RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive365

This is an archive page, last updated 7 August 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>, <364>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Who was the most racist RW user?

Recently, someone in a discussion talked about a guy named Rationaldriver, who went full-on Neo-Nazi. That got me thinking: what other users (besides BoN trolls) said some very racist shit here?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Besides Rationaldriver (who I clashed with before), my vote goes to nobs hands down. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you go fuck yourself with a jackhammer, racist scum. nobs^{To Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day.} 04:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am racist scum now? Psychological projection much? --George Soros Puppet (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@RobSmith What makes you think that George Soros Puppet is a Hardcore Masochist (I know what fetishes are, but fucking yourself with a jackhammer... ouch.)? Gunther1987 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gunther1987 I do have my kinks but jack hammers are not one of them. Nobs is crazy after all. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Me. Revolverman (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:mikemikev It’s not even close. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's mikemikev: he's a literal Nazi. Nobs is just a run-of-the-mill racist. Bongolian (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bongolian, you racist piece of shit, how did you get to be a Mod? nobs^{To Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day.} 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am normally a nice guy but nobs- shut the fuck up. If anything, you are the racist here. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@RobSmith Do you have any proof that Bongolian is a racist? Gunther1987 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rationaldriver was Mike btw. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobs must be mad that we documented his racism: Conservapedia:RobSmith#The world according to Nobs. Bongolian (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I really don't even want to call Mike a "RW user". He's more of a resident troll than a user. User implies that they contribute. Mike does not contribute. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

He "contributed" a great many wise words regarding the (((Jews))) who ran this site. — Dysk (contribs) 22:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocking reasons question

What is 'Lombardism'? The term does not have a RW page (and should there be a more inclusive phrase than 'dance, little man, dance#?). Anna Livia (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

These are joke block reasons. Use them on people who can unblock themselves. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Those who know don't tell, those who tell don't know. Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Lombardism: noun An idiom characteristic of Lombardy or the Lombardic dialect. A high crime against rationality. Coigreach (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

its like vandalism but from a different tribe. — Z 10:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I invented this shite, Lombardism is where a trusted user unintentionally vandalises the site due to sudden brain malfunction, drunkeness, or mistake. — Dysk (contribs) 21:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump Administration: So when does American become "Great Again"?

As an American citizen I am wondering when things will be great again? So far there has been civil unrest, increased racism, an out of control pandemic and crumbling economy to name a few.

Still waiting for America to be great again. Maybe Trump's idea of making America great again would be turning this once proud country into the next Somalia, Zimbabwe or Eritrea? --George Soros Puppet (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

America was already great before Make America Shit Again came along. He made us look bad across the world stage, and I doubt he'd fix out problems.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 02:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As soon as we finish deporting all the Mexicans that I owe money to for work I never paid them for. --Trump, probably

CoryUsar (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Make American Great Again by voting Agent Orange out of the White House. Maybe a democrat could make the US a proud country again instead of the shit hole it has become. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A mercifully brief argument I created on an important topic--tear it apart

It's trivially easy to prove that some ideas are dangerous, simply by considering how dangerous is the idea that "Some ideas are dangerous". Glitch (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you give an example? (edit) Wait! I'm being stupid. It's self-referential! Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Equivocation. "Danger" can mean a variety of things. A threat of injury from a thing is not the same sort of danger as people using a thing as an excuse to push undesirable policies. Evaluating something as a cognitohazard takes evidence. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This could easily be my own deficiency here, but I don't see how what you're saying applies. Undesirable policies have a sad tendency to lead to injury, so "an excuse to push undesirable policies" is a "threat of injury" with more steps, is it not? And I would think the evidence that the idea "Some ideas are dangerous" has led to not just potential but realized danger is so obvious that it doesn't need explicitly including. That was kind of my point. Am I missing something? Glitch (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Knives are dangerous, yet useful. Ideas are likewise, you may use an idea for good or for evil... but you cannot control it nor contain it. — Dysk (contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I was merely trying to respond, I suppose, to those I saw either pushing a narrative that full expression of all ideas at all times is necessarily good, or a narrative that the suppression of certain dangerous ideas is necessarily good. The point I was trying to make is that some ideas ARE dangerous and that the notion that some ideas are dangerous is one of those ideas. It's a set that contains itself. I suppose the main thing I was really trying to advocate is that the labeling of an idea as dangerous is itself dangerous and so while I'm not convinced that we should never do it, we should think very hard about it before doing so. Glitch (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I always defer to Will Robinson (the original) on such matters.Aloysius the Gaul 23:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Vote Biden

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am.. voting Biden. And I hate it, but here is the reason, and they aren't my ideas, they are an amalgamation of ideas I have heard about this awful lose-lose situation with my interpretation on top, that's how this spreading of ideas things works. So, Bernie is not a candidate, even though he has proven himself time and time again to be for the people over his political career and it somehow just stops at the presidency. And this was Bernie's last viable chance for the presidency. We lost Bernie, so the vote is now about mitigating damage. And I knew that would be the case, from reflecting on having to vote Clinton in 2016, and I'm frustrated, but the most clear way of saying that is "Who do we want to fight against in the white house?" The race is pretty clearly Trump v Biden, and both guys absolutely suck,. But invoking Sun Tzu, which prospect would be the easier one to pressure towards progressive ideas? Voting Biden isn't the last stop, it's the first move. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest watching this then, @Gol Sarnitt. Biden is being more serious in regards to progressive demands. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, that's good, right? Like I said, I'm voting for Biden. But the idea of giving something to the candidate that is unearned is the point. The point is shit ain't workin. When the Ayn Rand Institute takes money from the government, which Ayn Rand literally equated to moral harm, maybe we're not talking about economics as moral perspectives anymoere, because. I don't know, that doesn't work and I'm sorry Ms. Rand, it never did. Why do I still vote for Biden, despite the argument that he's leaning towards progress in his platform? Because he's leaning towards it, Biden is not a progressive. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Biden more of a Centrist? Gunther1987 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

He is more of a conservative when talking about the European political framework, but nonetheless, he is trying to listen to progressives and I think that is of value (I know you said you would vote for him, but I am trying to get some optimism for people, too). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 11:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the optimism. And I agree with it, to a point. We can do better than what we have, and voting ourselves away from authoritarianism for the purpose of free speech and civil rights, rather than further into authoritarianism motivated by the desire to shit all over optimism, it isn't good for anyone but the people in power. Nobody gets in on the game with their vote. There's no moment where Trump is going to meet you and say "you know what, you were right, come away with me to my amazing tower where you can suck my dick," it's not the 90s. Nobody wants Biden to sniff their hair and say "you smell like someone who knows what they're talking about." It wouldn't be out of character. They are both bad, but the optimism can't be contained within the vote itself. Trump proved that, he hasn't done shit, he promised a wall, the optimism is that he's still racist to the bone, not that he's still going to build a wall. The optimism needs to be in the ABILITY to CHALLENGE the president without him calling for your CANCELLATION. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

What does Jacobin magazine say about Biden? "It’s not as if Biden didn’t know what he was doing.... He just didn’t care. Biden had made a calculated decision that the elections he would win were worth the damage he inflicted...But even if Biden has subsequently learned the error of his ways, the rank cynicism and callousness involved in his two-decade-long championing of carceral policies should be more than enough to give anyone pause about his qualities as a leader, let alone a progressive one." [1] nobs^{To Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day.} 08:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Fuck Jacobin. Read: Jacobin Promotes Right-Wing Politics — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I like Jacobin mag, it's not THE source. I like labor unions. I am not comfortable with Biden's approach to unions. Does that mean I also support right wing politics? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, fuck Jacobin. It's a crap resource that I've already had to do battle against before I knew this shit. Bongolian (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

RIP

Left wing youtuber Michael Brooks (from the Majority Report with Sam Seder) just passed away. RIP. https://twitter.com/majorityfm/status/1285342049039003648 — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Holy shit, what devastating news. He was one of my favourite YouTubers! So sharp and well-read yet funny and also gentle and compassionate. I was listening to him yesterday, wtf! The left will miss his presence. I've seen talks on the twitters that it was a pulmonary embolism, where a blood clot dislodges and blocks the artery into the lungs, which if true, damn, he was only in his 30's! Man fuck 2020, this year is pulling out all the stops. RIP. Dark Fire (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I rarely check in with Sam Seder's content, but Michael Brooks was always my favorite. I was really impressed that the Majority Report went on, with tears in their eyes, knowing what a loss they suffered but also respecting the fight they can't lay off from. I really think Majority Report honored Brooks by never pumping the brakes. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In the novel I am writing, I have a villainous secret police as an enemy

In my post-apocalyptic world where the western US is ran by a theocracy, I have the Theological Security Force. Besides the zombies, the Theological Security Force is the secret police that actively engages in oppressing and subjugating the population. I take inspiration from real word examples such as North Korea, the USSR and Trump's goons.

I also have two different rebel organizations fighting against the TSF secret police and the zombies! Now my zombies represent fear and science denial. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, villainous secret police are the enemy in real life too. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How many different TSFs (given there are various theologies)? Could there be zombie theology? Anna Livia (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if zombies were real, I'd consider rewriting my assumptions about the supernatural on the spot, because disease-based mind control creating a unified front of functional cannibalistic hunters isn't exactly a plausible application of existing biological phenomena. And if that's me, a rigid atheist, the creation of a neodogmatic sect among people already predisposed towards being religiously oriented authoritarian followers is hardly staggering. In fact, I'd expect it to be something of a unifying event, allowing sectarian differences to get buried under a single overriding practical dogma. A cross in one hand, a shotgun in the other, that's a lot of people's dream for America. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anna Livia The TSF in my novel mainly has expendable personnel but they are all given the same ideology as everyone in my fictional world. As for zombie theology- I am intending to add something like that. I still have tons of details to work out. @Ikanreed I also have to fully work out the details on the physiology of the zombie parasite. I actually have my short story done which takes place before the events in the novel (Essay:Parasitic Crisis (Short Story)) --George Soros Puppet (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Human society has a tendency to generate divergence (even if 'I am more theologically pure than you' actually equates to 'My turn to be in power').

'The vampires' meet 'the zombies' - what happens next? Can vampires be zombie-fied?

The 'zombie theology' to be found variously on the web is not what I am referring to. Anna Livia (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I am also thinking of adding a military group that works in the genocide of LGBT+ people. Considering the story takes place in 1960 and in a post apocalyptic dystopian world, it would probably work as a plot device. One of my main characters is gay so I am planning a side plot involving that. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That idea seems like it may be hard to play out in a sensitive way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Currently Researching Totalitarian Governments and Theocracies

Before I continue writing I am doing some extra research. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dude, don't forget the "fictional" 1984 cough cough. — Dysk (contribs) 21:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I could use an outside, rational, perspective on a personal problem

Yesterday during an angry rant, my father let slip that someone I considered an old friend despite his recent turn into politics I find abhorrent, has been feeding him my private Facebook posts expressing the, I thought, moderate opinion that when peaceful people are unjustly attacked by authoritarian thugs, they are morally and practically justified to defend themselves. I was shocked that my "old friend" who knew well that my father attempted to murder me on not one but two occasions and abused me constantly as a child, would act as his spy on me. Both my friend and my father being avowed "Libertarians" who abhor violence and the silencing of dissent, naturally my father passed along the threat, a mix of implied and explicit, that if I didn't stop I was going to be "beaten by an axe handle".

I carefully didn't respond, knowing anything I said at that moment would be a tactical error. The question is what to do about it. It goes without saying that I'm certainly not going to stop, but I have for the moment paused to strategize. I could respond by reporting the attempted murder last year that I've been sitting on, I have a witness, but that witness is my mother and the fact that she's still married to and living with my father after watching him attempt to murder her child twice strongly indicates she would lie to keep him out of prison, and then I have no case. I'm not willing to lie to accomplish my goals, I abhor lies and misinformation. I'm not willing to cause collateral damage to anyone besides the two of them.

The easy and obvious solution is to simply remove my "old friend" from my life and warn any of our mutual friends of his misdeeds, until I can get the rest of my things out of my parents' house and then cut ties with them completely, but that seems like such a missed opportunity. My friend doesn't know he's exposed and my father will almost certainly forget what he let slip within a week at most since I didn't make a big deal of it. The conditions for revenge are perfect, and for just about the first time in my life I actively want someone to suffer, even if it serves no point. That's a new feeling. Still, I can't get away from the fact that it DOES serve no point, and I could spend the time and energy on things that do, instead, so as basically a utilitarian that inefficiency bothers me. Glitch (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Take it from me, while harming someone sounds like good revenge- don't. After I was sexually assaulted by a pervert- I wanted to track him down and get my revenge. I realized that it would be a pointless waste of time. The same would apply in your case. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. The solution to toxicity is one you've already considered, remove it from your life. Adding more will, at best, temporarily annoy your "friend". At worst, it'll give him an avenue to turn your real friends against you in some fatiguing ongoing drama no one can tell the good guys from the bad. Tell the truth and be done. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Success - which could mean what you consider a good and enjoyable life (or at least as much as you can arrange, which can include 'the little things encountered in passing') is the best revenge. Anna Livia (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice. I have decided to plug the leaks and redouble my efforts to change minds. My audience is small, but I recently had a meme I made go viral (for some definition of viral) and I'm going to try to repeat that. I knew I would regret acting in haste so I've mostly been processing the last two days, and while it's taken more frop than I would usually use in two days to stay under control, I think I've made it through to the point that my jaw isn't constantly grinding in rage without committing any errors. It should be downhill from here. Glitch (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

TBH, I would try to find a way to go to court about that "dad issue". He's tried to kill you TWICE. Someday, he might start thinking "third time's the charm" and then what would you do? Also, remove that guy from your "Friends" list. With friends like him, who need enemies? Gunther1987 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Believe me I've thought about it. However again my only witness to both accounts is very likely to lie to keep him from taking any consequences and I have no physical evidence so I have no case until and unless she turns on him. Which would probably kill her, she's extremely co-dependent on him. She admits (privately) he's a monster, but nonetheless she's loyal to him. Doesn't give me much to work with. Glitch (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't save other people without saving yourself first. Get out, get your stuff, and figure out how to support yourself without dependence or contact with them. You need to only rely on trustworthy people. Obviously this is easier said than done but the alternative is worse. Thought Criminal (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

My cat died.

I`m gonna take a long break from the wiki so I can mourn her properly. I`m sorry for the drama I've caused. She's dead.... I love you all. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Was she sick or was it old age? Gunther1987 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That super sucks and I'm sorry to hear that. Losing a pet is harsh. Big hugs. ShabiDOO 20:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Damn, that’s awful. Take all the time you need. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. I know the pain of losing a pet. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

She was sick, only four years old. I've cried multiple times today. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Awful. 2020 won't leave us alone, huh? Losing a beloved pet is one of the toughest things to deal with in life. It's okay to cry, it's a healthy release for pain. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I remember when my pet rat died, I was in tears after I dug her grave. The bad thing was that she had cancer and there was no possible way to afford a small animal veterinarian. I know how you feel Oxy. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I know you don't know me, but I'm so sorry for your loss. My cats are family and each one I've lost has left me damaged in ways I doubt will ever heal. I feel for you. Glitch (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My condolences. Hope you recover soon. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We love you too Oxy. I still have dreams where my dog arrives. It's always bittersweet to see her in a dream. Like, I'm so happy, but wait how old are you now, oh, good girl, this is a dream. I feel so lucky to have learned how to interact with dogs from her and I also have a dream-world familiar. I was 3 when we got her, she was 17 years old when she died, I would refuse to be told I'm hung up on some dog, I'm sorry you lost your friend. Pets are the best, and everything, every negative feeling they pull out of us when we are so down, without a thought towards it, there's always so much lost. But pets never mind pulling that negativity out of us and dispersing it. They are always attuned to it and happy to do it, it's incredible. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all of you, and we had to bury her today. Wrapped in a shroud and everything. I gave a little prayer after everyone left. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I still miss the ginger cat I had when I was a boy and he's been gone more than 30 years now. My condolences. Spud (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My condolences for your loss, Oxy. Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dang, condoleances. Me and my wife still foundly reminesce our first cat from time to time, and this was 8 years ago. The worst thing is it he disappeared during a stay at Mother In Law's in the countryside... We couldn't say goodbye. Pets are family members too.2001:861:5700:5150:6580:E8E7:37CA:3C75 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear about it. It took me months to get over the loss of my cat a few years ago. It still makes me sad so I understand your sorrow. You have all my sympathies. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup that sucks, hope you're feeling better soon. — Dysk (contribs) 21:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. Thought Criminal (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lucid Dreaming

So, the ideal state of lucid dreaming is that you recognize you are in a dream, you do not wake up, but rather, you control the dream from there. This has not been my experience, but I have benefitted from a little bit of practice. I spent some time like 10 years ago trying to lucid dream the way the gurus described. I didn't have a computer at home, I didn't have a smartphone, I had a friend group that was really wearing me out with the "party all the time" mentality but I wasn't on social media so I don't think they noticed when I just kinda stopped going. So I decided to spend some time, some hours on a weekend where I would normally be chasing down a party to, instead, sleep with the intention of dreaming. I kept a journal, in the first pages I described the dreams, in the back pages I tried to describe the emotions, like I had read was the way to do it. And it was cool, putting that small piece of intention into dreaming really paid off. At the time, I thought it would be the perfect mix of funny and insightful to try and battle myself in a dream, so I also bought Shinai, those bamboo swords, and held a really high standard for how I was going to swing the sword versus letting my friends swing the other one at me with no rules (and believe me, I got cracked over the head constantly). I figured if I met myself in a dream, I could limit what I wanted to deal with to a specific kendo battle, but it turns out if your best friend is 6'4 and you give him a bamboo stick and say "just try to hit me, don't worry about it" you don't gain a lot of insight. But a Shinai doesn't hurt, except if you get poked in the eye.

I never got there, to that point where you can both be aware of the dream and treat it like a malleable thing. I mean, you are in control of the dream, it is contained within your brain. I think the idea that you can control or put the reigns on your dreams is a lie. But, I just spent a little bit of time, so I could be wrong. Does anyone else pay attention to their dreams? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I remember a few times when I was kid I'd say, "This is a dream", and then immediately wake up. I've had a few dreams recently where I knew I was dreaming and told my boss to fuck off. Let me know if you'd like me to tell you about the only dream I've had twice in my life, with a 30 year gap in between. It's kind of RationalWiki-related. Spud (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

i have on occasion experienced 'sleep paralysis/night terrors'. not quite lucid dreaming, but knowing its but a dream does little to ease the claustrophobic feeling of absolute dread, nor does it really help knowing that falling back asleep will likely put me back in the same state, until the process is repeated a few times. still beats the shit out of the time i had repeated dreams of spreadsheets. disturbing levels of tedium no one should have to endure.

its not all bad though sometimes i am just plagued by insomnia. i starting to think having a drug habit might actually not be a good thing AMassiveGay (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't intentionally tried to lucid dream before, but I have had a couple over the years anyway. While in the dream I noticed incongruities and contradictions and realized I must be dreaming. From there I was able to do anything I wanted--sort of. The trouble was that I had to maintain a level of detachment from the dream to keep control of it. The more I let myself get drawn into it, the more slippery the knowledge "this is a dream" became, and even when I was able to retain that general principle I ended up putting weird restrictions on myself without noticing. Like having to concentrate really hard to change things, or that I could only control the dream if I held a certain totem object IN the dream, which inevitably meant that in the dream I lost the totem and the dream became about finding the totem to regain my control. It's hard to think clearly in a dream, even a lucid one. Glitch (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I used to lucid dream a lot. Not so much now. First of all you need to be aware that something is "off" - kind of difficult to do when you are dreaming I know. Then you need to do a "reality check". The way I use is to read something. If you read it a second time then it will be different if you are dreaming.

And once you are lucid dreaming then you are in control of your world. But you must not try to hard or it will all go wrong or you will wake up.

But about waking up - you only remember a dream if you wake up in the middle of it. So I sometimes wonder if I lucid-dream every night but don't wake up in the middle. So I would never know about it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you get a sense of unease and realize something "off" when you are about to lucid dream, as in realizing you are in a dream and the illusion dissolves. You too can experience this in real life. Er... HairlessCat (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the signature on that one. I actually had a non-lucid dream that I remembered very vividly when I woke up this morning, and I think it was only because I thought about all the steps before I went to bed last night, because I posted this. It wasn't terribly interesting, but it did include a couple of my dream tropes, the first was being completely lost while driving my car but I knew there was free parking at the hospital, but I found a parking spot. The second was walking down a hallway wearing my boots, which are, in real life, covered in dried mud (dirt, if you want to get pedantic, but they are caked in it) and in the back of my car, I remember thinking "It's getting a little tough to walk" looking at my feet and I've got my boots on, "when did I put those on?" and then no question for the rest of it, boot clopping and I could walk like normal again. On a related note to the dream, my sister-in-law is having a baby tomorrow morning, and I can't visit my brother at the hospital. I also thought a lot about my grandpa dying and my dog dying last night. So it's very in line with my personal dreaming experience.

It was really funny, I told the second half of my dream to some guys at work today, because we were talking about David Lynch, and another guy said "I had a dream last night that I was trying to park my car. I parked it a million times and couldn't get it right." and I told him "You know, parking a car was actually a big part of my dream last night, but I was looking for a parking spot." Driving in dreams, though, usually worse than trying to run. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Since @Gol Sarnitt requested it on my talk page. Here are the details of the only dream I've had twice in my life. The first time when I was 13 and the second time when I was 43.

On a table, there's a framed photograph of Charles Darwin. You know, the iconic image of Charles Darwin as an old man with a long white beard. Grover from Sesame Street is laughing at the photo. Then, to his surprise, the photo starts laughing back. It falls down, revealing that the real Charles Darwin was standing behind it.

Grover says, "But you're just a funny old man."

Darwin says, "I'm not a funny old man. I am <French accent>Sharl Darween. Hee-haw, hee-haw, hee-haw.</French accent>"

Then I woke up.

When I woke up after having the dream the second time, in my slightly confused and sleepy state, I concluded that the French accent must have been because Darwin's ideas were initially much more readily accepted in France than they were in Victorian Britain. I have no idea if that's true or not. Spud (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The funniest thing to come out of Liberty University

Their Center for Creation Studies is just too funny considering that they pass it off as a "science" minor for their degree programs (https://catalog.liberty.edu/undergraduate/colleges-schools/arts-sciences/creation-studies/creation-studies-minor-resident/?_ga=2.222372829.716468841.1595523234-339701055.1579571484}

“”*BIBL 410 Genesis CRST 290 History of Life CRST 390 Origins Choose 6-7 credit hours of the following: BIOL 101 Principles of Biology BIOL 102 Principles of Human Biology BIOL 224 General Biology I ENVR 220 Physical Geology PHSC 121 Introduction to Astronomy PHSC 210 Elements of Earth Science

For those of who who want a laugh. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The science of ignorance. — Dysk (contribs) 21:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much the fact that they cover genesis that offends me, it's the fact that they act like it's a fucking 400 level course. My own degree's 400 level courses were artificial intelligence, applications of abstract algebra, mathematical modeling in computer hardware, and a project course where we had to write real world software(in our case a status reporting program for a self driving car). And to see those leveled against reading a single fucking chapter of one book that everyone in that class has already read. It's pretty insulting. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Seize the Beans of Production

I saw a meme that inspired me to write a little riff, maybe someone will enjoy my twisted mind.

Meme Text: "Calfka said that capitalism with its beans of production,alienizing you and the monotonous daily life is so horrible that being a cockaroch is more badass because you can just hang out and shit not worry about stuff"

My reply: This is funny but it obscures the true nature of capitalism and where it comes from. Let the web of remembrance tell the tale...

Long ago, but not as long as people think, Jack was hungry but he had a cow so he tried to take it to the market economy to sell it (this isn't capitalism yet but people get confused here) but on the way a wizard got him to trade it for the magic beans of production instead.

Jack got the buyer's regret real bad in his caveat emptor (that's a part of the brain scientists found later) but he planted them anyway because fuck it, he didn't have anything else to do while he starved to death. Jack was really surprised when they made a huge ass plant into the clouds and obviously he climbed up it because he heard legends that the invisible hand lived up there.

He never found out if the invisible hand was there, because it was invisible, duh, but he did find a giant who might have been a Jew or even worse an Arab, so he killed him and then when robbing his house he found like so much money. From them on whenever Jack wanted more money he climbed up the beans of production to get it from the clouds, which is why capitalism is the most efficient economic form because you can just get the money from the clouds instead of wasting time building houses or growing food or something like a chump.

But of course the beans of production must be kept away from socialists at all costs or the whole thing falls apart because they don't believe in the magic.

And now you know. Oh, also, unlike the slanderous claims made here, capitalism only turned Jack into an alien and a cockroach on the inside so it doesn't count.

Glitch (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Beans, beans, the magical fruit The more you eat, the more you produce The more you produce, the more alienated you become So seize the beans and rise up from beneath the bourgeoisie thumb!

Beans, beans, the healthy choice The fruit that gives the proletariat a voice Working class people have much to say So seize the beans and rise up today!

Thought Criminal (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cancel culture" or whatever the fuck that is

I am surprised by how media and academics are gleefully co-opting the term "cancel culture" as if this is not a term propagated by GamerGate and 4chan users. Wasn't it the case? I remember like those "intellectual dark web" type pundits have been using the term since like two, three years ago. Back then it was called "call-out culture" on a more mainstream level, I recall. Suddenly after J.K. Rowling, Rushdie, and the bunch have done the petition, everyone seems to think it's ok to use the term. Dogeatsdog (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the timing, did they really think we wouldn't realize they're just using the term to cover their ass for being asses on Twitter? Colossal Squid (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Mob mentality bullshit. Let me know when the "cancel culture" complainers atone for the Dixie Chicks being kicked off country radio for not worshiping Dubya as God or Colin Kaepernick getting kicked out of the NFL for doing a non-violent protest against police brutality. Most of the "cancel culture" tards are fucking fascists that are pissed off that their fucking white nationalism bullshit isn't universally accepted. Fuck em. Soundwave106 (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't use that word "tard." Thanks in advance. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Common folk always had to watch what they say and do around their bosses, religious groups always had power over media, ever since facebook became popular, companies started asking for facebook handlers before hiring someone, so people had to watch what they post there or risk unemployment, nobody cared. Now the tables have turned, people found a way to make the famous and powerful just a tiny bit accountable for what they say and do, now it is a bad thing and people should stop doing that. Figures... 2804:431:C7F2:6E6B:97BB:49D:7430:5A23 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, what are they on about: cancel culture isn’t real, and if it is, the oppressors are just being held accountable (e.g. you definitely deserve to lose your job after telling a dongle joke to your next seat friend), they certainly deserve it anyway, and if they don’t, mistakes are made, and else that’s from a fringe anyway. Getting people fired is definitely the left wing thing to do. Fnord (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, what people call "cancel culture" isn't new. It always existed, it just only mattered for the average Joe. Company owners, bosses, famous people could say and do whatever they wanted, while the rest had to watch what they say and do around their bosses, their customers, their "elders". Now being famous/rich isn't a get out of jail free card anymore, so people gave it a name (cancel culture) and started complaining about it. I never said it doesn't exist, I only say that it has always been a thing and it never mattered until it became associated with the left wing and "cancelling" of racists. Nobody cared when it was about "cancelling" companies "waging war on christmas", "cancelling" "the satanists" or when companies started caring about your facebook profile at the interview stage. 2804:431:C7F2:6E6B:97BB:49D:7430:5A23 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The “canceling” and bullying from the right is an old hat. “Concerned” letters to editors and phone calls have been standard tactics of them to make it as uncomfortable as possible to say ‘undesired’ things. They were also famously behind comics codes, or bullying of artists with campaigns against “satanism” in music, dungeons and dragons and so on. This was mostly laughed off for the last 30 or so years. Not any longer. What is new: (1) everyone can become trending through some accusation. It’s no longer about fame and influence — the very thing many utterly clueless journalists keep overlooking. The Harper’s Letter was signed by famous people, but not because they fear being canceled, but because it is in fact a wide cultural problem, thanks social media. (2) the story or the allegations are completely out of someone’s control. And social media is filled with bad actors who keep exaggerating and distorting. (3) what you, and this wiki’s stereotypical authors won’t want to hear, it’s coming from a very specific corner (imperfectly called by various names, woke/intersectional/sjw etc). In fact, at first the cancellation was deemed a great thing and called proudly “callout culture”. Naturally this wiki is characteristically reluctant to go there, since it’s itself famously located in this corner as well. For years now it has been pointed out that this is authoritarian. The most recent, here. Fnord (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

But if we hold people accountable, how will anyone feel safe saying bigoted things!??! What will these wealthy and powerful people do if random people can actually challenge them!?!?! OH THE HORROR!!! THE PLEBS MIGHT ACTUALLY REBEL!!! More seriously, your sources are shit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

So you say, for instance, making a dongle joke to your friend next seat, and that is overheard, you deserve to be fired from your job? How about the bigotry of an artist who drew Steven Universe characters too idealized, she deserves to be driven to a suicide attempt. Oh wait, I know an example, where you instantly come around: Sarkeesian. The bullying that came her way was deserved? Is that what you are saying? Oh that’s different now? Anyway, you made your views clear. It’s one stereotype really. Fnord (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, given that your arguments "She's just trying to get her 15 minutes of fame" originate in character assassinate of victims of rape and sexual assault and that your getting all upset over people "canceling" TERFs like Rowling and Linehan, It's kind of hard for me to take your arguments seriously. Add to that that you think that "canceling" is online hate mobs (it isn't) and is over trivial shit (it isn't, fuck you for carrying water for bigots and sexual predators) I really think you ought to learn some basic ideas before you open your mouth again. For example, when women #MeTooed Louis Ck, that was cancel culture. But of course, if we just go through those proper channels, the ones that systemically gaslight victims of rape and sexual abuse, (when they actually bother to investigate charges at all) I'm sure it'll work out just fine right? Right? Maybe we ought not to cancel less people, but more. Maybe people like you, and outlets like Harper's ought to get down off your high horses and come see the world as it really is. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean bullying, doxing and harassment for right cause is a great thing, because it brings some results? Great. Comrade Khmer, is there an english version of that too? I mean, I know that woke bots like you are really quite common, especially here, but a lot of well-meaning people still believe that‘s a stereotype. But clearly, it isn‘t. Fnord (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

where did he say ends justify means --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 15:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bullying eh? I sure am glad that none of those people calling for civility and calm discourse ever did that. I'm really glad. Because that would mean that you and they are full of fucking shit. That none of you actually care about civil discourse, only about covering your own asses and never being called out for your bigotry or misdeeds. But I'm glad that your side's hands are squeaky clean! Also, try not to use "random person X is just trying get famous", since you know, it originates as rape apologia. Also, if all you've got is strawmen and ad homs, (ironic given you types are supposed to be about civility and sticking to the topic, oh well...) then even my open mockery of your childish oversimplifications is giving you more credit than you deserve. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you on about. Is this something about JK Rowling? I am vaguely familiar with her views regards trans people and I disagree for that matter, but haven’t kept up with the minute details. And what’s this talking point with “someone trying to get famous”? It’s the opposite, people who get “cancelled” certainly are not trying to get famous that way. I guess that answers LeftyGreenMario: say there that people must be called out (and cancelled, i.e. fired etc) for, I quote “misdeeds” like drawing Steven Universe characters in a problematic way. And “rape apologia” where does this come from? Lolol, what the actual fuck. I am not surprised, really, just the usual woke. And what’s this “side” you talk about, Atwood, Chomsky, Rushdie etc, which “side” is that? Fnord (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"I have no idea what are you on about. Is this something about JK Rowling? I am vaguely familiar with her views regards trans people and I disagree for that matter, but haven’t kept up with the minute details." That's what's sparked this latest round of "oh no, SJW/Cancel Culture has gone too far!!" And the Harper's thing. Which I will pointed out, gathered at least some of those signatures dishonestly. And several signataries of which were lying through their teeth, as I presented evidence of. "And what’s this talking point with “someone trying to get famous”? It’s the opposite, people who get “cancelled” certainly are not trying to get famous that way." Weird, because you brought that charge up. And As to the rape apologia, that's where that comes from. Shit like "What is new: (1) everyone can become trending through some accusation. It’s no longer about fame and influence", the idea that people are just doing it for fame, is derived from the talking point that women who accuse powerful men of rape and/or sexual assault are just in it for the fame. Don't like the origin of your rhetoric? Tough shit. "And “rape apologia” where does this come from? Lolol, what the actual fuck. I am not surprised, really, just the usual woke." I'd rather be "woke" a word I never use to describe myself, then a bootlicker who doesn't even look up the details of a case wherein a multimillionaire bigot used her power and influence to get a bunch of big names to lend her some clout. Oh, and it now looks like she's threatening legal action against reporters. So much for "The free exchange of information and ideas as Harper's puts it. But that's the thing isn't it, it was never about that. It was always about those with power making sure those without couldn't fight back. If saying that, pointing out that someone who can literally sue media outlets into silence, who can get a bunch of big names to back her up with a few phone calls, makes you uncomfortable, or makes me "woke" so be it. I care more about truth than big names or money. I don't fucking need or want your approval. "And what’s this “side” you talk about, Atwood, Chomsky, Rushdie etc, which “side” is that?" Appeals to authority, and to celebrity. All mean less than the usual nothing when one accounts for the fact that Harper's is accused of harvesting those signatures dishonestly. In summery, you still haven't given me jack to get me to change my tune. And you're still carrying water for a multimillionaire bigot. Have fun with the taste of shoe polish bootlicker, I'm sure Rowling is really proud of you for fighting people like me for her. (Even though, again, she could literally sue me into silence if she wanted, or even just threaten to do so, and I wouldn't be able to jack about it.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Oh, I'm sure you'd find something to say. Rowling used to be a billionaire, but it seems she gave away too much money so she is off the Forbes' list.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 She's still a multimillionaire. Note I said millionaire, not billionaire. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Comrade: No, the Harper’s Letter was not sparked by Rowling. Not even close. It’s just what wokerati think of all day. It was certainly in the works for a long time to get 150+ names on it. Many others are also more important than Rowling, even if you think Harry Potter is more important than the works of Chomsky. It just shows the kind of shallow wannabe leftists you are. Also, I know “rational” in this wiki is more of a joke (*drink*) but it’s irrelevant for the content who signed the letter (can you name the fallacy?). Yes, some are apparently hypocrites, like Bari Weiss. And? Does that make casually threatening someones job acceptable because they engaged in, cultural appropriation, or telling a bad joke, or some other trivial bullshit you woke muppets get worked up all day. You are just bunch of abusive people as you demonstrate every time. About that: I told you a couple of examples of “accusations” and you got a link with a huge list. I cited stuff like telling a problematic joke, or drawing characters in a problematic way and very often, classically, it’s “cultural appropriation” and stuff like that. Fnord (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"It’s just what wokerati think of all day." How far up your own ass do you have to be to unironically think this? No, seriously, I'd like to know. "Many others are also more important than Rowling, even if you think Harry Potter is more important than the works of Chomsky." Show me where I said that. Show me or retract it. If you do neither, you expose yourself as a lying sack of shit. "Also, I know “rational” in this wiki is more of a joke (*drink*) but it’s irrelevant for the content who signed the letter (can you name the fallacy?)." When you say things like "And what’s this “side” you talk about, Atwood, Chomsky, Rushdie etc, which “side” is that?", i.e. namedrop a bunch of famous people, that's an appeal to celebrate, and an appeal to authority. I pointed that out because your reponse was a textbook example of such, and added nothing to the discussion. Now, I understand you don't care about coherent trains of thought, only getting those darn woke SJWs, but some of us are kind of big on that. Skipping over the ad homs, which look a lot like some of the comments from reactionary blogs... "About that: I told you a couple of examples of “accusations” and you got a link with a huge list. I cited stuff like telling a problematic joke, or drawing characters in a problematic way and very often, classically, it’s “cultural appropriation” and stuff like that." Let's look at your first link. An open thread by what apears to be a reactionary... Oh dear... Well, let's go through his shit and see why I chucked him out as a source eh? First source of his is the Daily Wire, the Breitbart for hipsters who want to pretend they aren't just reading slightly polished Breitbart. Given that stunning reputation, you'll forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand. Wow, a corporation's "wokeness" was performative. Color me shocked. Reclaimthenet.org has some fun views on "Cancel Culture", seems they have a brand built on being mad at it. Pardon me if I dismiss them as having a conflict of interest. The article from Forward.com is a puff piece, moving on... The National Post article doesn't seem to like progressive politics. Forgive me for not taking it seriously. A quick aside, is this the type of media diet you consume on a regular basis? If so, it's no wonder you sound like a reactionary on social issues. Number 7 is the Daily Mail! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That's actually funny!!! A tabloid so shit that other tabloids talk down to it!!! Oh, and they've also fabricated stories and evidence in the past, which maybe has something to do with their nasty rep. Ok, I've read seven. They're either shit sources or slanted reporting. So, given that there are 135 example, I'm not going to address them all, as that would swamp the entire page. (Also, trying to get me to address them all is a Gish Gallop, a particularly dishonest discussion and debate tactic.) So, here's what I want you to do kiddo. Pick five of the ones you think best make your case, and I'll either argue against them or admit that they might have a point. Oh, and quit putting words in my mouth. I understand you reactionaries hate anything that gives people in general more power and threatens your beloved hierarchies, but it really is annoying when you accuse me of shit I never actually said. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh and please define terms. What do you mean when you say "cancel culture"? When I say it, I mean a range of tactics for holding public figures accountable. These include calling them a bigot on social media (I think that's stupid and does nothing, but whatever) boycotting their products, Striking, or in the case of sexual abuse, getting the legal system to actually try them, instead of sweeping the problem under the rug. That last one involves #MeToo, though in my view using a hashtag is quite limited. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As an addendum, just from looking at those articles. The closest it comes to me having any agreement is the National Post article, though I'd need more sources for that specific case to commit to a strict "yes I agree" or "no I disagree" answer. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You just keep flaunting your authoritarian beliefs, where the ends justify the means, and where when the target is disliked, anything goes, even harassment and doxxing. This view is of course exactly what I come to expect from your ideological corner, and which has also been argued by your gang. In my view, it is always wrong. It’s not in my interest to give more power to HR departments, or leave judgement to mobs on social media, who are, as you have amply demonstrated, not particularly concerned with fairness, or reasoning. After all, you found a way to wedge in “rape apologia” somehow, based on absolutely nothing. You’ve made your case, thanks Fnord (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so you've got nothing and my initial mockery was justified. Gotcha. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fnord. It's hard to take you seriously by the scale in which you blow things out of proportion, the lack of substance in your arguments and your endless use of loaded language, insults, the heavy generalizing of people (making grand generalizations about "the left") and ignoring what people are saying. A few examples of the terms you've used so far are:

• your ideological corner
• your gang
• wannabe leftists
• woke muppets
• bunch of abusive people

I've generally noticed that people who use this kind of language have little else to say but demeaning slander. Nobody here is advocating that somebody should lose their job because of a one-off joke or a badly worded phrase. What is being argued and that you seem to have ignored, is that most cases of people getting in hot water, is over saying disgusting highly offensive shit. It is the kind of stuff someone would get fired for whether their boss found out via a tweet or via another worker informing them of it. People getting in trouble for saying stupid things happens to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Someone losing a job over saying something trivial or giving a mere opinion on a non-offensive topic is of course over kill and nobody here wants it. But no one here feels sorry for someone who gets in hot water for pointlessly saying stupid offensive shit, especially if they could have easily have NOT said stupid pointless offensive shit. The real life repercussions for women, minorities and LGTBQ+ people when notable politicians or celebrities do say pointless offensive shit is serious and makes life miserable for them. So stop saying stupid pointless offensive shit and you won't pay a social price for it. ShabiDOO 16:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

That’s disingenuous. The comrade fits the stereotype to a T, and has loaded this with “TERF” and “ rape apologia” before any of my mild replies to his smeary attempts, which is just what I expect from a run-of-the-mill woke authoritarian in love with bullying, censorship and smearing. It’s right there, they said so loud and clear. To be fair here, bullying, smearing and censorship only in the interest for ostensibly good causes. I pointed out that it’s never a good idea to give power to HR or employers. Next, you make the false, and unsupported assertion, that this was about “the left”. I don’t believe this, and have never expressed this sentiment ever. I generally don’t consider the woke as left wing. This is admittedly complicated and above the level here. As Taibbi writes, they are more similar to the right wing, and that has been an old observation. Already years ago, people played “sjw or stormfront” quizzes, which Taibbi updated recently on “Useful Idiots” (a podcast) with “DiAngelo or Spencer“. Same thing. Comrade here is a wannabe leftist. A generation earlier, the comrade was mocked as a champagne socialist, tankie or someone who wants to make “holiday in cambodia”. Woke people give the left a bad name and have been very helpful to get Trump elected. Most of the time, they are just jingoistic gen Z Americans who hate being represented by a moron and who want to overcorrect that by parading on a moral high ground (while they’ll vote for warmongers and Wall Str no matter what). Comrade Khmer may or may not be that, but left he is not. How can it he left wing to justify capricious, mob-driven hire and fire mediated by silicon valkey. Kid yourself. Fnord (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fnord you sure seem to lean towards extreme exaggeration and theatrics for someone so critical of supposedly "extremist views". I can't take someone like you seriously when your posts are more poetic silliness than substance. ShabiDOO 22:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

So... I guess I need to teach this kid how political classifications work. Ok, so bear with me. Social issues don't matter for the standard left/right axis. That's focused on economic systems. And given I'm an explicit anti-capitalist, and pro-labor rights (workers seizing the means of production and all that), yeah, tough shit kiddo, I'm on the left. This is distinct from the right in that I don't place great emphasis militaristic economies, or alternately a mostly or completely deregulated "free market". You know, Fascism and Capitalism respectively. Personally, I view capitalism as somewhat centrist, at least in the present. Ok? Also, imagine comparing me to Tankies, who by the way, would just call you a Liberal and a counterrevolutionary, and would probably be entering Stalin apologetics territory at this point. Oh, and Tankies hate "woke" types too. So, you know, learn your subject before speaking on it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

“Social issues don't matter for the standard left/right axis. That's focused on economic systems.” — GrammarCommie

It’s pretty much the exact opposite of what you assert. In most countries, nobody is going to revise or overthrow economic systems. That’s not on the menu. As I’ve alluded to, Americans are always voting for Wall St, and always vote for military-industrial-prison complex, and by extension, neoliberal capitalism. On the contrary, the “social issues” are a big part of what makes conservatives, progressives or liberals. This is even picked out specifically when people say, for instance, they are “socially conservative”. A huge part of American politics, if not most of it, has to do with wedge issues — typically something social, like gay marriage, women’s rights etcetera. This not an US-only thing, just in case that’s where you argue next. Just look at the sorry state of LGTB+ rights in e.g. Poland. The woke / intersectionality corner is entirely concerned with social issues, excluding class and poverty for the most part. They are also not “extremist” as Shabidoo asserts, and I certainly don’t think that, but mainstream and backed by the US corporate sector. You can see diversity statements from your favourite weapons manufacturer. Robin DiAngelo, high priestess of woke culture is embedded in the HR corporate world, and intersectionality polularizer Kimberlé Crenshaw is from law schools concerned with legal litigation. It’s only that the woke on social media think they come from social science or are “left wing” (as I’ve established above, they may be called that, and by convention be seen as that, but in substance are more like right wing authoritarians). Fnord (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I have whatever drugs you're on? Also, please take PolSci 101 level. Please. You'll be doing a public service. Then once you've sobered up and learned how shit works, you won't say stupid shit that's based off of a superficial understanding of modern politics. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And what insights would that bring? “social issues don't matter for the standard left/right axis”— GrammarCommie? Suppose you were right, and suppose I was wrong — would your response really be adequate to my supposed errors? I don’t think so. At least you helped making that “cancel culture” mindset very clear. Thanks for that. Fnord (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it is based off economic issues. That's why there's people from various social groups on both the left and right. Do you actually know what the leftwing is? I mean, you implied that Tankies were "woke" which is... Um... Not true? You keep calling me "Comrade Khmer", a reference to the Khmer Rouge, who were pretty openly anti-intellectual and regressive. Err... I mean you do know that these groups and "woke" types are diametrically opposed right? To the charge of "champagne socialist" Meaning I come from a non-prol background, um... I'm lower-middle class. I'm roughly three steps from poverty. I'm on welfare and unemployed for fuck's sake. So much for my wealthy background as a member of the Bourgeoisie... Moving past all that, you responded to me asking for five examples from that list that you thought were the strongest cases for your argument with Ad hominem attacks and a bizarre tirades against me as a person, rather than... giving five examples? Um... I dunno, if someone said to me "Give me five examples which best prove your case", I'd pull up five examples which I thought best prove my case. Finally, as a side note, yeah no shit corporations use superficial rhetoric, that's literally why marketing departments exist. You know, to lie to you. Fun fact, they don't mean a word of it. Not one single word. Gillette never gave a fuck about men being less toxic, they just wanted more people to buy their products. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cry me a river. You came in with bringing in “TERF” and “rape apologia”, and put some of that in bold, so that other typical woke bullies, who don’t bother to read, instantly pick this up. Usual as usual. Also, my reference a generation earlier are types of “left wing by name only” (i.e. woke being not-really-left) or authoritarians (such as tankies). Seeing that you use Soviet insignia next to your name, the latter isn’t too far fetched. What’s missing here is concern for livelihoods of actually small people who are pushed into the limelight and smeared, with harassment/flak campaigns to make them get them fired, made unemployable and forever tarnished. Also please provide any argument how you determine “accountability”, who determines what the facts are, to which degree someone is guilty and how you measure exactly which punishment is acceptable. What’s the framework for the “justice” in social justice? Fnord (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cry? The only tears I'm shedding are those of laughter. You're too stupid to fucking nail me with specific examples, which I openly invited you to do, twice now. I'm going to assume you don't actually have a case, and cease engaging with you. You can declare victory and have the last word if you want. I'm not really going to go into your questions, since you're again, too stupid to make a case when asked to. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Fnord you have the aire of someone knowledgeable on political ideologies but its obvious you have a very unsophisticated understanding of the political spectrum. You refer to the "left" so much as though it is a clearly defined singular group of people when it reality it is a vague demarcation of about 50% of a populations political views which are so diverse where no two are identical that it utterly defies the kind of absolute category you seem to want to group people in. Left and right are simply two poles of a spectrum. In reality there is no actual left or right. Just fuzzy zones of political beliefs on an arbitrary geo-political line. There is no "real left" and in fact, trying to make any meaningful generaliations about "the left" is a ridiculous thing to do. It's what pseudo-intellectuals and political pundits do...mostly to demonize those who have opposite political views. For example, people who have strong reactions to those who say offensive things towards marginalied people (so called woke-ism) tend to support political parties that fall on the left side of the spectrum so your idea that they are not left (which is already a silly argument to make) is pretty off the mark. And even then some are centrist and even some hold conservative views (that's right you can be conservative and yet be offended by people saying stupid racist shit). In reality you don't know what you are talking about and have far too much of a generalist view to say anything anyone could find of value in political discourse. Try to avoid such hyper-generalizing, if anything abstain from left vs right rhetoric, demonizing entire categories of political views and avoid straw-manning the shit out of people who fall into vague political categories. I think then you might actually have a constructive political conversation. ShabiDOO 17:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I mean, the left/right system is pretty basic, and mostly outdated. As I said before, it divides people into two binary classifications based on their economic views. This however, is quite limited. More complex models account for things like social views, whether or not one favors a state, how one thinks assemblies ought to be structured, etc etc etc. These are all descriptive, not prescriptive by the way. These areas of study seek to map out political views and understand them better, not divide people into "us against them". Just thought I'd clear that up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah of course GrammarCommie. I never though you or most users here abuse the terms left or right, though I think we would all benefit from avoiding it as much as possible and trying to be more specific. It's difficult to do so especially in the theatre of American politics where some make liberal vs. conservative (which is already a false dichotomy) synonymous with left vs right, blue vs red, democrat vs republican, bleeding-heart-hippy vs. racist-redneck. Two party systems inevitably lead to two-category thinking for those who can't take a broader more nuanced view. ShabiDOO 19:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I dislike the false dichotomy as well. Partisan politics really screws up the discourse. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If I was making it simple, I would see the Woke as “The Left” as they themselves see it, and as Right Wingers see it too (occasionally they say they are “far left” or “hard left”). But I don’t. The reasons are in part outlined in Taibbi’s piece (above) and through the ideological beliefs put forth by the Woke themselves and their leading voices (such as Robin DiAngelo whose book on “White Fragility” is currently flying off the shelves in the US). DiAngelo says that it all comes down to “race”, even poverty must be seen through that lens. She comes from a different intellectual tradition that has only vaguely to do with typical left wing or even New Left thought, or rejects it outright. The ease in which wokeness gels with the corporate world also speaks against it being left wing as it’s traditionally understood. This isn’t capitalism making a buck with Che T-shirts, but it is indistinguishable from HR politics. Diversity training and suchlike is half PR, but also “cover our backside” to reduce litigation, and it triples in an increasingly globalized corporate world, where people with different skin huss look good on the corporate website. I find it especially difficult to appreciate it as left when its followers are very keen on getting people fired, i.e. petition employers. Aside, the Democrat politics aimed at “minority voters” is also a fairly modern (New Deal era) development, and it’s a stretch to call Democrats left wing in the grand sheme of things, to begin with (as I pointed out many times above). So, that’s left only in relation to US republicans. Don’t even get started on liberalism, which means left in the US, but is somewhat right wingish in many other countries. So to sum up, yes, it is complicated, but it very strongly looks like that wokeness is tied to the Democrats through its orientation towards minority vote, and not through its occasional left or liberal politics. Fnord (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the corporate PR bit, I can't make any sense out of that long paragraph. It's rambling word soup. ShabiDOO 22:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, I hate to break my word, but our friend here just lied. At no point prior to their last post did they mention the Democrats. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I alluded to them twice. That no matter which party someone is voting, they get Wall Str and military-industrial-complex anyway. That is, the Democrats are not different in this regard from Republicans (where it’s glaringly obvious who butters their bread). Fnord (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article on Cancel Culture: The Whispered Left-Wing Dissent on “Cancel Culture” I'll quote a bit from it:

For the purposes of clarity here then, let’s suppose what we mean by cancel culture is the attempt to take the livelihood of a person who digresses from a shibboleth du jour. I’m not talking about principles like: racism is real and something must be done about it; trans people exist and need access to healthcare; sexual violence persists and must be confronted.

Instead, I have in mind the kind of micropolitics that rules the internet, patrolling the boundaries of the personal, hunting for the politically “problematic.” I’m thinking of the kind that monsters a cookbook writer for dressing up in hoop earrings and a vest top thirteen years ago (was it a “chola” imitation, or Amy Winehouse as she insists? Better litigate that quick, the border crisis depends on it!) I’m thinking of the kind that sees a liberal data analyst fired for citing data analysis from a black scholar suggesting that, historically, non-violent protest produced more favourable political outcomes for progressives. I’m thinking of the kind that sees a brown-skinned Latino truck driver fired for making the “okay” hand gesture — because the Twitter intelligentsia, trolled by white power nutjobs, has decided that the “okay” sign is now the preserve of white supremacists, despite the fact that all around the world, millions upon millions of pale and brown-skinned people alike still mean “perfect” or “okay” when they use it.

It goes on to make the point that Cancel Culture is problematic in numerous ways:

1. It's elitist, because it excludes PoCs, who are largely opposed to it.
2. It essentializes marginalized groups into a single "community" which speaks with one voice, which, naturally, agrees with the person trying to Cancel someone.
3. It is inherently divisive, which almost goes without saying: Cancel or be Cancelled!
4. It takes energy and attention away from real issues. In other words, can you look me in the eye and say Steven Pinker is worse than what Trump's doing?
5. It destroys workers' rights, or, to be more precise, relies on weak labor protections in order to get companies to fire "problematic" workers. As the article says:

In a world in which work is increasingly precarious, in which unemployment has ravaged communities black, brown, and white, it is baffling to see “at will” employment and corporate overreach defended by so-called leftists.

Chbarts (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Should someone start a conspiracy about me and my YouTube channel?

Hey it might be worth the laugh, test results are pending though. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You are secretly plotting the assassination of Jeff Sessions?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone seen this picture?

[2] pretty topical ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:c5d7:6bf4:6e3f:9eba / talk / contribs}

Yeah, I've seen Garrison joining the "Yellow Peril" club. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

it's not called the China Virus for nothing ;)^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:c5d7:6bf4:6e3f:9eba / talk / contribs}

The only people that call it that are morons and racists. Everyone else calls it Covid. So, one wonders, which one are you? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Could use a bare-chested Trump riding in on an eagle. 4/10. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not terribly current FYI -- that Portland picture was taken on October 17th, 2018 by Brandon Farley, who is associated with Andy Ngo and thus will have a certain "slant" (the "focus on the troublemakers and idiots from one side only" slant, of course). (Finding the source was a *bitch*, because every single right wing "patriot" webshite and Russian Twitter bot is of course posting this picture with the usual "antifa antifa antifa!" hyperbole.) Currently, his Twitter feed shows he will happily excuse getting arrested and getting shot by the Feds with rubber bullets so that he can... stick it to those "Antifa" libs? I guess. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Remember, the "Spanish flu" actually is actually from Kansas. The Kansas flu. Silly white people and causing pandemics. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 09:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, covid was detected in old wastewater in Spain from as early as March 2019. mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23X2HQ MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a very misleading thing to say. Unless there have been new developments in that story I'm not aware of, they detected trace amounts and then it disappeared from later samples, even the "discovers" say it was almost certainly a measurement error. Yes the "China Flu" rhetoric is stupid and racist and harmful, but don't sink to the level of misinformation to fight it. Glitch (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, that Reuters article said "if confirmed", so it could be the initial analysis was erroneous, possibly not distinguishing COVID from another coronavirus. Bongolian (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

While Spanish Flu was first detected in January of 1918 in Kansas, there had been similar cases all the way back in late 1916 in France link. There is also evidence it was present in China before 1918. However, being a century ago, it's hard to pinpoint exactly where and when it began, but in all likelihood, not from Kansas. CoryUsar (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we review this article?

People are claiming it as evidence not to wear medical face masks during the pandemic. I'm concerned about its accuracy and I've noticed some odd things about the author, including possible evidence that he may have tried to publish a paper on it only for it to be taken down.

https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

Could some science-minded people please help investigate it? I feel that accurate information about safety is crucial during this pandemic.

Edit: I did find this. I don't know exactly how to request a new article, but perhaps someone could help? One of the best things about RW is how it can clear up misleading & conflicting information, and I think those talents are much needed here. Luna Rose ^{I'm shy; say hi} 19:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The author appears to be cherry picking both studies and quotations within the studies. This is a common technique used by the bro-science of the supplement industry.

Example studies that point towards opposite conclusions can be found here, here, here, and here. These came from Page 1 of a Google Scholar search for "facial mask viruses". It didn't take long.

Note that one of the studies (the Cambridge one) is in his article. His conclusion? "None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein." The Cambridge summary, in contrast, states: There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

Here are some other choice quotes from studies this article linked to that supposedly "prove" masks aren't needed:

A) "Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use." (The study was only 32 people, in other words, so there was insufficient data)

B) "One household trial found that mask wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary transmission of upper respiratory infection ⁄ influenza-like illness ⁄ laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education; hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and ⁄ or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratorysyndrome (SARS)." (So it seems medical masks *are* effective for some things.)

Two linked studies, furthermore, were comparing N95 masks to standard surgical masks and are of limited scope for proving "masks don't work".

So it's pretty obvious the author started with the conclusion "masks don't work", went searching for some scholarly-type shit that sounded good, and hoped you actually didn't click the fucking links he provided to actually read what the papers were saying. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This is my favorite mask study at the moment.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Avallone

HairlessCat (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Context? I don't want to increase the view count on pointless trans-bashing for no reason. I'm assuming that's what it is from the image, anyway. Glitch (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Didn't watch (whee!), but from the comments (and consistent with Rationalwiki's article on him), it appears that he's debating (in Youtube hyperbole terms, DESTROYING!!!) his "old transphobic self" with his new, much more accepting viewpoint. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I had never heard of him before. I'm sure I still disagree with him on quite a lot (like I do with everyone else on planet Earth), but my respect for anyone goes up when they publicly and sincerely admit they were wrong. It's great to get it right on the first try, of course, but the ability to course correct in light of new ideas and evidence might be the single greatest key to being rational, in my opinion. And doing so publicly so anyone else who still holds that incorrect position knows why it's incorrect, from a former insider, is a great public service as well. Glitch (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuba

• Sends well-trained doctors to places in need all around the world.
• Was one of the strongest voices against apartheid and supported other anti-racist struggles.
• Has a solid disaster preparedness program where government will come to people's houses to evacuate their stuff before a hurricane.
• Has healthy coral reefs, unlike Florida.
• Survived civilization collapse conditions (Special Period) due to having a well-educated, adaptable population.

Why is Cuba the bad guy again? Colossal Squid (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Because muh Cold War. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The nominal reason given by the US government is "lack of free and fair elections". Their process for running elections is designed to maintain an indefinite communist majority, and those objections are not without merit. There are also undue restrictions on free speech, but not particularly exceptional ones by international standards. I certainly think a literally lifetime-long embargo doesn't help anyone there or here with those problems. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuba also has only 2446 COVID-19 cases. Deathtoll: 87, Recovered: 2308. Meanwhile in the US... Gunther1987 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Because Cuba executed innocent people, lacks LGBT rights, freedom of movement, freedom to disagree with the government (without punishment), etc.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For more information on the crimes of the Cuban regime: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh and regarding Apartheid and supporting anti-racist struggles: Let's not forget the genocide being perpetuated by China against Uyghur Muslims (which Cuba is okay with) and the concentration camps in North Korea (which Cuba is okay with). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You live in a country that engages in a worldwide continuous extrajudicial murder program, that in addition to having targets whose crimes are often no more than "Posted a video online" has evidence indicating 80% of the people who die of this worldwide campaign are innocent bystanders. "Executes innocent people". Sure it's whataboutism, but far-and-away the country with the most innocent people executed in the last couple decades is us. No question. No moral authority. At all. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I live in Switzerland. Secondly, nobody is defending the US here. And I don't need to. Thirdly, the question was about "why is Cuba bad". It's bad because of those things. Those violations of human rights don't make the US any better. It's all about the crimes of the Cuban regime. That being said: You engaged in whataboutism, removing attention from Cuba to talk about the US. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

considering the us emabargo against cuba the us and its record on human rights is absolutely pertinent to whatever wrongs cuba is accused off AMassiveGay (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you joking? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

and why would i be joking? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It does seem like whataboutism though. The wrongs commited by Cuba cannot be excused by American malfeasance.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

its of import as it pushed cuba into the open arms of the soviets, and has long been seen as an aid to castro's regime, givng it a reason to exist and not reform. would castro have lasted so long without the embargoAMassiveGay (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Would you say the same about fascist Hungary being embraced by Hitler in the 40s? Just curious. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

you are asking me if i would say the same thing about something with no similarity what so ever? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just so I understand: are y'all (except for Ariel) making excuses for human rights violations? Relativizing state abuses? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 22:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Authoritarianism is fine when it’s done by anti-American governments, apparently. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked why Cuba was the bad guy, and "bad guy" is indeed relative because most nations on Earth have had histories of human rights violations. Specifically, I wanted to know why Cuba was more deserving of hate and being targeted for "democracy spreading activities" than other nations, particularly the countries attempting to spread said democracy (primarily the USA). You accuse others of making excuses for human rights violations, yet you brush off their anti-apartheid contributions as if it was nothing and much of Africa doesn't consider Cuba an ally because of that and their medical contributions. Heck, Nelson Mandela had this to say about Castro's critics (which was part of the reason I made this thread in the first place): “We are now being advised about Cuba by people who have supported the apartheid regime these last 40 years. No honourable man or woman could ever accept advice from people who never cared for us at the most difficult times.” I guess if I wanted to reframe the question: what nation would be a "good guy" to you? Colossal Squid (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For me specifically, none of them. I gave up the childish belief in White Hats and Black Hats years ago. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Iceland. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Cuba became "the bad guy" in US politics because: A) the obvious Cold War Russia vs. USA thingy where Castro's Cuba and Russia increasingly became tight allies and Russia was the biggest "enemy" of the United States, and B) more importantly, many of the people who were on the other side of Castro's revolution ended up in South Florida, and became a formidable political bloc that would squawk to Congress if anything short of a hard line against Cuba was taken. Both forces are "changing", slowly as some things in politics tend to, but there definitely was a bit of a thaw in relations during Obama's term. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with the basic root of GC's statement but would amend it to power blocs instead of individual countries. Smaller countries like Iceland and Switzerland have a much better chance of being "nicer" because they do not engage in large scale power projection, which universally leads to atrocities, either directly or indirectly on part of the county in question. You can't play the game of international politics without a certain ruthlessness.-Flandres (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

As a Swiss person I can guarantee to you: Switzerland has blood on its hands (I recommend reading about Paul Grüninger and his heroism, he is great), cooperating with the nazis to deport jewish refugees, condemning Grüninger for saving jewish refugees, etc. But I think your point is legit, breaking it down to individual countries (since there are massive countries like Russia or very old countries like Egypt) might be unfair. But this is also ignoring the massive amount of red flags here: People are excusing crimes against humanity perpetrated by Cuba because the US is worse? This is gross and shameful. Sadly not many will feel shame for excusing such horrible actions of the past. Worse, they will feel validated. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 01:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuba is bad becuz it's run by a bunch of communist mufuggers. nobs^{To Bob Mueller: Every dog has his day.} 08:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is excusing anything, Raven, if anything, you're excusing the crimes committed by the US and ignoring the effects of the embargo. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote me excusing the crimes by the US, @Oxyaena. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 12:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I don't see Raven excusing anything, only some other people saying that Cuba having a terrible civil rights record is based somehow on an embargo, as if human decency is affected by that. Which it's not. — Z 19:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The question is specifically why Cuba deserves more hate than, say, the US. Raven derailed the thread, and didn't answer the question. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Quote me making excuses for US crimes against humanity, @Oxyaena. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 05:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Cuba sends doctors as political grandstanding, not because Castro actually gives two shits about human rights internationally
2. Again, the only reason Castro was anti-Apartheid was because of the Cold War, as South Africa was on the American side. And the real reason the US put up with Apartheid so long was because they were threatening to go commie if it ended (sort of like how France suckered the US into the Vietnam War), and it's absolutely not a coincidence that Apartheid only ended as the cold war did
3. Yes, this is actually a true point. Castro didn't particularly care about his people, but ironically, dictatorships tend to be better at this sort of things because the public is generally full of self-absorbed twats who vote for whoever promises the most free shit with the least amount of taxes without worrying about the obvious problems that feasting upon your seed grain will bring.
4. Those coral reefs would be a lot less healthy if the US eased the embargo on Cuba and allowed a lot more boat traffic between Havana and Miami, so...
5. No, they haven't really "survived the collapse", they just have been living in austerity for half a century so it isn't as much of a fall. CoryUsar (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Cuba sends doctors as political grandstanding." Every major player in international relations is primarily motivated by political grandstanding. The difference is that Cuba's doctors are more beneficial to poorer nations than the economy-strangling IMF loans richer nations usually call "aid."

"And the real reason the US put up with Apartheid so long was because they were threatening to go commie if it ended (sort of like how France suckered the US into the Vietnam War)" Oh look, someone apologizing for the US backing a corrupt regime and what the Vietnamese refer to as the "Resistance War Against America" because anticommunism justifies any atrocity. Colossal Squid (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, are you going to address the fact that Cuba was okay with the Holodomor and similar crimes against humanity going on? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 22:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat myself that every country on the international relations stage ignores crimes against humanity whenever it best suits them? You may as well say the same thing about G20 countries being so cozy with Israel or Saudi Arabia. My point is not to argue that Cuba is the perfect ideal country, because it's not. However, I don't see how they're uniquely evil to the extent that it justifies constant US interference, er, "spreading democracy." Colossal Squid (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So you admit that Cuba is just as bad as the US, but on a smaller scale? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 22:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Because Cuba mistreats their own citizens, a lot worse than the US does. Remember, if you don't have free speech, you don't have ANY rights. CoryUsar (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@GodlessRaven: Like GrammarCommie, I don't believe in white hats and black hats. Colossal Squid (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Colossal Squid Can you list me all the evils of the Icelandic state? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Massive amounts of inbreeding

2) Disproportionately responsible for the 2008 Great Recession, given that the Icelandic banks were heavily involved in the CDO nonsense. Not really anywhere close to the biggest cause, of course, but they had something like $70 Billion in foreign debts.

The US has something around 1000 times as many people as Iceland does. So all the US has to do to be "better" than Iceland is simple not be 1000 times as bad as Iceland. But really, no matter what the US does, you'll find a way to bitch about it because you've already decided that the US is in the wrong. The US supports a dictator, and the US is financing an oppressive regime. The US places sanctions on a dictator, the US is causing mass starvation of poor people. The US ignores a dictator completely, and the US is sitting back while atrocities occur. The US supports a revolution against the dictator, and it's interfering with the internal affairs of countries it doesn't belong in. The US goes to war to remove a dictator, and the US is causing widespread death and destruction. CoryUsar (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that maybe imperialism is bad? — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that while the US dominates international politics, it is not an Imperial power no matter how loudly you insist otherwise?

Imperialism as experienced by the British, French, Belgians, etc, involved the Imperial possessions being organized into basically forced labor for raw resources that were shipped back to Europe for far less than they were actually worth. Any Secondary and Tertiary sector (i.e., manufacturing and service) industries were sabotaged or eliminated, to ensure that the possessions were entirely dependent upon the Imperial power for basically everything. If the US is an Imperial power, it's doing a shit job of robbing its sphere of influence; Kuwait and KSA are filthy stinking rich, and if anything, the US continues to be suckered into doing their bidding rather than the other way around. US industries continue to be outsourced to places like China and India, and the wealth is flowing out of the US and not into it.CoryUsar (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I recommend you look up what "neocolonialism" is. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Massive amounts of inbreeding
2) Disproportionately responsible for the 2008 Great Recession, given that the Icelandic banks were heavily involved in the CDO nonsense. Not really anywhere close to the biggest cause, of course, but they had something like $70 Billion in foreign debts.

^{[citation needed]}. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 07:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

dunno about 'massive' amounts but iceland does require an online incest database to vet potential partners are not a bit to closely related for comfort. its a small and isolated population with little genetic variety. probably not uncle festus fucking his sister marybeth level of inbreeding, or european royalty levels, but unknowingly distant cousins getting hitched seems common enough. still a bit of a stretch to characterise is some kind of hell hole compared to the most powerful nation on earth that seems to not warrant closer scrutiny or be held to higher standard as result but instead a poor put upon delicate flower of a nation taken advantage of by the conniving of dastardly lesser nations into bombing the ever loving shit out of those poor countries where instigating coups of democratic governments didnt work, and tricked into selling arms to and propping up less than democratic ones. the us is such a naive ingenue.

as for the human right record of cuba, it hasnt excecuted anyone since 2003, lgbt rights while far from ideal, are far from atrocious. cuba now is not the cuba of the fifties, which itself was not the cuba during holodomor, which its stance on is hardly applicible to anything post batista. there ahve even been apologies for past crimes. cubas international relations currently determined by economic woes, and china being quite demanding of those seeking its cash, makes empty gestures at the un less a villainous power play and more par for the course for poor nations in thrall to the hegemony of a super power. its not like a cuban rebuke would have made any kind of impact except nixing any chance of improving the situations of its own impoverished people. its not like, say a rich and powerful nation selling arms to an absolute monarchy engaging in warcrimes whose recent advancements in civil rights is allowing women to drive cars.

its not excusing past crimes to put past crimes in perspective globally, or with progress made, nor does it excuse the short comings in the civil rights of cuba today to make reference to decades long embargo that not only has been a failure but has only succeeded in harming the cuban population by a nation whose own influence in the region during this period far exceeds in scale and detriment that of a small island nation it paints as greater evil and threat than it has ever warranted at anytime. cubas real crime for which is punished by such action is that its regime has resisted all attempts by a super power to subvert and dominate in its own back yard. it is the cuban people who suffer for that dent in american pride.

looked at in isolation, even with progress it has made cuba has never been and is still no saint. pull back a little to see the regional picture, further still globally, and we see a small island nation island. no saint but not the great satan that the sanctimony and hypocrisy of black and white condemnation would suggest.

the world is many shades of grey, but thats little comfort to any one arbitrarily detained in cuba today, nor much comfort to be had to know that else where some folk have it worse. but still, there are worse places to be. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you found the quote of me excusing US crimes against humanity? @Oxyaena — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oxy

Yes yes, the US does bad things, but in order to determine if the world would be better if the US had less power, you have to look at who'd end up replacing it. Right now, that'd be China and Russia, the former of which is currently involved in a bona fide genocide of its own citizens and the latter of which continuously annexes chunks of other countries. If the US is a "neocolonial" power, it's doing a shit job of robbing the developing world blind. As for crimes that occurred before I was even born, the US has basically had a simple rule of "don't steal our stuff, don't ally with our enemies, and for the most part we won't bother you". Chile nationalized the copper mines rather than, you know, simply raise taxes on them, but it was the constant pandering to Russia and the threat of collectivizing the farms (and thus becoming a hellhole that'd swamp the rest of South America with refugees a la Venezuela) that were the last straws; note that under Pinochet, the mines remained nationalized. It was probably worse for the average Chilean (especially if you were a woman), but don't sugarcoat the Allende rule. Also note that the coup was run more or less entirely by Chileans; the US likely had foreknowledge of the coup and didn't inform Allende, the US gave Pinochet massive support after said coup, but did not orchestrate the coup itself. Iran was a different story, the US was duped by the British into doing Britain's dirty work for them, which could have been avoided if the US had payed attention in history class and learned "never trust a British person". Carter decided to do the moral thing and colluded with the Shah to return Iran to democratic rule. It... didn't work out so well for the average Iranian, or most anyone else. If anything, China fits the Imperialism glove much more readily, if you've been paying the slightest attention to what's going on in Africa these days.

@GR

2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis CoryUsar (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Capital does not exist in a vacuum, in today's globalized world it flows freely from one place to another. The US enforces its neoliberal hegemony on other countries, and as for China and Russia, they're shit too. You don't get what "anarchism" means, do you? It means a complete overthrow of the state and hierarchy, in order to allow for a more egalitarian and libertarian way of life. It rejects the system completely. Nationalization doesn't equal "good," it means not privatizing shit. I for one, like most actual socialists, believe in economic democracy, that the means of production should be owned and operated by the workers themselves, preferably in the form of worker co-ops and syndical unions. As for those "refugees," most of them tend to be landed, privileged, fleeing land reform because how dare the peasantry actually get some control over the land they've lived and worked on their whole lives. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You also ignore the reason Venezuela is such a shithole, it's not because "muh socialism," but instead because of the flight of capital that took place after Chavez nationalized the oil industry, here's an article on the subject, and you ignore the effects US sanctions have on the Venezuelan populace. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Have you found the quote of me excusing US crimes against humanity, @Oxyaena? Last time I will ask, I am just gonna assume you made that up and refuse to apologize for misrepresenting me. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no, Venezuela was mostly fine after Chavez took power. They only really went to shit after the oil price crash, because it turns out that relying on one trade good with no contingency for what happens if commodity prices go down is stupid regardless of economic structure. That's on them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Did you know that Bolsonaro initially held a positive view of Chávez? Here, in a 1999 interview:

Chávez is a hope for Latin America and I would very much like this philosophy to reach Brazil. I think he is unique. I intend to go to Venezuela and try to get to know him... He is not anti-communist and neither am I. In fact, there is nothing closer to communism than the military.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 21:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Guilt by association fallacy noted. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't even understand what you just wrote. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 09:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I`m not the one utilizing a fallacious argument to prove a point. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Iceland and evil

@CorruptUser Just so you know what I asked citation for:

1) Massive amounts of inbreeding
2) Disproportionately responsible for the 2008 Great Recession, given that the Icelandic banks were heavily involved in the CDO nonsense. Not really anywhere close to the biggest cause, of course, but they had something like $70 Billion in foreign debts.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis. Basically, creating a bubble, offering excessive returns to investors, ploughing the money into risky investments, etc. Minor but non-critical error on my part, didn't primarily do the CDO's, but still part of the 2008 crash.

As for inbreeding, it's unavoidable. Relatively tiny population with virtually no migration until fairly recent times, the gene pool is rather shallow and even non-relatives are going to be the genetic equivalent of 4th cousins. CoryUsar (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That ain't a citation dumbass. It's a layman's opinion. — Dysk (contribs) 21:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

its no more dumb than demanding citations for obvious hyperbole easily found on google and not altogether untrue AMassiveGay (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah and idiots who don't check for citations end up perpetrating common myths. How very rational! The 'inbreeding' issue is basically fake news. You can use Google to verify this obvious fact by the way. — Dysk (contribs) 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Calm down dood. Hyperbole is hyperbole. Icelanders aren't humping their brother-uncles, but it's a well established fact that there's less genetic diversity in Iceland compared to other countries with long histories of interaction with the outside world. I can pull a citation for this obvious fact, but really, I shouldn't have to pull a citation for claims such as "the sky is blue".

In context, one of the prior posters was apparently in that young adult phase where they were trying to signal their moral superiority over others by denigrating the US's foreign policy while ignoring all context. They attempted to do so by cherry picking a relatively tiny and isolated European country as proof of a country without sin in order to bolster their claim, while ignoring that 1) Iceland is a tiny country with little power to impose their will upon others so isn't a good comparison, and 2) no country is without sin, and Iceland isn't even a good example considering that they were founded by Vikings who kidnapped, enslaved and likely raped numerous Irish women. CoryUsar (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ the víkingur were Danes, who ran Iceland as a colony until its more recent independence so they don't count anyway. Its objectively true that Iceland is the most peaceful country in the world and you can say its not a good comparison all u want but this is a fact. — Z 23:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

how soon they forget the horrors of the cod wars. never forget AMassiveGay (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean the wars perpetuated by the notoriously racist, terroristic Great Britain?-Hastur! (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

justified self defence against corrupt Anglo imperialism and we didn't even kill anyone. — Z 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever helps your sleep at night. CoryUsar (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

just proving your argument is wrong don't mind me. :) — Z 00:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really, no. By your logic, the US wasn't all that responsible for slavery since most of those slaves were brought over when the US was still being administered by the British Crown. Fact is, the inhabitants of Iceland practiced the slavery of Irish women, most likely involving rape, and the Icelanders themselves are the descendants of such. Face it, Iceland was founded in blood, just like everyone else, and the real reason Iceland is so "peaceful" isn't because they are such a nice country but because they are so tiny and isolated from everyone else. Every country swings their dick around to some degree, and while I would agree that the US should probably put on some pants (as should most other countries), the real reason the US slaps so many others upside the head isn't because the US is all that more aggressively waving said dick but because said dick is that much larger. CoryUsar (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I count the slavery done by the British as slavery done by the British so your point twisted and irrelevant. The US carried on doing slavery long after independence but actually Iceland didn't. So again not an argument. — Z 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy trying to bring Vikings into this is fucking hilarious. Dude, I think Iceland might have changed just a little bit since then. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Next in RationalWiki: Blame DR of Congo for the cruelties done by Belgian king Leopold II. This is very logical, rational, etc. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Iceland is more-or-less dependent on the US for their defence. This goes back to WW2 when the UK invaded, because Nazi Germany had invaded Denmark and the king of Denmark was for some odd reason also in charge of Iceland. Thought Criminal (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thought Criminal Iceland only became a country recently, before that it was just a colony of Denmark. — Z 02:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary so far

1) Massive amounts of inbreeding

• "Factoid, obvious hyperbole, no citation needed, google it, dummy" (AMG)
• "Not massive amounts of inbreeding, okay, a tiny bit, but less genetic diversity because they are geographically isolated. This is a crime against humanity by Iceland." (CU)
• "Vikings from Denmark who owned Iceland as a colony raped Irish women multiple centuries ago. Blame Iceland for what Danish Vikings did multiple centuries ago as they owned Iceland." (CU)

2) Disproportionately responsible for the 2008 Great Recession, given that the Icelandic banks were heavily involved in the CDO nonsense. Not really anywhere close to the biggest cause, of course, but they had something like $70 Billion in foreign debts.

• "CDO part recanted, therefore disproportionally Icelandic cause for the 2008 recession unknown, uncaused or unammed as of yet" (CU)
• "Read the wikipedia article on the crisis, duh, why do I need to give citations???" (CU)

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Addendum: Read your own fucking citation. Table 1, Genetic variation in Europe (Heterozygosity):

• Germany (most diverse): 0.443
• Median (between Holland and Scotland): 0.433
• Iceland (least diverse): 0.424

As you can see, re-adding hyperbole: "MASSIVE INBREEDING", amirite. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 11:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for successfully derailing this thread, Raven. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, @Oxyaena. I "thank you" for defending the imprisonment, torture and execution of innocent people under Castro. As an "anarchist", even. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 12:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Since when did I do that? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In this thread. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Where in this thread? — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Iceland's banks created a gigantic bubble. I don't know what rock you've been living under if you missed the whole Icelandic banking crisis, but they are absolutely not innocent in the Great Recession, and given their tiny size, that makes Iceland more responsible per capita than most other countries. The CDO issue is one of those "technical but irrelevant" issues, fact remains, the banks of Iceland fucked the dog.

2) Not sure why you are harping on the inbreeding issue. Obvious hyperbole is obvious, brought it up because it's an established joke that Iceland is inbred.

3) The Vikings raping everyone else isn't the responsibility of anyone alive today, but it's an interesting tidbit. Iceland wasn't "just some colony" of the Vikings, but where a number of those slaves were sent to. It's a part of history that shouldn't be overlooked, any more than any other centuries old atrocity in a country's history should be overlooked.

4) Another thing I'm going to add; commercial whaling. Luckily that's changing, so yay for that.

But most importantly, what is your point? That the US is more involved in world politics than a far-flung isolated island-state with less people than even the least populated US state? CoryUsar (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1) ^{[citation needed]} 2) So that was a joke. Cool. Thank you for disproving yourself with that citation. Discarded. 3) So Iceland is not guilty. Thanks. 4) Yeah, once again disproving yourself. So Iceland is a good country after all while the US and Cuba aren't. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The notion of "good" and "bad" are both spooks, and also inherently subjective. Define "good" for us, and then define "bad." — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Good: Social democracy, human rights, social and economic wellbeing, trans rights, gay rights, education, science, happiness. Bad: Torture, bigotry, communism, anarchism, suffering, fascism, socialism... — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are examples, not a definition, and how silly of you to lump in anarchism with fascism. Idiot. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

you asked him to define bad, he defined it by giving examples. both anarchism and fascism are bad, this doesn't imply they are the same thing, Just that both are bad. — Z 03:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Giving examples are not a definition, and also, you haven't justified how anarchism is bad, you've merely asserted it to be so. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I gave you the cite for the Icelandic Banking Crisis. Multiple times, even. Let's not forget that your original request was for someone to list "all the evils of Iceland", NOT whether or not Iceland was "good", so I did the ones off the top of my head. CoryUsar (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

lol you linked the wikipedia article about the 2008 crisis in regards to Iceland, do you ACTUALLY think this is a citation? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You did the same thing in the anarchism article, you're one to talk. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean adding references that the failed anarchist attempts were failed anarchist attempts? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 00:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

i dont see anything in the Wikipedia page supporting what Cory claims anyway. — Z 03:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We've already taken you to task on that, Raven, are you not capable of learning anything? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Why did you block and ban Z? @Oxyaena — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I unblocked and tried refriending her, but she's not accepting friend requests. @Ze readd me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe grow up? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 22:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have incoming friend requests disabled for reasons. — Z 01:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@GR You're one to talk. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

heres a suggestion - why dont all three of you knock it on the head? AMassiveGay (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion @AMassiveGay: stop defend red fascist regimes like the one in Cuba. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 12:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

stop with the tit for tat bullshit is the message you should have got from my above statement dickhole, nor have i defended any such regime only put it perspective - all that most have said here AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

All of the modest milestones found in Cuba as achieved and surpassed in Canada without the violent revolution and thousands of deaths, decades of political oppression, thought control and economic stagnation. Yes they managed to do a whole lot better than other communist states. And yet people aren't hoping on boats heading to Cuba. It is still an impoverished disfunctional dictatorship. Who would want to emulate that? It is also a highly homophobic and rampantly sexist society with high levels of domestic violence and racism towards black people is systemic. But they have dental care...so there is that. ShabiDOO 13:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ When Shabidoo agrees with me, you are probably wrong (@Oxy and others). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

one person agrees with your view is hardly makes everyone else wrong, besides which your whole argument was lacking in nuance but filled with the sanctimony of your black and white morality. honestly, you were even talking about its stance on holodomor, something that happened 20 years before castro came to power, as if that was proof of anything.

as for canada, its a poor comparison - one is a massive resource country with a relatively small population, never been a pawn in cold war politics and not subject to whims to the hegemony of super powers, nor a decades long embargo, the other is a small island nation, whose current regime toppled another murderous dictator. cuba is not canada. it is impoverished and it is dysfunctional. par for the course for the region. its not as impoverished or dysfunctional as haiti. its not as poor jamaica either but i bet lgbt fair better in cuba.

as i said earlier its no wonderland either, but the question should not be why is cuba bad, but whats so bad that it warrants special attention, particularly from we laughingly call the land of the free? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said that the two countries were comparable. I was referring to Cuba as some model country that people speak proudly of. It's ridiculous to point to Cuba and praise their few accomplishments and easily overlook their stunning failures. Of course Canada had advantages. That doesn't mean that Cuba couldn't have had a different path that didn't lead it to become an impoverished dysfunctional dictatorship. The neighbouring Bahamas shows that a former colony with a notable mixed population can have found liberation peacefully and developed a democratic economy. But none of that even matters. I am not interested so much in what could have been than with people praising countries that are semi-failed states. ShabiDOO 16:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

there is hardly unfettered praise here, despite what some may think, and my reading of the original post, intended or not, is what is it about cuba that it deserves the acrimony it gets from some quarters, especially from those who are as responsible for the cuba today as castro is? it may not deserve unadulterated praise, something no one here seems to be giving, but it is far from the cartoon villain than some here insist it is, with no reference to its place in the world nor the challenges it faces or has faced. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@GR And apparently your reading comprehension skills are still subpar. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena are you enjoying the poll results so far? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my god, you actually care about pointless polls and think invoking them is clever. That is...sad.-Flandres (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

— Oxyaena ^Harass 18:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thank you for your input. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Always a pleasure!-Flandres (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Do I think Cuba has a good government? Of course not, I never said that it did. My whole gripe in this conversation is how you derailed the thread with your pointless idiocy, @GR. The question was not "why is Cuba bad," it's "why does Cuba get more hate than other countries." — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then say it with me @Oxyaena: "Cuba is a despicable dictatorship with multiple lists of crimes against humanity. Fuck Cuba". Then I will be convinced you don't actually think Cuba is good. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of having a discussion if you just want to put words in people's mouths? Besides, since you're so adamant about forcing people to say certain things, how about you actually respond to my point about Mandela praising Cuba while criticizing all the nations that condemned Castro while supporting apartheid? Colossal Squid (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Colossal Squid Mandela was wrong about Cuba; Cuba's opposition to Apartheid was purely opportunistic, the same way the US' support for Apartheid was purely opportunistic. So yeah, fuck Cuba, fuck the US, fuck Apartheid and praised be Scandinavia and social democracy! — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 22:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Egad, this is such a simple-minded way of looking at the world. Colossal Squid (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is the view that lines up with the facts that I know about these countries. They are bad, perhaps not equally bad, fuck all of them. Now, can you name me all of the evils of Iceland? @Colossal Squid — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's say we just grant you that-Iceland is a happy utopia that has done nothing wrong ever. You have found one good country out of all of the nations of Earth, and it is nowhere near the most important nor is it particularly strategically relevant in the grand game of global geopolitcs. If that is an exception, it is a minor one. The overwhelming majority of countries still have skeletons in their closet and are still connected to all sorts of abuses and atrocities...including the US and Cuba, you know, the ones we are actually talking about. Be a good boy and stay on topic, kay?-Flandres (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sure, fuck Cuba and fuck the US. Does this please you? @Flandres — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems good enough. They both are socially backward mismanaged economies after all...Of course, this thread had at max two people arguing Cuba in its own right was awesome but I know from experience you are terrible at actually discerning what those disagreeing with you believe so I will let that slide for now.-Flandres (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You couldn't be more gracious and honorable. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ice Cube

Surprised we don't have an article on him. HairlessCat (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@HairlessCat Ah, shit. What did he do this time?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Any Russian speakers who would be interested in lending me a hand?

Hi there everyone! I have decided to expand our article on Ramzan Kadyrov. I have dug into the sources on his Wikipedia article as a starting point, and have found that the English Wikipedia articles on both him and Chechnya are of a lot lower quality than those at the Russian language Wikipedia. Just to give one example, on the English article on Chechnya, the economy section contains: "Total revenue of the budget of Chechnya for 2017 was 59.2 billion rubles. Of these, 48.5 billion rubles were so-called "gratuitous receipts" from the federal budget of the Russian Federation." and this statement has no reference. While the Чечня article gives tables on the budget, sections on agriculture, natural resources, tourism, etc. with reams of sources linked.

Thing is, I'm using chrome's in-built translation tool to translate everything, and I can't be certain that things aren't being lost in translation. Granted, this feature seems a lot better now than I remember it, but I wouldn't want to link to any Russian language sources that I sorta read with Goolge translator. One of the websites frequently linked is the Chechnyan ministry of finance. I can't even tell if it's the real deal or if maybe google is feeding me nonsense.

So my question is: 1. Would anyone be able to lend me their expertise and allow me to fire sources at them to ensure that they aren't trash? 2. If I can't find a person like that, would people be fine with my Google Translator method, and when I link to a Russian source take my word that the source is reliable despite the fact that I haven't read it first hand in the native language? Rairyu75 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You can normally work off Google but the people on the Russian RationalWiki might be able to help. — Z 23:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Reaching out to some Russian sceptics is a great suggestion, but I'm not sure they would like me to reach them, to be honest: "Our community encourages filling RatioWiki materials . This participation in the Russian section so far includes only the creation and editing of narrative articles, as well as auxiliary spaces for these articles. The spaces "Essays", "Forum", etc., available in the English version, have not yet been introduced here and their introduction does not have a high priority." Besides, they seem quite no nonsense. I think I will just let them do their stuff. Perhaps mass google translation isn't the worst thing in the world. Like how bad can it be? The above passage I copy pasted above seems quite legible and understandable.Rairyu75 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not one myself, but here's a russian speaker. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is very interesting...

I think it deserves a read. It's about how white supremacy was heavily influenced by Christianity, to the point where attacks against African-Americans, Jews, Irish Americans, Asians, and Muslims are all legitimized because God hates anyone who isn't a straight, white, Christian, Male.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 03:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does seem to engage in some fundamental attribution error. "White supremacy has its origins in american christianity" could just as accurately, or maybe even more accurately be rephrased as "american christianity has its origins tied to white supremacy". One of these things didn't cause the other. They co-evolved together in a society that was trying to justify race based slavery while simultaneously trying to be christian. Much as I'm a cynic about religion, those are nominally contrary ideals and both had to bend to fit the other. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Granted, this is a bit No True Scotsman, but I know a few Christians in Europe who beleave that whatever sects/branches in the United States now have ceased being Christian, and turned into something else. Revolverman (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a recent Economist article that referenced an upcoming book by a certain Robert P. Jones, that argues that the Southern evangelical variety of "Christianity" in many cases actually arose to defending slavery biblically, using such weak arguments as representing skin color as the mark of Cain. (I actually think the Economist article might be slightly off, from what I see the preferred bullshit racism justification of the Southern evangelical crowd was the "curse of Ham") Anyone who has read the Bible more thoroughly knows that this is bullshit reasoning (and the Economist article notes that the most pious do tend to reject this), but even today, denouncing the toxic assholery of the white nationalist "alt-right" is very hard for the Southern Baptists to do. So IMHO the accurate way to describe this is that white supremacist culture took Christianity and formed its own "flavor", which cherry picks what it needed for its racist patriarchal ideology, and ignores more important elements of Christianity like the Golden Rule. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting how the abolitionist flavors of american christianity, like Quakers have have almost died off in the centuries since the civil war, while the explicitly pro slavery flavors like southern baptism grew further. I don't have an internal narrative to account for that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was introduced to the idea a few years ago that in the USA, there are two religions going by the name of Christianity that use much of the same trappings, and since both lay claim to the name they are erroneously conflated. A great many things suddenly made more sense once I considered that perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion Glitch (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, anything American can be tied to white supremacy. Correlation does not equal causation yadda yadda BUT since religion and ethnic bullshit are both right-wing beliefs there is clear linkage. — Dysk (contribs) 21:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not all religions are right-wing. Just the ones with Gods in them.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ikanreed There's a theory that, as some denominations disappear further down fundamentalist / reactionary rabbit holes, this causes a certain amount of quiet revulsion and shame in more mainstream, liberal and progressive denominations at what is being cheered on, supposedly in God's name. This is apparently sufficient to drive some people away through simple social stigma, and to provoke deeper spiritual crises in more steadfast believers.

Either way, there's a ratchet effect on numbers that has plenty of not-batshit pastors worried about the future. I obviously don't think this theory should be considered in isolation from wider forces of secularisation, but it's an interesting take on differential decline. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article doesn’t really make any strong point that clearly establishes Christianity as the progenitor of white supremacy, rather than the churches of the South simply reflecting the politics and slavery/segregation of their locale. I.e. were the white supremacism inspired by Christianity or was Christianity enlisted to support white supremacy? The causality matters, if you want to “blame” Christianity.

It’s also yet another example of why it’s problematic to use “Christianity” as a single, undifferentiated term. One of the most annoying things is this tendency in US discourse (I’ve not seen it done in this way in Europe, but I can’t say it’s definitely absent) to just talk about “Christianity” or “Christians”, when the actual topic tends to be some specific form of fundamentalist (usually Protestant) sub variant.

It is even more puzzling that this fundamentalist attempt at co-opting the term “Christianity/Christian” is apparently abetted by atheists and secularists who often use the term in the same way. This is not a very smart rhetorical or political move, if you actually want to minimise fundamentalist influence, since it either makes them the de facto spokespeople for all Christians, or concedes the point that those Christians who aren’t fundies aren’t “real Christians”.

Thus, if the goal is to safeguard a secular society, pointing out that the fundies don’t represent all or even a majority of Christians might be a lot more productive than letting them provide the definitions. Considering the views that fundies tend to hold of other strains of Christianity, it is important not to let them speak for these others; indeed, such intra Christian feuding over what constituted orthodoxy was the original reason for introducing first religious toleration and then secularism. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Trolley Problem (Coronavirus Rant)

I assume everyone here is familiar with Trolley Problems. Basically, a trolley has lost control. Ahead on the tracks, a Dastardly Whiplashesque character has tied 5 people to the tracks. There is a switch to another track, but there is a single person tied to the track. Do you pull the switch and save the 5, or is this an act of murder worse than letting 5 people die? There's all sorts of variations, some silly such as instead of switching the tracks, you push a fat man in front of the trolley to slow it down, or instead of the trolley running over the single person it will instead derail and squish a man taking a nap. But, in the most basic situation, we generally agree that we save the 5 at the cost of the 1.

Now, there is a similar situation. 5 people are in a hospital, and will die unless they get an organ transplant. A 6th person enters the hospital with a treatable but otherwise terminal illness, but has all the organs needed to save the others. The person has no friends or family in the area, or anything that would result in repercussions for you. Do you deny treatment to the sixth person to enable the other 5 to live? Generally speaking, most people agree that you still treat the sixth person. So a big question that gets asked is why these scenarios are so different if they both involve choosing to save 1 life or 5 lives.

But they are some very important scenarios. People's answers to the trolley problem generally will change if you add in that the 5 people on the track are there because of their own actions rather than being tied down, e.g., they are in a tunnel that they aren't supposed to be in rather than having been tied down by a crazy person. Likewise, with the hospital, virtually no one is going to agree that the sixth patient should die if the five patients require a new liver due to alcohol induced cirrhosis, lungs due to chain smoking, or from extensive drug use or morbid obesity or so forth. After all, why should a responsible, healthy person die in order to save the lives of those who weren't responsible. In such a world, victimless crimes wouldn't actually be so victimless if your own actions could cause a doctor to kill someone in order to save you. Yet, here we are in such a world, and the coronavirus lockdown proves it!

How? Well, we need to establish a two things. First, poverty kills people. Second, many of the risk factors for COVID-19 are self-inflicted.

It should be obvious around here how poverty is bad for you health, but what does that have to do with COVID? After all, everyone who lost their job is getting unemployment insurance plus an extra bonus. Well, the piper needs to be paid at some point, and this is going to come in the form of massively higher taxes or massive cuts to social services, and let's be realistic, even if you decide to heavily tax the rich you aren't getting more than an extra hundred billion a year without all of them simply taking their money and leaving. Even if you think that the military is a good place to cut spending, and yes I am one of those people who thinks that, you cut spending there by eliminating jobs. That's hundreds of thousands more people out of work that need to go on assistance of some form, the economy isn't just magicking all these new jobs into existence. This shutdown and the unemployment? It's going to be paid for by the younger generations, and as a cohort they will lose months off of their life expectancies as a result of everything. No ifs ands or buts about it.

COVID's mortality rates are looking to be on average around the .5% range, with a lot of variation based on age and health conditions. It's deadliness is due to how fast it spreads rather than how likely any particular case will cause a death. While it affects multiple organs, the biggest risk factors for complications are, in no particular order, COPD (lung problems), CKD (kidney failure), immunodeficiency (i.e., HIV, organ transplants), cancer, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and sickle cell disease. While these are often genetic diseases or acquired through dumb luck, many are caused as a result of poor lifestyle.

So, we are in an interesting situation.

Do we shut down everything, knowing it will kill/harm some young/healthy people, in order to save the lives of old/sick people, and how many? Do we do nothing and let 1.2 million die in order to avoid killing, making up a number here, 200,000 young people? Should we factor in that many of those dead are smokers or obese or so forth, and say we should only look at it as 600,000 instead of 1.2 million when making our ethical decision?

I don't know the answer. But what I do know is two things. First, that I will never again accept the answer of "it's a personal choice, I'll do what I want" when it comes to obesity and smoking, because if people didn't smoke and weren't morbidly obese, maybe the mortality rate of COVID would be low enough that we wouldn't have to start sacrificing the Millenials and Gen Z's in order to protect the old and sick. Second, that the people making the decision for everyone shouldn't be made almost exclusively of elderly people with guaranteed incomes and pensions (i.e., every government in existence), who obviously will have a bias there.

Thoughts? CoryUsar (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Or, you know, rejecting the very economic system that leads us to contemplating such dilemmas in the first place. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Many parts of America shut down far less than Canada did (which had a pretty strict shut down for quite a while) and America's economy is not doing particularly better than Canada. In fact, Sweden had the lightest safety measures in all of Europe, and in the end had up to 10 times the death as its neighbours and all for what? Their economy is in just as bad a condition as Norway, Denmark and Finland (their economy is very similar to that of Denmark and Finland so there's really no excuse). The world economy is so interconnected that even if one country wants to be selfish and indirectly murder thousands of its citizens when it can easily be avoided all for the illusion that they will make more money...and find out it didn't work AND they will have to deal with the enormous economic cost of treating thousands (or millions) of people for a sickness that could have been avoided and all of the disruption that causes. But yeah, nice way to dehumanise people. Why don't we just euthanize our senior citizens once they turn 65 so we can just get them out of the way...they are just sickly people who use up space and use up too many resources for their valueless lives? I mean...think about the economy! ShabiDOO 11:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You know, some countries are not like America, and had their shut down, and are back in cautious quasi-operational stance at this point. In contrast, America, where "reopen full blast!" has been the messaging of certain Republicans, and preventative measures like facial masks have been a partisan talking point, is in the doghouse. 0.5% of millions of people is a lot of people, and from what I see, the actual fatality rate will probably end up being more than that (it is still in debate of course). The more people resist having a period of social distancing and other preventative measures, the more this bullshit will continue. Judging from what I see politically in America, we've got a long road ahead, while many other countries will open just fine. Enjoy your shit economy because you couldn't keep distant for a few weeks, eh? Soundwave106 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Your numbers are too low. This is an aggressive disease which when it doesn't kill you fucks you up physically and mentally. Hyperfocusing on the death count blinds you to the full scale of the problem. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that deaths due to poverty can be heavily reduced by addressing inequality and providing sufficient social support to those in need. In other words...perhaps in those states where people are left to rot in the gutter when they become destitute...they may keep in mind their mantra that "all lives are precious", start properly taxing corporations and rich people and help limit the number of social fall out victims needlessly dying of poverty. ShabiDOO 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest solving the problem with multitrack drifting. (To be clear, this is a joke.) Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave

Yes, it's sad that we couldn't just simply mandate face masks in public, and more importantly, actually requiring that those masks stay on properly. Every time I go to Wal-Mart, even with the mask requirement, I see people with the mask not covering the nose, or not even covering the mouth. If a mask makes it "too hard to breath", you shouldn't be outside in the first place because you absolutely will not survive the virus. Proper masks alone would've been enough to slow this thing down to a crawl, but nooo.

@Oxyaena

Every single society has had to make that decision, because every single society has limited resources. No matter how equal you try to make things, if there aren't enough donor kidneys then someone has to make the decision on who gets them. Even in social democracies, after some point the care gets cut off. The US actually has some of the best cancer survival rates, and that's with the US sucking ass when it comes to early detection and universal coverage. The biggest reason why the US has such godawful life expectancies is that the US is much sicker in the first place, a problem that would disappear overnight if we simply stopped adding high fructose corn syrup to absolutely everything.

@Comrade

And poverty also has psychological effects and so forth in addition to the shortened lifespans, and so if popcorn lung (random chunks of the lungs permanently scarred from Coronavirus and similar) shouldn't be discounted, neither should should the stress and misery from increased poverty.CoryUsar (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@CorruptUser How does the shutdown kill some young healthy people? Shouldn't a shutdown kill fewer young people than by not shutting down?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The shutdown is being financed through increased public debt, meaning it will be paid back in the form of higher taxes and fewer benefits for young people, one way or another. Poverty is deadly, massively lowering life expectancy, something that should be readily acknowledged by anyone already arguing for more financing of social services. While there are diminishing returns for happiness/health based on income, it's generally agreed that the diminishing point is around $75,000 per year, and every $1000 taken from people below this amount (i.e., the vast majority) WILL be felt in some manner. Every trillion dollars extra in debt is $3,300 per person, or more realistically somewhere around $5000 per person under 65 when interest is added, and this shutdown will cost us EIGHT of those trillions, or $40k per person. For reference, eight years of George W's reckless spending only added $4 trillion to the national debt. On an individual level it may not be noticeable, but every few dollars will mean another home-cooked meal replaced with fast food, or another late-night shift, or another hour of sleep lost, maybe a dental exam delayed by a month, another day of the gym that is skipped, things that statistically on a group level will result in huge numbers. Even if the higher taxes only lower life expectancy by 1 week, and I will posit that taking 40k from someone earning $60k per year will lower their life expectancy by a lot more than 1 week, on 100m people that's still 20m life-years or the equivalent of killing more than 250,000 newborns. So yes, the shutdown will kill some young healthy people. CoryUsar (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I see. But, I don't think that a lower quality of life for a relatively short period means people will die in significant numbers.That is, the death rate will increase as a consequence. In fact, the murder rate has declined during this period. Also, the number of accidental deaths has likely declined as well. I just received a rebate from my auto Insurance company, because there are a lot fewer accidents, and fatalities on the road, because people are staying home. It is young people who are typically the victims in these cases.

This is a real problem with trolley problems: one must assume a limited form of omniscience otherwise known as certainty. We are asked to believe that five people will surely die unless we pull a leaver to save four lives. How would I know that's true? I could never be certain of saving five people, I could only be certain of attempting to kill one person.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mostly irrelevant aside, but the pernicious belief that the degenerative illnesses of old age are All Your Fault for Not Living Right is some of the cruellest and evilest nonsense that infests contemporary life. Everybody dies. Moreover, everybody dies "of" something. For reasons I don't pretend to understand, filling in the blank with "old age" on the cause of death form isn't allowed, even if it seems the simplest explanation. So the organ that gave out, the heart, lung, or liver, is identified as the cause of death. And if that's what kills people, the idea comes into play that if we can just keep that organ from failing, all the people who died with that box on the form checked would still be alive and well. This doesn't even make mathematical sense, but it's the way human minds work, so people are going to think this anyways. The current medical ideology seems to me to show a basic lack of charity. It tells the sick and suffering that it's all your fault. You didn't live right. Now you're paying for it. And I get to be angry at you for it, because I am being taxed for your failure to shape up. I cannot reconcile this belief system with the most basic notions of charity. "Cancer" is almost always old age. "Heart disease", likewise, is old age. Most people who die of "pneumonia" have actually died of old age. It's not a matter of them not being old age; it's just that science has that many pigeonholes to identify which organ or system gave out first. It may be the case that your genes have programmed you to die at 45. Once you pass childbearing age, you're mostly invisible to Darwin. And for someone confronting the reality that their life is approaching its end at 45, we have more important and less rude things to tell them than "you might have lasted longer if you'd taken up jogging."Medical moralism ought to be an outrage, at least against etiquette. It isn't improving anybody's quality of life or making people happier. It breaks the Golden Rule. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So you are going to tell me with a straight face that a chain-smoker who contracts lung cancer, a morbidly obese person who contracts diabetes, or an alcoholic that contracts cirrhosis, should be given the same amount of sympathy as a vegetarian jogger (or other quasi-sane health nut) that contracts ovarian cancer? Yes, cancer is a bitch that can affect anyone through dumb luck, unhealthy people can through sheer chance make it to a ripe old age while responsible people can contract degenerative diseases long before others, but you can personally alter those chances. For any particular person, there's no guarantee on anything, but on a societal level, if we reduce the prevalence of obesity, if we reduce the use of dangerous drugs, if we cut our meat consumption (mostly; it's unhealthy to eat NO meat, but we really shouldn't be eating more than a few ounces a day), if we eliminate the expectations of binge-drinking as part of the party culture, most people will live longer and the tax burden will be lower on everyone else.

As for Darwin and age, your life doesn't end at 45, as menopause actually does have an evolutionary purpose. Humans are practically worthless for the first decade of life or so, and spending the remaining years assisting with the raising of grandchildren increases your total contribution to the gene pool more than attempting to create another child which you will most likely be unable to raise to adulthood. The age at which menopause occurs, and the factors that cause it, vary quite a bit, because the optimal age at which it maximizes your genetic contribution is not a static number throughout all of history and all regions. CoryUsar (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

How much, I wonder, are you going to blame the individual that undertook life-diminishing decisions, or the corporate culture and/or lax government regulations that might have played a role in pushing the cause? Certainly there was an awful lot of social marketing, along with bullshit blocking of the science once science figured out that cigarettes were both addictive and very harmful for you, regarding tobacco. It's not quite in the same category, but you kind of have to look suspiciously at the food industry when they do shit like, say, throw a combination of MSG, disodium inosinate, and disodium guanylate on their Doritos (these are umani flavor enhancers that will make junk food like Doritos seem more savory then they are). Worse, Purdue Pharma (among others) marketed the hell out of Oxycontin and other opioids, with predictable results, and if you want to talk about the biggest thing that has reduced life expectancy in America, it's the over-prescription of opioid pharmaceuticals, where the root cause really was a massive push by legitimate, so-called regulated corporations. How many people know enough about medicine to push back against medical bullshit? (At least rationally... I think some of the reason alternative medicine has taken off in the US is because there really is a lot of bullshit floating around in the medical world, over-prescriptions and unnecessary surgeries and whatnot, but it's difficult for many to sort through legitimate medical needs vs. shitty doctor behavior.)

So likewise, certain Americans are getting poor advise from (mostly) conservative media and memes on the Internet, telling them not only that facial masks are actually harmful for you for some reason, but that Bill Gates created COVID-19 and will add tracking chips to them or something (ironically they are probably posting this to Facebook, which tracks your posts for marketing purposes, possibly using the equally track-able cell phones). A large part of the root cause of this, from what I see, is that the Fox News and Republican business folks are over-emphasize protecting business, which has led to these half-hearted lockdowns that didn't work because they are half-hearted (and in the end will actually hurt business. It wasn't too difficult to look at the last major pandemic, the Spanish flu, and see that half-hearted lockdowns killed the economy in the long run, but no...). If Fox News type sources are your only source for information because you like the "tone", well...

In the end, you do have some responsibility to yourself too, lifestyle wise, and you're still an asshole if your one of those unmasked types that yells at teenage clerks because they want you to wear a mask. But I'm not going to make it a full, 100% moral issue. Not everyone who has diabetes got it through lifestyle after all (type 1). Sometimes medicine or medical conditions plays a role in obesity. Furthermore, not everyone can be an expert on everything either, and with this in mind I do think some of the blame does fall on American corporate irresponsibility sometimes. Fox News, for instance, was pushing for re-opening and poo-pooing masks when their white-collar staff are working from home, if that tells you anything. They knew more than they let on. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that under an extreme limited supply of organs do doctors have to make difficult decisions and that it's wiser to choose the candidate who will get the most out of a new organ. But all you've done here is create a false equivalency. Limited kidney supply isn't remotely the same problem as the covid crisis we face and whether to have a lockdown or not and you know it. There is no lack of masks and there are ways to address people suffering from the economic fallout. All you're doing is dehumanising people and pretending we have to choose between poor people dying or old useless people dying. That's a bullshit dilema. The choice is nobody dying if we can help it. ShabiDOO 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The biggest problem with lifeatylism js that if you accept its core claims, nothing at all, not ever, can evemore again be nobody's business but your own. There are literally no boundaries to the power of physicians, no limits on what cannot be turned into a 'health' issue once it is statistically linked to some ailment. This is profoundly authoritarian and antidemocratic, and I don't want to live in the resulting world. It's already gotten quite bad: propaganda like 'Tips from Former Smokers' is not how a good government treats a vulnerable minority of its citizens. The fanatics responsible should be put in the pillory for their offenses against common decency.

And if you care so much about your taxes, encouraging longevity is counterproductive. You want people keeling over shortly after they hit retirement age, of well known and familiar bu5 untreatable and fatal diseases. This is one reason why worrying about the health costs of other people's personal habits and choices looks vwey bad. We will never have proper health care in the USA until we drive a stake through the heart of this wicked doctrine. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

First off, well, I'm not really sure how to put this into words. My take isn't "you no longer get to decide what you eat", but rather "when it comes decisions such as maximizing lives/lost saved via lockdown or not, we do our moral calculus partially based on lives saved/lost if everyone was responsible". Even if everyone routinely ate salads, minimized alcohol consumption, never smoked except when it made them look cool, wore condoms in longterm monogamous relationships, COVID would still be a deadly disease for some, and a permanently debilitating one for many more. The elderly would still be at risk no matter what, many cases of diabetes are childhood-onset and even many adult cases can occur even amongst the most health-conscious of people, cancer is an inevitability in humans that can only be avoided by dying first, etc. However, the mortality rate in such a world would be much lower, and it's possible that the mortality rate in that world would be low enough that such a world would not have decided to close everything down completely. In terms of the trolley problem, if the 5 people were there because they thought it'd be fun to play on the train tracks, it's definitely a different case than just "1 vs 5 people". However, if it's 500 irresponsible dumbasses on the track we'd all probably agree to switch the tracks, deaths from irresponsibility aren't "0" but they aren't "1" either.

Edit: further clarification on the "0" and "1" thing. Let's say a "responsible" death is worth "1" in our ethical calculus. A person does some risky thing that quadruples their chance of dying. There's still the 1 in 4 chance their death would still have happened. However, their death is not worth only ".25", it's still worth more than this, but less than the 1 from a responsible death. After all, if idiocy was an executionable offense most of us wouldn't have lived through our teenage years, and even idiots still can have value for society. But, we also must agree that this person's death is still less than 1, because otherwise in the "5 people needing organ transplants" scenario, absolutely nothing should change if the people needing the transplants were (recovered) alcoholics or smokers. As for how close to .25 or 1 this person's death is, well, we can argue that, so long as we agree it's somewhere between those numbers.

Second, we already live in that lifestylism dystopia to some extent. Not just the War on Some Drugs or Prostitution, but the very existence of government organizations such as the FDA being able to ban things from the public is lifestylism. Why shouldn't I be able to use anabolic steroids if I want to, it's my body isn't it? Why shouldn't I be able to sell any drug I want no matter how dangerous, even if I put a warning label on it? Perhaps you believe vaccines should be mandatory, are you now crossing a boundary?

Third, @soundwave, I believe I already mentioned that high fructose corn syrup in everything is a Bad Thing. I actually agree there's a corporate responsibility/cause for the obesity epidemic in the US. Companies shouldn't be able to lobby the government to allow soda vending machines in schools, for instance.

Fourth, virtually no one seriously wants a society where Social Security is replaced with a bullet to the head. That's a strawman and you know it. And even under your strawman argument, longevity is still a goal so long as the people are healthy, because you could raise the retirement age as well and get, say 50 years of productive labor from people instead of 40 years for the same cost of education. CoryUsar (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. K on Twitch?

Has anyone watched this guy on Twitch? https://www.twitch.tv/healthygamer_gg He's a therapist, specializing in addiction, who's talked to a bunch of streamers. While he seems to be very good with the fundamentals of therapy and all that, he claims to bring a lot of 'Spirituality' into sessions, and used a lot of terms that I think a skeptic should be critical of. He just had a conversation with Destiny again here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP5FkEy2mkM, and he spoke a lot about karma, saying that while he can't justify its existence logically, he thinks he can use meditation to conclude that it, and reincarnation, are real.

I was talking about this elsewhere, and a lot of people came to me with arguments, that if his use of spiritualism, and even alternative treatments are effective in his case, that we should not reject them. Thoughts? Is there really good evidence that spirituality in therapy is a good idea? KGlife (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert in medicine but if someone is already religious, I don't see the problem. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem - I guess the fact that it justifies existing beliefs. You might ask the same question of homeopathy. It may "work" via some placebo effect or reversion to the mean, but it leaves the user believing in some magic stuff and with less cash.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What we need- more quackery

https://www.soundhealthandlastingwealth.com/covid-19/trump-promotes-dr-stella-immanuel-a-homophobic-doctor-and-preacher-who-uses-alien-dna-as-a-cure/

This "doctor" is fucking insane and a Trump supporter. Of course Trump supports this quack. This quack is mission worthy if I say so myself. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

She's half-doctor, half religious leader. The church she leads is called "Fire Power Ministries". Yes, they have a Youtube channel. (No, I didn't watch.) Based on this BBC article (in pidgin English for the West African crowd I guess, that's a new side of the BBC to me), she apparently wrote a book with a pastor of a Nigerian Pentecostal church so her beliefs probably lie in that direction. My understanding is that some of the African Christian churches have integrated some ideas from older, more indigenous religions such as Yoruba... not always for the better. So it is not surprising to hear she has sermons with demons and shit. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Might do a draft on the weirdo. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Very basic draft

Draft:Stella Immanuel --George Soros Puppet (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Portland, OR is the new Hong Kong

I've been away for quite awhile; work, pandemic, moving in with a woman. But the creeping fascism from the administration is no longer creeping. As a black male, I haven't particularly comfortable actually going to most protests, those that know me, have known that I had been talking about many of the issues George Floyd's killing brought to the forefront of the American, indeed the world psyche. But I must respond to paramilitary forces seeking violence in Portland. Over the past week I have acquiring the necessary tools to respond, primarily to remove CS gas deployed on protesters, observing videos of Hong Kong protesters. Starting tomorrow, I will be on the front line, hoping to limit the suffering of the Wall of Mom's. I will report back later.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Be careful and stay safe. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Proud of you dude! Be careful out there fighting the good fight. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Just donated to ACLU off the back of the link from WIGO - fight the good fight!Aloysius the Gaul 23:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also using the chant from a 1970's anti-war protest that goes- "The whole world is watching"!

In this case, yes the whole world is watching and the whole world is laughing at us or feeling sorry for us. Can some country send in troops to stop tRump's goons? I would happily allow the Canadian military to stop the tRump goons. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Safe travels, my guy. Live your truth, I dunno how you're gonna do it, but don't get yourself hurt if you can avoid it. It's through work and effort that it's getting better, very cool that you're off with aid. I trust you, know that we want you to win and be safe. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes to you RipCityLiberal. Stay safe! Blowing away CS gas is probably the only non-pestiferous use for leaf blowers.[3] The crackdown is likely both illegal and unconstitional because Chad Wolf is an illegal appointment.[4] The feds have been intentionally detaining then releasing people to avoid accountability.[5] Bongolian (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thought of this- start a donation drive to send protesters gas masks and goggles (yes I am serious). That tear gas is rough. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Couple of Things

@Rationalzombie94 You are correct sir, CS-Tear Gas is awful. I thought I was prepared, bought a gas mask, shatter proof goggles, heat resistant gloves, a helmet and some arm sleeves. As soon as the tear gas hit, discovered my mask didn't fit correctly (the respirator needs to cover your nose down to your chin), the filter wasn't rated for tear gas (it's not that it didn't work, but it didn't work well enough), and the goggles didn't fit well enough to my face. The gas literally activates your bodies irritant reaction. The first thing you notice is your eyes burn, which starts mildly annoying, then intensifies to a sensation closer to having matches lit under your eyelids. Then you start to cough. Again the first cough isn't bad, but it gets worse as time proceeds because the coughing gets the gas deeper into your lungs. Three times throughout the hour that we were continually gassed, I had to walk about 5 meters away and pour alkaline water in my eyes and nose. Twice I went back in, wasn't super helpful, the strategy of leaf blowers is so effective that some Feds brought their own blowers to push the gas away from them. They deployed the canisters close to the fence, so they could shoot those attempting to deactivate the canisters with pepper balls (which aren't really that bad). If you are planning to confront police using this type of urban pacification I recommend three things: 1. Get a gas mask that includes the respirator and face protection (like this [6] ), 2.Bring an umbrella, extremely effective against gas munitions, 3. Pack light, I brought two jugs of water with me, very not helpful.

In conclusion, ACAB, f**k the feds. RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The courage of those on the front lines is very inspiring. I commend you for it. If you don't mind a little armchair protesting, though, may I ask if anyone has considered trying to find out where the enemy is sleeping and periodically blasting them with noise to keep them from their rest? It seems like an obvious strategy to me so it's probably been considered and I'm probably missing something, but so far no one has been able to tell me why it won't work. Anyway, just a thought along with some encouragement. Glitch (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue of finding the goons would be difficult, they would keep where they were hiding confidential. The best course of action is protesting. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Word from Kate Brown is that the Feds agreed to leave [7] however the feds say differently [8]. I'll be back down there tomorrow night to report.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of Texas...

I apologize for our senators being insane fascist morons, again. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to know that you live in a socially backwards state. I feel bad for any sane person living in Texas. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why? What happened? Gunther1987 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a senator, but the main thing I heard recently was Louie Gohmert doing his usual wharrgarbling in Congress schtick. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I forgot he was a congress creature and not a senator. My bad. Anyway, Gohmert happened. Sorry about that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Now he has Covid [9], word from his staff on the Twitter is he has had his office at full staff, not social distancing, nor wearing masks, because he wanted to be a model of reopening lol.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

He currently blames Wearing a facial covering for him contracting Covid, and told his staff in person he had contracted Covid sans a face covering. They really are that fucking stupid.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Kinda entertaining the idea of becoming a ESL teacher

Just seems damn interesting, don't know why. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I'm an EFL teacher, rather than an ESL teacher. And I know there are some others on this wiki too. But since you've already shown that you're interested in language, I'm not surprised. But I am happy. Spud (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What's ESL? Gunther1987 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

English As a Second Language. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear EFL stands for English as a Foreign Language. ESL teachers teach English to non-native speakers in English-speaking countries. EFL teachers teach English to non-native speakers in non-English-speaking countries.

According to one of my lecturers at the university where I did my MA in English language teaching, the department once advertised for a specialist in ESP, meaning English for Specific Purposes. They received a job application from someone who said he was very interested in their idea of teaching English through extrasensory perception. Spud (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bob M, I'm sure your advice here would be invaluable. Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not the only teacher on here. At one time I owned a wiki dedicated to the subject though I am now only minimally associated with it. I was the main contributor to articles like: School_v_freelance, Freelance_teacher and One-to-one alone with many others. You might want to read some of them as they might give you some pointers about how to look at the career. If you have some more specific questions then I'm sure that I and others would be interested in helping.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. @Rationalzombie94, I'd definitely welcome any questions you might have. Spud (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Spud what second language would be the most ideal to learn in the event I go for a degree? --George Soros Puppet (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 I think I need some clarification here. Are you talking about taking a bachelor's degree in English language teaching? Are you talking about learning another language as a module that would be part of that course? In that case, I would recommend Spanish. It's relatively easy for English speakers to learn, you can easily access a lot of Spanish-language media in the US that can give you more exposure to the language outside of the classroom and, since you already know some Esperanto, you will recognize some of the vocabulary. Are you asking which other language would be most useful for an ESL teacher to learn? That would depend on where you're going to work and who you're going to teach. Again, if you're going to work anywhere in the US, Spanish would be helpful. I know that historically there were a lot of Arabic speakers in Michigan. But I don't know if you'd get many Arabic speaking immigrants there now. Knowing something about your students' first language can sometimes help you understand and predict the kind of mistakes your students make. But not always. Certainly, having some experience of learning another language, any other language, helps you to empathize with your students. And having some experience of being taught exclusively through the medium of the second language should help you to empathize with your students even more. Spud (talk)

People exploiting the pandemic for cash

Don't know how many of you know about when the Game Theory dude on YouTube monitized a video about "Which video game character would survive COVID-19". He claimed the video would not be monitized only for it to be monitized.

It is sick to exploit a disaster for money. The AlternateHistoryHub dude named Cody mocked Game Theory when that happened. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Vulture capitalism. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, the news media has been exploiting EVERY disaster for cash. Heck, they even CREATE disasters if it'll make a few extra bucks; just how do you think Trump won the Republican nomination, if it wasn't for 24/7 media coverage of the overgrown Oompa Loompa? Plus, school shootings wouldn't have been nearly as big a problem if the media hadn't been plastering the faces of the shooters everywhere; look up Herostatic Fame sometime. CoryUsar (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is one example of why I'm wary of gamers in general (referring to the dedicated subculture, since nearly everyone plays games these days). There are too many people like that who don't conceive of a world outside video games, and they keep getting bolstered by the perverse incentives that are social media algorithms. I hate having to wade through video game fandoms wondering when some big name is going to go on a racist rant or be revealed to have sexually assaulted someone. Colossal Squid (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am only in favor of capital punishment for the most heinous crimes. Pandemic profiteering is among them. RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends. A manufacturer forcing the states into a bidding war to get the latest respirator is actually how the market is supposed to function, as the sudden spike in price will cause, say, auto manufacturers to retool from electric cars to more respirators. The real problem is when you have things like people buying up all the hand sanitizer without actually producing anything extra, jacking up the price through hoarding while at no point actually increasing the access to the goods. And it's incredibly important to understand the difference between the two.

In all honesty though, I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, but only because I'm more sadistic than the pro-death people. I want the worst of the worst to rot behind bars, to be remembered as the shrunken, crazy old guy with missing teeth and weird tattoos, rather than be forever remembered as the young, attractive person they once were. Nobody makes a martyr out of an old fart. CoryUsar (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

We also cannot forget the Naturopaths and Chiropractors who are selling bullshit cures for COVID-19. It is sickening. Send the whole lot of them to prison. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I'm not opposed to that sort of profiteering per say (it's the system we have, but it is inherently corrupt), my issue aligns more with @Rationalzombie94, it's the people using false hope and discredited science or straight up lies like this bitch[10]. Chloroquine is the new MMS.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2020

Ah, yes, death is too good for those bastards. Lock them in a cell with unlimited water but only a single crumb and insist that if they want more food they can just dilute said crumb even more.CoryUsar (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Even worse than the medical quacks are televangelists who urge people in dire financial straights due to the pandemic to donate financial assets to their church. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No one loves Churches more than a plague.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Job's workers in the Book of Job: Talk about getting the short end of the stick

Assuming they were not slaves

The people who worked for Job probably had families they never got to see again. Would this be an occupational hazard for being a worker of a character in the Bible?

So this is what happens when you do work? You get screwed over for being in the cross-fire. Sounds like fun. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would your argument change if they were slaves? Or have I misunderstood your initial disclaimer?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

For the disclaimer I meant if the workers got to go home at all. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to look to any religious text for proof of concept. But when you look at the book of Job, it's a guy who got his shit wrecked, kids killed, land ransacked, contracted a disease, and he never gave up until his friends told him to, and the second he gave up and asked for God to show up, God showed up and just shat all over him for his doubt, and when he was done asking God why, his life got restored. That's good storytelling, but it's not non-fiction. I totally prefer Yahweh to Jesus, just swooping overhead and fucking up your shit because that's what Yahweh does, as opposed to some dick who fucks your everlasting shit up because you're not doing it right or not prostrating yourself correctly. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is it legal to be stoned on a train? Reed Blower (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe specify country/state/province/territory? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

oh, it was a London tube train I think Reed Blower (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

London hasn't decriminalized THC, so I'm certain the answer is yes.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the laws, they don't seem to criminalize being high, though. It's possession or distribution that will get you. Their public intoxication laws are from 1872 and seem to only reference being drunk? Not a brit, not a lawyer, not an expert of any kind, though. Also: cops can hassle you if they want to, and british cops are only a little better about bullshit arrests than the ones in the US. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also a factor, if you're white while stoned, you're probably better off.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If the UK then it might well be covered here. I know that's alcohol, but I would guess the same provisions. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

you'd have to be pretty shit faced to get nicked for public intoxication, ie a danger to yourself or others or just a bit more than a general nuisance. i seem to recall though my grandad got done for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Mission discussion

We need to have a discussion about the mission of this website:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Since many pages (for example, Transgender glossary) wouldn't really fit into the mission statement. But the issue isn't that page (it's great!), but that the mission is too narrow in my honest opinion. I think including elements of social justice that can be explained (with a bit of snark, contrary to WP's NPOV, without the fence-sitting between minorities and bigots), having our own take on pages such as Germany or dogs/sheep, whatever it is.

TL;DR: Can we please broaden the scope of this website, it doesn't need to be an encyclopedia. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

2014 called. Said hi. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi 2014. Can you now engage with what I proposed? Or not? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Engaging fully with your brainfart: It's pretty fucking clear the site mission is interpreted to include "elements of social justice" - and it's been this way for at least 6 fucking years - but by all means, let's have a discussion about Making This Happen. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Point me to it on the mission statement.

Here:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

isn't Helena Bonham Carter that woman in the 1992 Howard's End adaptation, or am I uncultured?Reed Blower (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

She's an imposter. The litigation has been rumbling on for years. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Implicit to points 3 and 4. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Since HBC seems unwilling or uncapable of indulging, let me give you a try. Point 4 we both can agree just refers to the media side of the aforementioned points 1, 2 and 3 ("how these subjects are handled in the media."), so lets talk about 3. "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism"; I am not entirely sure I follow the logic. Authoritarians tend to be conservative/fundamentalist and thus social justice is relevant in that aspect, but its contingent, not essential to it. The same way "dogs" can be contingent to point 1 about anti-/pseudoscience but not essential, if you get what I mean? What would be the problem if we expanded point 3 with "Explorations of authoritarianism, fundamentalism and a nuanced and factual coverage of social justice;? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@GR I've already pointed you to the category, 5 sub-categories, and 145 fucking articles. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The mission already allows for a broad interpretation, which is already demonstrated by RW's changing scope and interests over the years. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC

We also have some mission purists like BobM and Hastur, who are relics of a bygone age imo. Their continued insistence on making an issue where there is none mandates this conversation. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If the de facto mission has changed, what in the world is the argument against changing it de jure to reflect that? All that seems debatable is whether the de facto mission has in fact changed and if so, is that good or bad? Updating the de jure mission is just bookkeeping. Glitch (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There's little point to changing the mission as I see it. It's been discussed elsewhere that pages that are not purely missional but are supportive of missional pages are allowed. As such, the transgender glossary can be considered supportive of pages relating to transphobia. Bongolian (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think @Glitch made a really good point tho, @Bongolian. If you argue that de facto we accept mission-related pages, why not change the mission to reflect that? It seems to me to be a simple correction so that we all are on the same page. I am suspecting (correct me if I am wrong) that in the past mission changes were heavily debated and source of a lot of anger for you and other more "old-time" folks are afraid of changing it in order to prevent chaos? Otherwise I don't really see the argument against it, frankly. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

let's wait until after the elections and we'll open a forum-Hastur! (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Which elections?-Flandres (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

board-Hastur! (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an eminently reasonable proposal to me. Glitch (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Having looked into what the elections entail and what the board does, I retract my agreement. Why wait? The elections are a rubber stamp that isn't related to how the wiki is administered... Right? Glitch (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I just don't want two sitenotices, lol-Hastur! (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay, fair. In that case, where do I register my demand that the rubber stamping at least be scheduled to happen already? The election time frame says it's TBD. If it means almost nothing, can we go ahead and do it? Glitch (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that given that the authoritarians on the internet spout off controversies about trans people on the dozen, that pages related to transgender content (and that includes the transgender glossary since it's in part useful to get an understanding for TERF dogwhistles, and there's a demonstrable connection between TERFs and auth-right/alt-right individuals) are on-mission and as a result meets criteria 1 and 4. So there's no real need to expand our mission to accommodate for these aspects, since it's already covered. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sweetcorn

Sweetcorn is "loaded with lutein and zeaxanthin"[11] but we can't digest all of it, Medical News today says we "cannot digest corn" as it "is high in cellulose, which is an insoluble fiber that the body cannot digest" but the body still "breaks down the other components of corn. Chewing corn for longer can also help the digestive system break down cellulose walls to access more of the nutrients"[12] I dont know what im trying to prove but still ^{— Unsigned, by: Sentient Mole / talk / contribs}

I also don't know what your point is. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Shock news! Humans can't digest fiber but we need it for the digestive process! Stop the front page!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s why corn shows up in your shit, Luigi. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

so bob, present us with your theory of why sweetcorn shows up in your shit. I'm sure it will be much better than Medical News'! And i said "a" (should be an) insoluble fiber, there's more than one... Sentient Mole (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

An analysis that concludes what I want to hear makes me suspicious, can anyone point out a major flaw in it?

Quora Analysis of Trump's chances, as of July 16 2020, by Chris O'Leary https://qr.ae/pNsaKT

I want to believe. Help me maintain skepticism. Glitch (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Trump is a pretty decent underdog in this election at the moment. I'll use RealClearPolitics data (FiveThirtyEight will work also, the numbers are pretty similar):

A) In the "guaranteed" states, they have Biden with a solid floor of in-the-bag states with 222 electoral votes, versus Trump's 115. (Link) I do not disagree with any of them here.

B) The battleground states identified are: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona. (Link)

C) In the link for (A), you can scroll down and see the "RCP Electoral spread" and see their "poll of polls" ratings per state.

It was pretty clear even during the first part of this year that the mood had shifted more towards the Democrats in Michigan (16 EV) and Pennsylvania (20 EV). Still, the race was much tighter in the past. At present, these states poll in the +6-+8 range. If Biden wins these states plus the in-the-bag ones, Biden would have to pick up just 22 more EVs.

The biggest surprise change now is Florida, which is now a solid "lean Democrat". The polls *seriously* broke for Biden in June. Florida's a diverse state with a lot of political tribes, and I guess we'll get a breakdown of the cause of the shift in June later. But I have a suspicion that the root cause is COVID-19. Governor DeSantis's COVID-19 response has been / continues to be incredibly shitty (schools re-opening full blast, whee!). Florida's case load is incredibly high of late, and DeSantis is well known for being in lockstep with Trump. Early June is also when the BLM protests started, so maybe that also was a factor for some, but I bet a lot of this poll change is senior citizens scared by COVID-19, compounded with suburban *parents* scared by COVID-19, and the full-blast reopening that worked as bad as you expect. Not every senior citizen, even senior citizens that broke for Trump, is a Foxbot.

If Biden captures Florida (29 EV), Biden *only* needs his in-the-bag states plus Pennsylvania. That's it. Or, another path would be his in the bag states, Florida, Michigan and just one more state with just 3 EV. There are 6 tossup states that are roughly +3-+4 Biden at the moment (Wisconsin is +5).

Trump's best chance IMHO is to start acting sensible on COVID-19, and get DeSantis to be more sensible as well. I do not put the odds of that happening very high, to be honest. It's probably more likely that Trump will find another moment like this week where Trump promotes mask-deniers, medicine that doesn't work again, and strange doctors with sermons about demons and shit.

This, of course, doesn't mean "don't vote" and that the race can change. This is where we are now. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It is wild to me that we have accepted the fact that Trump can win, by not winning the popular vote. Need to abolish the EC. RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Biden could easily be north of 350. Trump's narrow 2016 win was powered variously by 1) fear & loathing of Hillary, 2) a racist backlash against 8 years of a black president, and 3) an inchoate desire to kick the table over and see what happened.

Out of all that, who's still really rooting for Trump? Probably a fair chunk of 1) and nearly all of 2), but I doubt many of 3) are looking at the current steaming mess and feeling remotely inclined to give him another four years.

Any way you cut it, he's managed to shrink what was already a narrow and unlikely path to victory. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation Bias I'm a dick if I just leave it there, that's confirmation bias to my own read. But, I don't talk to a lot of Biden supporters and I don't run any polls. I'm worried too.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Because criticism of Obama, who promised peace yet started/joined more wars than Bush, who deported more people than either Bush or Trump, who added 8 Trillion to the deficit, who presided over one of the slowest recoveries ever, whose "affordable" health care was anything but, who was elected under the assumption that he'd bring the people responsible for the recession to justice yet only a single person that no one has ever heard of saw the inside of a jail cell, who promised an end to the war on some drugs yet here we are, must be racism. Uh huh. Don't blame it on the Republicans, he had supermajorities in both the Senate and House. Face it, he was a shit President, arguable whether he was worse or better than Bush but still shit. CoryUsar (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You must've have been dealing with an incapacitating brain injury during the 2016 campaign, and failed to engage with any reliable analysis of it since. Trump made a naked play for the (substantial) racist elements of the GOP base, and did so successfully. By the time November rolled around, they were visibly erect for "MAGA". Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Where the fuck did this red herring come from? Not all who criticized Obama were racist, but there sure were a lot of racist idiotic critics of Obama. If your criticizing Obama's policy, your criticizing Obama's policy. If you are a birther, on the other hand, well, you're either a fuckin' racist, an idiot, or both. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This might be among the worst takes on the Obama presidency, and considering he was a middling centrist Democrat that is saying a lot.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You want doubt? Here's some sound reasons for doubt. Polling is incredibly unreliable this early, and historically has consistently drifts towards a tie regardless of who has an early lead. Enthusiasm on the democratic side polls incredibly low, which under historical circumstances tends to depress turnout. Trump being in charge for one of the biggest disasters in american history may make "voting against" actually win for the first time in polling history, though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be more worried about polls regressing to the mean if Trump wasn't such a reliably hot mess of crazy when his back's against the wall. I mean, Jesus, he restarted the 'rona briefings just over a week ago (now with New Tone™!), and he's already wished Ghislaine Maxwell well, and tried to relitigate hydroxychloroquine via batshit demon jizz lady. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Corruption

— Oxyaena ^Harass 15:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent-ish reputable military opinion poll on Trump?

The most recent I can find is 2019, and a lot has happened since then. Also I don't know enough to know if the Military Times is reputable or not. Anyway, I would just feel a lot more secure about things going into November if the "don't worry about a Trump coup" argument was more solid than "the military won't help him because the law says they're not supposed to", because it's not like militaries have ever broken the law before, am I right? Glitch (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Relax, man. If Trump put up the bat signal, he'd get a few rube sheriffs' departments and some militiamen at best. No-one in charge of any serious ordnance is going to rally to his cause. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As of that last poll, you're very likely right, but predicting the future is tricky business and I would rather have more data to do it with than less. Glitch (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it sounds scary because ICE is a federal agency and they did some dirty work inside the country. But to extend that worry to the entire military is, well, I don't think we're getting that level. Which is good, means we can roll it back. Being said, it is extremely troubling that ICE could be deployed against a symbolic civil border. I've only seen the Military Times referenced a couple times, but from my understanding, Military Times is pretty unabashedly supportive of the US Military regardless of intent, action, or outcome. I don't think the US military is exactly under the thumb of the president of the United States, and there is currently no sudden foreign or domestic threat that would require the executive office to maintain leadership, so I don't think the military is worried about the outcome of the Biden/Trump race. Not glorifying the military, what I'm saying is Trump doesn't have real military sway, in the way that it would be arms against the American people. He has Federal police, sure, and when the Bundy shit was going on, use of federal law enforcement rustled the right wing's jimmies. "It was really low to use federal force against something that isn't as much a domestic threat as a symbolic defense of civilian rights," I heard that kind of shit all the time during the Bundy deal. Nobody gets a pass, the Bundy case, with a small group of people holding a large arsenal of weapons on federal property, was suppressed and went to court. With a different head of federal law enforcement, I agree with your concerns about who and how and to what extent federal law enforcement is deployed. But I don't think the actual military is going to be involved. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, please look at this shit.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check rates Military Times as highly factual and least biased.[13] That said, MBFC is not perfect (see Media Bias/Fact Check#Reasonable criticism), and if Military Times conducted the poll themselves, they may not have had the expertise to sufficiently control for bias like A-rated pollsters.[14] Brian Klaas, co-author of How to Rig an Election, and two books on despotism thinks that Trump refusing to concede is a real and serious possibility.[15] Others have also written about this; Biden has stated that he thinks the military will escort Trump out if he refuses to leave.[16] Bongolian (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian@Gol Sarnitt@Helena Bonham Carter Here's some food for thought. Let's say Trump means it when he says he'll dispute the results, but then he leaves office anyway. Now, what do you think those well armed QAnon and "MAGA"hat types are going to do? You think they're actually going to go toe to toe with the US military machine? Maybe they'll just move on? Or maybe, they'll shoot up churches. Daycares. Schools. Democrat campaign rallies. I mean, that fits with their existing M.O. so... Yeah. You should probably worry. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, equivocation wasn't my first choice. But I'll take forced introspection over slippery slope as a point of argument as often as I can. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In wake of the Portland protests, actual vets young and old have shown up to protest in favor of BLM, and been treated like shit by whatever the hell you'd call this secret police. The military as a political organization might be in favor of 45 simply by virtue of what their talking heads would say (then again given how many of his military appointees have resigned in disgust even that's up for debate), but that's like saying that most people who are going to vote Biden actually agree with half of what he says. The real scary thing to ponder are the legal loopholes that he can actually take advantage of to stay in office, propriety and truth be damned, where his cronies and the spineless Democrats will let him do whatever he wants. Darth Heinous (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving on, without getting into this pointless aside about the nature of centrism that is digressing from the main topic... @Darth Heinous The military hates Trump. Maybe if he was actually any good at foreign policy they'd back him, but the military is like me, they favor practicality and results. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I didn't really find any new data from it, but my confidence is somewhat bolstered by the fact you mostly came to the same conclusions as I did from what data there was. Although perhaps that's a dangerous indication of groupthink, rather than something that should increase my confidence. Hmm. Well, regardless, I feel a little better so yay? I still think it would be very bad if he refused to leave office, because of the terrorism component that was pointed out, but I'll take terrorism over fascist coup any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Glitch (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nightmare fuel

https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1287610534741676032 HairlessCat (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh good. Someone take me to Portland so I get kidnapped and strangle him. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I sat through the most recent Joe Rogan Ben Shapiro thing. All 2+ hours of it. Not necessarily because I was that interested in it, but to prove to myself I could. It's pretty clear Shapiro has never considered any circumstances other than his own, and he also makes jokes about hating his kids, talks about not loving his wife romantically but from a business perspective first and foremost, and never says anything about enjoying his family life. We have to give Ben Shapiro a little bit of a pass, I think. From what he's said, life is only good if there are strict rules and his personal agency imbued. It would be very difficult to live that way, and every example of empathy must just shake his world, he's very young. He can't look away from his self-proscribed life path, even as much to consider a different set of circumstances for something so simple as to acknowledge as a childhood that isn't his own. Probably because if he does, everything he's said and done is shambles. That has to be a really scary place to be. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Any new article ideas?

I'm bored, and I have no idea what the fuck I should do for the rest of the day. Any suggestions for a new article?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There is the New Eden School of Natural Healing and Herbal Studies (https://www.newedenschoolofnaturalhealth.org). It is a fundie Christian naturopathy diploma mill that is whacked out of its mind. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Try the to do list, that's what it's for. Scream!! (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a page just for people who are bored. We also have a page for people who are tired, but that's another story. Bongolian (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The University of South Los Angeles could use a little help. I am kinda struggling with it. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You into sports? I started a new one I think could be interesting/challengingDraft:Sports & Covid-19RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow If you're still looking for something (or anyone for that matter), I might have something. I did some work on the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center article a few months back, other day, an IP user left a kinda cryptic remark in the article. Want to see if you can make heads or tails of it. Wish it was a registered user, I'd like to ask them more, and see if they could help fill it in the details. I will warn you, it's not a very pleasant article/topic, so if you've been in a poor/depressed mood lately, I would recommend avoiding it. (I'll see about moving the IP user's remark into the talk page later today.)--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 04:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Anybody want to help out a first time editor with the Transhumanism article?

Life hit me like a brick after I said I would be trying to improve the Transhumanism article, but it seems to be finally calming down a bit. Looking for volunteers to assist the noob, but I'll do it solo if I have to.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Transhumanism#Anybody_want_to_help_out_a_first_time_editor.3F Glitch (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I still think the article has a lot of issues but I've decided to focus my efforts on more pressing matters. Maybe one day. Glitch (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Can source criticism techniques used in the discipline of History be applied to modern sources?

I've been pondering how we choose what sources to trust and how far to trust them, when independent verification is difficult or impossible. Do source criticism techniques used by historians have any value here? I wanted to learn more about source criticism, but we don't have a page on it and until I know more about source criticism I can't trust any other sources than RW, obviously. Glitch (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Much of the things historians consider are the same we should worry about. Who wrote it, what evidence do they cite, did they witness it themselves or rely on others' accounts, did they have an agenda/ulterior purpose, what sort of document is it (diary, journalism, bureaucratic record), who was it written for, why was it written... The same rules will apply whether you're reading documents about the Nazi Holocaust or contemporary atrocities. There's lots of source analysis guides available for budding historians. --Annanoon (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. Thank you. Do you happen to know of any particularly GOOD source analysis guides that you could point me to? I do of course already try my best to do all those things, but I would like to learn some Best Practices on how to do so more effectively. Glitch (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Doing a little (more) digging on my own, it seems the impression of wp:source criticism as being primarily limited to History is not at all correct. It also seems extremely on mission for us, in a foundational sort of way. I mean the whole wiki is built on sources, right? I think this should be a high priority new article for us. How do we... how do we "wiki magic" it? I'm still a wiki noob. Glitch (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Rednecks For Black Lives

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/27/rednecks-for-black-lives HairlessCat (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Good. Spud (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As a badly educated brit I thought redneck was a derogatory term for americans Fowler (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is and it isn't. If someone seen as an "elite city goer" were to call you a red neck, then someone might very well be offended. If someone actually identifies with being a redneck though, it isn't considered derogatory. You might see an ad say something like "Come on down sunday for the ultimate in redneck entertainment. MONSTER TRUCKS". MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For those of you who need a laugh during the current mess in the US

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VBevEYELQ0&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR06kwtiW_7H3vAtSJbV7Rm3cPB2cc2tm0QPzivzX0gcXrxo6vKLfCMcnTs

So classic, it could be used on a Broadway show. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Does this mean what I think it means?

That the US coronavirus response was intentionally shoddy to kill as many democrats as possible? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that, and even if it was true, it was an all-time backfire. Revolverman (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. I think it's sufficiently covered by Grey's Law, though. "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." Glitch (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The interrelationship between Logic, Reason, Intuition, and the Scientific Method

I've become quite interested in the topic of how we think, and it seems to me that it boils down to intuition, reason, and logic (and the scientific method which is a special case of reason). I know this is a topic which has been considered since ancient times, and I've read some of the literature on it, but I wonder what I'm missing, how I can improve my thinking on thinking. I have sort of a model I've been building of the process over the years, but can anyone point me to some good, scientific sources on the topic? Would anyone care to discuss their own ideas? It seems pretty mission relevant. Glitch (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Top quality meme

you can complain about it, but you can't say its wrong. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:9137:c745:cc31:a650 / talk / contribs}

Yes I can. It's fucking stupid and baseless. You feeling oppressed because people call you fucking morons isn't the same as being abducted off the street. Thus we arrive at the conclusion: you're a fucking moron. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That meme was also poorly made, the cherry on top of the shitty sundae. If you are going to make a politically incorrect meme, at least make it look decent. People are being oppressed and actual freedoms are in danger. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's important to remember that no one who identifies as a libertarian has any actual commitment to their stated ideals. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I've read your meme, and I'd like to offer a counter-argument. Wear a mask like an adult and quit cheering for fucking goon squads, or die. I feel this argument is well thought out, reasonable, and gets my frustration across. Also, if we go into a civil war because the right-wing of this country is insane and won't fucking support first amendment rights, I'm not going to debate them, I'm just going to kill them. Then they won't say stupid shit and ruin life anymore, you know, because they'll be dead. Ok? So behave now, or die later. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Take it easy, the OP is a mere troll with nothing better to do. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Patriot trolls" reading Milo's Gab account or the few other places in Google Image Search that has this shit meme (pretty poor quality, to be honest) should know that Malheur occupier (remember that story?) Ammon Bundy actually supports the part of Black Lives Matter that is standing up to police brutality. He got shit about this opinion from the "Trump tribe", of course. At any rate, shit meme is shit, seems like Portland protesters are doing just fine, thank you, adapting Hong Kong tactics like leaf blowers, Walls of Moms, Dads, and veterans, etc. to confront the no-brained, unnecessary goon behavior. Seems like the Fed DHS idiots are in retreat at the moment. (It helps that no one local, not the state nor the city, wants them, and lawsuits and laws have been and will continue to fly on this one.) Fox News might have to use recycled old footage for their law and order propaganda in a little bit (not like a Fox News viewer would notice.) Soundwave106 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I get the "don't tread on me" snake, and yeah, the crying half-red half black orb, saying being opporessed is bad and wacky and baiting, but the don't tread snake, as if it makes a good point, in and of itself, that is backwards and the words are backwards unless it's so poe it's impossible to interpret correctly, which would be close to dada. But, I can't afford it that, because some fucktwit thinks this works. It's comparable to dada, look at it, I think the point is to engage with it honestly. And I don't think this meme attempt was after anything other than just looking at it, to be able to disagree with it. It's charged and it's empty at the same time. That ain't it, chief. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The Gadston snake represents libertarians, and the red and black orb represents anarcho-socialists. They would normally be united in opposition to authoritarianism, and the anarchp-socialism ball is distraught that the Gadston snake isn’t helping in present circumstances, which may be various government actions related to BLM and associates if it’s recent. The Gadston snake is explaining that he doesn’t like anarcho-socialists any more because they cheered on some authoritarian activity against libertarians. Probably something related to gun control or free speech, but it could be a pet cause of the author or the community where it was originally posted. It’s cohesive but poorly executed. And that’s a political comic. A meme is an idea considered in the context of how it spreads among people. The term is also used for image macros sometimes, but calling something a meme doesn’t say much about it, as it’s a very broad general classification. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you smell the political realignment?

Remember this crazy guy? Turns out he only hates on kind of BLM. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fucking hilarious holy shit — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What is it with Wingnuts linking BLM or anything that isn't idioticPatriotic with Communism, Marxism & Soros? This bullshit is REALLY getting old by now.. Gunther1987 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The same thing with any boogeyman, it's a useful scapegoat. Ω (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the video is fine. A militarized police force is actually bad. I must be missing something here? Who is communist, who are the scapegoats? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I missed it, you guys weren't talking about the post. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole shtick of the militia types used to be about Federal goons rounding up people and disappearing them or putting them in camps. Guess what, they were right, and at least some of them are waking up to smell the cofvefe. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not that hard. What arguments do you need to disassemble? I say gun reform is important, I believe all guns are bad. Ammon would probably disagree with me. What is comical about Ammon making an honest statement? Like, blasting him does not get his very salient point across. He doesn't have to be right on everything, and neither do I, neither do you. Anyone who pulls the trigger on a gun had better be right about something. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Some people in the comment section of that video were posting BS like: "BLM is a Marxist/Communist organisation" & "It's Marxist/Communist together with ANTIFA, which is funded by Soros". Gunther1987 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Having any kind of consistent moral outlook is the fastest way to be run out of conservative spaces. If you have a coherent ideology you actually believe past "us good, them bad" you're not gonna be friends with the modern american conservative movement. Being "pro gun" seems like it's a conservative ideal, but if you start believing "it's the right of the people to resist and overthrow government power when it oppresses them" you're out. Being "pro life" seems like a conservative ideal, but if you think anyone should be obliged lift even one finger to save a life in danger, you're out. No issue actually forms around a coherent belief system. Well, except maybe christian dominionism. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump: The unintentional comedian

Trump's um....."speeches" make me laugh. He is so damn desperate! I watched the most recent speech on Facebook and I was laughing. As I type this I am still chuckling. This guy is supposed to be leading the country, not be a comedian (unintentional or not). God, his attempt at being a dictator is worse than his buddy in North Korea or Russia. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

On the matter of Biden

I've taken the liberty of creating a Debate page regarding Biden. Please join there if you want to seek a fruitful discussion without devolving into an insult match. The Saloon Bar seems to be the wrong location for such a thing.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Debate:US_Voting_2020 Glitch (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

What is going on with the pictures?

Many of them appear to be deleted. For example, the portrait of Shakespeare in Shakespeare authorship has this problem. Why?— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The file still exists. It's just having difficulty being displayed for some reason. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I mean. The pictures don't appear to be displaying.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jeh2ow a common fix is to "edit" the page, not edit and just submit. This makes mediawiki re-render it. Similar thing happened in RationalWiki:Technical_support. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 21:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Connected to this? Scream!! (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In the past few years I found myself using British terminology even though I live in the US

Instead of "cart" I say "trolley", instead of "chips" I say "crisps" and instead of "mom" I say "mum". Wonder how much more terms from UK I will pick up though I never been there. Hell, never even been outside my home state of Michigan. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I brought this up before. Just remembered. --George Soros Puppet (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

these are not englsh terms, this is just english. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I do this to, but with different words. I also want bog standard to be a thing here.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 04:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The one place I draw a hard line is with mathematics. It's math; it is not maths, it is math. I will refight the Revolutionary War over that. Other than that, non-American English is usually fairly easy to adapt to, and from the Scottish I still sometimes say "cheers" instead of "thanks". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I really like British panel shows like QI or whatever that cats thing is, I grew up on Who's Line, I'm about to go brit, but I think think there's a levity and wit to these panel shows where the points don't matter, the fun is in having the fun, and then the points let you know who was most off. When I watch them, I get a little used to the language, I get a little used to the delivery. Still haven't watched "Peep Show" or even American "The Office." They don't have the charm, the people in the panels have the charm.IGol Sarnitt (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

fucking panel shows. i feel like people with charm have been absent from panel shows for sometime, populated by vacuous towie pricks, exposing and unable to rise above the vacuity inherent of a stale formula. once upon a time comedians would get a sit com. or some kind of showcase or a sketch show. something to make their name. now they get to be guest on a panel show and can only hope their schtick translates to banter and can stand out from the z list oxygen thieves of reality tv who make up the numbers on this circuit of prole feed get something on netflicks. fucking panel shows. contrived contests. cookery shows set budding chefs against one and other. music themed tv involve polls and whittling down the talent in actual talent shows. there are antique shows where they vie to make the most at auction. everything is a competition, wholly contrived and taken far too seriously or not at all. they cant just showcase the talent. you cant just have people sing some songs because they can carry a tune and have a passion. you cant just have people bust some moves because they have ants in their pants need to dance. you need a journey. you need contrived narratives. the real passions and talents of hopefuls desperate to make it exploited to make it ever more poignant as a voting public kicks them to the curb, while victors dream dont make their dreams come true, just the dreadful facsimile of a dream, a veneer for the factory farm that will be milking them for all they worth now they are the property of a production company.

ive always found light entertainment a deeply depressing display of a forced joviality. but now though its not just limited to an hour long show, its a 24/7 year long extravaganza of the main show, the follow up shows, the behind the scenes reality shows, guesting on every panel show they can find to push their visibility, sell their brand or whatever the brand the are allowed to have. it looks to me a frankly horrific experience that makes me despise every panelist, every would be pop super star, every vacuous reality tv star that wonders onto my tv screen. they are probably decent enough people, but grind of that circuit, to come out with pithy comments on a panel show, to adlib the staged scenes of reality tv show, to look like they are witty and relatable, to stand out in a crowded field, say nothing controversial but still stand out, to have to have something to say at all times when you've got nothing, always have a smile on your face, always seem thankful for the privileged life that is not their own or have any control over, which can end in moment with no warning while some other cunt rakes in the cash. its no wonder they all appear as vacuous wax work dummies. professional comedians on this circuit are selling their own brands, they can generate their own work outside of it, and they are good at the whole witty banter. thats their bread and butter more or less. a pop idol contestant was on factory production line last week. someone towie would be running a nail bar ordinarily. it must be a struggle to appear like an interesting human being, to stand out from the crowd, when you are probably forbidden from being interesting by management, less controversy effects the brand. if you cant get some sort of merchandising deal, there is no where to go. trapped on the circuit dependant on the good will of your management and the caprice of the public. z list celebrity must be a desperate existence. fleeting, with none of the respect or riches bigger stars can enjoy from a celebrity status, the tabloid will still destroy your life in a heart beat. i cannot stomach light entertainment. its kinda like porn. it doesnt really work if you think to much about the misery and desperation of the talent. porn stars probably garner more respect as performers than anyone on towie.

i think i might have strayed off topic a little to wallow in misery and ive forgotten what point i was trying make. peep show was worth a watch whenever i caught it AMassiveGay (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A Jury Required

civilian policing skips judiciary

So let's say Man A is a convicted sex offender, done diddled kids, clearly down to diddle again. Let'a say Man B has a gun, has it drawn, knocks on Man A's door and then fires his gun until Man A is dead. Man B waits 2-4 days and then emails local media and is peacefully arrested. Locals love it, in their view a crime was prevented, and, I mean, yeah, Man A by all accounts, diddler, lookin to diddle again. Even Man A's daughter is sad but unde4standing.

There is a huge group of people who think the shooter shouldn't be in jail. That's strange. I think he should be charged with 1st degree homicide, not because who he shot was a good guy, bu6 because what he did was homicide, and in my opinion, to the first degree.

Man B's claim ix he just went there to intimidate Man A in order to prevent potential sex crimes, but suddenly Man A rushed Man B and the clip was emptied. That would be 2nd degree homicide. But the amount of time between the innocent armed threat and the admission of firing the gun is days. And I don't even care about that, if I shot a guy, I wouldn't want to tell anyone, that'd be crazy just to go and say you done it, I don't think the amount of days between the death of Man A and the admission of Man B makes a difference. Nor do I think the admission of Man B to the act of unloading a clip into a guy makes a difference.

I would convict Man B of 1st degree homicide, because he pointed the gun, knocked on the door, and pulled the trigger. By his admission. Granting everything, Man A's priors, Man A's behavior, knocking on his doo5 and emptying your chamber is 1st degree. I don't like Man A, but that doesn't mean I have to protect what Man B went and did like it's somehow more important than legal definitions. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Man A wasn't merely a convicted offender, he was a multiple convicted offender with numerous others coming forward and claiming he molested them. Man A also had children's toys in his backyard, though I doubt Man B knew that.

It was likely pre-meditated, and if we do release convicts back into the world they are entitled to all protections of the law. On the jury, I might lean towards Man B, but still give a felony conviction of some form. Still goes to prison for a time, never allowed to own a gun. Instead of 1st Degree, I might say that there is insufficient evidence that Man B premeditated the murder of Man A, maybe give Man B 2nd instead, recommend the minimum sentence. Looking that up, that's... minimum 20 years. Umm, maybe Manslaughter? Looks like it's between 1 and 20 years for that. Prison won't be fun, but it won't be so terrible for Man B as both the inmates and guards apparently view him as a minor hero. CoryUsar (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously Man A was utter scum and nobody's going to mourn his passing. But I do not approve of what Man B did at all. I would find Man A guilty of 1st degree homicide. Then it's up to the judge how long his sentence is, although I'm sure he won't have to serve all of it. Spud (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Were you aware that in Nebraska, the minimum punishment for 1st Degree is the death penalty? Maybe they can fry him until he's only mostly dead. CoryUsar (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, here is the Nebraska general sentencing guidelines

Here it is for 1st Degree in particular

Second Degree, if you were wonderingCoryUsar (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, bloody hell! In that case, I'd have to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder. Spud (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

20 years then, at minimum. Looking it up online, Nebraska only allows the possibility of parole when the offender has served at least half of their sentence, so possibility of release 10 years later. CoryUsar (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not hesitate to send Man B to prison for 20 years, especially since he'd probably get out in 10. Spud (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I was actually supposed to serve on a Jury a few weeks ago, but got discharged due to the Covid outbreak. Given the circumstances, I'd also go with 2nd degree murder. --RWRW (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So a man goes to a door with a drawn gun and kills another person with it. Of course he's guilty of murder and should get whatever punishment the law gives for that crime. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Vigilante justice is a dangerous road to go down. It encourages people to semi-randomly kill others motivated by an internal sense of righteousness instead of seeking other options. While in this case the person was a proven sex offender, you could just as easily have a vigilante that was attacking people under unproven circumstances. On the other hand it provides a means for a community to take matters into their own hands when they view the justice system as not protecting them or serving their best interests, but what happens when it is a lynching and not shooting a pedophile? I think it is important that people vote in a jury according to the law itself so that cults cannot take over the justice system in local communities. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

However, if 2nd Degree was accepted, we would also be accepting the heresay argument, that is pretty well described after legal counsel, that Man A retreated into his home by 15 feet and then rushed Man B when Man B was distracted by a purse. That is implausible. Man A would have to recognize that Man B was distracted by the purse, and nothing else has been described of the encounter. It still says Man B was in the doorway, Man A backed up 15 feet, man B got distracted by a purse, and then Man A rushed a lone shooter in his doorway, prompting Man B to unload his magazine into Man A. I'm not supporting Man A, but let me make this clear. That. Sounds. Fake. It's not like I don't know why he lied, it's not like I've never told a lie myself, and it's not like I'm holding the lie against him. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want the guy to get time, I don't think the prison system is built for that, but I want the guy to not have a gun, to have confidence in the system, and to have a way to confront the behavior that doesn't end in anybody shooting anybody. He didn't have any of that, and we don't now, and that is what's bad. But if we make the exception, an extrajudicial killing preventing a crime that has not happened, FUCK I'm so frustrated. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is I don't believe it was 2nd degree murder. I believe it was 1st degree murder. But I couldn't be on a jury that sentenced a man to death. I believe that vigilantes shooting paedophiles is wrong. But I also believe that executing criminals is wrong. In the unlikely event that I ever become a US citizen, live in a state that carries out executions and get called to jury duty on a murder trial, I'll have to say that I am strongly opposed to the death penalty during the selection process. Spud (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a good point, I also disagree with the death penalty. I wouldn't in good faith be able to convict a man to a death sentence within the laws, so I don't get to be n this jury. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna say the two magic words: Jury Nullification!!! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've thought about it more, and it's jury duty for a reason, I don't get to pick the outcomes. I would definitely let this man be sentenced to death if it was my job to weigh in. It's more my job to take the death penalty off the table. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)