsers if there are more than so many embedded videos. What does everyone think? ShabiDOO 14:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine by me. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Excellent and not before time. Scream!! (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Nah, embedded Youtube videos of any kind should be allowed. Just not too many of them cluttering up space. People should be able to figure out what's reasonable. HairlessCat (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
OK if you're on a big screen with fast internet but a bit of a bind if you're not. Scream!! (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
True. HairlessCat (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
BTW - I am on a big screen and have fast internet so not being selfish. Scream!! (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
What about requiring that all videos are put within a collapse dropdown?
MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Ever since I edited my browser to stop showing them my use of the Saloon Bar has been far more pleasant.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
How about people set the width and height of a YouTube video in the tag?Cms13ca (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Shane Dawson[edit]

Apparently, Blaire White has claimed that YouTuber Shane Dawson is a sick pedo. I don't know who to support. One one hand, this is Blaire White, who has defended pedophilia before, but on the other, this is Shane Dawson, a conspiracy theorist who might as well name his make-up line "9/11: An Inside Job". Help me out on this one.Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's Youtube drama. Just ignore it. They're probably both scum. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Take it from someone who has got wrapped in YouTube and Discord drama then got burned by it- Ignore it. Not worth your time. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeh2ow That's probably because Dawson is a pedo. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Corporate Human rights violations needs help[edit]

I've created a draft for hr violations by corporations inspired by the request in the To Do List to create an article for Nestlé and rather than create a dozen stubs for shitty corps, I decided to create an umbrella article to cover them all.Tuxer (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus, that article is going to be miles long. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
EA Games would go on the list due to them over working their employees and under paying them too. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much all AAA game companies could go there for their crunch practices alone. As ikanreed seems to suggest, this is going to be a new Inverse stopped clock type article, where everyone and their mother goes to enter their pet peeve.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the article is worthy as an idea, but the examples should probably be limited to the worst offenders or the articles going to be longer than Das Kapital.Coigreach (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it could focus more on general trends in their conduct than specific entities and their specific abuses(not that they should be completely ignored, of course?-Flandres (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, covering the trends more thoroughly on general level, while providing 1-3 most egregious examples for each one would work for me.Coigreach (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
While morally contemptable, I don't think demanding long hours is conventionally considered a human rights violation. Not on the scale of Foxxconn's suicide factories or the Dutch East Indies worldwide slavery powered cartel, at least. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that raises a good point. Are we counting colonial charter corps? Because if so, hooboy have I got some stories to add. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't even think AAA game culture, as bad as it is, is comparable to karoshiWikipedia culture that you find in (most notably) Japan, China, and South Korea. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
True, if this article is going to remain about actual human rights violations (instead of shitty business practices), it should be unimpeachable. Child labor, slave labor, human trafficking...those at least would be acceptable. I think the "Overworking and workplace abuse" needs to be removed, even if it's without examples so far. "Strike breaking and union busting" is a bit iffy, but the right to peacefully assemble is considered a basic human right by U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, so it would still apply at companies operating in countries where that is restricted. Like China for example.Coigreach (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
We could make a seperate artcile about some of the other vile practices corporations engage in, even the "good" ones, to cover some of the more iffy examples.-Flandres (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Keeping it within the mission statement would probably reduce it in size. In fact, I'm not actually seeing the mission angle at the moment.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious-they support authoritarians in devolving nations to benefit their business interests, and they promote pseudoscience when actual facts hurt their products(take big tobacco for instance).-Flandres (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
One of the mission statements is "exploration of authoritarianism" and large scale violation of human rights for profit fits that.Tuxer (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
So Wikipedia tells me this about "authoritarianism" "Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature, and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military."
What definition are you using? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to know.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Authoritarian ie, to uphold the authority of hierarchy and social coercion: the hallmarks of the state, the corporation, and the church. Wikipedia's definition is too limited, I recommend reading this. Oxyaena Harass 14:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Pages and pages of a FAC which starts: "What is Anarchism?" You're joking right? Or we back on creating "Anarchism wiki"?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a good time to apply the old aphorism: "Don't judge a book by its cover." Oxyaena Harass 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
If you're going to make a sensible article on this, it should either hew to violations of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Human rights) or to crimes against humanity. The violations are likely to be forced labor/slavery, and deaths caused by negligence or intent. Bongolian (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Define "sensible," you meant centrist? Oxyaena Harass 10:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Trying to decide on a standard you use to assess crimes against humanity isn't centrism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean, I think those sources are too limited in their scope, corporations regularly exploit, pollute, vandalize, and denigrate the third world, all in the name of capital, and that's not considered a violation of international human rights law. Corporations serve as enforcers of today's neocolonial hegemony, I mean, let's not get started on how France controls the economy of numerous Central African nations and still maintains a colonial empire. Oxyaena Harass 14:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
That might be worthy of its own article, but specifically an article about "Corporate Human Rights Violations" should be about human rights. And how an earth would someone make this article centrist anyway? Corporations are inherently right wing (in economic terms at least), as they are profit making organizations. And if you mean centrist in a "progressive-regressive" scale, then I think it would be equally hard to find clear human rights violations committed by some of the corporations that are run by progressives (say Ben & Jerry's, that's one of the very few that come to mind). I can't for the life of me understand why you had to assume bad faith from Bongolian by suggesting that he wants to turn the article "centrist".Coigreach (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious overreach for us. Clearly human rights violations are a bad thing. But we are not are not explicitly "Human Rights Wiki" and we are certainly not "Anarchism wiki". We are not here to provide a platform for every political socially desirable hobby-horse which some user might have. If users which to create those things they are quite free to set them up.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No, it really isn't, it's covered under the "authoritarianism" clause. Oxyaena Harass 17:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a much better answer to the statement they posed. It more clearly states what your concerns are. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Before I even write a novel- I am writing a short story[edit]

I am taking the advice of one of the users here (don't remember who) and starting small. I am abandoning my earlier concept with a much different one but still has zombies. Kinda want the zombies to serve as a backdrop to the story. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've found that writing a good short story is probably harder than writing a novel. The characters have to be created in fewer words and any background will have to be either assumed or omitted. You still have to get a plotline in over much smaller space. Write short stories but try to make them all in the same 'universe' so that a reader can associate them in hir mind. You can write a longer story at the same time as writing several shorts, keeping in the same universe and allowing them to feed - zombielikesorry - off each other. Scream!! (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that's great. I hope you have some idea of what you want the story to be. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
My short story serves as a base for the story. The short will take place in 1949 when the zombie apocalypse begins; more specifically the Eastwater Cavern in Somerset, England. My main story will take place in 1955 after the apocalypse begins. The themes will be pertaining to freedom, sexism, racism, disability discrimination and religious oppression. My novel idea that takes place after the short story where killing zombies has been made illegal by a religious government that takes control of the US. Their ideology is that the zombies are vessels for the Second Coming of Christ, in which the souls in heaven return to their departed bodies and live in the 1000 year kingdom. The main character of the novel is a dude fighting against said ideology. There is much more but it is more trouble than it is worth to explain my thought process.

As for my zombies, they are parasite controlled. Shooting in the head is useless as the macroparasite regenerates head wounds and its own body as a defense mechanism. They have some intelligence (working out the details of their physiology) and can only be killed by complete decapitation. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Worldbuilding ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Best free email accounts?[edit]

I'm a little tired of Yahoo and want to know what other folks use.Machina (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that 95% of everyone on Earth uses Gmail.Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
GMail is the best. Three years ago my Yahoo! account was hacked and I tried to get it back but the tech support people were no help. It was a lost cause. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to register for google but it wouldn't take my phone numberMachina (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I really hate that, quite a few services now require you to provide multiple different sources for verification, it's a goddamn nuisance. Oxyaena Harass 15:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Would the Taiwan Relations Act be missional?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

Seems like it. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a pretty broad interpretation of missionality. That being said, is the topic big enough to justify its own article? We already have a Taiwan article that discusses its relations with the US. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the part about the US trying to be friends with both the PRC and ROC as a jumping point; there could also be the issue of the US trying to avoid China's "One State Policy". --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Seems like Duce has the right of it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
there are a few countries that dance around taiwan's sovereignty, diplomatic relations being unofficial, and wording of official statements that label ROC as ROC but not actually saying ROC, or avoiding reference to the one china policy that supports or opposes. most countries are not really able to, and with china not allowing official relations with both taiwan and china, access to chinese markets means taiwan get dropped.
there is a similar situation with businesses that serve both. china has been insisting of late how companies refer to taiwan to in official documents AMassiveGay (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
China's not getting Taiwan back, they should honestly just bugger off at this point. Then again, it makes for a great talking point for saber rattling. Oxyaena Harass 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I royally screwed up a project (okay maybe not that bad)[edit]

Okay I am making a side project video involving an emergency in the UK. Now how did I screw up? Okay I know alerts in the UK are given through the BBC. Now I have BBC alerts from Glasgow, Belfast and London. In the corner of my emergency warning screens (I was editing a previous UK alert screen) but I still had the BBC London logo in the corner for each alert.

Fun part- Too late to go back. Dammit. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A definition of Political Correctness[edit]

Po•lit•i•cal cor•rect•ness, noun, White people using euphemisms so they don't look racist, regardless of the fact that white people are always and always will be known for being dumb.Jeh2ow Damn son! 20:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"I AIN'T NO RACIST! I am a racial realist, an ethnocentrist, a proud nationalist, and a cultural supremacist" lol. HairlessCat (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"white people are always and always will be known for being dumb." ... So, since this is a blatantly racist statement, I guess you are white? :) 2001:861:5700:5150:B0CB:FF1F:50A4:2328 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Prejudice plus power. Oxyaena Harass 17:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Oxyaena's right. Just because you're not white doesn't mean you can't be a racist (i.e. Louis Farrakhan and Narendra Modi), and vice-versa. However, the vast majority of hate crimes against minorities were caused by white supremacists, so keep that in mind.Jeh2ow Damn son! 03:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Racism = Prejudice + Power is a modern redefinition of the term by people, mostly in some academia and activist circles, who want to deny the experiences lived by people considered in the majority based on their skin color. Racism, everywhere else, means "prejudice based on real or perceived race of someone". The redefinition is in fact rather racist.
How was something like removing sysoprevoke for an unknown (to me at least) user decided on a unconnected website. Methinks this might be "coopable". Scream!! (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Racism is racism and is evil wherever it comes from or to. @Jeh2ow "the vast majority of hate crimes against minorities were caused by white supremacists". And? So, if an asian person forbids a black people from entering his shop because they're black, it's suddenly not racism?2001:861:5700:5150:5D2D:E700:62E7:3CB9 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
That's prejudice, not racism. Oxyaena Harass 11:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Racist is just prejudice based on race, anything else is a politically correct redefinition in order to serve a far left agenda.108.208.14.123 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"Racism: "Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief." Collins definition". This version of racism has been in use since 1865, but there's a modern movement nearly exclusive to the US to redefine this word in order to exclude white people from the possibility of being also victims of racism. It's... To me, this is incredibly, insidiously evil. This redefinition does not help fighting racism.2001:861:5700:5150:ADDC:B01B:8EE6:F668 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the evil Jewish Marxist Antifa universities want to make being white a crime. This a real thing and not a conspiracy theory spouted by morons. Totes real. Please pay no attention to who currently has all the power in the US and Europe. TOTES REAL!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Seriously though, the idea of anti-white racism is so rooted in colonialist guilt and fear of reprisal for past wrongs that attempts to equivocate it with those who have suffered systemically for over 400 years is mind mindbogglingly stupid. Shut up, and do not speak again until you've learned how shit works. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
There's also, of course, the fact that a hegemonic majority's fear of eventually becoming victim of their own authoritarian culture are used to promote white supremacy and other such ventures into further authoritarianism. Wow, it's almost as if this talking point of "anti-white racism"/"white genocide" (very telling, that prominent prefix...) is literal White Supremacist propaganda... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hem, 3 comments, that's... a bit much maybe? Idk how wiki formatting works exactly. For your points: I'm sorry, I think that you miss my point. My point is that the redefinition of "racism" as "power+prejudice" is A) pushed by a few US activists and academics, which it is, I mean, that's written in rationalwiki's own article about it, it's not an opinion B) has for aim to exclude white people from being possibly victims of racism C) does not provide results D) is evil. I haven't spoken about any judeo-bolchevik conspiracy or white genocide (of which there is none). How is saying "racism has never meant prejudice + power" somehow controversial and "White supremacist propaganda"?? Honestly, this is also some kind of Noble Savage bullshit that believe people of other ethnic origins somehow incapable of wrongdoing, including racism?? Also, the world doesn't revolve around the US, and lots of other countries, especially in Europe, do not have the same history of slavery. I defend the first and second Human Rights, my favorite part of my favorite legal text. Everybody should get treated the same, gets the same rights, whatever the skin color. I get that alt-rightists and other neofascists think it's eeeeevil, but I'm surprised to find that some progressives in the US also think that.2001:861:5700:5150:ADDC:B01B:8EE6:F668 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I got your point loud and clear. You aren't getting mine. It. Doesn't. Work. Like. That. The idea of "colorblindness is a lovely fantasy, but that's all it is, a fantasy. In reality, to achieve equalality of opportunity society must first realize that the minority is not considered equal to the majority. This is further compounded on by the effects imperialism, both historical and contemporary. So, no, whites are not the victims of racism, not on the systemic, global scale that other groups are. These are galaxies apart in terms of suffering. So, the idea that we should just pretend all that racist crap doesn't exist is stupid, and only furthers the interests of racists. Also, it actually is white supremacist propaganda. No, seriously, "colorblindness" is the erasure of black suffering, not the solution to it. Deal with it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi GC. You're in weapons-grade asshole on wheels mode again. You should probably shut up and read. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off HBC. I've read it. It's shit. Get over it. Meanwhile a friend of mine recommended that I recommend this book to the BoN, so they can understand what's wrong with the "colorblind" approach. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
BoN is a legit asshole. Tone policing isn't warranted here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The BoN's sole mistake was using potential "anti-white racism" (GC's term) as an example, which has got both your idiot OMG they might be a Nazi! spidey senses tingling. Other than that, they're pretty clearly arguing that racist behaviour is wrong, irrespective of power differentials and in any combination of skin colour / race for oppressed and oppressor.

This has the notable benefit of being internally consistent and universally applicable. Prejudice + power has considerable difficulties dealing with obviously racist shit like, say, local Afro-Caribbean lads hating on recent Somali arrivals, or recently arrived Poles hating on recently arrived Romanians. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As per usual, HBC cannot differentiate between a criticism of a person, and a criticism of an idea. Please do quote me exactly where I went and called this person a Nazi. Do it HBC, or shut the fuck up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Christ. You really are lost deep in the red mist tonight, aren't you? Breathe, man, and then go back & reread my previous post. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no, GC my mistake. I apologize for putting words in your mouth, that was wrong of me. I will endeavor to not engage in such behavior in the future." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha. No. Charitable gesture in the hope your reading comprehension would improve with better blood-oxygen levels, and you could then wind your neck in with your dignity relatively intact. It's a good offer. You should take it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off then. Don't accuse me of your own failings, I've had enough of that shit for one lifetime. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
As you wish. I'll see your guff, and raise you a point-me-to-the-bit-where-I-said-you-called-BoN-a-Nazi. I'll wait. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"The BoN's sole mistake was using potential "anti-white racism" (GC's term) as an example, which has got both your idiot OMG they might be a Nazi! spidey senses tingling." Fuck. Off. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Saying you're acting like someone might be a Nazi really isn't the same thing as saying you called that person a Nazi, you weird angry eejit. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"As per usual, HBC cannot differentiate between a criticism of a person, and a criticism of an idea." It helps when you read. But hey, I'm not responsible for your own lack of self awareness. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Fuck me. It's the same ketamine hit as arguing with the loons at Conservapedia.
  1. I demand you show me where I called that BoN a Nazi!
  2. Never said you did, son.
  3. It helps when you read! Self-awareness! I'm on wheeeeeeeels!
Stay angry, GC. It's really working well for you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Helena, please don't pretend your cosmic snarky attitude here is any less infamatory than GC's tone while chatting with the BoN. Your characteriazation of GC as "assholes on wheels" is more than slightly exaggerated. I disagree that anti-white-racism is impossible (there are some undeniable examples of this happening) though on a large scale it is utterly trivial compared with say racism perpetuated by white people. I would compare this with heterophobia vs. homophobia and transphobia. It happens (there are undeniable cases of LGTBQ+ people being raging heterophobes) but it's a fairly trivial comparison per social impact and individual suffering. ShabiDOO 04:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. The "weapons-grade" crack was gratuitous and was only ever going to provoke GC further, rather getting him to dial it back with the BoN. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

i'd prefer a definition of showing people a little bit of respect, understanding, and basic human empathy AMassiveGay (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we respect those who are far left advocates for censorship? I believe if you support censorship you lack a fundamental feature of humanity, and that is the rationality to understand words are not violence but a social construct made to help communication. Antifa ghouls in essence108.208.14.123 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Bye, TDM2 Thunderclapper (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The BoNs are clearly begging the question, but it's a mistake to frame racism solely in terms of white people as the aggressors and anti-white racism never being a thing. The obvious counterpoint even here is "white" (as a shortcut for Caucasian) on "white" racism. Even in America, there was plenty of historical white-on-white racism (immigrant Irish and immigrant Germans for instance), let alone all the nationalism puffery in European history through the years. In Europe, "white" on "white" racism continues today against the Romani, and I think there's been some instances of racism against Eastern European migrants that came across due to the EU loosening immigration paths. Many countries outside of Europe/colonies/etc. have their own pockets of racism that totally go against any sort of "white" formula -- Han Chinese being racist against Uyghurs (an ethnic group that actually is a mix of Caucasian and Asian so "color" descriptions don't fit well here) and Tibetans for instance. I know the US right wing too often tries to downplay white racism and overplay the victim card (all evidence to the contrary), so there's reason to be skeptical of people who come in spouting "politically correct!" and "left censorship!" and other talking points from the Fox News bullshit factory (and where the likelihood of entering Stormfront territory gets pretty high). I also don't see how racism that occurs down the social totem pole honestly is affected by a "prejudice plus power" definition (I don't care for that definition much, but I don't see how it excludes the Asian shop owner forbidding the black person, because that is a clear power play). But I do think it's a mistake to frame racism as something only white people do, and it's a mistake to frame racism as something white people can never be victimized by. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 Aside from my first post, which was deliberately rude, I recognized that the Bon was arguing for "colorblindness", the idea that we should just be nice to each other and that will help make the bad racism go away. The problem with this approach, which I pointed out, though perhaps not as clearly as might have been needed, is that racism isn't just acts of hostility, but also acts of apathy. It is systemic, and well... "white people" aren't the victims of it. Perhaps I should also define terms a bit here. When Europeans (and Americans, because of course we did) treat Germans, Italians, Irish, etc, like trash, those groups aren't "white" anymore. They are othered into "non-whiteness". So, with that in mind, and especially in the West, White people aren't the victims of racism, they're the witting and unwitting perpetrators of it. This is generally speaking, a systemic problem, not an individual one, hence the "colorblind" approach does nothing to solve the actual issues with society. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I will answer here if possible. @GC, did you notice that not all the world is the US? "hence the "colorblind" approach does nothing to solve the actual issues with society." And how is communautarism working out for the US? I'm from France, a country where it's literally forbidden to make statistics based on race. Here, it's the white supremacists and the far right fascists that call for ethnic statistics. And this "colorblindness" lead to better integration, with arguably higher tolerance and no race riots. Of course, we do have a different history than the US. Other countries, let's say, Sweden, even never had slaves or colonies. Yet, to me, it seems that you group all "whites" in together at a "global scale", as if they were all the same. It's... well, freaking racist. Culture-blind at least. Pointing, as I do, that racism isn't a white thing and that being racist against whites is also bad doesn't diminishes the fact that, say, blacks, still have it worse. "BUT BLACKS HAVE IT WORSE SO WHITES CAN'T SUFFER FROM RACISM!" is just whataboutism. @LeftyGreenMario ... Asshole? For pointing out racism. Damn.2001:861:5700:5150:6DDC:8DCD:C6B0:A2CC (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming France hasn't had race-riots? Seriously? ShabiDOO 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest big ones that I know of were in 2005. Since them, sometimes there's a flare-up, that has usually little to do with race, and all to do with socio-cultural factors. But maybe I'm de-sensitized because I live in France, and we usually have some kind of violent protests episode every one or two years, for whatever. Race usually plays little role in those, protests explicitely against racism usually are more peacefull.2001:861:5700:5150:9179:8D2C:1BE9:21B4 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Define "white". It's a trick question, you can't. At least, not without contrasting it with "non-whiteness", as whiteness is defined by it's distinction from non-whiteness, by the "other". Sure, it's been expanded in the last 40-50 years, but it'll go back to being narrow when/if the racists run out of "non_whites" to kill/enslave/treat like shit. This is why in in the US for example, Germans and Irish weren't white, until around the mid to late 1900s, for some weird reason... Almost as if the expansion of the definition of "white" was a backlash to black people gaining more rights... Almost as if the term itself is inherently built on racist logic... You know, like a symptom of problems with our systems... Systemic problems you could say... Also kudos for ignoring my explanation of how whiteness works, that definitely helped. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
... I don't get why you're arguing about that, when I made very clear in my argument, that "white" isn't an apt descriptor and includes lots of different people. Can we get back to discussing the point, about how "racism" is defined as prejudice based on race, ALL prejudice based on race, not prejudice+power, and that "white people are and always will be dumb" is racist and evil? There is racism, and subparts can be institutionalized racism (for when the laws are racist) and systemic racism (for when the culture and/or the system as a whole are racist), those terms already exist, trying to change the definition of racism to prejudice+power achieve nothing imho, only adding to division and hatred. And , again, I've repeatedly said that other places than US exist (shocking, I know).2001:861:5700:5150:6DDC:8DCD:C6B0:A2CC (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
i am curious to the colour blind thing and how it to relates to france, specifically the idea that not recording any statistics on ethnicity has helped with integration. all that i can find of the subject tells me the opposite is true in france. ive really tried to find an article that says something positive about french colour blindness but i cannot. just examples of racist police, an unrepresentative civil service, and regular rioting in the banlieues with a racial element. i keep reading of non white french citizens with foreign sounding names routinely discriminated against in education, employment, in housing. colourblindness might be official policy but it seems everyone are aware of ethnicities enough to discriminate. “territorial, ethnic and social apartheid” the banlieues have been described. all this colourblindness achieves is to hamper attempts to track and tackle discrimination, to make it difficult to see the scale of problems, to see whats working or whats not.
the rest of this disussion is a little idiotic tbh. racism seems to be pretty much everywhere in some form or other, with sometimes huge sometimes trivial differences between areas, between the peoples discriminated against and the peoples doing discriminating. so many examples that there is no excuse not to reference ones arguments with more specificality. there is little about racism that can be applied universally. i believe gc is american, and it it would probably be fair to say current advents there are the reference point for their arguments. prejudice plus power works pretty well in an american context. but is a vastly oversimplifying phrase that only works in some cases with some definitions of the phrase. if its being spat out as the entirety of ones argument, it probably not that helpful by this point. its a just meme that will only have us arguing pedantic dross with little relevance to whatever point was originally intended.
it is true the us is not the world. trivially so. whats different about french racism? or the british variety? what do they share? slavery would be major similarity. but even that has caveats. the us imported slaves, while european provided them. even sweden dealt slaves to the americas. in the uk atleast, as a trader in slaves and the us a buyer, it significantly affects the nature of the discrimination against their black populations. britains black population is relatively new as a result of slaves only being transported one way, while the us has has had a black people for as long as there has been a usa. how does the masters living alongside a sizable population of a slave class - black folk, now free but never having known equality, how does that effect race relations? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
And how is the communautarism working in the US? Check the 2019 Inclusiveness Index - Othering & Belonging Institute for example. European countries score much more favorably than the US, despite differences in history and approaches. France applies an "assimilation/integration" policy, universalist, based on "we'll make a french out of you". While used to repress local regionalisms (Bretagne, Alsace...), in my humble oppinion it's a nice and coherent approach that has also for benefit to be inclusive. Germany has "multi-culti", and the UK are even more communautarists. But still better than the US. Europe as a whole has enormous differences with the US on the subject of racial relations: first, of course, being that we are actually the native people here. No slavery history with any particular group. HEAVY colonial history for some countries, so already with a substrate of "national" immigrants. Total abscence of colonial history for others. Strong emphasis on welfare systems, that have always included everyone. Direct exposure to racial fascism, who had a sobering effect on idiots. Strong influence of communist and socialist parties, who are traditionally inclusive. No history of institutional segregation against PoC. Historical and generalized contact with the middle-east and africa. That's why I'm sometimes bewildered by the approach taken in the US to solve the problem. To me, the "progressives" in the US are trying to end white privilege by... adding a black, red, yellow, whatever privilege. To me it's madness. And then, when its shows that the hypocrital aspects of say, affirmative action, are not only not yielding the results expected and enrage people excluded from the advantages because of their skin color, the people in the US double down and try to rewrite language so it exclude people based on their skin color. It's... really crazy. What about scholarships not based on race, but wealth? Better funding and formation for schools in under-performing districts? Reinsertion programs? Subsidized housing based on wealth? WHY TRY TO CHANGE A WORD? ... We have all of that in France. My old boss is of algerian descent, and a member of the French academy of Science. Half of my PhD team was tunisian, the other ukrainian... Of course, anecdotal evidence, but come on... I have been bullied in elementary school by some ethnical arabs for being french, I don't hold it against all arabs. However what I suffered from was racism. It doesn't prevent me from seing that arabs, as a whole, in France, have it worse than me.2001:861:5700:5150:9179:8D2C:1BE9:21B4 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
French "assimilation" was one of the most aggressive in all of Europe and it pretty much devastated several regions unique cultures. Norman and Breton languages have virtually died out, Corsican culture is still under grave threat of dying (if it weren't for recent more aggressive cultural protection efforts). The Basque and Catalan speaking areas are highly endangered and it is an absolute miracle that there are still 100,000 speakers of the various Langue D'oc languages (of which not that long ago was in the millions). Meanwhile when you look at the German speaking minority region in Belgium, the Italian minority in Switzerland and the Swedish minority in Finland you can see that it is, in fact, very possible to maintain a national identity without intentionally (and quite aggressively) trying to belittle and wipe out minorities. I mean anyone who has the slightest of sympathy for the Tibetan minority should also feel the same for the virtual death of the Breton language and much of its culture in France. And despite all these efforts its not as though the French nation as a whole is so dynamically more united than other countries which have respected minorities more. Corsican are hardly champions of French identity, as opposed to say the Italian minority in Switzerland. There is a major difference between having an "anything go...massive cultural mosaic of whatever from everywhere" vs. the French (and Italian) policy of trying to eradicate minority regions which have existed for centuries and until only recently many members abandoned the language and culture for feelings of shameful inferiority and embarrassment of even speaking their parents language. That's not an admirable policy at all. ShabiDOO 15:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
?? This policy has been stopped since more than 50 years, lots of Corsicans are champions of french identity (remember Napoleon? - though a strong nationalist movement exist tbh), and oppressing pre-existing cultures is very, very different from asking newcomers to assimilate. Also, I would argue that encouragement of local specificities does not, in fact, necessarily leads to a better union, see Belgium.2001:861:5700:5150:8D90:B524:6B4E:BF8A (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The policy only stopped recently and it was only 10 years ago that Corsican was even taught as a single lesson in Corsican schools (and only even more recently as a general medium of instruction) and this change came mostly because of pressure from the European Union project for the protections of minorities (and the funding that comes from it). People are still very embarrassed to speak Provencal for example, as though it is an inferior barbarian language and efforts for the renaissance of regional languages is an absolute pittance compared to say, the funding of Gallician in Spain, Welsh in the United Kingdom or the Sami language in Scandinavia. Langue d'oc languages are still steadily dying, Alsatian german (as per speakers speaking it at home) is constantly decreasing and the rate of Basque retention in France is pittiful compared with that in Spain. France is not remotely comparable with Belgium where the two communities are relatively equivalent in numbers of speakers. That's nothing like a country like France where the national language utterly dominates the country and minority languages are small and lack resources to protect their languages. In any case, the project of assimilation is hardly a resounding success. I mean, how many solid Arab, Turish and African communities are there in Paris and Marseille? Ones that have on multiple occasions ignited in violent opposition to discrimination, inequality and disparity? ShabiDOO 21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's adorable when someone, (usually a thing white people do) criticizes an entire class of people. Who takes that seriously, really? It's precious.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay He. I am a cis male. And while I am an American, I also try not to be Amerocentric. But in the context of "whiteness" and racism, it's a bit hard to give examples without referencing the US or Europe, as they are the origin of "whiteness" and the source of it being transplanted to other cultures. Perhaps I've not done as well as I'd hoped in trying to convey an abstract concept in print, if so I apologize. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Luxury goods[edit]

Is anybody else suspicious of luxury goods? To me, in this modern era, mass use is a better indicator of quality, if only because more use comes out to more testing, ergo more correction. Wouldn't an app catering to a small group of wealthy users be worse than one constantly receiving error reports and other feedback from the masses? Tangentially, I was debating on buying an Acura a year or two from now (assuming my life continues its current trend). And I found that Acura has its own navigation system. But what use is a proprietary navigation system in the era of Android Auto and Google Maps? I find it hard to believe that a selective service like Acura manages to outperform something as widely used and with as many resources as Google. I suppose that this is probably truer today than it was a hundred years ago. Something like a car or an app probably needs more troubleshooting than a fancy leather chair-Hastur! (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know... Take furniture as an example. The last time I went to a furniture store and saw real wood construction was ages ago. And believe me, if you haven't experienced both, the quality difference in terms of durability between plywood or particle board and real lumber is huge. Years of lifetime difference. When I go to a luxury furniture store, it's very often cheap particle board with a nicer finish. The "quality good" is cheap garbage, but so is the much cheaper ikea or wal-mart piece of shit. I feel like I live in so disposable a culture that real quality is hidden to some hidden upper eschalons of uber-rich or increasingly dispossessed craftsmen. Do we even have quality goods to compare against the cheap stuff or just "quality" brands? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Try going to an Auction. Here's just a tiny bit of a catalogue.Scream!! (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Build your own shit. HairlessCat (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't any apple phone or high-end android be a luxury good? Would you be "suspicious" of them for that reason? What would you suspect them of? (Apart from being expensive).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Some true luxury goods are status symbols and not indicators of any quality; above a certain price, for instance, expensive wine basically tastes better because it is expensive. Other luxury goods are of additional quality, just not all. I do not consider Apple phones or Acuras to be "luxury goods" compared to a Rolex watch or a car in the Bentley / Lamborghini class, they are premium market products in my opinion. Honda and Acura seem to be similar enough in the reliability department; with the Acura you are paying for "premium" features that range from stylistic choices (leather interiors) to driving power (Acuras tend to have more powerful engines). Apple does have a style-over-practicality sensibility sometimes (with its proprietary connectors and closed ecosystem) but higher end phones do tend to have higher end features (RAM, CPU, etc.). The lack of durability and repair ease of phones (and other consumer electronics) in general has inspired a "right to repair"Wikipedia movement, rightly so; it's tough to find products that are "built to last" these days. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
"Luxury good" is a term in economics that refers specifically to goods with the attribute that, if income increases, demand for the good increases by a larger proportion than the change in income. This is in contrast to other classes like "normal good" where the increase in demand is proportionally less than the increase in income, and "inferior good" where demand decreases with increasing income. This is somewhat abstracted from colloquial notions of luxury, and only indirectly relates to things like status, conspicuous consumption, target niches, and the actual quality of a good. It also depends on the range over which income changes are considered. A person whose income changes from one million to two million dollars per year probably isn't going to buy twice as many iPhones. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed
If you live near Pennsylvania, take a trip to Amish country. They still work with real lumber. Also, antiquing is a good option, I'm currently looking at 3 pieces of real wood furniture that I own, including one piece that can be flatpacked if need be, that I have no intention of giving up. CoryUsar (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam vs. Islamophobia[edit]

I personally believe that they shouldn't be conflated. If you criticize the religion for being reactionary or for being too similar to Christianity and/or Judaism, it's not racist. If you think that all Muslims are terrorists and that they are replacing the whites, it definitely is, although the term is still misleading because the far-right (and sometimes the far-left) care more about skin color instead of actual problems with Islam. And this isn't exclusive. Apparently, what would be legitimate criticisms of Christianity is "anti-Christian sentiment", while legitimate criticisms of Judaism or the Israeli government is "anti-Semitic". This still doesn't excuse discrimination, but I just think that it shouldn't be conflated.Jeh2ow Damn son! 22:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Criticism and hate are two different things. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Criticism of Islam and Islamophobia are two very different things. On RationalWiki, we should be critical of Islam but we should never be Islamophobic. Also, being critical of Christianity and hating all Christians are two very different things. And being critical of Judaism, being critical of Israel, hating all Israelis and hating all Jews are all very different things. Spud (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I think often one has to look beyond what is said, and pay more attention to who is saying and even why. There are plenty of reasons to criticise pseudoscience in defence of Halaal Slaughter, for example. However if the people protesting Halaal Slaughter at a given rally are primarily skinheads with shady connections to weird organisations with names like 'Patriot Defenders of Europe'...well it's kind of obvious that these criticisms are not being entered into on good faith. Most likely the purpose of the rally/criticism isn't to promote science and defend animal rights, but instead to act as a front on which to generate anger at Islam that can later be generalised to 'brown people and foreigners'.
That's what makes it so difficult to pin down, often the distinction is to do with intent which is discerned from the the broader political context and not necessarily from anything that is explicitly said. I'd like to think that here on Rationalwiki we enter into these things in good faith though. Get ready, it's... (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Isn't it a statistical fact that Muslims are replacing whites? I guess facts are "racist" to anti-white pro-semites. I mean, when the plain obvious isn't in your court, name calling is all you really have. 82.132.217.248 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A fantastic example of what I was talking about above. Note how 'Muslim' is used interchangeably with 'non-white'. This is what makes criticism of Islam so tricky to do well because you have to be mindful that there is a portion of society that uses Islam as a proxy for 'Immigrants'. Get ready, it's... (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That simply doesn't follow from what I said. 82.132.237.127 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Shhhhhhh. Grown ups are talking. Get ready, it's... (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It's fun to LARP on the internet isn't it? Because it's pretty obvious mentally ill adolescents are talking. 82.132.225.181 (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Apparently someone has to deconstruct this... "Isn't it a statistical fact that Muslims are replacing whites" No, mayocide "the great replacement" has been thoroughly debunked and is fact a complete horseshit conspiracy theory. Also, @Tikitime is correct that in the context of this sentence, "Muslim" is being used as a synonym for "non-white". This is quite silly, as one can be a European "white" and a Muslim, making the whole distinction a case of "no true white Scotsman". Moving along, "I guess facts are "racist" to anti-white pro-semites." begs the question by presupposing that the premise is factual, when without extraordinary evidence in favor said claim is highly questionable, while using the phrase "pro-semites" which I can only conclude from context to be a slur, and a polite way of calling someone a "Jew-lover" or "Muslim-lover", either being a bigoted and racist attempt to poison the well, as well an an ad hominem attack. "I mean, when the plain obvious isn't in your court, name calling is all you really have." Clearly it is not plainly obvious, as you haven't demonstrated it. Further, you've become highly defensive for someone supposedly acting in good faith. I think given the context, and your immediate defensiveness, we can safely move the conversation forward without heeding your input. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I am a hardcore critic of most tenants of Islam (and Christianity and Judaism...quite equally). I am horrified and deeply offended by the homophobia in the Quran and as practiced in most of the Muslim world. As I am with deeply rooted sexism, bigotry of other religions, thought control and the austere cruelty in treating those who violate what I consider many highly immoral rules. However I'm equally revolted by people who demonize Muslims, who discriminate against them and make them feel lesser and unwelcome. I spent months in many Muslim countries and can vouch that they are ordinary human beings just like in any other country in the world...that shouldn't be a controversial idea anyways. The argument that Muslims are replacing white people is fundamentally racist. While it is true that Muslim communities may have a higher birth rate than some non-muslim ones it ignores the following: the amount of decades it would take for one minority to overpass a majority even if such birthrates remained the same (and immigrarion trends) which is a huge assumption, the role of other communities which also have different birthrates (Muslims are not the only non-white groups and in fact some white people are Muslims like most of Albania and Bosnia which have a population of millions). There is also the secularisation factor where with each coming generation comes a high rate of secularisation and increase likelihood of people being irreligious. Even if the math were right (which it isnt) you don't hear people saying "the orthodox Jews are replacing whites in New York" or Africans are replacing whites in France. No...the fact that it is almost only Muslims who are portrayed as replacing white people tells us this comes from an Islamophobic place...the need to create a boogeyman. I even had an ex-friend who said Europe was being replaced by Muslims. We live in Spain where even in Madrid unless you have a Muslim neighbour you're unlikely to see a Muslim on a daily basis and there are none in his home village. While France may have a relatively higher Muslim population, most European countries have a negligible or tiny Muslim population. He's just a racist asshole and he is a huge supporter of Spain's far right party. His hate speech is constant and tiring. I could no longer stand his toxicity and no longer talk to him. And it's ironic cause he's an ex of mine and we had an on and off gay relationship. There you go...a racist intolerant islamophobic fag. The oppressed being oppressors. No surprise. ShabiDOO 14:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo You're using the term Muslim incorrectly. The label that describes the dominant ethnic group from the middle east is Arab(s). There's other ethnic groups that originate from the region, but I don't remember all of them off the top of my head. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mention the Middle East. I lived 6 months in Iran which isn't an Arab country. Of the Muslim countries I visited only 5 were Arab of which one (Lebanon) is half Christian. I think you're the one who is mixing up terms. ShabiDOO 15:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Mayhaps I am incorrect on which term, but last I checked "Muslim" was only a religious grouping, not an ethnic one. As I said before, one can be "white" or "black" (who came up with these labels by the way? They don't describe the actual coloration of the skin pigmentation at all...) and still be a Muslim, given that it is a social grouping rather than an ethnic grouping. I'll check again on whether "Muslim" is an ethnic grouping to be sure if you are insistent. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Muslim is a religious grouping not an ethnic one. And I clearly stated that there are white Muslims, there are entire Caucasian nations which are overwhelmingly Muslim like Albania. ShabiDOO 15:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I was dumb and missed that, sorry. I re-read your post and formally apologize. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"It's not racist because Islam isn't a race" can be basically translated as "I'm being bigoted, but I'm going to pretend that my bigotry being misclassified absolves said bigotry".
As for my criticism of Islam, I really don't see Islam itself as the problem but rather that the religion seems to promote Islamism, which is a huge problem for all the non-Muslims out there (and most of the Muslims who happen to be the wrong type of Muslim, or the wrong gender). CoryUsar (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 is just the birth of pains[edit]

So I was listening some days ago one of those Fundies I know of to either have some laughs or vent some anger and caught the moron claiming the coronavirus pandemic was just the birth of pains (or whatever) described in the Bible, and that it would not be nothing next to what would come next, that would be thousands of times worse but it would not mind as us (ie, they) would be with Jesus (after having been raptured away).

I know such BS is to keep the sheeps confined, but fuck off man. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Preaching doomsday brings in the cash and lots of it. What brings in cash more than exploiting a disaster? --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Christianity actually has more than a hint of apocalypticism in its foundations; unfortunately some preachers are fond of turning that spigot of apocalypticism into a flood. Sigh. As it is, all of these preachers have accurately predicted hundreds of the last 0 end of the world events. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think my talk page is getting automatically archived like it's supposed to be[edit]

I've got 39 threads on it that date back 11 months, including one in which I get called a "twat", I've been waiting for ages for that one to disappear. Could somebody who knows their arse from their elbow, technologically speaking, please sort it out for me? Thank you. Spud (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ya, the old archive bot has been dead for a long time. Recently, though, @The Crow implemented the User:Inferno Bot to do talk page archiving. A little editing on your talk page and you can let the new bot do the archiving work for you. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah if you were using PiBot or Archiver before, just change the template link to User:Inferno Bot/config. You don't need any other configuration changes if you didn't do any manual archiving in-between. If you did, you need to also set the counter flag to whatever number your current Archive page is (check template on top of the bar for an example of how to set that up). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 10:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Uh why didnt you set your bot up to follow pibot configs instead of requiring everyone to switch. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The parameters are identical to PiBot, just the base page it checks for transclusion is different. The reason I didn't do it automatically is because of manual archiving. Very simply put, if you make a new archive page manually and don't set the counter, when the Archive bot then chooses to check where to archive, it'll just dump it in the first archive page that doesn't exceed 200k bytes (200k being the default limit for an archive), which can cause pretty significant date discrepancies for archives. (The Bar is a good example of that tbh, if I didn't manually update the template and just let things run from PiBot's configuration, you'd get everything archived around... 20 pages earlier than it would logically have to be due to manual archiving.) Changing the template might be a bit extra work/slows adaptation down quite a bit, but it prevents that from happening. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I mean why didn't you set your bot up to use the same template as pibot or archiver. I know why FCP wanted to change hundreds of talk pages. But it's unnecessary. Just code your bot to use the same template instead of looking for its own. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I uh... explained that. If I'd just reactivate archiving for everything that has a template transcluded, you'd run into trouble with the manually archived pages in-between (ie. pages done by PiBot or Archiver at first, but since their shutdown by someone who just thought there were too many topics on a talkpage, since the archiver bot just tosses everything in the first archive page it finds counting upwards that doesn't exceed 200kb. (Also, I didn't write the archiver, it's a build-in archiving script from pywikibot that PiBot and Archiver also use). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Derpity derp[edit]

Derps.png

ShabiDOO 11:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Social DemocracyGodless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 12:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Oxyaena Harass 16:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


I tried for 20 minutes but in the end was too dumb to get the embed video code to work properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJW4-cOZt8A&t=799s Get ready, it's... (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

25 years ago ...[edit]

SrebrenicaPotocari Memorial Stone.jpg Srebrenica massacre memorial gravestones 2009 1.jpg

... 8372 Bosnians were killed in the Srebrenica massacre (July 1995), perpetuated by Serbians under Milosevic. This is the face of nationalism and anti-muslim bigotry. Never forget. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be a downer but we should probably get America to not do this, because it seems that they want to. Srebrenica shouldn't have happened, and was one of the worst massacres of the twenty-first century. Please don't try to duplicate it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
And yet for some reason, people still swallow Nationalistic propaganda like candy... Gunther1987 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, most forms of nationalism include a clause to explain why "we can't do bad things like those other guys," so events such as this are written off as a problem with their culture specifically rather than nationalism as a whole.-Flandres (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Milosevic would have been seen by the West as a good guy if he committed those atrocities today. It’s almost the worst part. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

On Mission?[edit]

We don't seem to have a page on Milosevic. Nor on his party.

...wait, they're SocDems and DemSocs? How the fuck does that work? I thought he was a Right-Winger at first... Gunther1987 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, (in theory) he was attempting to keep Socialist Yugoslavia together...he just went to what we see as the political right by using long-simmering Serbian nationalism to do it. His "Third Yugoslavia" was very much an expanded Serbia. He got his start as a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia back when the SFR was still a thing and was a member of it's successor party in Serbia, the Socialist Party of Serbia.-Flandres (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Eastern Europe has weird politics due to Soviet one party rule. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A plea to donate[edit]

Hey folks, please donate to Kaysen's gofundme, he needs life-saving surgery or he's gonna die. He's a little toddler. Oxyaena Harass 19:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, they can get all that money together before the 17th. they haven't even reached 700.000 CAD and need 3 mil. CAD... Gunther1987 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Patreon[edit]

So, I have an account on a site that's like Rule34. For some reason (and the first time in years), they decided to send out subscription mails (5 in total) . One of them is entitled 'Patreon Harasses More Artists Over "Child Porn", Demands Removal of Art From Pixiv' and goes like this:

Patreon has learned nothing from its previous hateful attacks on artists as yet another slew have been forced to delete content that “sexualizes minors” or risk being suspended, with the platform even demanding that artists expunge this problematic content from other sites such as Pixiv.

So, Patreon is finally going to take the whole lolicon/shotacon stuff serious? Anyone heard anything about this?

Btw, got an account on Pixiv too, and there are tags there that literally translate to "Child" & "Little Girl". Gunther1987 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pixiv has issues. It's probably overdue for a good housecleaning. Some good skyline art though. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Pixiv is run by Japanese people, and correct me if I`m wrong, but the Japanese have a different approach towards sex with minors than Westerners do. Still gross. Oxyaena Harass 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

What is your favorite classic rock singer or band?[edit]

My vote goes to either Bon Jovi or Journey. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Do The Stooges count? Are Bon Jovi and Journey considered classic rock now? Back in my day classic rock didn't leave the 70's-Hastur! (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Bon Jovi and Journey have been considered classic rock for a while. Hell, the music that came out when I was a kid is considered classic by current standards. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Rolling Stones, Stooges, Love, Patti Smith, Jefferson Airplane, Doors.... Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Blue Oyster Cult, Black Sabbath, Kansas, Rush, and increasingly Dio. Oxyaena Harass 04:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Classic rock songs by the beatles. ShabiDOO 10:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Bruce Springsteen, Don Henley...Coigreach (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
"Classic rock" describes basically zero percent of what I actually enjoy listening to. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The centers of gravity in my music library have always been classic psychedelia (Jefferson Airplane, Doors), British folk rock (esp. Pentangle), classic goth rock (Siouxsie, Fields of the Nephelim), and more recently, stoner metal (Gas Giant, Black Angels, Kyuss) and freak-folk (Espers, Six Organs of Admittance). The first songs I remember loving enough to buy the record were 'Fire' by Arthur Brown and 'Atlantis' by Donovan. My tastes have been remarkably consistent over the intervening 50 years. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Queen, Bob Seger, White Snake and Alice Cooper are cool too. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The labels for different kinds of "rock" have always been blurred for me - at best - Blondie was supposedly punk..... yeah.... right. so there's only 2 kinds or rock - good, and rubbish other people listen to.Aloysius the Gaul 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Songs about plumbing: "Rock n' Roll Toilet" [1] and "Agitated".[2] Bongolian (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Also the bands The Urinals, Armitage Shanks and The Speed Queens — they were fixtures. Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Taking the Piss is a fucking classic album. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Give me Rush any day, they were (I still find it almost impossible to write about them in past tense) truly masters of every aspect of their music. And though I always liked Def Leppard, since I work with disabled adults I often use them as an example; I tell them no matter how hard your life and job might be you have both your arms intact, and none of them ever claim to have a worse disability or a harder path to recovery than Rick Allen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm kinda with resident misanthrope ikanreed here, me and my brother agreed on one thing, when I was like six and he was like 9, all the music on the classic rock radio sucked. But all the songs on the alt rock/college rock radio are classic rock now, geezers. But I know what you're asking, and I say Neil Young and Crazy Horse. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, classic rock sucks ass and then some. Played to death, then they wind up being played in the supermarket or Musak-ified. Ugh. Bongolian (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
There's this problem specifically with Queen, and I've seen it multiple times. I mean, I had a Queen best of when I was a kid and I got down to it. It was also the CD I weighed as least important to my collection and sacrificed when I heard that putting a CD in the microwave for 2 seconds looked awesome. Not a joke, it looks awesome this was word of mouth alone and CD-Rs were definitely not a thing in my house at the time. But every few years, somebody actually discovers Queen for the first time and they're like "holy shit, this is AMAZING" and I'm like "yes, it very much is, but please at least try anything besides their biggest hits, because their other songs are good too" and they're like "I didn't play we will rock you or bohemian rhapsody even one time today" and I'm like "...no... you're right, you didn't." So I gotta give Queen credit. And I gotta throw a little personal love to Creedence Clearwater Revival, if I hear them, I am never not down for it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In definition, The Beatles, Rush, Frank Zappa, David Bowie, Captain Beefheart and Nick Drake. For the Gen Z definition, Radiohead, Weezer, Nirvana, My Bloody Valentine and Nine Inch Nails. Rockford the Roe (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

US History, Myth and Fact[edit]

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

The video does bring up some good points about tradition in the sense that just because something has always been that way doesn't make it true or correct, and maybe the founding fathers weren't the type of men I was led to believe they were growing up. But I'm highly skeptical about the rest of the information provided in the video, especially in regards to why the Revolution happened, about the life of Washington and his slaves, or Thomas Jefferson. It just seems like there is a LOT of information floating around the internet, but the sentiment I get from Washington and slavery seems to be that he didn't free them because it was not time. The nation was too new and wouldn't survive such a wedge issue at the moment. I just want to get my facts straight about this because I have complex feelings regarding what is happening right now and I want to be sure such actions are rooted in facts. Though with History that might be more wishful thinking.Machina (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

George signed the fugitive slave act. Whatever private qualms he might have had about being a slave owner, he used his power as president to perpetuate slavery and make it worse. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I only skimmed but from my perspective the "why the revolution" happened section smells like bullshit. A quick Google suggests that current consensus is that 20% of American colonists were *loyalists* (in favor of England), with about 40% to 45% "patriots" (in favor of the revolution), and the rest neutral / no opinion. The video instead claims only 20% supported the revolution. This does not seem to be current consensus. Many patriots were pissed about taxation, sure, but the popular slogan was always "no taxation without representationWikipedia", not purely "revolution to increase profit". Several northern states abolished slavery in some form even in the 1780s-1790s and I see no evidence that "maintaining slavery" was a large goal of the American Revolution at all (why would it be when England was in the same state of "uncomfortable but still kind of in practice" that the colonies were in the 1770s?). Rather, abolitionism was a heavily debated element of American society right from the beginning, up to the Civil War... with entrenched racism in some parts continuing even after that, as we know.
I only skimmed the rest, but it seemed with their Founding Fathers bit it was set up as a hit piece that over-focuses on negatives of two individuals. Some of the Founding Fathers eventually changed their mind for instance -- Benjamin Franklin owned slaves from 1735 to 1781, for instance, but eventually became president for the Philadelphia Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Some founding fathers were either staunchly anti-slavery (Thomas Paine) or "anti-slavery, but let's not move *too* fast" (John Adams, Samuel Adams). I think most of the Founding Fathers though had slaves, and the default view seems to more like Jefferson: not exactly comfortable with it, often making lofty quotes against the idea... but unable to "kick the habit", either, with this sometimes coming with viewpoints that the black man was inherently inferior (as Jefferson had), and this sometimes coming with cautious attitudes arising due to the volatility of the issue and economic entrenchment of slavery.
Appeal to tradition is a bunk fallacy indeed, but so is cherry picking. This video did much better in the last part where they were debunking appeal to tradition, but I question their American revolution historical bits. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
At least it's an honest attempt and at my work I saw a couple memes floating around about Jews not wanting Auschwitz torn down because the history is important to remember, and when I called one out, got told "well, they're also tearing down Union Statues" and all I could say was "I bet they are, that's not what I'm talking about, one is preserving history the other is, I dunno, stupid" and I'm really glad somebody put good words to that false equivocation between Auschwitz and statues of individuals. The rest is kind of chaff to me, personally. But I would definitely say, preserving history does not mean maintaining the status quo. I mean, Obama was faulted hard for going to Japan and saying WWII was unfortunate in the great American tour of apology. I would hope that is not recorded as part of his actual legacy of huge mistakes. I think his enabling military and surveillance powers to automate was bad, and he gave so much up for it that he never even got Guantanamo shut down. HUGE FAILURE. I don't think I can even guess his motivations 4 years after his term in giving the green light to a plan for fewer troops and officers and more drones. But it worked out poorly from a humanitarian standpoint, versus a preservation of the American military, and he didn't get overrun by a bunch of people who didn't like it. Imperialism is a rough deal, maybe in a couple centuries Obama will be the figurehead of a person trying to drag a country along in its infancy, but still in an era where the US is strong-arming communities in sovereign nations using private para-military force, forcing bad deals and overthrowing governments, bungling any attempt to socialize anything and then giving up on it immediately, while speaking of how well Democracy works when we just have hope.
Being said, I do have some form of hope. I think it's really cool that people are saying "no, fuck 250, 300 years ago to tell us exactly what we are supposed to know today. But, fuck 160 years ago specifically." If you gotta yank a statue down, yank a statue down, like, who is honestly hurt by that action? Anybody in the present who is like "That was my favorite statue!" needs to try finding a new favorite statue, I know it's scary, but you can do it. We may be (in the worst case scenario that people defending theses statues' rights won't admit to) losing some future person who might have, wide eyed, looked up and actually WITNESSED the sun for the first time as it reflects just perfectly off of the left nostril of the bronze engraved countenance of the third worst general in the Rebel army, and as such will not only never truly appreciate art, history, or God, they will never learn that this man fought for slavery. Cause, you know, hypothetical losses and abstractions are not fair, in a world where facts... don... Do care... Don't care... Wait they are fair, but... people don't care about my feelings, specifically, so everything they have to say is wrong, phew, that's right. Close one.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
not being particularly knowledgeable on the details of american history, nor how it is taught in schools, i will comment on some similarities in motivations around the toppling of statues in the uk and the us, and around the deification of historical figures.
while there is significant differences on either side of the pond in terms of the strength of feeling and the polarisation of each side, there is a reluctance, a flat refusal by some, in facing up to the sins of the past, in this case slavery and the roles the us and the uk played. in both countries there is an urge to downplay its signifcance, to stress its long in past, and that it is our histories whether we like it or not. it challenges myths created about our countries, about what made them 'great', about their uniqueness, and their significance today. myths challenged that for years no one challenged.
in the us, its a myth of saintly founding fathers, of freedom, democracy, equality, fairness, and the rights of man, and its constitution. a myth that country is freer, no country is fairer, a shining example for the world. a myth for all to revel in, whether its true or not. but the myth splits in two at the civil war. and it splits the country, north and south, black and white. one myth has slavery vanquished, the other has a sense of a more noble and righteous cause beaten brutes but triumphant by enduring. the current unrest challenges the myth of a noble confederacy. it challenges the myth that ending slavery ended inequality. it challenges the myth of the founding fathers and of freedom and democracy and the rights of man. toppling statues threatens the myth of the lost cause of the south. it means the us no longer sees nobility in the confederacy. it means protestors have a genuine grievance and are not just uppity blacks. it means black people are real americans too, and the us should start to treat them as such.
in the uk, the myths are less certain, more ethereal. britains greatness is based on an empire where the sun never sets, and britannia rules the waves. empire is a dirty word these days, our myths point to empire as evidence of our greatness, but dances round the evil that empires do. there is little in the uk to remind us of brutality of empire building and its maintenance, that all happened in the colonies. what empire built in the uk, and importantly what slavery built, is easily missed, rarely talked about. for our myths, slavery needs to downplayed as minor thing of our empire. our role in ending the practice needs to be talked up. we need to ignore the legacy not just slaves stolen from africa, but the legacy of what this all did to the people that remained in africa, of what was done to countries on that continent still being felt today, and of what our empire did all around the world in india, the americas, africa. its a myth easy to maintain the empire is long since gone, and the peoples subjugated are all foreign.
its a myth for white british people, but the uk is no longer solely white. there are indian/pakistani, afro carribeans, from all over empire now accepted part of the british people. statues that have been toppled or defaced here are people who made their names exploiting the countries and the peoples whose descendants are now british. these statues that celebrate enslaving the forefathers of a significant proportion of the british people. toppling them, or renaming streets and buildings built by the profits of slavery, that built the very towns and cities of the uk, means accepting all who are british may have roots far from here. its means accepting there was a cost paid for empire, one not equally shared, as were the benefits. public monuments are about shared identities. these statues no longer do that.
in the us as in the uk, this is all about what it means to be american or british respectively. about who gets to be considered american or british. in the uk, this myth of benign empire has waxed and waned in how strongly its felt. i thought it more less done with. but the nationalism of brexit has seen its resurgence, praising past greatness that we could reach again if we all pulled together. but who that 'we' is never been less certain. what is, or was, and will be britain is far from certain. our place in the world is far from certain. people cling to myths or they tear them all away in such times. people tearing down statues represents one direction we could take. opposite them are far right racists 'protecting' statues, all but telling bame british to go back to where they came from is another.
is the us in a similar state of flux or are american myths more forcefully pushed? cold war propaganda and hollywood really rammed the land of the free myth down our throats. with the cold war no more, what is the role of the usa in the world now? combined with a loss of prestige, an america less sure of its self looks for the reassuring lies of its own propaganda. or maybe just its divisions can no longer be ignored?
only in academia is history about the past. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Soundwave106 Except that's not at all what he said, he may have flubbed about the popularity bit, but the video over all is incredibly accurate. You're not looking at this critically, those who tended to oppose taxation the most were wealthy merchants, "no taxation without representation" was a talking point, and nothing but one. Watch the actual video instead of "skimming over it." Oxyaena Harass 15:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with videos is: A) The narrator determines the pace, not you (which means 45 minutes of time for this one); B) there's usually no citations or links, except for quotes which may or may not be quote mining and may or may not be questionable sources; C) the narrative may be oriented strictly towards entertainment value than factual accuracy. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to this video, but I am very biased to text because the above applies to a lot of them. (I can watch an entire day of the HystericsHistory Channel and probably come out with actually less useful knowledge than I had before, for instance.) So, unfortunately, I will decline at this time. I don't think it's news that the professional class were a significant part of the leadership of the American revolution, one can only look at the careers of the Founding Fathers to see this. The French Revolution was similar. I've never got the idea that maximizing profits was the goal of the American revolution though; as seen in modern business (hi China!), maximum profits is achieved by integrating with authoritarian power, where applicable, not fighting against it. The American revolution was as much about wrestling power away from the English aristocracy. Marxists do tend to look skeptically at "bourgeois revolutions" as (to simplify) capitalism enablers, the idea is not 100% wrong (from a power angle in particular), and the video seemed to (maybe) be coming at it from this angle. But as someone who doesn't have a problem with a Nordic style capitalism (while having problems with the Gilded Age sort), this is a type of criticism where I would have to "agree to disagree", I guess... typically capitalism is a better system than any authoritarian ones from my perspective. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Soundwave106 There are references in the description, that you could've easily seen if you clicked "see more." Oxyaena Harass 01:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Should there be an article about Kayne West? (Never mind, didn't know there was already an article)[edit]

Considering that he is a celebrity pseudoscience promoter and conspiracy theorist, seems pretty damn missional. He is like Jenny McCarthy Maybe I might make a draft. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article posted today relating to Trump helping Israel in covering up war crimes[edit]

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/11/trump-is-trying-to-hide-us-israeli-war-crimes-by-attacking-the-international-criminal-court/

Would not put it past Trump to cover up war crimes considering that he allowed Russia to put bounties on American soldiers. Guess the other crimes against humanity are not enough? Also considering that Trump is a racist he would happily allow Israel to cover up genocide (come on, what else do you call Israel's actions against Palestine?). --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact, the united states banned trying american war criminals in the international criminal court(under threat of invasion) in case any of the monsters responsible for the Iraq War might actually suffer some consequences for their crimes. That was 15 years ago. We've always sucked. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know any country that's particularly inclined to let any entity, international or otherwise, put their own military members on trial (look at what a mess it was to even find Ratko Mladić, much less actually try and convict him) but if nothing else the US is a whole lot more brazen about it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?[edit]

No one listens to each other any more. In the USA we have two ideological fronts that fundamentally disagree on what "good" is. Will peace ever be achieved? It seems we are still fighting the same ideological battle which spawned the civil war. Does this just end with one side being annihilated? Now both sides want to silence the other, banning each other on whatever platforms the other one owns. I dont see a way we stop being a house divided from this. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to heated disputes and promoting a chilling effect, implying that these two sides are inherently equal valid is naïve. Both might be practicing screaming at each other, but only one side's ideas are complete trash at the core. It's the one retreating to the likes of Gab and Parler. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Nobody's ever listened to each other. Regardless, the US appears to be moving in the direction of anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. Corporate interests and plutocrats are proving to be largely unstoppable. Trying to enforce regulation and labor rights just results in them moving the means of production to a more hospitable locale. And China (the other power besides the US/Western Europe) does not seem to relent in its authoritarianism. They are doubling down against censorship and true democracy. And their consumer base rivals our own. This makes for a terrifying dialectical synthesis if you ask me. Corporations are already pandering to the Chinese government in the hopes of making more money. I can't imagine things going well if this trend continues.-Hastur! (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
China seems a possible end point of a Trumpist America. Racial supremacism, absolute corporate power, workers killing themselves to get insurance for their families, no civil liberties, legislated morality, empty one party elections. If Trump taught me anything it’s that it CAN happen here. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Neither society (China or the US) is sustainable in the long term, if China and America want to make it past this century, major changes are needed, and that goes for the whole world. The 21st century is the century that could either save humankind, or destroy it. Oxyaena Harass 20:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
2020 is an accelerationist's wet dream. HairlessCat (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no obligation to listen to bullshit. Only the defend the right of idiots to believe in it. Nations do change - the current anti-science theological coup in the USA didn't always exist, and it won't always exist - work to achieve something else in the future. You might not see it - doesn't mean it isn't worth working towards. Aloysius the Gaul 02:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Only the defend the right of idiots to believe in it. Even that's being contested. The only guarantee is that entropy always increases-Hastur! (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that right being attacked - except of course in authoritarian states. I see people being called out for stupid or evil attitudes and being called stupid or evil for it - that's not the same as saying they aren't allowed to hold that opinion. Aloysius the Gaul 04:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hastur AnCap? Seriously? Yeah yeah, too much corporate power, etc, the average person does NOT want privatized police, and the "Defund the Police" crowd tend to be far-left loons not far-right AnCaps. The US is moving towards, well, the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. Basically, Capitalism without any of the protections of the Keynesian economists, because people are stupid like that. But, the beauty is that the US is a democracy with a number of safety valves, and even mass disenfranchisement (which is getting less common, not more) won't be able to allow everything to get too terrible before corporate power is reined in via another Teddy Roosevelt type character. Eventually, people will get smart and enact stronger anti-trust laws, but more importantly, enact laws to prevent the offshoring of finances. It'll be bloody, but it will be done eventually. And then, people will get dumb and forget just why anti-trust laws and labor protections existed in the first place, and we will head back to the Gilded Age once more... CoryUsar (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I see a lot of liberals in the US suddenly envious of European-style hatespeech laws. Could be just me. Also while I'm not even remotely sad about sites like Facebook or Twitter banning white supremacists and their ilk, I do wonder if this effectively opens the door for corporations deciding what is and isn't appropriate to say. Which comes back to my point about corps pandering to an authoritarian Chinese government. Could amount to nothing, could amount to a disaster down the line
@corruptuser: Eh, the rich can outspend the poor any day of the week, and lobby for whatever they want. Failing that, we can vote for whatever we want but so long as they can pack up their ill-gotten wealth/factories and go, we don't have as much power as we think-Hastur! (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Michael Bloomberg just outspent everyone else in the Democratic party, but he didn't exactly clinch the nomination, did he? In the last Presidential election, Hillary spent nearly DOUBLE Trump, yet still lost. Money can only nudge an election result so far.
As for offshoring, I didn't want to get too much into that debate, but oddly the Repubs in 2016 all (except Trump) had the idea I had been championing for close to a decade now; tax profits as if they were made in the country of final sale, not wherever the company claims the profit was made. If an automaker spends 10k on Polish steelworkers, 10k on German factory workers, and 10k on French advertisers where the car is finally sold for 40k, which country made the profit? If it's up to the company, it's whichever one has the lowest taxes, specifically a part-time accountant in Lichtenstein. No, all the profit should be declared in France where the car was finally sold, and if Germany and Poland are also squeezing the company for taxes, well, tough shit, manufacture the car where it's sold then. Same with the US; don't like it, well, it's the US market itself that's the real value, don't like our rules we don't have to buy from you. CoryUsar (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Far left loons who happen to make up a large percentage of the American public, and whom are supported by many prominent figures. Your "prophecy" also seems horridly naive. Police don't have any effect on violent crime rates, it's been shown that when police strike, sometimes the violent crime rate actually goes down. Oxyaena Harass 04:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also CorruptUser,have you read the Princeton study about how much chance a policy has of passing if the masses oppose it but the elite support it versus the masses supporting it and the elite being against it? Your "safety valves" appear to be...rather poorly made,hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have, and I'm not denying that money can swing an election, but it can only swing it so far. Private prisons, for instance, have been lobbying for years to expand, and as horrific as they are they've only managed to "service" 7% of the total prison population. The US has such high incarceration rates because the public itself wanted longer sentences and three strikes laws.
I think our biggest difference is that you believe that the public is being hoodwinked by evil giant megacorps, whereas I believe that the public in general is just that awful.CoryUsar (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Money only swinging an election so far is at least a valid point. It just ignores a lot of corporate/donor class power is used post election, rather than during the campaign. Lobbies don't just hibernate during off-years. A lot of this dreaded march toward plutocracy takes place behind closed doors during legislative sessions. Oh, and don't play a game of chicken based on misanthropy with me-I believe that ALL AMERICA is the problem. Yes, megacorps hoodwink people but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole superstructure, the people, the elites, even the process of fixing problems, is beyond salvage.-Flandres (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's my two cents from an external (well, french) point of view: while, of course, while some sides are better than others, it seems to me that the increased tribalism promoted all across the board in the US does little good. Also, the difficulties in recognizing change, for good or bad, and "the same ideological battle which spawned the civil war" is, imho, part of the problem, because things have changed. I think things would improve if people would try to persuade, convince, explain to their ideological adversaries instead of de-humanizing them and seeing them as thugs, idiots, neo-nazis, godless baby-killers, fascists... Not to say some of them are not thugs or idiots, but accusing people of that doesn't really help them reviewing their opinions. This is what civility is meant to do: it fosters an attitude of trying to work with the other, as equals, rather than the hot-blooded divisivness inflammatory rhetoric supports. This tribalism also favors a culture of fear, where anybody is threatened by the court of public opinion/their peers if they question any part of what is considered Good by your part of the political spectrum.2001:861:5700:5150:2C27:36E:3ED0:17A1 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not reasonable to tolerate intolerance, if we want to maintain an atmosphere of tolerance, we must not tolerate intolerance. Civility has it's place yes, but this ain't one of them. Fascists don't care about what you have to say, they just want you dead. Oxyaena Harass 14:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
And how is trying to bully people out of their opinion working out for y'all exactly? Does, I don't know, the ADL labelling pepe the frog as hate speech helped someone using it change their mind? Does identity politics helped put your ideas in power? The thing is, I agree with you. We shouldn't tolerate intolerance. The first and only rule of debate is that you have to recognize that your debate opponent has a right to existence, and as much rights as you to talk. Racism, for example, goes directly against that because it doesn't accept that your debate opponent has the same right as you based on something he can't control. So we should ban racism from public discourse. No call for murder, no call for segregation. However, seeing that a few threads upwards we disagreed on what is "racism", it seems to me that some well-meaning people might have lost a bit what exactly is "intolerance", and trying rather to silence dissenting opinion and unconfortable perspectives by labelling them "intolerance". How are we supposed to fight an alt-rightist when they prop up their oh-so-lovel black crime rate statistics? Call the stat racist? Call the alt-rightist racist? Or try to counter-argue with wealth statistics and socio-cultural answers?2001:861:5700:5150:8D90:B524:6B4E:BF8A (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
As South Park put so eloquently, America's two party system always leaves you choosing between a douche and a turd. Ugh. A choice between gross and less gross is hardly a choice at all. Especially if all they do is mischaracterize and trash each other. You need more than two parties. Any healthy democracy does. ShabiDOO 15:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Israel has a system that's 100% proportional. Yet this time, it's extremist minority parties that are over-represented in policies because actual majority parties need their votes. At least two parties have them vying for the center.2001:861:5700:5150:8D90:B524:6B4E:BF8A (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Nihilism is easy, isn't it? :) Change does happen, but it's often on a pretty slow scale . Two issues in my lifetime where there have been significant progress towards a better norm, for instance, have been drug laws (on marijuana in particular) and gay marriage. There is much to be done, but if a homosexual or recreational substance user actually *prefers* the climate of, say, a 1980s Reagan America, I'd *cough* wonder what they've been smoking, tee hee. Also, generally speaking, American has pretty tribal throughout its history -- goodness, we've had a civil war over such a thing, right? Let alone McCarthyism and the 1960s unrest and whatnot. Occasionally a (often mislabeled) clip from MAD Magazine in 1969 gets shared online to show how little, in many respects, has changed over time -- the "Super Patriot" clip in the "Mad Primer of Bigots, Extremists, and Other Loose Ends" is the meme, but the article I linked to also shared a "Right Wing Extremist" parody from this section -- seems like not much has changed there, either. (The article also kindly points out what *has* changed since 1969 -- the "black militant" drawing in the same section of MAD really does cross the line into racist caricature and would probably be unacceptable these days, so it's nice to find something that goes deeper than a meme). Social media does seem to have made it easier and faster to spread bullshit around, but it's easy to woe is me tribal America when we've always kind of been like that. The real big difference here, frankly, is that it is the US president, the *leader*, is actually stirring the pot and actively seek division, with literally zero nuance. We haven't had a national leader like that in a long time. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
100% agree. Things have changed a ton. Both for the US and for the world. Even politically, in the US it's not the bible belt dominionists that progressives shall fear, in my opinion. The core Trump supporters are not like that.2001:861:5700:5150:8D90:B524:6B4E:BF8A (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has lived to see A LOT of change. I have a lot of respect for when the progressive elderly say stuff like "I thought I'd never see this in my lifetime" or whatnot. We are evolving and growing more conscious, and it doesn't seem like anything's posing too much of a real danger of stopping it in its tracks. HairlessCat (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sure, but where's the fun in noting important, incremental progress, when you could be running round screaming that the house is on fire? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Now is not the time for incremental change. Multiple Crises are happening NOW. Climate Change is not a problem that should be solved "incrementally."-Flandres (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Attaboy. Now tell your Apocalypse Soon! story again. I don't think enough people heard it first time round. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
As usual, HBC has no intelligent response to offer. Also, the science is against you on this. Just saying.-Flandres (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This is my no-story sad face. Would it help if I said please? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
So as usual, no actual response to the point made other than invective? You have a right to be a jackass, but can't you do it while actually responding to the points others bring up? You know, like what Soundwave and Corruptuser did. I disagreed with them but they actually made claims and points. Is that beyond your capability?-Flandres (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
You're confusing invective with (very) gentle mockery. I get that you're irritated either way, but funnily enough, it's precisely this kind of sloppy hyperbole that makes it so difficult for me to take you seriously in general, and especially so when the topic is your batshit take on The End Of The World As We Know It. Do with this information what you will. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The level of invective does not matter. What matters is that you are not responding to the point(not that you are capable of doing so). Also, I was not going on about the apocalypse, but rather as major period of social disruption with many negative consequences. This is well in line with climate scientific projections, not that you would know that.-Flandres (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"How are we supposed to fight an alt-rightist when they prop up their oh-so-lovel black crime rate statistics?" Have you ever considered admitting that your egalitarian fantasises are a delusion? But no, just shout "racist" and "fascist" (whatever they mean) and then physically assault them. That's about your level of rationality. 82.132.231.52 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you find that people call you a racist often? Do you think that's because you encounter a lot of people who randomly say "racist"? Because that doesn't happen to everyone. 147.147.211.109 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, BoN! Nah, my egalitarian delusions are fine, thank you. And I've yet to assault anyone based on politics. By the way, several mostly black african countries have homicide rates below the US. Like Malawi, or Sierra Leone. Senegal is reputedly very safe from petty crime. Among humans, biological influence is negligible compared to culture. Or, when are you going to yield before your obvious Singapourian superiors?2001:861:5700:5150:D9FB:1C5B:801D:3111 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
So we wouldn't have any surprises if we factored out African Americans and looked beyond your cherry picked data points? You people are a joke. Are you going to the "BLM" march this weekend, cuck? 82.132.229.110 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
LOL wtf. Senegal: Violent crime > Murder rate per million people 83.91 Ranked 69th. Twice as much as United States 82.132.229.110 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists 19 African countries with lower murder rate per capita than the United States. Which, currently, Central and South America have (generally speaking) have the worst problems with at the moment. There are reasons for this beyond "lol race" (hint: poor governance is a big one), but no matter. Such is what leads to the situation where Donald Trump solves the COVID-19 crisis by sitting on the shitter and making racist tweets. C'est la vie. Soundwave106 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I like a vigorous argument, but what's with the insults? "Cuck?" Ariel31459 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
If the problem is environmental, it can be fixed. If you think the problem is genetic, you are a racist dirtbag with no connecting to reality. HairlessCat (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy 82.132.185.182 (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
So, BoN, how can we exactly debate if you ignore what I'm saying? I mean, is "petty crime" murder? For murder rates, I gave two examples (on 19) that you conveniently ignored. You also ignored the example of far east countries. And ignored the economico-socio-cultural impacts I was raising. Venezuela has a higher murder rate than colombia, and it isn't for racial reasons. And not only are the ad personam attacks are not helping, they're silly, I'm french, there isn't any BLM here.2001:861:5700:5150:10DC:5811:BC67:7108 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Obviously you can find outliers from the general pattern. I mean Venezuela is effectively a warzone. It's called cherry picking. I pointed out you are doing this, and so talking to you is a waste of time. In fact most of the anti-white pseudoscience from Boas relies on cherry picking and suppressing data on the general pattern. 82.132.217.248 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Million-persons strong states are not outliers. They're concrete evidence that you're cherry picking the stats you want, which is the stat of black crime in the us. Preferably not corrected for wealth. Ignoring historical, social and cultural factors. You're also conveniently forgetting Japan or most developed asian countries, because that would put a hole in your master race theory.2001:861:5700:5150:2958:2E58:D0BF:371A (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@82.132.217.248 what are you actually proposing anyways? The only thing you've stated so far is some vague thing about black crime statistics in the US and an egalitarian society being a fantasy, but not what one should draw from it. Are you trying to promote a particular change in legislation? What would you have people do? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Does wikpedia have this kind of page?[edit]

I searched for quite awhile on wp if they have such a page, but does anyone know if they have a list like the one's we use on our countrypages (democracy index, religion, crime, ect.), but for healthcare? Gunther1987 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the other pages, Health care systems by countryWikipedia is (mostly) qualitative, grouped by healthcare type. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 was created by the Umbrella Corporation![edit]

At least according to conspiracy theorists. One piece of um....."evidence" is that Raccoon City is an anagram for Corona virus. Not sure how Raccoon City is an anagram for Corona virus when raccoon has two C's in it.

Resident Evil was release in 1998 for Christ sake! I don't see any zombies around (maybe in the White House and Congress though). --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, others claim the gun-like thermometers used to measure someone's body temperature fire a memory-altering beam, and of course the Mark of the Beast is mixed in. Guess who are so gullible to swallow the entire bait. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Goddammit, not them again! Where the fuck is Barry Burton? Gunther1987 (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The switch from mercury thermometers to ones using 'coloured alcohol' or whatever it is) is somehow involved. Anna Livia (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's getting deeper. After all, one of the main bugaboos, if I recall correctly for the antivaccination crowd is mercury. so we either all choke on the grist of Covid-19, or we spawn a passel of extra autistics via both vaccines and thermometers. The Rational can't win. (Oh, it is colored alcohol-- cheaper, low freezing point, fairly accurate-- a good old-style thermometer, actually...) Kencolt (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
So if the Umbrella Corporation is behind it all- we need Leon S. Kennedy, Chris Redfield, Ada Wong and Jill Valentine. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is so stooped! Everyone knows it was Skynet!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Add your made up conspiracy to this page- Fun:Corona virus conspiracies. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Things here in Michigan should get really interesting quickly[edit]

The governor signed an order stating that public health workers will be enforcing the law about wearing masks which includes having stores comply with the law. The public health workers are being sent out due to the fact that the cops refuse to enforce the law about wearing masks. If you fail to comply with wearing a mask in a public building or store, you get a $500 fine. That $500 fine might as well be $1000 considering the current state of the economy.

I do wonder how many people who get the fine will claim sovereign citizen or free man on the land to avoid the fine? --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Public health workers would seem to lack training to enforce laws. If the cops won't do their job then "defunding" sounds more and more reasonable! Aloysius the Gaul 04:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
As for stores who refuse to comply, public health workers are given the authority to dish out fines and order the closure of a store. As for the police in my area, the current county sheriff happily covers up crimes committed by cops and his friends. Other police officers break traffic laws such as not being allowed to drive while using a cell phone. The cops in my area are super incompetent. Why waste tax payer money on a group who cannot do their jobs properly? --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

God dammit, no, what? Wait, GOD DAMMIT NO; or:I discovered a wasp nest actively being built on my balcony[edit]

Noticed a wasp kinda buzzing around the awning for my 3rd floor apartment balcony, and I'm like "no, buddy, this is a bad place for a nest." Keeps bumping around. I'm like "No, buddy, this is a bad place for a nest." Flies to the other corner, and there it is, a fucking wasp nest. Already, I count at least 7 wasps working on it. What a lucky time to have masks handy, but I don't have gloves tonight, and I don't know how I want to pull it down. It's just barely out of reach, and if I get it in a garbage bag, how do I keep the wasps I don't get out of my apartment, and then how do I get the nest down three stories without maybe letting a wasp out? This is a nightmare. I guess it's a reason to research wasps and wasp removal, but man. Texted a couple friends, one has had the same experience, he just leaves them alone, and one was like "hopefully you're not allergic" and I said "I thought that was just bees! Of course it's not just bees, God dammit." What a nightmare. Flyin death ant lookin paper house buildin scary ass stress causin squattin where I normally go to de-stress ass nature. I GUESS IT'S RIGHTFULLY YOUR SPACE TOO CAUSE NATURE, insect brain havin hive mind poison stinger not doin anything wrong and I sill don't like it bitch-ass greasy bugs.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I grew up in the country, wasps were a normal part of life. Getting stung wasn't every year, but often enough to not be notable. They're hateful and annoying, and the safest way to remove a wasp nest is sprayable wasp poison. Nuke it. Duck inside for a few minutes. Give it another light dusting of hornet killer. Go inside. Grab a broom and knock down the nest. Go inside.
Mud dauber nests are the worst kind because it shelters them pretty well from the poison and you have to actively smash the nest, not just knock it down. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Further research has indicated that mud daubers are terrorists who have crashed multiple passenger planes over the years, killing hundreds of people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I know what a Mud Dauber is, I've mowed lawns before, I'm not frustrated over nothing. But yeah, those motherfuckers are trucks and have you dodging like Neo even though you know they can't get you. I've been bit by a bumblebee before, never stung by anything. This nest is like 12 tiers already, how'd I not see it? Did I just not notice or do they build them that fast? Two papered over layers, I would send you the pic. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Upon further reasearch, maybe I got stung by a bumblebee, but it definitely didn't die. I guess they don't die from stinging? So I've been stung once. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
What kind of wasp is this? I'm going to guess probably paper wasp. They build open nests and paper wasps are actually not aggressive at all, stinging only when provoked really. My dad knocks down small paper wasp nests all the time, usually when it's darker. Anyway, as far as wasps go, paper wasps could be much, much worse. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a paper wasp nest. I've still gone out on my balcony, I mean, I was there telling the little... girl? "hey, no nesting here." They are not aggressive, but I just found them when I got home from work. My frustration is less with the little critters themselves as with the knowledge that I'm gonna have to come up with a plan and deal with it. I'm working it out. But it is still scary to think about pulling a wasp nest down, even if they aren't mean. I'm gonna do it, but yeesh. I at least need a pair of gloves.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I've only dealt with Common Wasps before, but they are evil fucking monsters who at autumns hunt and sting people out of spite. Obviously if you're in the U.S. it's some other wasp species, but my mind is permanently turned against all wasps because of my experiences with the European ones. Getting rid of the fuckers as soon as you can is advisable.Coigreach (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of species, and in New England we have quite an illustrious variety of hornets and wasps that require no provocation to sting (you don't live here without getting stung at least once every few years), there are sprays that can knock them out with little difficulty. Just hit them a couple times on consecutive nights, when they're groggy, that does the trick. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
We have those wasps too, we call them Yellow Jackets, and holy shit, if you get one in your car, it's like Jurassic Park. Nobody move. They can't see you if you don't move. I will just open the window it is closest to a little bit more, stop crying, we can get through this. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I hear yellow jackets are far worse than paper wasps yeah. I figure whatever you're telling to, it's probably a sterile female worker wasp. But it's not really fair to lump paper wasps in there. Again, paper wasps behave similar to the bees here. Not really attacking unless you piss them off deliberately. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 05:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a nest, it's like 9 of them, I only have two nights of intel, but they have one that comes home around 8. I'm just about ready for my midnight raid. I've got a bucket to catch whatever falls down, it's harsh, but this isn't a good place for wasps and they will always make more wasps. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Midnight raid was successful. Ten dropped into the bucket plus some larvae, aww, look at the little fuckers, they're like half the size my scaredy cat mind thought they were. I am a monster, no doubt, knew I would be, and dressed the part.For this litlle nest of ten wasp and their babies which was probably about the size of half a graprefruit. I'm going to rip it down tomorrow, the monster I am. But it's not like I could have talked to them. They are literally insects, and as much as I love that world, it is not my world, I have to pull the nest down, it doesn't belong here. I suited up like the monster I was going to be, even though I knew I didn't have to, I executed the plan exactly at midnight, even thought I didn't have to, it wasn't a fear response by the end of the mission, it was a fun response to something that should be mundane. It was the best I could do to mock my fear and respect those little darlings that never did anything wrong besides nest in the wrong spot and stress me out. Since last night, I've heard paper wasps are everywhere this summer. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm reminded of a time, driving back from a camping trip in Yosemite, when in the long stretch of Nevada, Mars was an incredibly bright red, and then there was a patch of rabbits. I didn't want to kill any rabbits, but I'm driving my friend's Toyota Celica, and I'm going like 80. Three rabbits out of a million tried to escape this car by making a cut directly in front of it. I felt awful each time, if you are a driver, you might know how painful it feels to hit a pothole, I felt every one of these rabbits. I drove the Denver stretch later, and there was a cat crossing the interstate and I really didn't want to hit that either, but I was being tailgated and I didn't have time to change lanes. It's all awful, my balcony still reeks of poison, and I still feel bad. But what's done is done. What a strange world. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
A few weeks ago my family had a get-together. My family opens the door to go back inside, I keep saying to close the door, but they just ignore me. I tell them there's a wasp, no, still ignoring me. The wasp flies inside and everyone freaks out. Turns out, it was a cicada-killer wasp, the biggest of all wasps in our area. It was easy to kill, but seriously, wish they'd listen to me... CoryUsar (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The cicadas are out here, stepped out on my balcony, heard a fresh one, it just rattled on and on, like no beat, no pacing all gas no brakes, and I was so excited like, "Is this seriously the cicada song this year?" But no, it rattled out and everything went silent, then the paced drone sang, and it caught pace very quickly. I like to think that one cicada I heard was calling out something like "I'm fuckin ALIVE" and it shut every other cicada up for like a minute. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Lewis Lee was executed today[edit]

The first execution by the federal government in 17 years, he was a white supremacist Neo-Nazi who murdered a family of three in 96.... He still shouldn't have been executed, the state should not be able to take the lives of any of their citizens. Oxyaena Harass 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I’ve recently come around to being anti-death penalty. That said, I’m not sorry to see this scum go. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Oxy & Duce Do you think mass murderers can be rehabilitated? Do you think it is worth the risk to reintroduce them into society, or do you think they should be imprisoned indefinitely? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Mass murderers? Imprison them indefinitely. The really heinous ones can go into the ADX Florence supermax and live in solitary. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you think a form of voluntary capital punishment should exist in that case? Where the convict can choose to end their life instead of living the remainder of their existence behind bars? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Prisoners don’t get to choose their own punishment. Dying is getting off easy. They should live with their crimes and the consequences of them. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That smells less of pursuing a safe and efficient society and more of pursuing revenge. Also, the consequences of their actions are what are being decided here, so "they should live with the consequences of their crime" is redundant. I would argue the only point in punishing a person for a crime is to prevent them causing suffering for others and discourage them doing the action again or in the first place. Causing them to suffer is superfluous, unless you argue that the suffering is necessary to discourage others from doing the action. I would argue that those who commit mass murder are unanimously less-than-sane or radicalized to the point where no punishment would discourage them. I admit my position is fairly weak, however, and that I probably wouldn't feel the same way were my family or friends harmed by some random psychopath. It all just feels so...wasteful. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

So, I've read a few pages already that have the category "Leftist who turn right with age". Why not have categories like these ones aswell:

  • Right-wingers who turned left with age.
  • Centrists who turned left with age.
  • Leftists who turned Centrist with age.
  • Right-wingers who turned Centrist with age.
  • Centrists who turned right with age.

I'm pretty sure this exists, right? With what I've heard about Hunter Avallone a few months ago, doesn't that make him a "Right-wingers who turned centrist with age" (some people claim that he did an 180° turn and is now left. The fact that he's no longer a transphobe, doesn't make him a left-winger. He's still embracing some fundie shit to begin with.)? Gunther1987 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gunther1987 There is a pro and a con to your idea. The positive is that we now can be more specific about how some people's political views changed over time. On the other hand, there isn't that many who have actually Changed their views besides the former-leftists, so it will be hard to find some examples.Jeh2ow Damn son! 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Your suggestions are as reasonable as "Leftist who turn right with age". But the simple fact is that everyone's views - political or otherwise - are changing all the time. Or should be changing all the time as they encounter new evidence or have new experiences. Sometimes these changes will bring them closer to our own and somethings they will not. But this is such a banal fact of life that it hardly warrants a category.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the Military Industrial Complex necessary?[edit]

Or at least something like it? The main beneficial function of the MIC as I see it is being an endless engine of technological research and development. The MIC has shown itself to be incredibly resilient and able to keep millions of citizens on payroll and working towards a common goal (in this case, shooting people). I can't help but wonder if such a thing is necessary for technological progress in a society: an endless drive of innovation for the sake of innovation with nigh-endless funding from the government. The research done in the MIC is sometimes incredibly high-risk and unlikely to work, the kind of research that is avoided by private companies. But due to a mandate of trying to achieve a stronger military than anyone else in the world, the government funds these projects regardless. Entire cities have been successfully propped up with their entire goal being working within the MIC.

Could such a thing be repurposed to better ends? Whatever the new goal is would have to be similarly endless and difficult I would argue. Perhaps space exploration?

Thoughts? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean MIC, because the MIT (Mass. Institute of Technology) is really good afaik. :P — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 16:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I edited the post. Not sure why I changed "MIC" to "MIT". MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Is the MIC necessary? No. Can it be replaced with some other ultra-high risk, high reward drive? Yes. That's to some degree what the Apollo program was. Unfortunately, the MIC exists to balance the books in wars of corporate interest. To keep war from economically decimating the country as it has in the past. To defang war, and to commodify it. Basically, to get rid of the MIC, you're going to have to get rid of the system that not only created it, but requires it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@☭Comrade GC☭ I'm confused what you mean by the "system that not only created it, but requires it". Are you talking about the economy, the judiciary system, or something else? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM I meant capitalism. More specifically, American NeoLiberal Capitalism, but also the system overall. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie What system of government do you advocate for then? European-style Socialism? Communism? (I actually don't know any other systems of government besides outdated systems like Monarchy) MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM Democracy mainly, with alterations to how the economy is run to guarantee a decent quality base standard of living. I'm highly critical of the Soviet model, if that's what you're asking. I kind of can't be an actual communist because I support the use of money, as I see it having a a utility function in society. On whether the state should exist or not, I tend to be less certain, though I would agree with Anarchists that the state should justify its own existence. On the other hand, I also think that the state to some degree can act as a counterbalance to private interests, though this is of course, more theoretical than what most of the current data shows. Basically, I'm an eclectic leftwing anti-capitalist who doesn't follow a singular school of thought. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie well your position is more coherent than mine. My general opinion about politics and the state of America is that it makes me sad and I don't know how to fix it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I think Machieveli put it best: it takes an extraordinary person to fix a Republic. America needs an extraordinary person. ShabiDOO 23:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
American public life seems lacking in extraordinary people, I’m afraid. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
You rang? Le législateur (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
As always the answer is to "Is X necessary" is "Necessary for what?". The world will sure as hell keep on spinning without it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have put it in the first sentence. Sentence 4 clarifies as whether it is necessary for continual technological progress and to drive industry. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, then no. At this point the graft levels have almost certainly supplanted much income being directed to meaningful technological R&D. At this point a hundred billion dollars can easily mean just one fucking VTOL air superiority/strike craft with otherwise inferior performance to existing jets and no useful derivative civilian technologies. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Do you think the MIC should be repurposed to pursue another goal, such as space exploration or another technologically difficult task where the same workforce and companies could reasonably be transitioned to work on the new project, or do you think the funds are better spent on a non-technological system (i.e. education or infrastructure)? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM I think ikanreed's point was that the MIC is corrupt and inefficient, and that it should be completely abolished. Though I could be wrong on that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Isn't this proposal(have a system like the MiC but for domestic growth) roughly similar to what Japan tried with the M.I.T.I.? That did not exactly end well...-Flandres (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I have never heard of MITI before, but after doing a wikipedia search I'm not sure they are entirely the same. From my admittedly lacking knowledge about MITI, it sounds like they were only a bureaucratic entity that didn't actually create anything, whereas the MIC develops new weapons platforms and technologies for war. Am I missing the relationship here? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, they were meant to help the Japanese government with talking to various corporate leaders and plan not just economic growth going forward, but the innovation that would help that growth, deciding what would be invested in and what would be researched in the name of keeping the Japanese competitive with the right advancements in technology. It also wielded a massive amount of power behind the scenes(much like the MiC). I found that similar to what you are proposing.-Flandres (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Phrased that way it does sound very similar. According to the wikipedia article it only really fell apart when it lost its ability to control the currency of Japan due to international agreement. It ended up turning into a new department called METI. It doesn't sound like it was a colossal failure, just that its techniques became obsolete. Do you have a deeper insight into what was so bad about MITI? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, it wasn't bad on paper. By the end it did have a depressing tendency towards crony capitalism and the sort of credit tomfoolery that was seen in America circa 2007. Also, the disaster that necessitated its change was the lost decade(note *decade*), so that was indeed pretty bad. The aging population didn't help, though. Essentially, what you are proposing relies on a lack of graft and cronyism the current MiC in america just flat out does not have.-Flandres (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My short story is coming along![edit]

Somerset County, Bristol County and Devon County in the UK are the first places to be overran by the living dead! I am certainly having fun writing this. It is helping me build the lore of my planned novel. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Register for a wikidot account and you can put it on the collaborative space (its a private wiki). I can give constructive feedback. Anyways. It's up to you. Let me now if you aren't interested and I'll use the wiki for something else. ShabiDOO 17:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I will use wikidot when I finish it which I am getting close. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If Somerset County, Bristol County and Devon County are over-run with the shambling dead, I somehow doubt people would notice the difference :D Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cardinal Chang you from the those areas? Those areas filled with idiots? --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Nah, I was being slightly sarcastic. But, do remember that when Sergei and Yulia Skripal were foaming at the mouth and trembling on a park bench suffering horrendous Novichok poisoning, most people simply walked by thinking they were yet again local drug addicts overdosing. Think that through, foaming at the mouth, eyes rolling, body trembling. Similar to, I don't know what you'd call it in zombie fiction, morbid crossover? and the public walk by. More concerned with their everyday banalities. Which is totally their want and entitlement. Personally, I'm not a fan of current zombie fiction and or movies. Romero's are fantastic criticisms of society. And then there's Linnea Quigley's dancing too, ahem. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
When I start writing my novel- I intend to criticize toxic gender roles, racism, sexism and religious oppression. I will have it where the US becomes controlled by a religious government that believes the zombies are the first step in the Second Coming of Christ. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
"a religious government that believes the zombies are the first step in the Second Coming of Christ." Thought that was a tenet of Christianity anyway. :D But it would be interesting if there was a more honest and scientifically sound approach to zombies/undead. Those mortal remains will continue to decompose and rot to nowt. And the slow shambling variety will definitely become prey to carrion eaters. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah I said the government believes that is the case but the zombies are parasite controlled and rewrite human biology. My zombies will be a metaphor for fear and anti-science philosophy. Decay of the dead is rapidly slowed down due to the parasite wanting to survive and infect. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This wiki has a problem with ableism against its users[edit]

People have not batted an eye to repeated insinuations that I am "dangerously unstable" on this wiki. Why is that? Let's ask @Fawcett why they continue to use ableist talking points against me, and literally no one here cares that they are doing so? Oxyaena Harass 19:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Literally every single edit they have made is centered around disputes involving me, and they only joined right in the middle of a heated dispute. Oxyaena Harass 19:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
You're right about this particular point, but please don't miss the forest for the trees. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
More drama. -Sigh- Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The wiki does not have absolute control over its users. I never actually seen ableism from other users or at least not what I have seen. Now if it is an individual user as you say, not much can be done unless harassment is constant or if there are death threats. If each trouble maker was immediately banned then dear ole nobs would have been long gone. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean, casual ableism here is aplenty. Like, for example, I am neurodiverse, but I get called immature and viewed as an annoyance because of my quirks, not in spite of them, and people generally refuse to come to an understanding. "Ignore it," "move on," and shit won't work, and, like, it's awfully patronizing hearing all this crap from neurotypicals, almost none of whom are autistic. It's funny that the other autistic in the room, Ronin, actually empathizes with me, while the neurotypicals go on with their casual, unconscious ableism. Oxyaena Harass 14:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's unintentional, unconscious ableism, but it's still ableism. Almost no one here had a bone to pick with me until Ace came along and started talking shit, and that's suddenly when I was considered a "problem," despite previously being considered one of the better, more productive users here. Oxyaena Harass 14:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Abilities matter for all sorts of practical purposes, and discrimination based on differences in ability is appropriate in all sorts of contexts. This isn't Harrison Bergeron's world. Blind people are ineligible for driver's licenses, for example, and surgeons must have good hand-eye coordination. Productive participation in a community project requires a certain degree of emotional maturity, and "dangerous instability" is pertinent to conflict management if it is present. A criticism that something is "ableism" does not address whether that thing is factually or even morally correct. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Troll Oxyaena Harass 10:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Is "neurodiverse" newspeak for "autistic"? Because I'm a high function Aspie, but I don't think the world has to adapt to accommodate me, rather, I just bite my tongue and learned to play the idiotic game that everyone else plays. If you are smart enough to know that society functions on bullshit, but can't understand just why society functions on so much bullshit (there's actually a very good evolutionary reason for such bullshit), you aren't anywhere near as smart as you think you are. CoryUsar (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
"Newspeak," seriously? Oxyaena Harass 04:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Neurodiversity is a neologism (coined in 1998) for various nonstandard psychological traits commonly regarded as disabilities. It emphasizes the idea that people with, say, autism or psychopathology should not seek “treatment” in order to live a “normal” life, but that nonstandard psychologies merely represent a form of human variation rather than a disability. Oxyaena’s use there is somewhat incorrect. Neurodiversity is a population trait, since an individual is not diverse. The individual term would be neuroatypical or neurodivergent, contrasted with neurotypical.
Newspeak is a term from George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the Party is progressively imposing linguistic modifications that restrict the ability to express ideas deemed problematic, in order to prevent the articulation and verbal thought of politically-incorrect concepts. Vocabulary was changed such that connotations and shared definitions would prevent the expression of negative views about things the Party likes and positive views about things the Party dislikes. “Neurodiversity” and the associated terminology were coined for the purpose of changing how people speak about psychological disorders, and thereby changing how they think. The Newspeak reference is apt. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that changing language to attempt to alter how people consider certain issues is not inherently “newspeak”, but instead a pretty natural and organic facet of language, and of marginalised people standing up for themselves. Newspeak, imo, pretty specifically means language imposed upon people by a dominant power group to control the conversation in a way that consolidates their own power. I would think a good example is, for example, calling anti-union legislation “right to work laws”. It fundamentally changes the perception from being “laws that make it harder for unions to organise” to “protecting people from forced unemployment”. I know this might sound like a reductive case of the “it’s different when oppressed people do it” cliche, but the fact is that marginalised people trying to define their own identities (instead of having identities forced on them), is just not the same thing as a powerful group/government/whatever using manipulative language, doublespeak, and thought-terminating neologisms to maintain their own hegemony. Idk I’m not an expert or whatever but I am neuroatypical and 1984 is one of my fav books so eh 49.197.141.235 (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
If you are trying to alter how people think through changing the words, well, it's a very dangerous road. Remember; reasons aren't Good simply because YOU think they are Good. You might think that because words like "jungle" and "swamp" come with legacies of negative bias, so you replace those words with "rainforest" and "wetland", but someone else might say that "fossil fuel" comes with a negative bias so it should be replaced with "organic natural fuel".CoryUsar (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

David Cameron[edit]

So, I just looked at his page and he's apparently being placed under the category "Conspiracy Theorists".

Mind if I ask what crankery he believes in (this should be good)? Gunther1987 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That austerity works, and is beneficial for the poor and working class. Oxyaena Harass 16:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
that isnt conspiracy theory that is shit policy AMassiveGay (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't make him a Conspiracy loon. That's just how Conservatives think. Gunther1987 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Weird. The only David Cameron-related conspiracy I can think of is the whole Piggate affair. And even that was hardly a conspiracy, just salacious rumour and gossip. --RWRW (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Plus even if it was because of that, it wouldn't make DC a conspiracy theorist. --RWRW (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't think of any conspiracy theory he is involved in. This is typical thinking along the lines of: "I don't like him therefore he must be guilty of this other thing I don't like". For the record I don't like him that much either - but that doesn't mean that the is guilty of everything.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I only skim British politics, but to my knowledge Cameron hasn't spouted any actual conspiracy theories. Lies sure, bullshit yeah, but I've yet to see him spout an actual conspiracy theory. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure about "centrist stupidity" either. Firstly because - is it wiki policy that all centrist leaders are stupid? Or is the wiki's position that political centrism has become automatically an irrational position?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The wiki doesn't have a position on centrism. There is an extremely vocal minority of users here who irrationally despise centrism. I am yet to read a single good reason why. ShabiDOO 08:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is rather weird.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Oxy seems to loathe Centrists more than Fundies, which is odd, given that she's trans and that Fundies attack the LGBTQ community alot more than Centrists (I don't know how American Centrists are against trans people, but I've yet to find any shitty behaviour from european centrists towards the LGBTQ community (most attack Fidesz & the PiS regularly). Gunther1987 (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
He's a Conservative, right? Shouldn't "Wingnuttery" be more suitable than "Centrist Stupidity"? The British Conservative party isn't centrist to begin with. Gunther1987 (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Unless someone can make the argument that Cameron clings to the center because it's the center, rather than because he believes whatever the center of UK politics happens to be (although I think he's a Tory, so he's more of a conservative), I'd say centrist stupidity would be odd. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, Cameron tended to sell himself as a more moderate "compassionate/respectable/marketable" conservative early on. It didn't last though.-Flandres (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Assimilation culture[edit]

I know there is now a stigma against posting videos on here, but I thought this was worthwhile to share. Enjoy. Oxyaena Harass 01:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's a stigma, I just individually complain a lot about it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Missional videos are reasonable additions to the saloon. Music videos got out of hand. Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There is not a "stigma" about it. It's just that people get irritated when users just post their favorite music just to - well something. As usual when some people abuse their rights others evenly start to get irritated.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Essence of Thought is not a reliable source and has been prone to getting the facts wrong to support their views and creating an echo chamber.Machina (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Source? Oxyaena Harass 16:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxXejH2LQw

They are pretty much known to spread misinformation, it's why I don't listen. Not to mention the video in question is wrong as well.Machina (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Who's Rachel Oates? We don't seem to have a page on this person. Gunther1987 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hillsong[edit]

Anyone want to have a glance at Draft:Hillsong for its Author User:Jurassic56? if it's OK move it to Mainspace. Scream!! (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It still needs some work with the grammar and citing.Jeh2ow Damn son! 15:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The draft article contains a lot of very contentious allegations, some concerning living people, but has no references at all. Please do not move this to main space without references. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Scream!! (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jurassic56 Thanks for the feedback guys - I added some references at the bottom of the page. They are all in Red at the moment - still not sure what i'm doing, but i'll get there.— Unsigned, by: Jurassic56 / talk / contribs

Typically, for the reference section, they are generated from references you add in the article. So for that section, you don't need anything other than:
==References==
{{code|{{reflist|2|80%}}
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]}}
(Note: If you edit this section, ignore the markup that I am doing to make it so you can present Wiki code on a Wiki page, just use what you see without editing. Also, I added a couple obvious categories.)
You then enter references to support statements using the <ref> tag. An example statement you could make about Hillsong, using one of your articles as an example, would look like this:
Hillsong, of course, expects you to give them money. Lots of it. Hillsong expects members to tithe a 10th of their income to the church... and make big donations on top of that.<ref>[https://www.smh.com.au/national/hillsong-the-church-with-no-answers-20070804-gdqs1h.html "Hillsong - the church with no answers"], by the staff of Sydney Morning Herald, August 4 2007</ref>
(Note: Usually, it is good to add the author of the article as well to the reference, but this article has no author. The way I'm formatting the reference is better than just a naked link.)
When you preview (and save) the article, the references should automatically generate in the reference section, and a little reference number superscript will appear next to the text that is being supported by the reference.
Hope this helps. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have begun work on my novel (short story is finished)[edit]

Essay:Parasitic Crisis (Short Story)

The fruits of my labor paid off and I am working on the novel now. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"BLM is Anti-White"[edit]

Remember Kids. Whenever someone says "Save the Turtles", they secretly mean "Stab all Dolphins". Otherwise they would say "Save all Marine Life"! MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been advocating "save the turtles" because I really hate jellyfish... CoryUsar (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Or you could say kill all humans, because they kill more marine life than any other animal... — Unsigned, by: 79.67.78.115 / talk / contribs
Kill only humans? Why are you ignoring the cruelty done by pistol shrimp? Pistol shrimp cause vastly more concussions in marine life than humans do. Why do you hate healthy fish brains? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you a Hard Greener or something, BoN? Gunther1987 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Better not be an eco-fascist because those are the worst. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
"Save the Rain forest" really means "Destroy the Florida Everglades". --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Mia kato donis naskon.[edit]

ŝi estas sola unujara maljunaj. Oxyaena Harass 07:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick google search reveals cats can get pregnant as early as 4 months old, so that is not entirely surprising. How big was the litter? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Malgranda. Oxyaena Harass 13:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Selling the Detroit Lions football team: $1 or best offer (bad comedy time)[edit]

They are literally the worst football team in the US and I am not even a football fan yet I know that they are terrible. I am sure that even a high school football team could beat them. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 We here at the Factory of Sadness would like a word with you. We just want the Cleveland Browns to look better than a Division 3 high school team. The Factory of Sadness video came out in 2011, and we still come back when the Browns get hosed, years later, because it's still fucking relevant.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 02:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I always root for the Browns. I also was born in Kansas. I once got tickets to a KU football game, saw 3 missed extra point kicks. Years ago, not pro knock it back a few yards extra points, the kicker was that bad. I'm a huge fan of basketball, and I like the Kansas collegiate franchise, but I'm a huge fan of the Kansas football team. I have been a Chiefs fan since forever, when Tony Gonzalez moved on, I was like "I love that guy. He did so much for the team for so long. Good for him." Having a worn out Chiefs hoodie last season got people cheering at me. Just, winning a sports game is cool, sure. It's just strange to tie it to your personality. So, if you want to pay me $1 to root for the Lions for you, I accept. Great plays are better than team loyalty, there's a way to enjoy watching the sport while your team loses. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Couple years ago the Lions were actually doing okish. They made the playoffs more often last decade than the Giants did... CoryUsar (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Kid Rock should buy them, change their name to the Detroit Kid Rocks, and make them play all summer long, or something. --Annanoon (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, let's make some sense here. Kid Rock couldn't move the team to his sweet home, Alabama, even if he sang it all summer long. It would make more sense to rename them the Werewolves and move them to London. It would have more tangible roots that way. Kid Rock was god in Joe Dirt. I learned all the lyrics to Bawitdaba, I still remember how to spell it. Kid Rock is a let down. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Extinction Rebellion's leadership and media bias[edit]

How the heck have these woo-meisters managed to avoid media scrutiny? I know there was Roger Hallam's Holocaust fuckery, but the founders all have skeevy baggage attached to them (I've added some to the Extinction Rebellion article, but there's also their role in the Bolivia coup. Despite all the editorials I've read about XR being too white, only occasionally do Rupert Read's anti-immigration views get mentioned, and it took looking on Twitter to find out how many scientists roundly criticized the founders for their hyperbole and reliance on bad science.

It reminds me of how Jordan Peterson is obviously an idiot talking out of his ass to the mildly critical mind, yet the media treated him as some sort of genius saviour. Colossal Squid (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute, is Extinction Rebellion even still relevant? Why would the media be covering them in any great detail?-Flandres (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
They're international, good at drawing attention to themselves (I remember a major player in one of the local climate groups in my area complaining about them stealing credit for one of their actions), and have high-profile allies like George Monbiot. Also, the "we have no leaders" and "Beyond Politics" schtick that allows them to dodge accountability while being more amorphous and palatable to centrists. Obviously, we should be giving that attention to the many indigenous and minority groups who have been fighting environmental destruction since most of us were even born, but that's not how the media works, unfortunately. Colossal Squid (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election are about to close! Any last moment entries do it now pls. — Z 12:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Portland Oregon[edit]

is anyone from Portland able to confirm if strange posters about dream surveys have been appearing? didn't the main character from call of Cuthlu also survey people about there dreams? is this a project or is there something more? Gzstg (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Weird. Marshals without signature uniforms have also been arresting protesters there with unmarked vehicles. The whole dream thing sounds like a joke of some sort. HairlessCat (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
its a long joke if it is a joke. https://www.reddit.com/r/RBI/comments/gds79y/happy_valley_dream_surveys_a_personorganization/ I found this and stuff about something happening on September 5th. I have a birthday around there and both this dream survey and reddit date have me anxious. Gzstg (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like an elaborate trick or artwork or performance or something. If it's a real occult thing, I doubt it will amount to much that will affect you in any way. HairlessCat (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
It's been going on for 5 years. I suspect either severe New Age moonbattery (some of that crowd is big into fanciful dream interpretation) or a prankster, if I had to armchair guess. Soundwave106 (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

so is this anything to lose sleep over or will nothing happen on the 5th of September? Gzstg (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing interesting will happen involving this. HairlessCat (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

VisualEditor[edit]

Y'all gonna turn on mw:VisualEditor any time soon? It's so much better, especially for adding references... Hmmph (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"The list I presented doesn't include Visual Editor. Although to be clear the main reason I left the Visual Editor thing out, is because it requires a very complicated additional setup (from here) Scream!! (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
We can't turn it on because it ain't installed. — Dysk (contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
VisualEditor also relies on Parsoid so that'd be an additional service you'd have to run and configure. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bret Stephens[edit]

Hi, I would like to have some help with the Draft:Bret Stephens. I think it's on mission, at least. It's a lot of stuff to add because Stephens releases a lot of nonsense and bigoted shit. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 09:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Reads like just the sort of rant you accuse him of. I'm hardly an expert on him or his ideas, but one thing stood out to me - the expulsion/migration of Jews from Islamic (not necessarily Arab) countries after 1948 is pretty well known - to the point where requiring a citation for it as a major criticism of him is pretty lame.Aloysius the Gaul
IE - be rational about why he is a dick - like this wiki is named - not ranting.Aloysius the Gaul 10:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It could use some work but not a bad start. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Solving the mask shortage on Huntington Beach[edit]

See things haven't changed much in Huntington Beach. Just need Ike Tucker to pop up looking for his sister.

Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Signature please. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If there were less people there would be more masks to go round... Silent Scream (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Corporate human rights violations REALLY needs your help[edit]

I've greatly expanded the draft I made for human rights violations done by corporations and I would like the rest of the community to please give their input and provide sources, and expand certains sections. Tuxer (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Konami. Just Konami. They need to be on that list.Jeh2ow Damn son! 15:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
EA Games. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
For Nestle, I think that posting a picture of Immortan Joe and an appropriately snarky caption pointing out how they're his real-life incarnation would suffice to get the point across, say, juxtaposing his "water is not a human right" speech with Joe's "Do not become addicted to water" speech.Colossal Squid (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Add Benny & Jerry's for funding Thousand Currents terrorism. nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 16:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Two groups that should be defunded[edit]

The TSA and ICE, those two government organizations are extremely incompetent and a waste of tax payer money. Both provide a false sense of security and cause problems for innocent people. Lets defund them, it is not like they are any good. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As a foreigner, isn't the TSA just customs? ICE seems like the American version of the Nazi's Gestapo, right down to setting up raids on workplaces (comparable to the WW2 razzias on Jewish people) and arresting anyone who might be an illegal immigrant, so sure on removing ICE, but I fail to see the reasoning behind removing the TSA. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The TSA will feel women up, vandalize personal belongings and use inhumane tactics. All approved and ran by Homeland Security. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The TSA has also been proven incompetent to the point of uselessness. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
On the subject of the TSA, they have been shown to be as bad as ICE. Seriously, the TSA is a group of idiots. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@The Crow TSA actually isn't customs, that's supposed to be ICE (Immigration, Customs Enforcement) job, but yeah they basically decided become goose-steppers. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is tasked with airport security. (It does other modes of transport occasionally, but it's mostly airports) It was created after 9/11 to replace privately operated security checks that were deemed to be inadequate. However, they are absolutely dogshitWikipedia at their job. The best part we only know they're dogshit because of leaks, since they were able to call the abysmal results of testing of their effectiveness 'security sensitive' and exempt it from information requests.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 16:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
As a Texan I say yes ICE must be abolished if only to protect the kids in cages. Gzstg (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Positive effects these organizations have contributed to the world:
Tumbleweed.gif
ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@NavigatorBR I see. I wasn't aware of that. In that case, yeah seems like it must be abolished and ICE repurposed to going back to airport customs? Over here we just have the royal marechaussee for airport security. (They technically have more roles than that such as being the Royal Guard, but really airport security is their big thing). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
TSA is a pain in the Dick, and most of the people that work there are cheap labor, that being said. TSA is leaps and bounds better than the horseshit that gave us 9/11... Plus I think its better to have a coordinated way of making sure everyone is checked the same way across all airports. ICE is about the only agency we have that literally focuses a ton of resources stopping Human Trafficking, which is the modern day slavery, and kids in cages is a fucking over exaggeration.--User:ParabellumCowboy
Wait, how is kids in cages a fucking overexaggeration when there are kids in cages dying of COVID19 as we speak? Asking for a friend. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Privatize TSA and ICE? Hmmm, maybe it should be considered. That would deal with the problem of civil service pension and benefit reform. nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 16:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Every country in the world has customs, immigration, and some form of transport security, and for perfectly good reasons. Being incompetent isn't a reason to "defund" - it is a reason to have decent laws and regulations, and pay them more than crap wages for a shitty job.Aloysius the Gaul 10:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Kids being locked in cages that are completely unsanitary is no hyperbole. It is fact. So many men, women and children have died in those conditions. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

New, need help on article[edit]

I've created A draft about Elsagate but I've never edited here (although I'm active on WP) so I don't really know what I'm doing or the style that most articles follow outside of general encyclopedia things, can anybody help out? Anyone and everyone is free to add to/publish the draft. I'd especially like to add some information on the conspiracy theorists who think it's all some sort of child-grooming ring and other conspiracies from the r/Elsagate subreddit. Thanks! Elesa (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You will need more sources for a mainspace article. I moved it to draft space. There are not very many sources. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Was it moviebob who did the noted deep dive video on those and where they came from and the problems involved? I can't remember anymore. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure, never watched his stuff, but what are the standards here for using YouTube as a source anyway? I've been too busy to work on the article so far so apologies for the (somewhat) late reply. Elesa (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghost Rockets[edit]

The mysterious "Ghost RocketsWikipedia" are certainly worth looking into, the current article we have on them is a stub. They were possibly meteors, but it's been noted that while they appeared during Perseid meteor showers, they tended to fall from the heavens when no meteors or comets were in sight. I think it's most likely they were of meteoric origin, but the behavior of government forces in investigating it warrants suspicion, especially in light of the recent ufo leaks.

I should note that "mysterious" and "ufo" don't exactly correlate to "extraterrestrial," which as a possibility hasn't even been established yet. I am merely stating that the Ghost Rockets warrant further investigation. Oxyaena Harass 23:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it weird that Tom DeLonge had access to the UFO files before they were made public? HairlessCat (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Won't be surprised if COVID-19 cases skyrocket here in Michigan[edit]

Because beaches in Indiana are closed, people from there are flooding into Michigan and plenty of people in Michigan are still not wearing masks citing either "My freedom" or "My body, My choice". What about the freedom to have good health? Bad enough Trump is reducing access to health insurance which will make it difficult for people to pay for COVID-19 treatment. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Same trend in Cali's central valley - locals wearing masks, store owners wearing masks, mask signs up everywhere. The people driving through looking for kicks in the desert? No masks, no social distancing, covidiots all. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Watched a video on Facebook showing two comedians handing out masks, the responses were the claims of "Hoax", "Breathing in Carbon Monoxide" (somehow), "Nuzzle" and "Worshiping masks". --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No masks throughout most of Texas. But then again, you probably already knew or guessed that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Lol I’m sure glad Kansas elected a Democratic governor last cycle. We have a mask mandate and everything. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
We have a democrat governor who mandated wearing masks but morons keep refusing. Hope they enjoy a $500 fine and in this current economy might as well be $1500. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a track record of pissing people off on Facebook[edit]

Why?

  • I support Governor Whitmer and her pandemic response
  • I support mandatory vaccination laws
  • I support LGBT+ rights
  • I support the civil rights of the Palestinian people
  • I do not support the Israeli government
  • I am Agnostic
  • I am Bisexual
  • I support disability civil rights
  • I am against police brutality
  • I support police reform
  • I support the rights of immigrants

Pretty much all of these piss off right wing nuts. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How many of the people that you know on FB, are MAGA's? Gunther1987 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I get the most from when I comment on an article. As for FB friends there are like a few MAGA supporters but they almost never say anything to me, should have been a little more specific. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow. That is truly novel You oppose police brutality, and even have the courage to speak up about that. Where'd you learn that, in school? nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 08:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Fallacy name[edit]

Does anybody know the name of the fallacy where the world as it exists is assumed to be moral and thus must have excuses made for it? HairlessCat (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would guess that appeal to nature is in there somewhere. Though it's not exactly what you are after. Also see Is–ought problem.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I would hazard Just world hypothesis. Seems to fit.2001:861:5700:5150:E4A4:7E10:6C3B:800A (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually that's very interesting. I hadn't heard of that one. Thanks.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Moralistic fallacy. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Censorship by Social Media Corporations a Slippery Slope?[edit]

The recent trend (past couple years or so) of social media sites banning wingnuts has me a little worried. Not because I want the wingnuts to stick around, mind you, but because I'm worried about who is doing the banning. Should we really trust corporations with the power to control what is said online? What happens when they start limiting speech to prohibit criticism against their platforms, the capitalist system under which they thrive, or oppressive governments where they want to expand their user base? The only silver lining is that people are willing to leave whatever platform they are on to go somewhere else when something they want is removed. For example: look at what happened to Tumbler when they banned pornography; there was a mass exodus to twitter. But in that case there was another large platform already available to migrate to; will that always be the case? What happens when one corporation has a monopoly and owns the only website capable of handling the traffic? The attitude of "it is a private site they can ban whoever they want, it doesn't violate free speech" I think could lead to a situation where a corporation effectively controls all online mainstream speech. I would be surprised if anyone could have that level of power and not go crazy with it.

Sorry to make this just a rant though, because I don't really have a proposed solution. This is just me being scared I guess. Thoughts? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This is genuinely problematic, but corporations are also driven by profits, the current way the market trends is against bigots and rightists, not leftists. Oxyaena Harass 14:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Naw. It's piss easy to host a site on one's own. The social media thing has been effectively solved with the fediverse. Decentralized social networking is the answer to that, not forcing sites to start hosting people they don't want on there. It'd be an issue if there's no easy to set up alternative software, but luckily, Mastodon and Pleroma (as well as a literal ton of other smaller tools) exist. The reason I point to both of these is because technologically speaking, someone on one Mastodon site can talk to any other person using Mastodon (same for Pleroma and they can also talk with each other). If Twitter or Facebook or whatever goes down the drain and starts banning stuff, alternatives exist. If those alternatives start being a shitter, it's piss easy to set up a new alternative. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@The Crow Perhaps I am out of the loop then. I have never even heard of the "fediverse" or the two sites you mentioned. Do you think Internet Service Providers such as Verizon or Comcast could start throwing their weight around in this regard and bandwidth-throttle websites that don't conform to a hypothetical "hosted website terms of service"? I know this is me moving the goal posts, but I'm curious what your response is since you seem more informed than I am. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
In the US? Yes. You can thank Ajit Pai and his fellow asshats for that. Net neutrality is supposed to protect against exactly what you're describing, and those assholes got rid of it (Obama's administration made net neutrality a thing for reference). Beyond the US, depends on your nation's laws. The EU has laws in place against this, but they're considered weak and have loopholes (however some member states have stronger laws, like the Netherlands). Would an ISP do this? Possibly, but they'd get a ton of flak over it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 16:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@The Crow They might get flak indeed, but it is very difficult to stand up a new ISP, and it cannot be done by an activist with a dream (unless they so happen to be a billionaire). Often you are limited by your area as to which ISP you can use, normally only having 1 to 3 options. If they all enact the same or similar policies, I don't see how they could be stopped. Also yes, Ajit Pai has created one of the biggest weaknesses in the open internet possible. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The "Fediverse" is a little bit geeky. The "issue" here is that big social media is dominated by ad-supported commercial companies. Companies don't want to be associated with putting advertisements on terrorists, violent extremism, conspiracy theories, or fake news... and it probably doesn't matter to them if it's ISIS, the Boogaloo Boys, or groups few people probably have ever heard in the United States (Facebook banned a hate group called Saracen in Indonesia, for instance.) Social media policy follows the dollars. Cries of "right wing censorship" are IMHO bullshit unless the "right wing" is only about terrorism, violent extremism, conspiracy theories, or fake news... in which case, that's pretty sad. Youtube bans have targeted other things due to advertiser pressure (eg fucked up inappropriate-for-kids videos marketed to childrenWikipedia). And yes, big social media sometimes already censors via pressure from the authorities, even in US/Europe space (that briefly happened to some drill music videos in the UK, for instance). That's the way it goes. It's their advertising money they are promising you, not yours. I have a low opinion of people who whine when their megaphone is taken away, as if they are entitled to someone else's money just because.
If you don't give a shit about advertising and trying to be an "Internet star", there are *plenty* of alternatives to express opinions. Such as building a website in Wordpress or writing blogs in Medium. Discord has become decently popular recently for socializing and that's very decentralized, as far as I know. Conspiracy kooks already know about Bitchute and Parler. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The real issues are the whole mentality of people who are overinvested morally in all sorts of random things, making up labels for them, and proclaiming that there is only one true or acceptable position to hold on them. This in turn leads to them attempting to trying to drive dissenters off of social websites and other media. The constant conflating of expressions of opinion with threats and violence is again moral hyperventilation and a big part of the problem. This intersects badly with the business models of the major social media websites. In ordinary operation they are driven by engagement, which starts and usually ends with a simple count of eyeballs. For the user, the reward they seek is applause. And where 'issues' are involved this mechanic rewards posturing and extremism. The most vehement voices generate the most interest and the algorithms blindly boost their signal. Social media intensifies tribalism and echo chambers as a result. Add to this a population so cowed by capitalism that ejust about everyone has been pushed into an underclass where everyone is im mortal terror of losing their jobs, which risks losing access to housing and healthcare. And their social media accounts are often surveilled by the blue-pencilled feebs from Human Resources, the heirs of yesterday's prim schoolmnistresses.

This too interacts with typical corporate caution, especially where 'controversial' subjects are involved. And Web 2.0 (are we still there yet?) and social media enable anybody with an axe to grind can turn anything into 'controversy'. Something a sponsor might prefer to stay away from. And the more intense the moral hyperventilation, the likelier the fanatics will go after the sponsors. The eagerness of self-proclaimed 'progressives' to invoke the sanctity of Property while they behave like the church ladies of old and claim their campaigns are no threat to freedom of speech is particularly galling bullshit. These tendencies are in no way confined to the 'progressive' tribe, but are more dismaying there because you hoped they would defend freedom of expression. We haven't really had a politically effective left in the USA for more than thirty years now, which has unfortunately given some 'progressives' experience in the politics of impotence: language policing, inventing cant, and other quarrels over tribal symbols. These are the 'political' games of people without actual power and no feasible plans to get it. This is slowly changing, but old bad habits die hard. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön What exactly are you suggesting? How would you like to see massive corporations handling these kinds of issues? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have much by way of 'solutions' that don't require voluntary measures: everybody needs to realize how little is at stake in social media wars, stop threatening people's livelihoods (under capitalism that's aiding the enemy), recognize moral aggression and give it no quarter. I do think that the core principal of the internet, that sites hosting user generated content do not vouch for its truth and are not responsible to anyone for what's being said there, should be strengthened rather than otherwise. I might consider subjecting the large social platforms to First Amendment law. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 12:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I really wanted to like this site but...[edit]

On every topic I have personal knowledge of, the articles are severely biased, misinformed, and lacking trivially obvious counters to the arguments against concepts that anyone actually familiar with that concept would know. I'm forced to assume that the topics I don't have personal knowledge of are in a similar state. More blatant than anything else is the frequent use of stealth Arguments from Incredulity mixed in for "humor".

As someone who values rationality highly, I'm honestly appalled at how little integrity is displayed here. Yes, I'm sure I'll be accused of being biased myself, and I'm sure that's true, too--of course I'm biased in favor of arguments I find compelling, claiming to be completely impartial just shows self-ignorance. But since you can't do anything about my bias (I'm working on that myself, thanks), and although I don't expect this to happen, I recommend that you take a look at your own biases, which you can do something about.

You might suggest that I do some editing myself if I'm dissatisfied, but I looked at some of the Talk pages and I saw what sort of treatment dissent gets you. No thanks. I'll always remember the confident assertions that "No, no one actually believes this" regarding arguments that I and others I'm aware of find persuasive.

Well it wasn't a complete waste of time, I did see a couple of novel arguments, even though they weren't nearly as ironclad as they were presented.

Anyway, this is my goodbye (and it was not easy to figure out how to say anything to the community as a whole here either, by the way, might want to look into that). I wouldn't have bothered usually, but since you claim to be rationalists I figured I owed it to you to give some benefit of the doubt on actually wanting to improve.

Farewell. — Unsigned, by: 206.255.82.56 / talk / contribs

So many words to say absolutely nothing. Colossal Squid (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What were they actually mad about? They didn't actually tell us anything other than "I disagree with many unspecified things". Maybe it's just me, but I think it's important to go into specifics when making these kinds of claims. Also, that's not how bias works. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

So, um...who the hell is this guy? Why is he making a grand staircase exit when nobody knows who he is and thus has no investment in his presence? Did he have a argument on a talkpage under another name, and that is how we are supposed to get context for his objections? Because this all seems pretty lacking in substance to me as it stands.-Flandres (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably one of the things listed here. Gunther1987 (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey-- give the guy some credit, here. As "You Suck" messages go, this is by far the most elegant I've seen, and has the somewhat interesting advantage of never actually saying why we suck, and saying it very well. It's certainly a step up from the usual. Kencolt (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"I hate this site for some reason I'll never specify" ~ Random Bon. Gunther1987 (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The poster seems intelligent and articulate. It's a shame he didn't drop some suggestions for improvements on some of the pages he thinks are incorrect.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really. It's clear BoN likes the sound of its own voice. This person is basically doing a Gish Gallop combined with what I think is an tone argument (the gist of BoN seems to be "I don't like the bias of this site therefore it is completely wrong, the reason being I don't like it".) Soundwave106 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes I do like the sound of my own voice. Is there anyone that doesn't? Either you're confused about what a Gish Gallop is or I am, I think. And I really don't care what the tone is, aside from the problems pointed out in https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Too_much_snark_considered_harmful , but Arguments from Incredulity are hiding in the SPOV aimed at strawmen, and that's just sloppy methodology and stacking the deck. If you were confident in your arguments you wouldn't feel the need to do such things. — Unsigned, by: 206.255.82.56 / talk / contribs
I apologize for my compatriots here. Being the are for the most part a bunch of anti-free enterprise Marxists, they do not understand a thing about marketing and market research. nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 04:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The Internet is a great place, where (if one gets away from the Giant Social Media mob) everyone with their paradigm can find their own little pigeonhole social group, which will mostly be used to boast about how their paradigm is superior to all others and bitch about the rest. For instance, for some reason the focus on the transhumanism article nitpicking (I'm not even sure that's a mission-worthy article these days) made me think the OP would be better served at LessWrong. Nobs, of course, would probably be happiest in the Breitbart commentary section, where he can be served with cherry-picked stories about various "liberal elites" and selected black crime stories to fulfill his bias. (I suppose he's here to stir up shit, because being an asshole is American as apple pie. Sigh.) It's win-win, at least until the peanut gallery thinks a grade Z reality TV host and real estate schlockster is someone that can actually successfully run a country. C'est la vie. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm familiar with LessWrong, grateful to them for introducing me to some new (to me) ideas, but for some reason when I tried to point out bad assumptions and flaws in their own methodologies they ALSO circled the wagons to crush dissent and disparage my motivations and character. Odd how that seems to be a trend. In any case while I admire them for trying to better their thinking and can respect so-called libertarians who seem to actually believe in those ideals and not just as a means to achieving an actual goal of corporatocracy, anyone who takes as an unproven axiom that capitalism is a universal moral good is not someone I can stand to be around for long. One should strive to have a minimum set of axioms, I think, and as uncontroversial as possible. "Capitalism is a universal moral good" may ultimately be true, despite my finding it laughably implausible, but it's the sort of thing where you need to seriously show your work and that makes it unsuitable as an axiom. Glitch (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I try to eat crow, and publicly, when it ends up on my plate, but I also try to minimize how often I dish it up for myself. Yet here we are, with another steaming helping, and I even internally predicted this outcome as likely when I was plucking the bird, so to speak.

I knew what I had to say was going to be written off as https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Leaving_and_never_coming_back by most readers, and I knew that if I did return to respond that I would be making them right about that, and I knew that historically I’ve proven just as weak willed in regard to having the last word as anyone else. Still, I persisted.

In the light of the morning, re-reading what I wrote, although I tried to be objective I still overstated my case. I stand by the general principle of what I said, but even with the data I had at hand when I wrote it I should have realized I was overstating the degree. That fact that anyone at all took my criticism as not entirely valueless is further evidence of that and in hindsight I see that among the errors I may have made, I certainly made one by judging the community solely on what I could see of the articles and talk pages. Even if that weren’t an error in principle, my sample size was too small for the level of confidence I gave it, an error I know I make frequently.

I very intentionally didn’t specify what I was referring to because in my observation, doing so is a trap. I judged it very likely bordering on inevitable that if I had, the entire point would be lost in quibbling over whether any given claim was correct, a quibbling that I would be sure to lose if I was (as intended) not present to continue the argument, possibly even if I were present (I am not infallible), and little to no attention would be paid to if my overall position had any merit in principle. I did not want to provoke a war of inches on a battlefield of miles.

As for who I am, that’s completely irrelevant. If my argument is persuasive, it should be so in spite of who I am, and if it is not then it should not be given undue weight by merit of who I am, either. I am someone who read enough non-stub articles and talk pages to feel I had a grasp of the culture here, and to find it unpleasant enough to not want to read further. Since I like to think of myself as a rationalist as well, I wanted to give some idea of why the site had that effect on me, because I would like to see it succeed in its stated mission, even if I wasn’t going to be around to see that happen.

For the record, no, I’m not reacting to anything listed on https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki

My objections are not political or social, at all. My objections are that the pages lack, in my opinion, sufficient intellectual rigor to be persuasive enough to anyone who has actually thought about the positions they hold for more than 5 minutes. And that when dissenters have pointed out valid flaws in reasoning on the talk pages, they have been disrespected, insulted, met with claims that the flaws don’t matter because no one else sees them, counterarguments that fail utterly to address the actual points of the dissenters, and the matter dropped with no actual change to the article when the dissenter grew tired of such treatment and gave up. This page is closer to my position by far than the “RATIONALWiki” one. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_RationalWiki_is_not_so_great

That is how I interpreted what I saw, in any case. As with anyone else, my heuristics may have identified things incorrectly. They have a tendency to do that.

Oh, for the record, re: my identity I’m not a “he”, I’m a “them”. I chose the name “Glitch” for myself, for many reasons, two of which are that my brain doesn’t work properly and I’m irrational as hell. I’m trying to work on both problems, however.

EDIT: Hm, I seem to have misinterpreted how exactly this works. I thought it would log my IP again for my new content, like it did the first time, but apparently not. In any case, the above was written by myself, Random BoN, also known as Glitch — Unsigned, by: 206.255.82.56 / talk / contribs

It would just kill you to just give us a single example, wouldn't it-Hastur! (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this is just a tone argument. I no longer give a fuck. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
LOL this guy is outrageously helarious. I'm not going to give examples cause it could be a trap. If by trap you mean being obligated to back-up your claims and deal with those who perhaps beg to differ then I'd say it's a pretty standard trap re: how every rational claim and rebuttal works. Nobody here can take a human being like that seriously. There are plenty of other websites you can go concern troll. Nobody here gives a shit about your vague complaints you refuse to elaborate on. ShabiDOO 22:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It's dumb, there's definitely things we need to improve, but the OP refused to offer any meaningful criticism-Hastur! (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It wouldn't kill me at all, and I'll be doing so when I have the time to do so properly. But I judged doing so at that time would be an error and so far I've seen nothing to change my mind on that point. Not for your benefit, let me point out, because responding the way you have is more evidence for my initial belief that this community isn't worth the time and effort to try reasoning with. Rather because some other responses showed promise. Maybe so many of you are just having a bad day, but this sort of insulting behavior and inappropriate dismissals such as saying that I'm just giving a tone argument is not what reasoned debate looks like. At least not any sort that I want to participate in. — Unsigned, by: 206.255.82.56 / talk / contribs
Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Most of us are pretty open to engaging with ideas and evidence, but dancing around providing actual examples gives the impression that you're just here to start shit. Furthermore, if you wanted to build a case, you could have stayed silent, dotted your "I"s and crossed your "T"s, and then laid out all your cards. Or if you thought the site wasn't worth bothering with, you could have just closed a tab and written it off, maybe just have steered friends away. But coming here and going "I have these vague complaints, and no, I can't/won't give examples" doesn't really make you come off as more professional or level headed, it makes you come off as a troll who's just here to start drama. Sheesh... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I explained my reasoning for not giving specific claims poorly, or perhaps my reasoning itself was poor. I have a hard time distinguishing between those possibilities due to my own bias. Either way, you clearly found it unpersuasive. Rather than continue that line, for the sake of productive discourse I will grant you that whatever my intent, it didn't work. As someone with many traits in common with what used to be called Asperger's (I haven't pursued a diagnosis because since I have the traits either way I find it mostly academic) I sometimes struggle with predicting how I will "come off" to others.
Okay, you want specific claims of sloppy methodology. I’ll give my comments in-line. Let’s start here with a section from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transhumanism

ARTICLE: Whole brain emulation "Whole brain emulation" (WBE) is a term used by transhumanists to refer to, quite obviously, the emulation of a brain on a computer. While this is no doubt a possibility[citation needed], it encounters two problems that keep it from being a certainty anytime in the near future.

GLITCH: Why is a citation needed for claiming this is a possibility? Literally anything is a possibility, (potentially) barring obvious logical impossibilities. This should not be a controversial statement in need of a source, at all. It’s a *possibility* that Donald Trump will turn into a carrot tomorrow in defiance of all known principles of reality, just an incredibly tiny one. Furthermore, no problems are needed to be sure that it’s not a certainty at all, let alone in the near future, because literally nothing is certain except definitional truths like the Law of Identity. Why is this even worth saying?

ARTICLE: The first is a philosophical objection: For WBE to work, "strong AI" (i.e. AI equivalent to or greater than human intelligence) must be attainable. A number of philosophical objections have been raised against strong AI, generally contending either that the mind or consciousness is not computable or that a simulation of consciousness is not equivalent to true consciousness (whatever that is). There is still controversy over strong AI in the field of philosophy of mind.[13]

GLITCH: The above is nothing but Science Woo, or maybe Philosophy Woo. If there is an observable difference between a conscious mind and one that merely acts as though it were conscious, it’s news to me and this is a topic of some interest of mine. If there is no observable difference, then the distinction is academic and also subject to Occam’s Razor to conclude there likely is no difference.

ARTICLE: A second possible objection is technological: WBE may not defy physics, but the technology to fully simulate a human brain (in the sense meant by transhumanists, at least) is a long way away. Currently, no computer (or network of computers) is powerful enough to simulate a human brain. Henry Markram, head of the Blue Brain Project, estimates that simulating a brain would require 500 petabytes of data for storage and that the power required to run the simulation would cost about $3 billion annually. (However, in 2008, he optimistically predicted this it would be possible ten years from 2008.)[14]) In addition to technological limitations in computing, there are also the limits of neuroscience. Neuroscience currently relies on technology that can only scan the brain at the level of gross anatomy (e.g., fMRI, PET). Forms of single neuron imaging (SNI) have been developed recently, but they can only be used on animal subjects (usually rats) because they destroy neural tissue.[15] The problem with emulating a brain is not just the hurdle of creating a digital model of the brain, which contains 100 billion neurons, nor the fact that the brain is fluid, which makes it difficult to predict the way molecules will travel in the brain. The biggest problem is the fact that our brain is not a singular entity which functions on it's own, it is an organ whose function is connected to our whole body (consisting of over 37 trillion cells, and a similarly massive microbiome). More importantly, it's function and behavior is a product of interaction with the massive and complex biological world and universe we live in, much of which we are yet to fully understand. If we simply created a digital model of a brain on a computer, it would just be a dead model on a computer. If you really wanted it to function like a real brain, you would need to create an environment which is an exact replica of our universe for it to function within. Oh, it would probably need a body too. Unless we somehow gained ultimate, god-like knowledge and understanding of the universe and everything within it, then built a computer powerful enough to create an exact copy of our universe, then created a digital version of our universe on said computer, our digital brain model (or anything which we try to emulate) is never going to behave the same as the real thing.

GLITCH: All of those words above rest on one single assumption--that only a 100% perfect emulation of the brain counts as “Whole Brain Emulation”. What is the basis of that assumption? There is simply no need, in principle, to do any of that molecular simulation. Of course that’s an incredible amount of data to simulate. But the notion is preposterous. To count as “Whole Brain Emulation” it is only necessary to devise a system which produces outputs that are over some acceptability threshold of indistinguishability of those from the physical brain (whether or not that brain ever actually existed). You can quibble over where that threshold should be, and there are practical concerns of how you will get to certain high levels of fidelity, but in principle you could set it to anything. In practical terms you would most likely want to get to at least 99% fidelity if not much higher, but that’s a problem that is much more pronounced regarding Brain Uploading and not Whole Brain Emulation. If the physical brain being modeled is, for example, output by an algorithm itself or in some other way not the brain of an existing entity that needs to be copied, acceptable fidelity is much lower.

How is that for a start?

— Unsigned, by: 206.255.82.56 / talk / contribs

It's better than all that vague shit you were doing earlier. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Your first example is a petty grievance. It's just the author being thorough. Who gets overworked over a citation that may not be necessary. Zheesh. The second and third examples are nothing remotely controversial. I've read at least a couple dozen philosophical books on AI and those philosophical objections are commonly quoted. If you have a problem with those objections you can state so in the article, but in terms of documenting what actual arguments are made for and again, they are accurate. It's not woo, we're dealing with an extremely theoretical topic for which we are mostly ignorant. I'm sure you can come up with better examples than that. Of course many articles have flaws. But your insinuation that there is a larger systematic problem? Well you'll have to do better than pointing out one article that has a trivial citation issue and your own personal objection to how thinkers we are documenting approach a theoretical topic. What else do you have for us? ShabiDOO 23:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
So your assertion is that a request for citation of something trivially true is not even weak evidence of possible bias, by casting doubt on the claim? Let me test that assertion. “It’s possible that RationalWiki user Shabidoo is not a serial sex offender[citation needed]”. Hmm.
So you’re saying the fact that the criticism is common, even though it’s trivially dealt with, is reason to include it uncritically and unquestioned? You say it’s not woo because it’s “dealing with an extremely theoretical topic for which we are mostly ignorant” but isn’t that true for a great deal of woo? Furthermore you use that as defense to shield the CRITICISM of the topic and yet that very same situation is held up as a reason TO criticize advocacy of the topic itself. Does that not seem like a double standard to you?
Furthermore it’s telling that not only is most of the article taken up with criticisms which are themselves spared any skepticism, but there isn’t even a small counter-balancing section of reasons why it could be plausible or even likely. The entire topic is treated as nonsense because its least defensible version has obvious flaws, pseudoscience, and science woo. Are there any theoretical topics for which that wouldn’t apply? I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
I’ve hardly even begun to dig into the flaws of the article as a whole, I restricted myself to one small segment of it so that it was manageable in the time I had available. There are plenty of flaws in the rest of the article as well, and in other articles. To steal a phrase, I have not yet begun to fight. The question is, am I wasting my time? Is actual productive discourse possible here, or more importantly, likely? Honestly I can’t tell yet. — Unsigned, by: 206.255.82.56 / talk / contribs

Broke down and made an account. I suppose I've invested time by now to be worth it. Still figuring out how to do more on a wiki than read it. Glitch (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess this wiki will never live up to the standards of a petty pedantic concern troll so yeah I doubt this place is worth your time. There are other websites where you can take their issues issues and make a mountain out of a molehill of them. Good luck. ShabiDOO 04:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Read https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Transhumanism full of unaddressed and dismissed complaints similar to mine going back to at least 2007 and then tell me again that I'm a "concern troll" who is making mountains out of molehills. Glitch (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Stop bitching about the site and help improve the articles you think are flawed. If you are half the intellectual you present yourself to be then you could easily fix the "problems" they apparently have. No one is stopping anyone who has a problem with the trans-humanism article from adding to it and making it less "one-sided". Christ. ShabiDOO 05:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I will, starting tomorrow after my doctor's appointment. I don't claim to be an intellectual--I'm undeniably arrogant, but not enough for that, I think. I'm just talented at spotting flaws, much more-so than I am at fixing them anyway, but I'll give it a go regardless. I really should have gone to bed some time ago. Goodnight and my apologies for the excessive annoyance I seem to have caused you. Glitch (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Not intellectual? Arrogant? You're right at home here. nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 08:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

God, I love this guy[edit]

Gunther1987 (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
John Oliver for US President. Gunther1987 (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Not eligible. I understand he's a Muslim born in Africa. Also his full name is "John Hussain Oliver".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Is he an Indonesian stage actor aswell? Gunther1987 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Very good video. Saw it last night. As always, he's very to the point. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.[edit]

So, apparently we have someone even worser than that TERF from the last coop on this site. It seems that this guy believes that Black Lives Matter is Marxist...

Is he an idiot, or something? He seems to have links with Conservapedia, which would explain his anti-black BS (Fundies hate non-whites)... Gunther1987 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the term "absolute dumbass" but yes he is out of his mind. At least you never dealt with Rationaldriver before: full on Neo-Nazi. Rationaldriver made nobs look sane in comparison. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Conservapedia:RobSmith is your guide. Over here he mainly confines himself to derailing saloon bar threads with right-wing conspiracy theories and talking points, with a side order of race-baiting. he's a bit of a nobend, basically. Avida Dollarsher again 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
He looks old in that picture (82 or something). Is he refusing to take his meds that the nurses in the retirement home give him? Gunther1987 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
He sometimes mentions being some sort of political activist in the 70s IIRC, so he's probably knocking on a bit. Avida Dollarsher again 19:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s just nobsie. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Black Lives Matter? You mean those commies who killed that 8 year old Black girl in Atlanta? nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 05:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Evidence? Gunther1987 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
He's talking about the death of Secoriea Turner. Nobs however is using his usual racist warped reasoning again in connecting this with Black Lives Matter. "Inner city violence" and "police brutality" are somewhat separate subjects. (They are a bit linked, of course, in that improving police presence in high-crime neighborhoods would certainly help... *IF* cops stopped being so thuggish, and get the residents in high-crime neighborhoods to actually trust police again. But blaming "black lives matter" for Secoriea Turner's death is absurd.)Soundwave106 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Broken flag icons[edit]

It seems that some flag icons are broken and appear as HTML text in WIGO. I don't know if it's here or how to contact the technical staff.Tuxer (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It will be fixed soon. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 13:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This Ridiculous Cognitive Test[edit]

So Trump wants Biden to take a cognition test that he aced.

[most likely from here], you can find it, I didn't want to link to a .pdf. But he called Joe Biden out to take it. Which, on its face, nothing bad or wrong with that. But then he called the test hard. Like, what? What a stupid fucking play, to say this guy needs to take this test that is meant to spot the early symptoms of cognitive decline, and I passed it, but actually it was very difficult. LIKE WHY WAS IT DIFFICULT? It is not INTENDED to be difficult, it is INTENDED to be VERY EASY, because it is trying to spot COGNITIVE DECLINE. WHY FUCKING LIE ABOUT HOW HARD A TEST THAT IS INTENTIONALLY EASY TO PASS IS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHALLENGE ALL YOUR OPPONENTS TO IT? That's stupid, that's cognitive decline, that's not understanding that the test was easy and everyone is supposed to ace it until they are starting to experience cognitive decline. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Montreal Cognitive AssessmentWikipedia (MoCA) test is primarily given to people whom it is already suspected are having cognitive decline. I actually witnessed this test being given by a doctor to someone under my care. Normal intelligent people will understand why the test is given, what it measures, and what the answers are. Normal people experiencing cognitive decline may wonder (aloud) how they performed on the test, not entirely understanding that they may have gotten some answers wrong or that most educated people without cognitive decline would have gotten all or nearly all answers correctly. People who are narcissistic pathological liars would likely brag about how well they did (Aced it!). Bongolian (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Another note about the MoCA, it is likely the case that the test administrator does not state any kind of quantitative result, but rather inform about the test-taker's ability to function independently. The questions test different aspects of cognitive ability, so even though a number grade could be given, number of correct answers, it's not really the point but rather assessing which aspects of cognition may be failing. The test that I observed was not given any total grade at all by the doctor, but because I was assumed as caretaker to know the answers, the doctor did not explain what the correct answers were, but rather summarized it as 'the person under your care could benefit from assisted living'. Thus, the 'aced it' comment by Trump indicates PIDOOMA. Bongolian (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the insight, very cool of you to explain it, I had a wrong assumption. I've never had to do anything like this, I can look at the test and say "the fuck?" but I missed the point because I've never had to do the thing. Again, thank you for the insight. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Origins of Humanity[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBF0hP2_nGw

A video that (allegedly) claims that the "out of Africa" theory might not be as accurate as we have been led to believe. But then again this is from Gaia sooo.....I doubt it's true in any sort of way.Machina (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not trust Gaia for anything, not even to feed my cat. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia article on the DenisovanWikipedia species (they are a relatively recent discovery, 2008), an article about archaic humansWikipedia, and an article about the expansion out of AfricaWikipedia where it is noted that some intermingling of the "archaic humans" (Denisovan included, along with long known archaic humans like NeanderthalsWikipedia) and modern humans. There is also a Wiki article on earlier expansions of pre-Homo Sapiens humansWikipedia from Africa prior to this. And there is a Wiki article on the evolution of the homo genus as a whole.Wikipedia I didn't watch the video (when the next video on the playlist is "Nikola Tesla - Limitless Energy and the Pyramids of Egypt", chances are good you are wasting your time), but by now it is known that human evolution (what we know of, that is -- which certainly isn't everything!) is pretty messy, like life tends to be. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I recommend you all look at our article on the assimilation model as a reference point. Ciao. Oxyaena Harass 01:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the Louisiana Baptist University article will never make it out of draft space[edit]

I tried to find additional sources that would help expand the article but I am really not finding squat. I even tried YouTube videos for sources. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 I mean, while not exactly the largest article, I've seen articles in the main space that were sparser than that on information and refs. *Shrugs* It's possible that you have found the totality of their existence.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 01:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought of something more. If the smallness of the article bothers you, and you have several diploma mills where this issue has turned up; you could do a larger page (Maybe branched off the Diploma Mill page, the way we do those "Fun:" articles and the like), where you collect the information you've found on these small diploma mills in sections broken up by institution, say collecting 5 or 6 small operations on a single page.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 01:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Tired of Achin'[edit]

Tried oil painting today, it was a lot of fun. A lot of strange coincides also happened, I think a song from 1997 really works, and Yo La Tengo put out a post rock album today.
Just, trying things works best if you do it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Yo mi voy! I ain't going back to the shithole I came from. nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 16:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
nobs, I have no clue what that means or where you're coming from or going to, but DAMN I'm glad to see you! If it was just to stop by, safe travels, if it's coming back, you'll find it strange but not dissimilar. nobs the adventurer! Is he coming or going? I don't care, nobs is still on the loose and that's what matters. Big love to ya nobs. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Well God bless you or Allah or whatever you prefer. Yo mi voy is the bumperstickers that undocumented workers and people have on their cars that means I'm not going back. nobsTo Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day. 08:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, wow, full on nobs! Wouldn't ask for less. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Nobs, you dipshit, learn some basic Spanish or at least how to use Google translate. Bongolian (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A pithy one-line summary of One Angry Gamer[edit]

"Angry Video Game Nerd without the self-awareness."

The thing that always bothered me about the angry reviewer schtick is that AVGN was meant to be a parody of whiny, overreacting gamers (many episodes point out what a loser he is), yet so many imitators forgo the irony and are just irrationally angry (not to mention they seem to have an unhealthy, gambling-addict-like attachment to their vidya). Colossal Squid (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And some of them (AngryJoe), use the word "Angry" for jiggs & giggles (Seriously, never saw this guy acting "Angry" to begin with and since last year, he's trying so hard to be a Jim Sterling clone...)...
Btw, did you really expect Youtubers to understand what the word "Parody" means? Gunther1987 (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The AVGN is one of the last holdouts from YouTube's old days that's still going strong, and he remains absolutely hilarious. He does it so well that any imitations of his style are going to be inferior, so it's no surprise that those who try universally come off flat; no one can just copy that level of virtuosity. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In Cinemassacre movie review videos, James Rolfe comes across as a very mellow, and quite charming, middle-aged man. Spud (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting user[edit]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Youareignorantnotrational

For those who can't be arsed to click the link, this user's talkpage is literally saying: I THOUGHT this was supposed to be RATIONALwiki!!!!1!!1!1

Username is also a giveaway (You are ignorant not rational) Gunther1987 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so fucking what? Can you not handle a few arseholes saying, "This place is shit"? Can you not handle a few arseholes with user names that basically say, "This place is shit"? If all they ever do is write things like that on their talk pages, they're not really doing any harm. And now I've helped give that twat attention he probably craves and doesn't deserve. Oh, bollocks! Spud (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I just posted this, because I thought it was funny. No need to get all worked about it. Sheesh.. ¬¬ Gunther1987 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't realize you thought it was funny. Spud (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Singularity Has Arrived[edit]

Or so this Vice article claims. I think the unified conspiracy theory is nothing new, and the case this article makes that it is something new doesn't resonate with me. But you know... highly missional stuff either way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The idea of a unified conspiracy theory dates back at least as far as 1995 with Michael Kelly calling it 'fusion paranoia'.[3] Bongolian (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

Hi, I've been on a bit of an editing spree the past few hours on this IP and 2001:1970:5A9F:C200:11BF:CB3D:BBC2:8DD8. I've mainly been adding/removing commas and periods. Anyways, I was wondering how article creation works? I have already created a redirect, but writing an article is much more complex and I'm not really familar with this wikis rules. I do have some experience editing Wikipedia, if that helps. I haven't been able to figure out whether or not you have particular notability standards. Also, the writing style is a bit different, so I'd rather ask for advice first rather than just jumping in blind. My idea was that starting an article on modesty might be useful. 2001:1970:5A9F:C200:25C6:23F3:D01C:BAA5 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

See RationalWiki:Mission and RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? We kind of have slowly developing notability guidelines. We decided long ago that we should try to cover every crank idea but we shouldn't try to cover every crank. There are just too many of them and we should concentrate on the most influential ones. A few years ago, we decided that we should only have articles about relevant YouTubers if they have at least a thousand subscribers (which I still think is a generously low number). And if you are going to create new articles, I strongly suggest you create an account. In fact, even if you aren't going to create new articles, I still strongly suggest you create an account. It makes it much easier for other users to communicate with you. Spud (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly what Spud said.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
50.000 would be better, since those tend to be the biggest idiots with and even dumber fanbase. Gunther1987 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, when the YouTube policy was set, we agreed that it could be revised in the future. And we agreed it was highly unlikely that we'd revise down the number of subscribers YouTubers would need before articles about them could be written here and highly likely we'd revise it up. Spud (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It's set at 1000 until further notice. A policy disscussion could change that if really needed. — Dysk (contribs) 22:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Is producing culture themed music cultural appropriation?[edit]

I run several D&D campaigns, and as my party adventures I like to play music in the background themed to their environment. I.e. In a spooky mansion? they hear gothic piano music. In a town? Instrumental folk music. Etc.

Now a lot of the producers of this music produce a very wide variety, making musical tracts such as "Egyptian Desert Music", "Persian Summer Nights, "Celtic Seafaring Music", "Wild West Showdown", etc. My question is whether making music which has an "egyptian" sound when you aren't egyptian is cultural appropriation or not. Now in my case I am not producing the music, I am merely using it to provide ambiance. I try to be cognizant of whether my content is offensive and try to keep my games as inclusive to people as possible. Thoughts? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

All music is based off one culture or another. Hell most cultures are based off other cultures. --Probable Alien-Human Hybrid (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
(EC) I actually find the concept of "cultural appropriation" to be kind of confusing. I would agree that if some disadvantaged culture is in some way losing out because another more powerful culture has hijacked its stuff then that's a bad thing.
But I seem to see this "cultural appropriation" phrase being to cover any use of one culture's stuff by another. But every culture in the world is a blend of previous cultures. Of course it's legitimate to blend and borrow from other cultures to create new ones.
But to respond to your point specifically MirrorIrorriM I would say that, unless your are putting some Egyptian musicians out of work, then you are good to go.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Take from whatever strikes your fancy. Just like the stupidness over a black woman doing Irish dancing a couple days ago, why does it matter as long as it sounds good? If anything it's more fun to add exotic sounds to familiar genres, try listening to a bluegrass shamisen or a rock bouzouki; it's fun to fuse two seemingly incompatible styles together. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The whole idea of cultural appropriation is IMHO really stupid, we (and that's everyone) have been taking stuff from other cultures ever since we stood on our hind legs. From clothing, behaviour, buildings and even religions. Why should music be any different? doesn't Rock descend from 'African Americans' (tiresome phrase) and likely ultimately from their African origins? Stupid. Paul Simon'd be in trouble! Scream!! (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned stuff like music, fashion, and cuisine exist to be appropriated and adapted. American pizza does not resemble Italian pizza any much, and has become its own thing. The Vietnamese pho soup and the banh mi sandwich are their riffs on French cuisine. 'Cultural appropriation' is especially a Catch-22 for writers. Say you're writing a story set in the USA. If you're white and you dare to include Black characters, it's one sin if you try to write them, and another sin if you leave them out entirely. You can't make both sets of zealots happy at the same time. Best advice is just to ignore 'em, they're zealots, ans their parochial concerns have nothing to do with artistic merit. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Cultural appropriation is an economic issue more than anything else. If a particular disadvantaged group makes a breakthrough and forms a new genre of music (say, hip hop), but the music is taken over by the privileged classes and only the privileged classes profit from it, we've lost an important opportunity to help resolve inequality (hip hop isn't the best example of this though, I'll admit). This fits in with the recent brouhaha about actors and voice actors being the wrong color for their roles. White Emma Stone playing an Asian-American perpetuates the trend of disproportionate percentages of white actors and keeps Asian actors out of the industry (if we're being strict, Asian people should take up 5.4% of the A-list. No clue whether they do. Wouldn't be out of line to call for a certain amount of over-representation if we're assuming psychological effects of people not seeing enough of their race in the media).
Tl;dr playing Egyptian music doesn't conceivably hurt anybody if it doesn't take away from anybody. If you're still unsure play Dalida, she's Egyptian but comfortably belongs to the world-Hastur! (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is cultural appropriation. However I would only consider that a bad thing if it is done maliciously or if a culture en-mass overwhelmingly objects to it (not a tiny vocal minority within that community). There are VERY few cases where a cultural group overwhelmingly objects to cultures borrowing a custom. For example inuit people (Eskimo in American terms) generally object to the cultural appropriation of their music. It is not a controversial issue, there is a consensus that their music not be popularized or commercialised. Okay, fine. Saudi Arabians object to non-people from the Arabian peninsula wearing their traditional dress. It is a strong cultural consensus. However issues like taking and making changes to Mexican food, non-African Americans wearing dreadlocks and people adapting Turkic-folk-music is extremely-contentious. It is cultural-outrage-overreach where a vocal minority gets worked up over something the overwhelming majority couldn't give less of a shit about. Cultural sharing has gone on forever. Cultures copy and adopt and adapt one anothers culture. That will never stop. I think one only needs to be careful when adopting an especially revered custom that a culture clearly, through consensus asks not to be changed. And even then, it only makes sense if that custom itself doesn't have a well noted history of being culturally appropriated from another culture. I don't think any group has a monopoly over any customs, but I agree its fair to respect the handful of unique customs that a group overwhelmingly and clearly care about and want to protect. There are simply so few examples, why wouldn't we? ShabiDOO 23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hastur Jazz and Gospel music would be better examples. To address "(hip hop isn't the best example of this though, I'll admit)". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's cultural appropriation to use aspects of more cultural music. But I think it is a bit of a problem to write a song in which the theme is "this culture's music." I would point directly to Sia's "Chandelier," which is a pop song. I don't think any of the music anymore can be considered appropriation, at least not intentionally, but the vocal styling is definitely... Trying to invoke something that pop was really winning with at the time. "One two tree, one two tree, drink," and if I remember right Sia was really trying to write songs, not perform them, in a Max Martin kind of way. But that's kind of the awful thing, when a song is written with an intention to mimic or invoke, rather than evoke, like, who can tell? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation is good. This is a basic human thing, to appropriate, change, misunderstand and reuse cultural points they might have caught elsewhere. The opposite is horribly dangerous and racist. It shut people in little boxes that they're not allowed to leave, for fear of being labeled "exploitive", "racist", "insensitive", or worse, "traitors". Culture is made up from other culture. EDIT: also, reduce the IP time before public domain for cultural creation.2001:861:5700:5150:A189:AE39:98E9:5A4A (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole "That's not racists, the opposite is racist" thing is really bad faith, special contributor. Yes, cultures do blend. Misrepresentation of a certain epitome of culture on a broad platform is harmful and always has been, in that it forces an ideal or expectation of the culture upon it without engaging with it. So, from my childhood, when the word "Indian" comes up, do we mean dot on the head Indian or feather in the hair Indian? It's an incorrect approach, and really, you're missing out on just as much by thinking that's how cultures blend. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Calling it a "good" thing is, I dunno, maybe a position most likely taken by somebody who can profit from the exchange and empower their own position by picking and choosing? Cultures don't get to do that if the exchange is coming from a dishonest standpoint that assimilating a culture into a better and more correct culture is the end goal. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Or, it is a position taken by somebody who thinks that nobody owns culture, ever the "people", as a socio-ethnic-cultural group who produced it? That culture is only owned by all mankind? I mean, the Talibans shoot up the Bamiyans Budhas. It was their culture. And their country. Still, was it OK? My opinion is that no, it wasn't OK. "assimilating a culture into a better and more correct culture is the end goal." Who said that? I said that assimilating into *local* culture of the *local* country where the person wants to acquire citizenship was a desirable end goal. Said local culture, by the way, is absolutely free to change, come and go as people from local culture pick and choose and reinterpret what they like from other cultures. Exception made for harmful cultural behaviors such as homophobia, sexism, racism and xenophobia, who are totally cultural and need to assimilate into universal human rights. The Eskimos don't like non-eskimo people from singing their songs? Too bad. The Pueblos think using their language is desacration? Oh no. Anyways. The italians think ananas shouldn't go on pizza? Couldn't care less. The french (I'm french) are incensed Assassin's Creed doesn't correctly represent their history? F*** 'em! It's not supposed to be historically accurate anyways! Your culture is everyone's prom dress. At the moment I'm watching the anime Blue Exorcist on Netflix, who totally misrepresent the catholic church, catholic sacraments and european history. And who cares? They're not forcing catholics to conform to this idea.2001:861:5700:5150:C46C:FD2F:3298:28E5 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I think "cultural appropriation" has become a ridiculous snarl word of the ridiculous left personally. But there are definitely cases where one can be "tone deaf". For example, Paul Ryan supposedly listing Rage Against the Machine as his favorite band, or the famously anti-union Scott Walker using a song from the famously pro-union Dropkick Murphys at one of his rallies. Someone obviously didn't listen to what the artists were saying very well. There's also cases that I would call "commercial exploitation" -- an example would be musicians, not all of who were Native American, exploiting the noble savage principle to market the bad end of New Age "Native American" music. Bad music in this field ends up being usually nothing more than pentatonic noodling on a cedar flute over a synthesizer pad, with maybe some Desert South West Nature sounds to fill the gap, and some noble savage / appeal to nature tropes in the song titles and artwork. (The better artists in this field, if they borrow from ethnic sources, use them in their own personal framework.) There's no need to invent terms or snarl, though, it's just shit art when this happens. Also, overall, culture is not just an ethnic connotation, IMHO music cultures like "punk culture", "rave culture", "hippie culture", etc. count equally in this sort of thing, and other forms of art, food and dance have similar not necessarily ethnic divisions. Most of the time I hear the word "cultural appropriation" I seem to hear it strictly snarling about ethnic divisions, usually white leftists snarling at whites to be honest (eg the hooplah over white people actually owning a Mexican restaurant in Portland a few years back.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Muh SJWs. Oxyaena Harass 06:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
100% agree, Soundwave.2001:861:5700:5150:6580:E8E7:37CA:3C75 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)