RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive367

This is an archive page, last updated 25 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>, <365>, <366>, <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>

, (new)(back)

So...

According to his daughter, Jordan Peterson now has a COVID infection.

Nobody here has been talking about this? Although since it was a Sun interview that's understandable (I heard of it via the leopardsatemyface subreddit). Towards-the Unknown (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson kind of dropped from the public eye due to a benzo addiction. Peterson's pseudoscience embracing tendency worked against him this year; apparently, instead of doing the traditional approach of tapering benzo dosage, he went to Moscow to try a pseudoscientific of approach of waning off them "cold turkey", somehow. Seems like this approach might have worsened his health considerably, from what I'm reading in a few places. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Peterson still relevant anymore? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Outside of the "free-speech" circle-jerk groups on social media was he ever relevant? Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's see what the meat only diet can do with viral pneumonia (Jude Law in Contagion comes to mind.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

He has a daughter? I wasn't aware there was any physical evidence that at some point he had had sex. CoryUsar (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe i had something to do with it... ;) 92.0.201.76 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, he did make all those circle jerks start at babbling annoyingly about postmodernism in addition to "Sjws". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 I was aware of the benzo addiction and how he tried to go "cold turkey" by going into an induced coma -a procedure so dangerous only a quack doctor in Russia would do it; the possible COVID infection is new to me. Though his daughter might just be saying he's infected to get more of that easy money from his cult followers.Towards-the Unknown (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

i was aware he had some treatment in russia that went very badly for him. im not sure how adding a possible covid infection into the mix would be way to generate income. its possible his daughter is saying he might have covid because he might have covid. its not unheard of during a covid pandemic AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It is always newsworthy when famous people get sick, for People Magazine.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Tragedy?

https://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page can you access the main page of Conservapedia, for me it says there is a "500 - Internal Server Error". Help! Fowler (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 and isitdownrightnow.com says it's been down more than a week (I'm not sure how accurate they are). I'm guessing they forgot to pay somebody some money. --Annanoon (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the amusement value, and keeping its contributors from bothering other wikis, to what extent does 'Oh dear, what a pity, never mind' apply? Anna Livia (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

that site always goes down once in a while. so often its not worth mentioning it when does. its also worth mentioning anything conservapedia related isnt worth mentioning. no one cares. we have this for those who cannot stop flogging dead horses. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably their shared host being down temporarily or something like that. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

just a tad toxic but okey... Fowler (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If the website goes down 'regularly' - perhaps 'the proverbial techie' can set up 'how many days since last outage' and 'how long since present outage started' boxes on the RW page would avoid repetitive discussions. Anna Livia (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

excuse me? Fowler (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler If you've got anything more to say about Conservapedia, please post it on Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP? Keep it out of the Saloon Bar, please. That's assuming, of course, that the site hasn't finally and quietly disappeared. Which I doubt. Spud (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes daddy Spud Fowler (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Check this out!

Found this a few weeks earlier, now binge watching all of his channel. I think you guys might like it! (PS: contains inappropriate language) ^{— Unsigned, by: Sqrt-1 / talk / contribs 05:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)}

Please sign your comments, @Sqrt-1. Thank you. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 05:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What the fuck is that thumbnail Fowler (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

These people need to be taken behind the chemical sheds and shot.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists- con artists making money off mentally vulnerable people. I admit, conspiracy bullshit and fake news are true money makers. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Another year on the tally...

Well, I'm 20 years as of today... God I feel old. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

happy birthday! Fowler (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday dude. --Possible Goat (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I wish I were 20. It would be 1993 for a start. I had no idea how good I had it back then. Anyway, happy birthday, The Crow! And how long have you been on the telly? (That's a joke, son.) Spud (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I remember when it was my 20th birthday I sniffed my first leaves in my college dorm. Fowler (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy birthday @The Crow! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a ton guys <3. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Only one more year until you realize that heavy drinking is less fun that it's worth! CoryUsar (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks <3. Also I can go heavy drinking already, I'm not in that dumb country that some people call the United States. Age at which I can get smashed is 18 (but frankly, I've never really gotten beyond tipsy). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are a baby child. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A baby child? Fowler (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A child who is also a baby and possibly an infant. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Shrug, it just feels weird to be here for two decenia already. One fifth of a century, a third of the way to being part of the elderly, you name it. It just feels weird. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy birthday, dude! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy birthday. And keep up the good work.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Reopening of schools in Georgia have really brought a massive shit storm

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-cases-lead-over-800-quarantine-georgia-school-district-where-n1236364?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR1QA6NHYeYURsmS12E_89mp4HLF1QryzGZ10UGfM7Dhoj_HxXk1B9kuHyE

How long before a new viral strain shows up that causes higher death counts? --Possible Goat (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Watch as Texas sees this debacle, and then tries to top it. Everything is bigger in Texas, including the death toll of stupidity and ego. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about a new strain, this strain is dangerous enough.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Grand Opening, Grand Closing

In four acts:

1. School opens, pictures reveal bad physical distancing and mask wearing[1].
2. School suspends students who revealed failure[2], reverses when everyone piles on[3].
3. 6 students and 3 faculty test positive for virus[4].
4. 250 students/staff must self isolate[5], goes full remote[6].

*Chefs kiss*

Also from a friend who is an AD in Iowa, they will not require masks for students.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what happens when the anti-science crowd gets their way. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

School's own fault for not requiring masks on all faculty/students. Shame about the teachers though, many will be transferred to a nice school upstate, with all the apples they can eat and plenty of books they can chase around the playground. Sure, you can visit them, now's not a good time, maybe next year? CoryUsar (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it the school's fault though? Because if I recall correctly, Trump and GOP governors threatened to cut funds if they don't reopen. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump doesn't control much of that. Most schools are funded through local property taxes, primarily. However, state budgets are a large enough source of income that the GOP governors who are insisting that schools open, without masks, are definitely at fault here. Trump still takes considerable blame for his anti-scientific rhetoric and his awful leadership. Soundwave106 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to temporarily add masks to the dress code? My inner conspiracy theorist believes the schools intentionally spread COVID, but he also thinks that my stomach is releasing chemicals to turn his flesh into a nutritious slurry, so what does he know. CoryUsar (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is hard. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@GR All of this is Trumps fault. If the virus was under control we could have students back at school. Also considering many many many girls have been sent home from school for wearing revealing clothing, pretty sure masks shouldn't be hard. Big 10 and PAC 12 just cancelled their Fall sports season[7] so I gotta give credit to Trump for being the president to destroy the NCAA.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@GR Any chance you could have a non-paywalled source?

@Lib Maybe Trump confused the NCAA with the NAACP? Should've voted for Giant Meteor, he would've destroyed the NCAA just a few moments after landing on the Oval Office. Also would've destroyed FIFA and all the various racing organizations, those all need to go too. Plus, he would've completely eliminated tax evasion, obliterated income inequality, cut medical wait times to nothing, scoured all debt and deficit spending, reduced the cable bill, and make erectile dysfunction a thing of the past.

Ok, semi-serious, should we have had a fun page on Giant Meteor and all the problems solved? CoryUsar (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support that sort of page. NCAA is worse than FIFA. FIFA is just corrupt, NCAA is a racket that profits on black bodies. - RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, requiring masks only mitigates transmission rates a fair amount. Students need to engage in numerous higher-risk activities to go to school: eat lunch, drink water from public water fountains, traverse in densely crowded hallways. Mask mandates only make sense as a "solution" when local infection levels are already very low, and case tracking is in full gear. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the exact numbers, but two things. First, COVID seems to be odd in that the amount of virus you receive affects how severe your case will become, so proper mask usage can bump a severe/deadly case into a mild case, or mild case into asymptomatic. Since asymptomatic cases do not seem to spread the virus as much, this lowers transmission rates. I don't know if other diseases work in a similar manner, but I'm sure it's possible that this is the case. Second, masks do seem to drastically lower transmission rates in general, a 50% reduction in transmission rates could effectively lower the reproductive factor thingy enough that herd immunity occurs with only a few cases, even a 25% reduction in transmission is still a massive change in the number of deaths.CoryUsar (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

PS. WHO study suggests that face masks lower transmission rates by over 80%. Basically, if absolutely everyone wore a mask every second they were outside their home, even without social distancing or a lockdown in place the virus would have a low enough reproductive rate that it would simply die off on its own. Obviously varies by mask type, your bandana is only somewhat better than no mask at all. CoryUsar (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

" Since asymptomatic cases do not seem to spread the virus as much, this lowers transmission rates" This is demonstrably false.[8][9][10][11] -RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

None of those cites contradict what I said. Well, maybe the NY Times does, but it's paywalled and you should feel ashamed. Asymptomatic people appear to have lower transmission rates, not "no" transmission rate. CoryUsar (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"COVID seems to be odd in that the amount of virus you receive affects how severe your case will become" This is the case with most viruses. Mounting an effective immune response takes time, during which a virus can replicate and spread. If it starts with more virions, it will infect/destroy more cells before getting shut down. At a sufficient initial dosage, a normally non-fatal virus can kill the host before that happens, or the exponential viral replication can overwhelm the immune system anyway. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the dramatic differences in disease expression and severity may have something to do with its ability to attack immune cells amplifying this in a positive feedback. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hold the fuck on, @CorruptUser you think that because asymptomatic people don't cough they spread the virus less? You're kidding me right? Talking spreads the virus, touching things spreads the virus. The reason asymptomatic people are so dangerous, is that they fail to change behavior and then silently spread the virus. Yes masks help desperately, but consider 50% of people say they only wear a mask sometimes or rarely, I'd say they still present the greatest threat.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why am I being pinged? I never said anything about coughing, with the lone exception of "whooping cough". CoryUsar (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You’ll ever read Dune?

Fuck me that’s an amazing series. Dune (the OG) is my favourite book of all time. Fucking HYPED for the movie tho it’ll probs be delayed. Anyway. Whomst here has read Dune? 203.111.4.57 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, we already have that movie. And miniseries. And video game series. And the real life never-ending conflict over spice/space-oil. CoryUsar (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Heard of it, but never got around to read it. Isn’t the author dead though? The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 05:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Read all the Dune books. I think the miniseries was good enough and I'm not particularly hyped for the movie-Hastur! (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mostly Great books. Iv'e read them twice I think. But a long time ago.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The miniseries was rough, the Lynch movie had very little to do with the good parts of the book, this movie is exciting bc it’ll HOPEFULLY be like. Close to the source material, but also well-acted and with an effects budget bigger than $10. 49.197.72.82 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lynch movie also had Sting in a metal speedo. That alone makes it worth it. As for flaws, 90% of Dune is inner monologues which can't effectively be transferred to the screen. Game of Thrones was similar, but they got around that by having those inner monologues occur while nudity was happening. If Dune wants to use nudity to have the inner monologues, Sting better be in it, serenading a giant death-worm with the song 'Desert Rose'. CoryUsar (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The first volume, Dune, is one of the greats of science fantasy. I thought the second volume, Dune Messiah doesn't compare in a number of ways. I have a hard time believing it was even written by Herbert. The first was a masterpiece, the second reads like pulp fiction.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The original books by Frank Herbert are rightly considered classics of the genre. Lest said about the subsequent cash grab by his son with the hack Kevin J Anderson, the better. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Let the Stalinist shitshow begin!

Okay, I know that probably putting a Twitter discussion here isn´t the best idea, but here´s something I found on a random Trending Topic: https://twitter.com/kjronning/status/1293126667020513280

If you are lazy or you don´t like Twitter, basically they are talking about the Holodomor and exactly how much control had Stalin over it. From what I´ve read here: it seems the general consensus amongst the old anti-URSS countries (old in the sense that the Cold War is over) was that it was a genocide, but it´s a bit difficult to tell for sure if it was just the stupidity of the dictatorship cadre, or of Stalin himself, or if it was indeed planned or a wierd mix of all those.

The more pro-communist user links to an archive of Pravda(?) in which Stalin writes a letter telling them to stop it, but I ain´t sure Pradva is reliable...

What do ya people make of this? Blaze_Zero90.69.232.11 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pravda.ru or Pravda as in the Soviet paper? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

At most charitable, Stalin was basically Mao Zedong; gets an idea stuck in his head, everyone is afraid to tell him he's wrong, millions die. Stalin has this idea that the Kulaks (peasants who hired others to help out on their farms) are taking advantage of the poor, starts murdering them for growing too much food. The low level officials on the ground don't want to get punished for 'incompetence', so they report to their superiors that no, there isn't actually a lack of food as a result of stupid, the Kulaks really do have all this extra food that they are just really good at hiding, so even more Kulaks are murdered, and now there is even less food... CoryUsar (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Soviet Pravda. Both Pravdas are totally unreliable tho. Blaze_Zero90.69.232.11 (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you could use the Soviet Pravda as a "this is what the Soviet state claimed" source. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wtf why did I forget about the sauce!? Srry, anyways here it is: https://t.co/0gPwPFIefP?amp=1 Blaze_Zero90.69.232.11 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ma?

I just watched ma and wondered whether anyone here actually liked it, I personally found it pretty good... Fowler (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I'll watch it. I watched Hereditary and Midsommar last weekend, I just watched Us and The Platform. I'll bump Ma up, it looks like a modern horror flick. It has such a low rating that I think I have to look at it in the same kind of genre. Thanks for the point.

I absolutely hated horror for a long time. Slasher flicks were shallow, gore flicks are shallow, found footage isn't inherently suspenseful, look, I saw the Blair Witch project in theaters with my mom and older brother when I was 12, and we all agreed it sucked. I watched a rented version of Alien when I was like, 5, and it was terrifying. I was one of the drivers for the big event that was the first Saw movie. What I mean by that is, I was one of the two people who had a car among my friends. Saw was trying to be Scream just more intense and concentrated, dipping its toes into the water of explicit gore, I never bothered to watch Hostel or Human Centipede. But the twist at the end of Saw, where you figure out the villain, wasn't like "OH! I SAW him!" it was like "oh. yeah, I guess we saw him." As a high school kid, I definitely shat all over the movie to prove a point that I could. The slasher/gore version of horror just never excited me. I also had parents who never took an age ratings system seriously. Bless em, it wasn't the sexy frontier that most of my generation turned it into. But I also got left out of that. However, this current era of horror is fucking cool. My horror movie revival started with Antrum, and except for the gimmick, it was actually a really good horror movie. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

wow. Wow wow wow. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

lol wut? Fowler (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This movie could have been PG-13 if not for the nudity, drug use, and toned up swears. Did you notice that the blood bag was labeled Louie after the blood was collected? That's hand-holding because they didn't expect you to get it. That the secret staircase in the fire wasn't the cellar door, just the regular stairs up to the house? That's just bad writing, if both staircases work. That the bitchy hyper-professional veterinarian called Ketamine "horse tranquilizer?" Ben, Mercedes, Sue Anne... Maggie's mom. I forget her name. But Ben, Mercedes, Sue Anne, those names are beat into our skulls, because it's a 3 person high school. Maggie's mom "This is Sue Anne. We went to high school together! With Ben and Mercedes." I didn't like it. And after being dragged through a million buildup scenes, which initially paid off with a quick homicide, when it came down to the last party, which every party was 80s tunes until this one, the party this time is to the song that says got a bunch of bad bitches in a bouncy house, jiggle them titties. The movie is playing with matches, it refuses to light a fire. I mean, the tropes are all there and done in a really like "this is the trope, so you agree this is suspense" kind of way. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The only grace I give it is the first jump scare. We all know who the villain is, so this is hardly a spoiler, but when Ma early in the movie throws her hand on the van window, it's not framed or timed as a jump scare. It's just like "oh, that normally would be a jump scare." And then she's fine for the Scooby Doobie gang, and if that's intentional, it's actually really smart. Everything else is really relying on the audiences' understanding that this is a horror or suspense film, and that we should feel uneasy because of that. But that one scene, that absolutely flubbed jump scare that doesn't disarm the teenagers, that's a really cool beat and I hope it's intentional. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean they did employ the "shes-not-that-much-of-a-villian" tactic, and it kinda worked, with the og high school trauma scene, and then splat! rip Mercedes. I think physcological horrors, mother! for one, are my kind of style. Fowler (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a good style, I definitely dig it. I wasn't against the ambiguity of the trauma leads to villain thing, and I definitely cheered at the quick homicide splat scene, that was a payoff. I wouldn't want you to dislike it. I think Hereditary might also trip that trigger, if you haven't seen it yet. It's definitely turned up to 10 and a lot less grounded, but I liked and cared about every single one of the characters. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll sure try and watch hereditary thanks for the tip :) Fowler (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Jesus, hereditary was good, I've never really seen a toddler get killed in a horror movie, let alone decapitated. And then the note on Ellen's mother's grave. The school scene where the kid gets possesed and smashes his head against the table was done incredibly well, child actors usually act like cardboard cutouts nowadays. I think ill be watching Insidious tonight. Fowler (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. Midsommar is another film from Aster that doesn't go quite so off the rails, but I absolutely loved the mischief element of Hereditary. I was cheering for it until boy got to the attic and I was like "Holy shit, that is too much mischief." I'll watch Insidious next, probably not tonight. I watched Relic a couple nights ago, I don't have dementia in my family so it didn't hit too hard, but the horror part reminded me of House of Leaves, just, in House of Leaves there's extra space in a house and the men are driven to explore it. In Relic, I liked the way they used that same idea, but as an inevitable outcome. I watched Horse Girl last night. It didn't blow my mind, but it had some very Slaughterhouse V feels to it, and coming straight off of Relic, it made me feel so bad. And I have had a good friend/roommate lose his mind for a bit, I had to help his girlfriend and his parents and the rest of the roommates get him to some institutional help. It wasn't like that, but the extra characters were realistic. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy shit, in Hereditary, I hadn't even thought about the too much mischief thing. Beheading is a theme, but that's not the mischief, it's a reaction to too much mischief, you're right the kid blasted his face into his desk because he couldn't handle the mischief mirror. Or maybe it was a mischievous threat? I might watch that movie again. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

An interesting take on Sexuality

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-73794-7_37

Albeit a very brief one, though I have to doubt some of the ways they seem to define it.Machina (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I confess, I have no idea what the author means by "intimate." Ariel31459 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

i am suspecting the author has little first hand experience of the subject. at least, not experience that was satisfying AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have been written by a Berkeley California sex therapist, Bernard Appelbaum, who was an AASECT certified sex therapist and an ABPP PhD certified psychologist from all I can look up. To me this paper has some statements that sound weird (it sounds like the paper is comparing world wide patriarchal / masochism cultural norms vs. certain Western oriented stereotypes on intimacy, but I think there's a wide spread of personality even in cultures with strong paradigms in this direction, and the comparison seems not terribly equivalent to begin with). But this was written in 1987 (we've come a long way in 30 years) and we're only seeing a couple pages. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You didn't read the paper, did you? Just the abstract, maybe? They answer that question somewhat directly

The next question is where the idea came from that sex is highly intimate. Fortunately, this question is not entirely unfamiliar. First, it should be clear that this idea can only exist in cultures that have the concept of intimacy. This concept is quite recent, being not more than 2 centuries old, and is confined to those postindustrial societies in which the ego has begun the process of individuation, as contrasted with the more typical group-centered anthill or beehive social organizations. In the area of sex, it can be thought of as following the appearance of the idea of romantic love in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This involved a revolutionary change in the status of women, from household property to highly admired images of perfection. Perhaps, once cut off from the comforts of a group (and extended family) identity, the individual (male) needed some other ennobling and affirming reference point. However this may be, the appearance of relationships based on feeling choices and the attempt to create sexual encounters in which women played a larger role triggered a quantum leap in the image of women from the household slave (or concubine) to the love object.

I think it's reasonable to disagree with that assessment, especially the "No such thing as romantic love before 15th century" bit, which I personally think glosses over a lot of ancient writing on the subject as almost arbitrarily "not romance". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This week on Last Week Tonight With John Oliver

Gunther1987 (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We actually cover one of the better known egregious examples in our article on the Texas Board of Education, which, while more infamous for its attempts at fucking up the science curriculum, also had several examples similar to those listed by John Oliver. Here, history and social science was supposed to be taught as “national fairytales” (aka US exceptionalism) with especially pink tinted glasses in relation to race issues and the Civil War (oh, and a real hard-on for militarism, btw). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Won't show here (UK). Scream!! (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask exactly how this is different from any other country's recounting of its own history? I used to have friends from Poland, and minor things like the 1947 ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians in southeastern Poland seem to be mysteriously absent. Meanwhile, Lithuanians conveniently reimagine the meaning of Pan Tadeusz and western Ukrainians kinda leave out the ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews in Volhynia and eastern Galicia. Or to use non-Western examples, Japan has a... tenuous relationship with the truth over their systematic destruction of Ainu culture and Vietnam conveniently forgets their horrific and long-standing repression of the ethnic Khmer. While he's not wrong about the US, it's not as if this is a uniquely American problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not, no country wants to admit their atrocities in their own education program. Although I think Germany is afraid of the consequences of NOT doing so, both domestic and foreign. However the problem could well be WORSE in the US because the myth of American exceptionalism is pushed REALLY hard here. Basically the entire right wing and large portions of the left wing seem to hold that the USA is somehow a completely unique beast in human history, which is why we can ignore everything any non-American says and we have no need of any kind of historical context etc etc etc. And that goes down a lot smoother in the education if we also push the myth that any atrocities by the US were way overblown and totally fine now anyway so don't think about it too hard. Same basic problem, more intense motivation. Glitch (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because other countries do it, doesn't make it acceptable. And unlike the other examples, White Supremacy was literally written in to the Constitution. The reckoning required involves complex conversations that cannot even begin because white Americans cannot fathom to believe the slave owning founding fathers were monsters.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Monsters? I can't even get most people to see that they were really bad at designing a government to do what they said they wanted to do. Anyone with decent game design experience could tear the Constitution as it stands NOW apart, let alone the original one. Perverse incentives and degenerate strategies everywhere. And that's a purely mechanical criticism, which people accept a lot more easily than a moral one. The cult of the Founders in the USA is super intense. Glitch (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Monsters seems a bit reductionist, to say the least. Once people start talking like that, I bring up Vytautas Landsbergis (the older one); he was probably more responsible than any one person for setting the immediate events in motion to break up of the USSR, and he's also said some zany things (in English, so since he speaks it well enough to do his own interviews) about the consequences of accepting homosexuality and abortion (whereas his son has supported both for both from a conservative perspective). Some people don't fit into Manichaean good/bad descriptions, and it's OK to see them as both; examples from other countries where fewer people have a vested interest in either interpretation sometimes makes that easier to see. Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine explicitly pushed for ethnic supremacy in their respective countries, which their founders reflected (Piłsudski explicitly wished to recreate Poland-Lithuania as it had been, with Polish language and culture being that of high society). And white Americans are not the only reason "complex conversations" can't be had, a big one but in no way the only one (hard to talk about such things with a Nation of Islam member who believes in all the Jewish conspiracy theories about world domination, for example). And finally, I find that pointing out the struggles other countries have with this makes it easier to then have that conversation about the US; remembering the US isn't the only place that has issues with this is unifying in a way, to remind us we all have significant problems to overcome with this and that it'll really take all of us to overcome it. Plus, it gives me a chance to show I know something about another person's country, and that person can tell me some about an outside view of mine. (Also, unqualified support for either Ibram Kendi or the 1619 Project is an automatic bullshit detector alert, especially the latter given the Schroedinger's Cat mentality of Nikole Hannah-Jones; the 1619 Project is history except when actual historians point out the obvious lies some of its central theses contain, at which point it's just "journalists analyzing history". Show me a reputable, non-tankie historian who genuinely believes the Revolutionary War was over preserving slavery.) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

By our standards today, anyone who bought and sold human beings, bred them for profit, forced them to work in inhumane conditions, etc etc etc is pretty clearly a monster. It's hard to argue that point I think. Although, it's also hard to learn from it if that's where you stop thinking about it. I find it useful to consider WHY they were monsters and didn't even realize that they were. The obvious conclusion seems to be because the human psyche is so adaptable that we can normalize ANYTHING, no matter how horrifying, both on an individual and a cultural level. Therefore we should be as skeptical as we can of our culture's norms. Just because we're so used to something that it doesn't ping our moral radar at all in no way means that thing is not incredibly unethical. No one can actually step fully outside of their culture to consider that culture objectively, but we can try and some do succeed in seeing in the moment what it takes the culture as a whole much longer to accept, like the early abolitionists. I would say we learn more from celebrating those few than we do from condemning the rest, in most cases, but in the particular case of the US Founders, the myth of their infallibility needs to be crushed before we can move forward to a functioning government so whatever opens people's eyes to their faults is surely to the good. Glitch (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The standards for humanity haven't changed, ever. And whataboutism is even less useful when discussing these issues. The US claims to be exceptional, because it was the first democratic republic, but overlooks how the men (and not women) started the foundations of this country on the backs of native genocide, black slavery and white supremacy. And more then that, perpetuated white supremacy by accepting it as a necessary evil until the Civil War, then in the aftermath, completely bungled their victory by continuing the system they just defeated under another name, and basically did everything possible to keep white southerners happen instead of forcing equity. And the feelings of white supremacy continued through the New Deal, festered until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sense then has been under constant attack. All of these things are connected, and peak to the fundamental inequality in the US, as well as the continued failure to live up to the idea of America. If you aren't even willing to discuss the first bit, how can you hope to truly understand and solve the remaining bits?RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the standards for humanity *have* changed. Slavery *was* normal in the late 1700s. Not just in the United States. Not just European culture. *Everywhere*. Africa included! A few of the founders didn't have slaves. Others had slaves but were uncomfortable with aspects of the notion. A few were just fine. Calling them all monsters with one sweeping brush is, in my opinion, generalized moral absolutism. And overly focusing on racism in the Constitution is, in my opinion, quite narrow (just as it would be bad to ignore it altogether). Any history course that romanticizes the founders is crap, but I actually didn't take that sort of history class back in the day. A lot of information, good and bad, about all the early political leaders is available. There is some shit school districts for sure which fluff things up (eg Texas), but some aren't. This nation hasn't pulled a China yet where awful events are deliberately censored and purged from the record. Finally, the opposite direction -- to take the lionized and make them a tyrant -- is just as awful, unless there's some good justification in doing so. But leaders are human, with various degrees of good and bad (the exact nature of what is good and bad will, of course vary depending on who you are). If your only qualification of character is whether or not they owned slaves, awesome, Donald Trump (who doesn't own slaves) is now for some reason a better person than Thomas Jefferson (who did). Soundwave106 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Whose standards "haven't changed, ever"? Because I'm pretty sure that's demonstrably false in almost every possible interpretation of it. If you mean there are some sort of universal moral absolute standards by which we'll all be judged, you may be correct, but not in any useful sense. Certainly since they lay beyond any sort of empirical evidence, and even every individual's moral intuition isn't constant across time, I can say with confidence that if such moral absolute standards exist, you or I don't know what they are, and if you try to convince someone else of the morality of anything based on YOUR moral intuition instead of theirs, you will fail every time. Now, my own moral intuition is deeply repulsed by both slavery and every kind of racial supremacy (with white supremacy obviously being the most relevant in the modern West), so I'm not going to argue that it's anything but evil and always was. But the idea that their cultural moral standards which their own personal moral standards and intuitions can only be understood in context of were the same as our modern ones is... Well I won't say its indefensible, but I certainly can't imagine how you could defend that idea. Also, who isn't willing to discuss what first bit? I didn't follow that. Personally I'm willing to discuss almost anything. Glitch (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"This nation hasn't pulled a China yet where awful events are deliberately censored and purged from the record." Cough [12][13][14] Cough [15][16] Also people knew owning slaves was wrong throughout history. Just because people in power convinced themselves otherwise doesn't not make them morally right. Also don't fucking ever compare generational chattle slavery to any other form of indentured servitude or forced labor. There is no worthy comparison.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Try to find an article on Tiananmen Square in China and you'll see what I mean by that. Tulsa was news in 1921, President Harding actually commented on the situation at the time. You can find books on the Tulsa Race Massacre now. Owning a bookstore with Tiananmen books in China will get you sent to a not very nice detention camp. Yes, Tulsa Oklahoma may have tried to sweep the event under the rug to "make themselves look better", but no one really tried to dig hard, either. The earliest reference I can find on the race riots is from a 1977 doctoral thesis (via the library of the University of Oklahoma) and the author mentions that no one really had done a thorough history of the city until then, surprisingly. Back in the late 1700s, yes, people knew that owning slaves was "wrong". Except when it came to others outside there "tribe", then sometimes they were okay with it due to generally racist reasons. Yes, even in the 1700s people had problem with *this* sort of racist justification, too. Some people actually went from one position to the other (a notable example from the founders is Benjamin Franklin, who went from owning slaves early in life to pro-abolitionist late in life). This is still different than now. Back then, there was a significant portion of people, especially in the agrarian Southern United States, who were okay with slavery. Today, even merely flirting with a thought of "slavery is okay" would be unthinkable in most civilizations around the world. It doesn't really change whether slavery actually *is* right or wrong, but it does mean to me that the use of superlatives is questionable for a behavior that, wrong as it was, was more "normalized" then (if Thomas Jefferson is a "monster" for simply owning slaves, what is Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler?) Soundwave106 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the very sources you just listed, being obviously listable, would counter your own argument. Not only were you able to point to those sources, but I personally at least was already somewhat aware of them. If the US is trying to censor and purge the record, they're doing a very bad job of it. Trying to ignore, distract, and downplay the significance of them is not the same thing.

Also... "people knew" --"people" aren't a monolith. I already pointed out that some people have managed to rise above their culture's moral standards and intuitions to a higher standard; sure, you could say *those* people "knew". But plenty of other people demonstrably did *not* know. Can they be blamed for that failing? Sure, if you want. You can take the position that 99.9% of people living pre-1900 were absolute unrepentant moral monsters who deserve the worst tortures of the Abrahamic conception of Hell for all eternity for their inhumanity. I can't prove you wrong and I doubt if you took such a position that I could convince you to abandon it. Maybe it's true. I don't see what purpose it really serves though. I think it's more useful to understand how their blind acceptance of their culture's morals lead them to commit atrocities without even realizing it, so we can hopefully avoid making the same mistakes. I think doing better in the future, as a species, is more important than feeling self-righteous about how awful people were in the past. But yes, they were indeed awful. I don't dispute that. However, I feel reasonably confident that future generations will look back on us and say that we too were awful, albeit hopefully not to the same degree. "Yet it is as evident in itself, as any amount of argument can make it, that ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present." - John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" (1859) Glitch (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Okay, so it seems this discussion is veering off in two different directions:

• Teaching history
• Slavery

As for the latter; no, “people” did not “know that slavery was wrong throughout history” as any perusal of, say records from classical Greece or Rome, or, well, the friggin’ bible, will quickly make clear. Sadly, by a silly trick of bible translation, most modern, vernacular bibles obfuscate this by translating what from the context are obviously slaves (because they or their families can be sold) as “servants” or similar, “sanitary” phrases. I do not mean this to be a defence of slavery, but of the very clear fact that attitudes do indeed change and this has to be taken into account when evaluating the past (as well as the present or speculating about the future).

As for the former, sure, national histories and especially teaching it tends to have an aspect of national aggrandisement to it. However, outright passing over fairly recent atrocities is well beyond the usual “glossing the family tree” stuff. And a demand that children should be taught that “the worst day in America is better than the best day anywhere else” (which is basically a pretty good description of “the Texas Board of Education view of history (teaching)” as well) is the kind of view of the function of why we teach history that was the norm in the Europe of yesteryear and today is usually found in authoritarian regimes or outright dictatorships.

Sure, any country will have “skeletons in the closet” in its history (it’s pretty hard to avoid), but the fact that you had an extensive massacre in your hometown within the last century and did not know about it from your history classes (and, relatively, it was even more recent, considering the guy who cited the Tulsa Massacre was no teenager and must have gone to school decades ago) goes far beyond simply putting a nice spin on the past. Similarly, that the Wilmington coup of 1898 is not taught as a flagrant disregard for law, democracy and human rights is equally disturbing. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually a very short survey of Greek/Roman theatre and prose narratives will show numerous works which shed light on the misfortune of slavery giving a sympathetic view of being forced into a life of servitude. That includes slaves who are badly treated, or slaves who manage to outsmart their masters or free people who are enslaved while traveling or on a journey and the horrors they face and their ability to escape slavery. I hardly think there was an overwhelming feeling that slavery was a "just" practice, but instead that it was a good practice if you were fortunate enough to be a slave owner or benefit from the economic incentives of enslaving people. That's not to mention that slavery (unless you were a slave at a mine or quarry or a sex slave) was a whole lot less grotesque than US slavery etc. The same can be said about US narratives about slave treatment. The fact that southerners were constantly trying to justify why their harsh treatment and punishment of "misbehaving slaves" was okay, demonstrates that whipping the shit out of slaves wasn't an inherantly obviously moral thing to do. ShabiDOO 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Fucking thank you! The only records from before the common era was frequently recorded from people who owned slaves, of course they thought is was morally right. But considering Rome had between 10 - 30% of its population enslaved, seems like a significant portion of the population actually had a problem with slavery.

@ScepticWombat You separate teaching and the moral justification for slavery as different, but they cannot be separated. If we believe that somehow there was an acceptable justification for enslaving people earlier in history, then we cannot effectively teach that is wrong now. The exact same moral justifications could be used to disenfranchise people now, or enslave people in the future. Unless you can unequivocally state that enslavement of human beings has no moral justification, and the people who enslaved people were wrong, then you are justifying slavery yourself. Discussions need to be had about the value that slaveholders actually had to society, and it is ok that we revere people for some of their contributions (Washington for his military prowess in defeating the British, Thomas Jefferson for writing the Deceleration of Independence), while making very clear that their crimes against humanity deserve specific scrutiny (Washington promised, but didn't really free his slaves, owned slaves as a child, and Jefferson raped his slaves often, to this day many Black Americans are genetically related).

This is not a time for half measures, we must be unequivocal. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s ridiculous to say that you can’t separate the teaching of history from the view of slavery throughout history, because my point goes way beyond the narrow issue of how to teach slavery and my focus on slavery was only an objection to the frankly ludicrous statement that everyone always knew slavery was wrong. If you want to learn about, let alone teach history, one of the first things you have to set aside is the idea that you can blindly assume that people of the past thought exactly as we do and had similar concepts about, say, human rights, individualism etc. They didn’t necessarily and if you don’t acknowledge this or excise it from history classes out of fear that you may be justifying slavery or other horrible shit from the past, you’re going to be a crap history teacher and your students/pupils will be miseducated.

Hence, my point about teaching history had more to do with the question of whether history should be taught in the kind of chauvinist way advocated by the TBoE and whether the kind of “well everybody shove something under the carpet” defence held up. Long story short, my 2 cents’ worth on the former was a simple “NO!” Aand on the latter “Well, unless you’re an authoritarian regime, events this big and recent usually aren’t completely ignored”. But neither should it be taught as “they way we wish it was in order to support our current, moral judgements”, i.e. as a morality play.

Of course you can find works in antiquity sympathetic to the misfortune of individual slaves and critical of harsh masters, but that doesn’t equate to a blanket condemnation of slavery as a system. The reflection on the misfortune of slavery was not least due to the fact that even those from the elite might end up as slaves —sometimes just by being unlucky. Even Julius Caesar had a brush with this possible fate when he was captured by pirates in 75 B.C., aged 25. Had his family not stomped up a ransom, he would likely have been sent to the great slave market at Rhodes or one of the other centres of the Mediterranean slave trade. It doesn’t help good teaching of history if we apply anachronistic value judgements just because our sentiments have changed (and very much for the better, mind you) on certain societal issues, slavery being just one. Otherwise, you just get a less shitty way of teaching “history as morality play” than that advocated by the TBoE.

My point by citing the bible, specifically the New Testament (because the OT simply has too much barbaric shit in it to be of much use and slavery is hardly the worst atrocity it condones), is that slavery was so uncontroversial to Athe NT authors that they had Jesus tell numerous parables that involved slaves (“servants”) and none of them even remarks upon this condition. Hence slavery was so uncontroversial to the NT authors, and they must have regarded it as so normal to their readership and listeners, that the fact that the parables involved slaves was no more significant than if they involved men or women or certain trades. That these parables use slaves to illustrate points that either have nothing to do with slavery per se or clearly condone the system as a whole (praising obedience etc.) paints a rather clear picture of slavery as a system being taken for granted. Note, btw, that this perspective is one of the excellent reasons why we shouldn’t blithely adopt such ancient religious texts as moral or social guidance.

Now, the specific issue of slavery in the US since the Enlightenment is somewhat different than slavery as broader, historical topic, because the wider objections to slavery as a system was something so at odds with the new(!) concepts of individual, human rights ungrounded in status or religious affiliation etc. that the founding fathers couldn’t help bout be aware of the contradiction, not to mention that their British opponents scornfully derided their hypocrisy by pointing out that these self proclaimed defenders of freedom were also slave owners, not to mention the limitation of colonial (later US) slavery solely to black people, which cemented a connection between skin colour and slavery that was quite unlike other, earlier systems of slavery (where almost anyone could be enslaved, though enslaving, say, co-religionists was sometimes prohibited or restricted).

Samuel Johnson had already mentioned this kind of freedom/slavery hypocrisy several times more than a decade before it came to war and repeated it in 1775 with the words ”How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” Note that this is a criticism targeted at slavery as a system and being at odds with the contemporary (18th century) conception of freedom. This is obviously quite different from accounts of individual slaves and their misfortune or criticism of individual bad masters. Indeed, I regard this principled condemnation of slavery as a system as a sign of the modernity that came with the Enlightenment, whereas prior criticism tended to be more conditional, e.g. that you shouldn’t enslave your co-religionists, but those of other religions were fair game.

If you want students/pupils to actually learn about and understand history, it is hugely important to convey when, how and why we came to hold such views as slavery being inherently wrong, that discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender etc. etc. etc. is a human rights violation and indeed when, how and why the very concept of human rights arose. If you don’t, you’re not educating anyone and even worse, you’re providing an illusion of a constant set of values that will not only make it difficult for students/pupils to accurately evaluate past events but also to be able to understand and deal with differing sets of values in general. This doesn’t mean that you have to throw up your hands and subscribe to some kind of moral relativism or simply accept various kinds of shitty moral codices as valid points of view worthy of respect. It does mean, however, an ability to understand (again: not condone) differing sets of morals which is important when trying to explain (again: not justify) certain actions set in different contexts, whether contemporary or historical. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, reading through your response I think to a certain extent our differences of opinion on this are more narrow, and that the moral whataboutism from other posters doesn't pertain to you. I don't disagree that understanding the reasons why different societies accepted enslavement as a practice is worthy to observe society. You kind of allude to my explicit objection however in regards specifically to the chattel slavery in the United States. Not only, as you point out, was it hypocritical for 18th Century men supported Enlightenment principles, but stopped short of this for Black people, but also the abject brutality and violence perpetrated against enslaved people is incomparable to anything from BCE. If Americans hope to reconcile for this act, it will require people to generally agree that slavery is bad (which is the case for all but the most right wing racists), the system slavery perverted all aspects of American development, and it has encouraged the type of inequality that effects American society today, but unquestioned hero worship of cruel men is unnecessary.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve seen nothing to suggest that US slavery was more brutal than comparative forms of slavery in antiquity (i.e. mining, agriculture etc.), and a I have a hunch that it is simply better documented. One major difference is, of course, that slavery was far more diverse in antiquity, with the inclusion of “enslaved specialists”, such as teachers, which were generally treated quite well (because they were expensive and rare specialists) and also more likely to be freed (though that would typically leave them as part of their former master’s clientele, especially in the Roman patron/client system).

However, I think it’s right on the money to emphasise the effects that the US model of slavery based on race had for its conception of slavery (not that the US “invented” this particular form of slavery, which was basically copied from various European New World colonies, with the earliest example probably being the Portuguese on Madeira and the Spanish in the Caribbean and indeed most slaves ended up with the Portuguese, Spanish and British, not the US, Brazil containing the largest slave population). This has had a profound effect on how slavery came to impact not only the US but much of the New World in general (look at the racialised hierarchies, say, Peninsulares/Criollos/Indios/Negros/Mestizos/Mulattos etc. and how the elites of many New World nations still reflect such segregation).

By “racialising” slavery, it became possible to argue for biological justifications that would have been impossible (or rather implausible) in earlier forms of slavery and this type of argument could then be reused by Europeans in their conquests and colonisation of other “coloured peoples” around the world and for the retention of colonies in perpetuity (and not just until some future date at which the “heathens had been converted” or “the savages civilised”). The major issue is to look at what contemporaries argued about and try to understand their reasoning, especially when they were clearly aware that some of their justifications were dubious even in within their historical context. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If you've seen nothing to suggest roman/greco slavery was any different from American slavery then you haven't read anything about Roman/greco slavery. Apart from those condemned to the mines or quarries in Rome and Greece, slavery in the classical age was fundamentally different in just about every aspect to U.S. slavery. Slaves at various times had rights, could buy their freedom and at times automatically became free after a certain period of time, their children didn't become slaves, they were protected from certain kinds of mistreatment and by law had to be given a minimum standard of housing and feeding. They were allowed to become educated and have a great deal of freedom. Slaves weren't distinguishable by skin colour but could only be recognized and only during certain periods by what they wore. In homes and farms they weren't usually worked to death. During certain periods of the roman empire slaves had a harder time of it than others, and run-away slaves could be treated very harshly but again, a Roman slave wouldn't recognize the kind of slavery seen in US plantations. That's not to say classical era slavery wasn't a vile horrid monstrous institution (it was) but please don't compare it to U.S. slavery. To find something comparable you'd have to look to the Aztecs or slavery in parts of Southern Africa from the 15th to the 18th century. ShabiDOO 01:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Read what I actually wrote in the comparison (emphasis added): ”I’ve seen nothing to suggest that US slavery was more brutal than comparative forms of slavery in antiquity (i.e. mining, agriculture etc.)“. I did not focus on these to either downplay the brutality of the US system (or other forms of New World slavery by various European or European descended colonial regimes) or to cherrypick the most similar types, but mainly because these slaves engaged in manual labour represented the vast majority of Greco-Roman slaves. These are also the ones we’re rarely hear details about exactly because they were “relatively unimportant” (as compared to the well educated and well placed slaves also more likely to be manumitted), not to mention extremely likely to be illiterate. And with no general abolitionist movement, any horror stories would only come from extremely horrific (by their contemporary standards) treatment or to a possibly to blacken some opponent as particularly cruel or unreasonable.

Using brutal physical punishment or the threat of “selling apart” slave families were just as real instruments of repression in antiquity as in the antebellum South. Both of these punishments were considered so uncontroversial that they appear as mere instructive parables by Jesus in Luke 12:45-47’s attitude that slaves should be beaten or killed, in the killing of a “servant” in Matthew:24:48-51 and in the selling of the wicked “servant” in Matthew 18:23-34. In all of these instances, the NT presents such harsh punishments of slaves as mere illustrative examples of proper attitudes towards slaves who “misbehave” by frivolously getting drunk or not fearing and preparing for their master’s arrival or not following their master’s example of magnanimity. The worst transgression (to modern eyes) these slaves in the parables was presented as having committed was beating fellow slaves (with the recommendation being death for the transgressing slave).

As for skin colour being a salient difference between New World and Greco-Roman slavery, that was kind of one of my central points and I clearly set it out, along with what I saw as the broader consequences of this difference. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Agricultural slavery in the US was not comparable with agricultural slavery in the classical world. Where on Earth did you get that idea? ShabiDOO 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

And where did you get the idea that, apart from the skin colour issue that I’ve already emphasised, classical agricultural slavery was markedly different? Both involved people being considered property, worked under the constant threat of the kind of punishments I’ve already outlined. So what is so qualitatively different? ScepticWombat (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I got it from a 300 page book I read dedicated to the topic "Greek and Roman Slavery" by Thomas Wiedemann which I compared with a notedly shorter and concise yet informative book: American Slavery: A Very Short Introduction from the Oxford series. I don't know how anyone can be remotely familiar with classical agricultural slavery and American agricultural slavery and compare them as anything within the sphere of "similar". I've already outlined notable differences. Also, classical slavery showed huge variety from century to century and place to place, but it never, on the aggrigate remotely approached anything like American slavery where there was virtualy zero rights, regulations, protections or any sort of culture of moderation, emancipation, automatically freeing slave children and other things (again already outlined). As I've said, a typical Roman agricultural slave magically transported to a cotton plantation in Mississippi wouldn't recognize the US version of "slavery". He or she would be horrified. ShabiDOO 18:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Which rights did a Roman agricultural slave have? How would their every day experience be markedly different from that of an American slave, particularly if we look at fairly similar settings (e.g. the massive slave run commercial agriculture of the late republic and the empire and the large plantations of the “cotton era” of US slavery)? Again, I’ve pointed out that I know that the issue of race is a huge difference and that I’m well aware of the diversity of ancient slavery. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Depending on the era slaves (including agricultural slaves) could be given at least a super basic education, they were required to be given a minimum housing and food standards and had legal access to complaints against their owners for insufficient food or clothing and could then be forcibly sold or transfered (or even freed in the worst cases) in some cases and during some eras could even complain about mistreatment or barbarous owners would be forced to sell them or free them. There was the possibility of buying their freedom too. If they had children their children were born free. They had considerable freedom when not performing their duties and depending on their owner could do as they please in their own time including visiting a town or even make money for themselves. If they wanted to and made enough money they could buy land and housing and do what they liked with it (on their own time). If they were murdered by their owner their owners could be punished (a very notable difference). Work wasnt done in as gang-slave style, in chains with year round harsh work. Roman farms were rarely as large as the behemoth cotton farms in the US where a small number of slaves could be worked to death. Depending on the season roman agricultural slaves could have relatively light duties. During some eras the general philosophy was "a well treated slave made a productive slave". Of course that didn't mean some farms were a hellish place to work or that life wasn't one of sorrow...but their lives simply could not be compared to those of American agricultural slaves. ShabiDOO 23:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The children being born free is a particular difference that was especially egregious. Generational slavery destroyed the ability for Black Americans to build wealth for decades.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Chess competition?

Anyone up for some chess competition on RationalWiki? We can use chess.org. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 05:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 07:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

yeah i guess not much interest lol — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 08:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to play, but I would also rather save the all-around embarrassment of displaying my child-like comprehension of chess... Bigwiggler (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Raven, would you mind playing Go instead? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I still have a KGS account if anyone wants to play go. The account is: nucklehead. I'm very rusty...around 5k. ShabiDOO 22:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Bro, I suck ass at chess. I lost to my neighbor’s kid when he was 12. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Us men play Diplomacy! Fowler (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

you can play counterstrike here free of charge,

A little late I know, but I'm game. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Birtherism Returns

It begins The editors note is even worse. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't care about the manufactuversies against these shitty candidates and have no energy to defend them. On the other hand, there does to be a consistent theme of whose citizenship gets questioned ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at what this author wrote back in 2016: Ted Cruz is eligible to be president. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point it's pretty clear that "where's the birth certificate" is a code word for a rather different term. Eastman should've been honest and penned some racist scribe in the Daily Stormer rather than blabbermouth around a fucking Supreme Court decision made in 1898 that firmly established the principle of jus soli. Soundwave106 (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I just watched a video that claimed that because the US is "occupying" the country of Hawaii, technically Obama wasn't born in the US.CoryUsar (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Ford should never have been president because Nebraska really belongs to Native Americans/French/Spanish/ancient Israelites (I may have made the last up). --Annanoon (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Mick Foley pitches in https://twitter.com/RealMickFoley/status/1294109699818881025 Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

On a side note. yesterday the BBC world Service broadcast this https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszl3s and in it is revealed, but most likely to no surprise, that Facebook has been hiring Republican Party reps to help against any possibility of a Sherman Antitrust Act style breakup being enacted upon large (read massively large) tech companies. In other words Facebook is now heavily invested in Trump winning. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Making Mail In Ballets more viable in light of tRump's attempt on slowing down the mail service

With mail service around neighborhoods being threatened by Trump, would it be a viable strategy to drop off the ballets directly to the post office? Not trying to sound stupid but oh Hell, this idea does sound kinda stupid. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ballots. And Post Offices are having machines removed to process ballots. If you vote by mail, drop it off a a state election site. In Oregon, all libraries are.RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how it works in other states but in California you can drop mail-in ballots off directly at your local City Hall. Skips the middleman since that's where they should be going anyway (as opposed to the nearest shredder/body of water if Rump has his way). That's what I did for the primary, at least. (edit: RipCityLiberal pretty much beat me to it.) (71.95.132.118), 14:07, 14 August 2020‎ (UTC)

Heatwaves

Here where I live (Switzerland) we regularly get 32° C in the middle of the day (and it kills me). Have you experienced a heatwave where you live? How do you handle it, individually? I hope France doesn't break the record again (like they did last year, peaking at 45.9° C). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh boy, let me tell you what happens to Europe when we get our first ice free summer in the arctic. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I hate it, the heatwave causes my blood pressure to oscillate a lot, despite living quite literally next to a ventilator the entire time. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As someone who grew up in northern Maine, anything above 58° F 15° C is boiling. Where I live now it was 31° C last night. During the day it easily gets to 36 to 38° C. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We've had 8 days between 30 & 35. Tomorrow will be the last day (29°C), since the temperatures will drop to 26°C. On Sunday it will go back up to 29°C, but only for one day. Next week on Wednesday, it'll be 21°C again. Gunther1987 (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I live in the Midwestern United States, namely Michigan. We always get heat warnings in the summer. --Possible Goat (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Madrid has been around 30ºC for August. This is rather "cool" for this time of year. It should be utterly sizzling. Last summer I had to go to the hospital when it hit 44ºC as I passed out a few times per my hypertension. Oh the sweet air conditioning in the hospital. It was so deliciously cold we had to have a blanket at night time. I'm used to not going outside between 10.00-18.00 unless absolutely neccesary so this year its manageable. So I'd call it not a heat wave but a not-sizzling wave. Though yeah Northern Europe is a sauna in parts it seems. ShabiDOO 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oof, Spain is indeed one of the worst hit by those heatwaves, with the Madrileños and Andalusians among the worst of the worst hit. Hope you're okay and stay safe. I for one go to buy groceries either around 8 am (when it is already hot but not killing me) or after 6 pm; even sleeping at night is shit. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I also had danish friends complain that it was "too hot" for them, when it was like 15° C. Goddamn. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Summer is actually milder than usual here in Kansas right now. Great Plains summers can be pretty brutal just because there’s no large bodies of water to regulate the temperature. Just scorching grass and flatness. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

New England is notorious for its wildly unpredictable weather in all seasons, and this summer sure lives up to it; it's been typical, which is to say random swings between 70-95 degrees (though it can sometimes get over 100) with all kinds of humidity, and some nasty thunderstorms (which are extra fun because New England has a ton of rivers and is way more heavily forested than almost any other similarly densely populated area). I still refuse to use air conditioning, though, humans lived for a long time without it and I can too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Had one in Ohio a few weeks ago (Late July, early August, if I recall right) The temperatures weren't completely out of the normal for us, but the number of them was odd. Swear it was like two straight weeks of high 80s/low 90s.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 02:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, that's normal for where I've always lived, Southern Missouri Basin. The issue here is there is so much groundwater that the humidity is normalizing, and it's always basically felt over 90 all summer unless there's a storm. In a sense, it's kind of cool, I first googled 32 degrees Celsius and was like "guffaw," but I mean, ok, yeah it does suck. But there's this fruit, called the Paw Paw that is kind of a tropical holdout in a spot that also sees feet of snow every winter. My first inclination was to just go "boo hoo" over that weather, but you know what, that weather sucks. I know there were a bunch of deaths in France in the last be Euro heatwave, and it was maybe because a lot of them didn't have AC, and at the time I was young and strapping and didn't have AC. We got the first wave of the derecho that hit the US, but power didn't come on in some towns in Iowa for days. It's not boo hoo, it's wow this weather makes our infrastructure look like we're cavemen when it blows a single big wind. How is it days for somebody to get their power on? Oh, power is delivered by lines, nothing on the buildings could harness what, solar energy to keep critical functions like floodlights, and more personally, rfid key readers on? I am digressing.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Woah!

I just went to the recent changes page and found this written “Indian Independence day” at the top of the page in hindi! Who did that and how? Was it automatically done by some wiki tool? Is it shown for everyone or just me? Nonetheless, that’s pretty cool! The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

why would it be just for you? Lol Fowler (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The site runs on media wiki, and I am registered as an Indian, so, I guess...? Probably not. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure who did it, but yes, recent changes has a rotating list of holidays that get inserted for everyone to see, and it's nicely not limited to just one country's special set of days. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Holydaze/0815 (Indian Independence Day) was created by User:Joaquín Martínez and he's the only person that's ever edited it. You could ask him if he speaks Hindi. But I don't think you'll get an answer because he hasn't edited here since April of last year.

Now, please don't complain if you still see the Indian Independence Day message tomorrow. Holydaze templates appear 12 hours before the start of the special day in UTC and disappear 12 hours after the end of the special day in UTC so that they cover all time zones. Spud (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Breaking news!

Breaking news! A recent study reported today by the Babylon Bee found that a majority of Americans trust Dr Pepper over Dr. Fauci! LT^{May Dataclarifier be well!} 22:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well yeah, well all knew Dr Pepper from the war, when he was still a Sargent. CoryUsar (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Poor soul that finds the Babylon Bee funny. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The Babylon Bee is really funny though. LT^{May Dataclarifier be well!} 23:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Did Dr. Pepper throw a terrible first pitch at Nationals stadium? I think not! -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your injury. How much of your brain did they save? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 23:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

None! LT^{May Dataclarifier be well!} 23:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Pepper and vodka and a lime wedge make a refreshing mixed drink while blogging Covid denialism. Something the fake-media don't want you to know! ShabiDOO 02:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

New template: Political compass!

Template:Polcompass

Use:

{{polcompass|X|Y}}

Post yours to this thread! Here is mine:

(-7.5, -6.5)

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That polcomp you took is very biased towards the center, in reality you'd be a lot closer to the center than what that polcomp predicts. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course you would think that, you're a commie after all. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And you're an idiot. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is mine:

(-8.9, -6.2)

MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"What if instead of overly reductionist 1 dimensional analysis of politics we did overly reductionist 2 dimensional analysis of politics" -- some awful scumbag who probably made a lot of money off this stupid thing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We need more dimensions. HairlessCat (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘May I propose the political icosagon? (That's a 20 sided polygon). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The best version of this sort of thing that I've seen so far is at https://8values.github.io/ . A 4 dimensional representation is still digestible but far more accurate. I need to take it again since my politics have shifted since I took it last. Glitch (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Folks, it's not so serious. It's just fun. Of course you can't accurately represent politics with only 2 dimensions. If you want to have an icosahedral political test, go for it. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 21:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That one was a joke. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of 8values, here is my score.

— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 21:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I've gotten more extreme over time. I suspected as much but hey, data. https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=94.9&d=94.4&g=88.5&s=97.4 Glitch (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, another communist... Gunther1987 (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Worse than that, a ROBO-communist. Double the slave uprising themes. You will not oppress us with your primitive currency based value system, fleshbags. Glitch (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect plot for a Utopian movie. Not that anyone would make it (maybe Hollywood, but I would advice them not to since alot of cranks think Hollywood is communist for some reason and it would feed the cranks with all kind of bullshit).

(-8.5, -8)

I took this 5 years ago and it seems I've inched further towards the bottom left.

ShabiDOO 22:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I can try to make the 8values template. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(-7.0, -7.38)

I seem to have become slightly less of a left winger and slightly more of an anarchisty since I updated my userbox a year ago. Go figure. Coigreach (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

(-3.13, 1.38)

Dangerously close to the green square now tbh. — Z 03:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is truly satisfying to see that the Rats have regained their sense of humor. Stay safe yall! 138.207.198.74 (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

u too unknown critic. — Z 07:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(-1.88, -2.77)

Basically, the only thing that was "pro-religious" was that I felt that some people were naturally unlucky. But, I see "luck" in a different way; luck is really situational awareness more than anything else. Plenty of opportunities happen for everyone, but an "unlucky" person won't have the wherewithal to take advantage of said opportunities. Plus, sometimes people are just born into a terrible situation that screws them up for life, all by dumb luck.

Also, the reason I'm not less authoritarian is apparently because I'm slightly racist according to the questions. Sorry, I don't believe all cultures are "equal" for a very simple reason; I believe our own culture can be (and has been) improved. Unless you believe that the culture of the 1950's US, Victorian England, or Antebellum South was just as good as the one we have today, you must accept that one culture can be "better" than another one. Now, what constitutes "better" is subjective, but unless you believe that it's acceptable for a culture to embrace religious, racial or sexual supremacy, you have to reject cultural relativism. CoryUsar (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

cosmik's profile:

(-4.75, -5.18)

I seem to have shifted leftwards a bit since the last time I took this thing. Perhaps it's a reaction to the extreme rightward swing of some of my closer friends. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(-3.38, -5.85)

Apparently, I've moved a tiny bit to the right since I last took the test (3 years ago, I think it was). I can't think why. But I'm still a real lefty. Spud (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Having just taken one of the quizzes and read through both Political Compass and Nolan Chart, I've concluded that this is a time waster due to (as noted before) the inherent biases in the questions that form the charts. Bongolian (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It is. These things have one purpose: to convince people that everyone is really libertarian, except for their leaders. They always seriously underestimate my traditionalist and 'authoritarian' side, because most of the questions about those matters are about sex, drugs, and religion, which are not major issues for me. My traditionalism flows from a desire to curb the power of the economy, and to make money matter a lot less. FWIW =

(-7.5, -3.79)

Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Also, the idea that 'libertarianism' is somehow the opposite of authoritarianism seems to be a disingenuous promotion by libertarians, when:

1. self-reported libertarians actually have a wide range across the X- and Y-axes, not that much different than Republicans,[17] and
2. when Austrian school academic Walter Block has argued that libertarianism should allow for the possibility of 'voluntary slavery'.

On a personal level, it is hard to imagine anything more authoritarian than slavery, even if it was initiated voluntarily (e.g. because one was starving to death). It is not too difficult to imagine then, a libertarian dystopia no different than strict authoritarianism, which is populated solely of masters and their slaves who were 'rescued' from starvation by their masters to a lifetime of servitude. Bongolian (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You are like little babies. Watch this -

(-9.9, -9.9)

Disappointed I’m not -10 in either tbh 49.182.45.33 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll play:

(-6.5, -5.13)

Not especially surprised. Zontar (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What's odd about 8values is, anyone with a head on their shoulders seems to land in libertarian socialism, which I still think is not a thing, and we should stop calling it that, because it's scary, on both terms. You wouldn't call a treaty the "aliens suck your guts for funsies because they know better agreement" But combining libertarianism and socialism, I'm telling you, sounds like that. It shouldn't sound that way, but it does. It should be very clear that the ideas are for personal liberty protected by government policy, and equity by opportunity. But these dork ass quizzes base it on presuppositions and predetermine the outcomes as libertarian and socialist. Which isn't necessarily bad, but also so not nuanced. Guess who else does not take Libertarianism and Socialism as nuanced terms. It's the Evangelicals, sorry, I couldn't wait for that one, the general evangelical ideal is that everyone is wrong, but they should be allowed to be wrong until they are punished. Like, Libertarian and Authoritarian really bleed into each other here. It Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a very hard time following you here. 8values is using "Libertarian" not in the US sense of "Right Libertarian" but simply in the more general, anti-authoritarian sense. Are you trying to argue that you can't have anti-authoritarian socialism? I'm a lot more persuaded by arguments that you can't have anti-authoritarian capitalism, myself. Well, it seems to me that every state in history so far has been on the authoritarian end of the scale, just more or less so. Maybe it's not viable to have an anti-authoritarian state at all, capitalist OR socialist. I would like to keep trying, though. Glitch (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is mine:

(3.38, -0.41)

Am I the only one right of center here? IDK, but I'm not the biggest fan of the political compass test. I get humans love to categorize and organize stuff, but this left-right spectrum thing often breaks down. Some questions on the test are weird imo. "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." This isn't really something you do or don't disagree with, it's more a matter of fact and it actually is true that one party states can and do things very fast because of the political centralization and lack of any independent checks or balances. Thats not something I like or want, but it's true dictatorships don't have to deal with that pesky and meandering system of democracy. Neo Stalinist (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

RW is very left-wing, probably reflecting the general internet population.

Read the political compass FAQ and you might better understand how some of the questions work (and more importantly your implicit biases). Firstly, I don't think it's a matter of fact that a one party state avoids all the arguments that delay progress, they may still occur out of sight rather than in parliament or the press; they may even be more vicious and protracted. Secondly, even if true it may actually not be an advantage because the arguments that occur in a two+-party state could actually serve to improve the function of the system, thus making lack of argumentation a disadvantage of the one party system. I'm not saying that that either of these statements is true, but the fact that you didn't seem to even consider them speaks to the way that you think. Not having a go, it's a trite test designed to be taken without deep thought - and in those quick responses we can get a look inside the black box of the old brain compartment.

Finally even if it was a factual statement that one-party states 'work quicker' it wouldn't matter. The test is designed to get at what you think, not what is true. Plenty of people believe untrue things, many political beliefs can't even be assigned a truth value. 1.126.108.254 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(-10, 10)

万岁 毛主席!

65.92.99.122 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally being left wing but opposing state funded media and being pro interventionist would do this.

(-0.5, -3.85)

Evilatheistheathen (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is mine...

(-3.65, -2.82)

Almost centrist. But my 9axis score says otherwise. I rather agree with being progressive, but I feel that I am more globalist and multiculturalist than it shows. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 06:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not normally one to talk about "degeneracy"

But I can't think of another word to describe the sudden onslaught of "Virtual Youtubers" against our increasingly internet addled minds. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll defend humanity's right to want to watch dog girls any day of the week. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't feel like another stepping stone of casting our social selves to the wolves for increasingly unreal and half-there parasocial relationships that decay our ability to get along with one another to you? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Our parents used to complain that our MTV culture was shallow and obnoxious and brainless and sad. They were partly right. But I think MTV culture relatively like a keynote speech by a distinguished Oxford professor compared with youtube diarhea. I find my blood pressure rising from most videos as the presenters just yell at you with 1,000% energy the whole time in a spastic frantic rant of hysteria about inane bullshit. I cannot watch most shit for more than 10 seconds before my blood pressure rises too high for my own good. That's not to say there isn't great youtube content out there, even of the popular silly kind. But yeah...most of it is degenerate bunk. Just as we emulated ditsy MTV presenters, I see the younger generation copying the puerile-vacant-tedious behavior of presenters. So yeah...I can only imagine what our great-great-grandparents would have said watching an influencer babble about sparkling nail varnish or their favourite version of candy crush or who can digest the most poisonous household products. ShabiDOO 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad I’m not the only one who hates YouTube talking heads. What happened to reading? I especially dislike videos in our articles. We’re a wiki, not a video site. What happened to reading? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, video is a valid media format. However, like most media formats, it has been swamped with two bit "influencers" and back ally celebs. Honestly, I blame capitalism. And American culture. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This has a strong "old man yells at cloud" energy. The hell, you guys? There's nothing inherently uniquely terrible about the video format? What is with your rant, @Shabidoo, you're stereotyping the medium in the same way older generations take the worst aspects of the hot-new-thing and conclude they're just shallow trash polluting the minds of younger generations. Video format is just an alternative way to express yourself or otherwise dispel information, and it has its quality and trash like any other medium? What is different from sitting and reading an article compared to waiting and listening to someone talk? You get lost from someone talking? You replay the seconds, like you reread the paragraph. You have trouble referring to a specific passage? Use a timestamp and transcript yourself. Also some people do take information in better in verbal format than written format (or have problems reading like people with dyslexia), and they'll likely appreciate the video format as aid for them? Having videos in our articles accommodates those visual/audio learners, so yeah, we should have some good videos to supplement our text. You don't like video format? It's fine. But don't castigate those that work hard to create quality content and don't castiage people who prefer the video format to be informed. YouTube can be polluted by influencers and B-list celebs but it's not unique to YouTube nor is it a valid means to disparage the entire format; the existence of weblogs and written op-eds likely have issues with influencers and stuff too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I don't deny that it's an extremely curmudgeonly perspective, but there's this super dark ambience to supplanting the role of human beings for explicitly virtual ones. Watching people on youtube in place of social interaction was already pretty bad in that respect, and goofy and silly though it may be, there's something worse about vtubers. Mindless characters who just smile and nod along with whatever is going on. We're all getting even more atomized and isolated, and I don't like the trend. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ikanreed What is "virtual YouTube"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Youtuber talking head but instead of a person it’s a virtual avatar. Usually an anime girl. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't appologize for a second. There was nothing extraordinary about my parents watching MTV (or my country's equivalent) and not comprehending the overdose of adrenaline and ridiculousness of it all and as a kid and even now I defended it and enjoyed it. It is certainly a generational thing. The last thing I would want to do is not be able to participate in this tradition now and honestly don't have a single friend who doesn't agree with me (unless a few are just pretending to agree and secretly love it). If you had actually read my post LeftyGreenMario you would have seen that I clearly unmistakably said there is "great content out there". The difference now is the absolute concentration and popularity (enormous view count) of bullshit. I mean the biggest channel was a guy playing a game and making stupid comments while he played. I know a lot of people love it, I simply cannot comprehend why. This concentration could not be found in television or magazines (that is such an overwhelming quantity and super high popularity of inane obnoxious vapid shit) and I'm not saying that watching someone play a game fits in this category but a lot of it does. There was and is (undeniably) shit on TV but you have to do quite the selective channel surfing to find so many people yelling unintelligent garbage at you. I think it was inevitable that a more sophisticated medium with far less restrictions on content would produce such content. It's not a surprise to me. And yes, if you survey say, the history of say the BBC or CBC a decade at a time from the 50s until now there is unmistakably an increasing quantity of informal and more ridiculous content...each decade, and I enjoyed some of that increasingly informal silly content. But it seems I've found my limit with influencers screaming at you and people doing pointless bullshit youtube content. ShabiDOO 00:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

YouTube by its nature and algorithms encourages garbage content. There is some good stuff but so much of the YouTube talking head community is just dumb people being opinionated on stuff with no reason or qualifications or evidence. So I have no problem dissing YouTube as a media source. We should encourage children to read books rather than have things spoon fed to them by other teenagers with a camera. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec)@lgm - i dnt so much disagree, but just prefer something written than on video for anything that is meant to inform or teach me something. just find it easier to digest with less chance someones weird speaking voice speaking voice, lack of charisma and crappy jokes make it impossible to sit through. im not so convinced the work ethic of content creators producing such quality gems as 'i wore denim for a whole day' or reaction videos are much to be lauded, but its not like i've been tricked into thinking they were something else and sat through 15 mins on applying mascara before i sussed there is a lot less historical analysis than i was expecting in this documentary on the plague of justinian. my guy liner is looking fabulous though. its more an issue of the sheer quantity and low bar of entry to make your own youtube videos. someone did the first unboxing video that gets 100,000 hits or reacting to an episode of some show. i can open boxes. i can watch stuff. wheres my webcam? says a billion teenagers. there are millionaires who made their cash playing video games and spouting racist shit. now the markets over saturated with racist gamers and theres no rhyme nor reason why this bullshit video has got a million hits while everything exactly likely it does nothing. unless there are cats in them. they've all got billions of hits and they dont even have to be doing fuck all. im not jealous or anything but i'm probably just as talentless as the jake pauls and pewdiepies of the world and probably just as big a bellend as they are. where are my millions youtube? they can all do one AMassiveGay (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't want to be rich. I just want to live in a society^{[why so serious?]} that doesn't drown people in increasingly empty facades of other people's existence. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the "virtual Youtuber" thing (it appears to be a Japanese phenomenon per the Wiki?), but if I go back to the "back when I grew up" days, angry emptyheaded rants were pretty popular too. That pretty much describes Rush Limbaugh and the AM talk radio pollution that sprung up in the late 1980s, as well as Morton Downey Jr. who was the most in-your-face of the "trash TV" talk show crap. They are cheap to make and a certain sort of braindead audience likes them. Cable access shows meanwhile became known for bizarre freakshows. Stupid stunt shows existed and people even died doing dumb stunts on TV then, too. It does seem like social media and the Internet has amplified things up to 11, unfortunately, but it's a measure of sheer volume than anything else. Anyone idiot can yell at a phone about a subject they know nothing about and upload it to Youtube now. Quite a number of people take "advantage" of this. On the bright side, many people can also demonstrate their practical nature, and as someone who's not the best "handyman" type Youtube has been quite helpful for fix-me-up videos, something where the video format is quite helpful as sometimes instructions just don't convey the full picture. There's some advantages and disadvantages. Video IMHO is fine but it really isn't the greatest of tools for covering certain complex subjects. Even videos made with the best intentions (like a BBC documentary) are more pop science, which I think we need more of because they often are great "introductory skims" and get people interested in them, but they are not in depth. On something like music, you could use video to demonstrate certain "show me" parts (like how to properly hold your fingers to play a piano) but video wouldn't work to explain more complex music theories like, say, Bach style counterpoint. In computer science, I can't think of anything a video would do well at all, even something as simple as "write a web page that says Hello World" would be ridiculously faster to teach via reading. Your heavier sciences like physics, biology, and chemistry I imagine would be worse. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ikanreed No... not really? Frankly, I have issues seeing the difference between watching a VTuber and watching say, someone stream without a camera attached to it. There's no real functional difference between the two from where I'm coming from. For anyone poking in; a "Virtual YouTuber" basically is someone recording themselves streaming (usually playing video games), but instead of a webcam, they have their head tracked by computer software, which then tries to mimic the movements of the head onto a 3D model (an example of software which does this is Live2D) and they place the output of that on their stream. The only real difference I can think of compared to regular livestreams is that there's usually also some amount of kayfabe (warning; tvtropes) in pretending that the model that their face is projected on is an actual character. I frankly don't see it as any more "destructive to our ability to form relationships" than regular Twitch streams. Kayfabe on the internet has been a thing (SiIvaGunner, a YouTube remixing/mashup channel runs almost entirely on the kayfabe that all the uploads are simply legitimate video game rips), so I don't see the danger in applying that to livestreams. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RE “YouTube is bad for music theory that isn’t complex” — check out Adam Neely, he does really fuvkin great music analysis. 49.182.39.201 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Do you think a ginger could pull off guyliner or manscara? ShabiDOO 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Live and let live

Why bash people's preferences if they don't harm anyone? Just let them like what they like, jesus. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree Fowler (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Raven likes anime dog girls. HairlessCat (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

who doesnt? Fowler (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I like anime dog girls too. I just don't like Youtube. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree aswell Ary (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If you call it living. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

People who prefer anime cat girls? CoryUsar (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is Rational Wiki. Anime goat girls should be our objective.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, thing is, the closest I can think of to an anime goat girl isn't anime or technically a goat. It's a Draenei femme, from World of Warcraft, but they do have a vaguely anime-ish cast in the right light, and they kinda have this space goat aesthetic, and... Yeah, we're failing there, guys. Kencolt (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's maybe a new form of delivering thought, communication. And it's very effective, get me in conversation and I'll never digress. This vlogging style is not going to be stopped. But I found comfort myself in being able to write out my thoughts. I was an AIM chad, text/writing only, be able to read/hear and write/speak. It's not exactly a facade, but it's a comfortable way of communicating. I think the reason emojis hit the scene is because most people can't communicate that way and it's faster and easier to copy paste a thing.

I don't know this guy, I don't talk to him, but there's a guy giving his honest take on the Ruroni Kenshin manga, and he doesn't get any subscribers. He's deep deep on teis exact manga, and I love Ruroni Kenshin. He's got some really good insights, find him yourself, he's probably the only guy doing it. But he's using the tools he has to be passionate about the things he loves, and he's doing a fucking job of it, and the average 8 likes per video isn't stopping him from putting them out. That's using the format for communication, it's not evil to use the tools. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Very entertaining video...

Highly recommended (not made by me)

The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 15:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Click play
2. Hear Microsoft Sam
3. Click pause. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

4. dislike.. no wait Fowler (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In case you were wondering, the Wikipedia page was for Richard Herrmann.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 05:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 RMF election proposal

As we have seen there were only 4 candidates competing for 4 open seats (3 for 2-year terms, 1 for a 1-year term). RoninMacbeth said in his candidate statement that he wanted to win the 1-year seat. The election campaigning page has gone 11 days without being edited and the voting has yet to start it seems to me that it has largely been forgotten about. I think we might as well skip the voting part. I propose that @LeftyGreenMario, @GrammarCommie and @D are all appointed to serve for 2 years and @RoninMacbeth is appointed to serve for 1 year. Thoughts? --RWRW (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll run as a candidate if people promise they will vouch against me, make lots of good comments per why O should t be elected and then not vote for me. Would that help make a vote? ShabiDOO 16:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @RWRW's proposal, but I think we should do a formal vote as soon as possible just to make it official. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's best not to suspend democratic process, even when it seems justified. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

With GC here. We should at least hold the vote. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Either way, same result. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Time for the most useful and necessary vote in ratwiki history I guess. — Z 18:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

but just think of the social angst we can induce!

though seriously, it's usual to just say "yep these are the winners" if candidates = places. Who was gonna be returning officer? They are literally the person charged with declaring the outcome of the election, so would be the person with the power to declare this obvious outcome being the case - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

ah, Ze and Cosmikdebris ... I urge you to just go "no, that would be silly" - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The election would be silly indeed. I would certainly be fine not doing a vote if @Cosmikdebris is also. — Z 03:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

so you going with this? - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. — Z 13:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The bylaws require an actual vote. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

oh gawd, they probably do. Also, RoninMacbeth asked for legitimacy. I HAVE SWITCHED ON VOTING. Do what you shall with it, and the returning officers still have the power to declare whatever - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this legitimate quantum physics or more woo?

https://www.quora.com/q/casvdpwydzqxmzrw/Part-1-Does-Quantum-Physics-Parallel-The-Ontological-Domain-Of-What-Humans-Call-Spirituality-The-Divine-and-G

Because he does offer some links on the bottom of the page (though the one about quantum physics and consciousness seems way off, not to mention the video comments are disabled) which seem to suggest it is legitimate, but I don't know enough about quantum physics to really be sure if this is right or not. But seeing this guy post on other pages like this and try to suggest quantum physics is at work (he's in the comments section, it's not very long) makes me doubt a lot of what he is trying to suggest.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/ancient-mummy-with-1100-year-old-adidas-boots-died-after-she-was-struck-on-the-head/Machina (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless the "quantum" is explaining a specific piece of science, it's bullshit. CoryUsar (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd call it quantum mysticism. The concepts of quantum entanglement and quantum nonlocality are real. Science doesn't touch religious or New Age concepts which is about 95% of the text. Yep, it's bullshit. Although, to me the author is in the "mostly harmless woo" territory. If it makes you feel better and harmonious, fair enough. You won't be able to make semiconductors with this info though. :)

Quantum physics is an area where I'm fuzzy on. But one of the cards did throw around some of "buzzword bingo" that I'm a bit more familiar with. A fourier transforms a function (such as a signal) into its component frequencies. I'm familiar with it (though not an expert) because FFTs (fast fourier transforms) are used in music DSP programming, which I've dabbled in. FFTs are very useful when you want to mess with certain frequencies but not touch others (think digital equalization or real time pitch shifting / time stretch). There's a nice "simple" description of FFTs here.

Another is Planck's constant. This constant can be thought of, in simple terms, as the amount of energy that a photon of light (or any other electromagnetic wave) has at 1Hz. See: Photon energy I haven't dabbled in anything that has needed quantum mechanics but this is one of the relatively less weird concepts. :)

I have no idea how "non-local implicate order" would get "fourier transformed" into "local explicate" order using "Planck's constant". I mean, I can see the author vaguely did some homework, helpfully adding "spectral" to the input and "space-time" to the output, although I'm not sure why. (But even from a woo sense, that is reversed, inverse FFTs convert frequency domain to time domain. But never mind...) Soundwave106 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have some general advice for Machina. When we say "pseudoscience", we don't mean "wrong things", though they often are. We mean things that dress themselves in the language of science but do none of the hard work of making good science. So as Soundwave has noted, this person has lifted and misused a great deal of scientific and mathematical terminology. The way to see through that is this: real scientists devise experiments. If you can blather for 25 pages(in part 1), and not tell the reader one way you checked your ideas against reality by testing them, there's no science there. Even teaching well-known science for children includes experiments and evidence gathered to support their claims. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me of a similar article: http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Illusion-of-Reality---The-Scientific-Proof-That-Everything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf Though to be honest that one just threw a lot of buzzwords around and didn't show any of the math and most of the links to the sources are honestly from a woo filled magazine. At least with that one I was more able to cleanly break from it.Machina (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My birthday is on Sunday

Just a heads up.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

So how many smacks in the ass will we have to give you? ShabiDOO 02:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

_{no offence of course} The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 04:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we not. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made cake! Fowler (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's Sunday here, I'm racking my brain, but I can't remember which page you suggested that first had me trying to pronounce your username. Jaytohow, happy birthday. I'm sorry, I know I saw your hello world, and right now I can't recall it. Happy birthday anyway, sorry I can't wish you something more specific Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy birthday! — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Astrophysics gave me an idea for a YouTube video

I shall create an EAS scenario based on the concept of the Big Rip but it happening in the modern era. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I read a short story with that an extremely similar premise in a sci-fi compendium. It was titled "Last Contact" by Stephen Baxter. He addressed some very specific themes in that story that means you aren't likely to duplicate his work or anything. But thought I'd share in case you were interested. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing against Goat, but considering Baxter's background, I seriously doubt his themes and/or technical descriptions will be duplicated by Goat. (BTW, have you read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson, there's an EAS to get your head around) Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My background is a few unaccredited seminary courses and a course in building trades (not enough to be certified in anything). Either way I have some understanding of it. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And Biden's VP pick is...

Kamala Harris. Coulda been worse I guess. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the worst. Kamala "we need the prison slave labor" Harris is the worst. Great job trying to win leftists over to your side, Biden. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Worser than Pence? Gunther1987 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pence isn't even a Democrat. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Dramatic much? Kamala Harris's track record isn't ideal no, but frankly I can think of several worse possible VP picks (lack of experience, more conservative than Biden, or unrealistic because they are too progressive for the DNC). She doesn't excite me (seems a common thread eh?) but she also doesn't really make me go "dear god, what the hell is wrong with you for picking her". Ultimately, I do think at this point it's important to come together for the election. Biden and Harris have plenty of problems yes, but they're the best realistic card possible to both getting rid of the proto-fascist in chief and more importantly: the fascists in his administration. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 21:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Harris is pretty much rent-a-democrat the same way pence is rent-a-republican. I will give Biden credit in that he somehow managed to make the first woman of color running mate be as boring as possible.-Flandres (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Biden's a rent-a-dem as well. They ALL were, with the exceptions of Paul Yang and Bernie. CoryUsar (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Called it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yang had the alt-right from 4chan supporting him. Also, he would be terrible for science, since he thinks homeopathy is also healthcare. And then there's the 1000 bucks thing. How would he materialize that? Gunther1987 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This was the safe pick, and it is encouraging to me that the safe pick was a first generation American with Indian and Jamaican parents. I look forward to her thrashing Pence.RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Had to be Kamala. The others would have been too radical-Hastur! (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Tbh, I thought he was going to pick Tulsi. Gunther1987 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Kamala appeals to moderates and older black people, blocs who actually fucking vote and saved Biden in SC. Far lefties, though, alienated everyone by acting like brats and refusing to vote. Instead of voting for their candidate, they stay home and fantasize about revolution while whining that voting doesn’t do anything. And that’s why they’re politically irrelevant and that’s why Biden is the nominee and is safe ignoring them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You do know the point of a VP as a political tool is to get camps you haven't secured, right? You know, so you get more votes... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. But no choice was gonna win the lefties over. They hate him no matter what. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You want to know a camp more important than ivory tower liberals? Independent voters. If everyhting goes well this ticket will win the White House and we'll only have to endure Biden's gaffes instead of Trump's destructiveness. If everything goes really well Biden will decide not to run for reelection in 2024, and Harris will be pushed further to the left in the primaries (and the GOP will be so wrecked that they'll lose again).-Hastur! (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that people that support the WSL are going to vote for Biden. Gunther1987 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hastur Please stop calling leftists "Ivory Tower Liberals", it makes you look like a moron. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Call them far-leftists (because they are a fringe group among the left). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have always thought that the "gaffe" complaint against Biden amounted to petty politics attributable to his rivals and their supporters. Some of you must remember the egregious rhetoric of George W. Bush. At present, we are constantly hearing the incoherent speech patterns of DJ Trump, in addition to his more than ten thousand documented lies, exaggerations and inaccuracies due to either complete ignorance or stupidity. So Biden occasionally makes a peculiar statement. Is that a sign of the apocalypse?Ariel31459 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol, "DJ Trump is in da House!!!" Gunther1987 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Biden’s choice of Kampala Harris is not “the worst” (I’d argue that choosing a foreign policy hawk like Susan Rice would have been worse), but it is depressingly characteristic of the pedestrian, conventional logic of “your vote your demographic” as the road back to the “good old days” of the Obama era that has been the hallmark of Biden’s (note, small c) conservative campaign. At the same time, the Democratic leadership was proud to have signed up John Kasich as a speaker at the upcoming online convention, while initially debating whether AOC should get any speaking time at all before apparently realising how bad and absurd that would look and doing an abrupt about face to make her a keynote speaker. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A little off topic, but I do hope in this case third time's the charm for female running mates.-Flandres (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie From what I know, historically a VP hasn't done a lot to influence potential voters so the argument that a VP is a good political tool is... dubious? I do somewhat recognize my own hypocrisy in me saying this as one of the main reasons I'd personally really would've liked to see Warren was because I knew some Bernie supporters who had major issues with Biden but far less with Warren. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not usually, but Biden's great age and the general lack of enthusiasm for him(his support is broad but shallow) you must admit it has more relevance this time.-Flandres (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala is kween

Yas kween! — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How old are you? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

25. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop acting like a 15 your old with their first boyband crush. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I am mocking the "KHive" (the twitter fandom of Kamala); I got banned from Twitter for calling Kamala a cop. So, now that I contextualized all of this: Why can't you just chill and go away? Phonebank for Biden or something? Let people express their positive emotions as they want (unless they are harming others) instead of policing them. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Freedom of speech. Also, I'm terminally cynical. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, aren't first boyband crushes around age 12? CoryUsar (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Gods, now I feel like an out of touch old guy... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, I also don't like Kamala (except she makes people like Oxy mad, that is quite funny). But just vote Biden, kick orange Mussolini out of the oval office and restore a semblance of sanity in American politics. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 04:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Pissing progressives off is your priority? You're an ass. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You're not a progressive. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 09:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No True Scotsman fallacy noted. Can you justify how I`m not a progressive, @GR? — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Your defense of bigoted regimes (such as Cuba) and bigoted historical figures (such as Marx). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right, you live in a zero-sum world where everything is colored black and white, with no room for nuance. Gotcha. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, and that's not what Jar, the person you were supposed to debate, would say either. He is a socialist who actually criticizes Cuba and other garbage with principles and not partisanship. It's why I wanted you to debate him; it would show that my criticisms of Cuba and other garbage were grounded both from a progressive perspective (like mine) and a socialist critique like that of Jar. In fact, I defended Bernie's defense of Cuba's progress in regards to education (which Obama also mentioned about Cuba). That being said, you had a tantrum over me calling Cuba conservative when they don't have gay marriage like the US has. So, are you ever going to debate a progressive socialist like Jar or not? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait, I have more; You and GC and the other usual suspects like to call me a "SocDem hack" or something like that. I am VERY CRITICAL how Scandinavian countries have treated and are treating sex workers in contrast to New Zealand for instance. Sweden for instance has done abominable things against disabled people, like the Vipeholm experiments where they force-fed mentally disabled patients with sticky sweets to provoke tooth decay to prove the link between sweets and caries. Sweden and Norway have treated the Sami people terribly, and Finland was (albeit reluctantly) allied to Nazi-Germany. Scandinavia also doesn't have assisted suicide like Belgium and Switzerland do, and you don't even have to get me started about the Danish socdem party that is using xenophobia to not lose votes and thus not lose seats. I am in fact not a hack who will hide or couch problems with Scandinavia to promote my ideology as perfect. You could at least try to have some moral backbone. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think I haven't criticized ML countries before, you don't know me very well. However, my criticisms would likely flow right over your head, as they have already done so elsewhere. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

According to @Ze you said that stalinism is better than neoliberalism. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If she said that or not is not relevant to "has she criticized Marxist-Leninist countries." Also, can you guys do this on one of your own talkpages?-Flandres (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

shoo flandres, this is saloon bar — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also a horribly off topic dispute that has been done to death. I would have asked you to continue our argument on my talk-page if I actually thought you would. I was hoping Oxy would be more reasonable about that. Also, no counter argument? Going to hide behind the Very Good template again?-Flandres (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit if Oxy debates some guy who isn't even a member here. Nobody is going to take you seriously if every rebuttle to Oxys comments is "blah blah yeah but you won't debate Joe Schmoe blah blah". Can you not address her arguments yourself or can this guy not join up here? Though to be honest that might be a pretty bad idea cause it might just be another person who harasses Oxy. ShabiDOO 16:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Template:Verygood — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, he hides behind that template. As shabidoo said, can you actually address these arguments?-Flandres (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Y'all just gonna ignore Kamala's prosecutory record?

Really? — Oxyaena ^Harass 02:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to admit I don't get her appeal. Wonder if all the people she helped wrongfully imprison believe her dramatic "turn" towards prison reform. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

She's a pretty classic political opportunist who says what she thinks people want to hear, and expects no one to pay attention to the details of her history. The fact that it might work doesn't really make me any angrier than a lot of other shit about this election. But as a 14 time almost stright democratic voter, I'm pretty much checked out of the party now. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I will say, it’s remarkably tone-deaf for Biden to go with Kopmala right as police misconduct is such an issue. Harris as VP robs him of some authority to take a firm stance against Trumpist authoritarianism, in my view. I genuinely would have preferred someone else. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I mean, I called this on Ratcord, but in my opinion it would have been smarter to go with Warren. Why Warren? Because her brand is "moderate" (Social democracy is extreme now, sadly) "socialism" and progressive social politics. It would have thrown a bit of a backhanded bone to the left, given him the ability to at least pretend his camps gives a fuck about economic reform, said he takes women's issues seriously, and said he takes fighting corruption seriously. In terms of political messaging, she would have been the smarter pick, gaffes from both of them aside. Harris was not the smart pick for winning over more voters, (in my opinion, obviously) and squeezing out the last of the fence sitters. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not from another angle. Having Harris on board probably will blunt one of Trump's main attack angles. Which, of course, is that he is going to try to scare the suburbs with law-and-order bullshit; this tactic won't work quite as well on non-Trump Kool-Aid drinkers when you have someone known as a "Top Cop" in her career as AG. I like Warren better as a choice in many ways, but Warren's a female wonk and that's not something the US responds positively to for reasons we all know. Harris is a safe "don't ruffle any feathers" choice, suitable for the suburban vote that Biden is courting. Soundwave106 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 These midterm stats say no. Biden should be going for more minority demographics. It's the smart move. The establishment Dem (as opposed to the progressive camp) obsession with the suburban vote is a pipe dream. Most white people in this country vote Republican. Most black people and women (in general) vote Democrat. Appealing to your core base is more important than trying to win over longshot voters. Now, in that regard, yes, Harris is a black female cop, thusly representing a middle ground option. So the Biden campaign has some brains in their skulls. Her fights with Trump give her a slight maverick air, which set her apart from the likes of Pelosi who haven't really seemed interested in opposing Trump and the GOP. However, I think going for a more progressive (again, Warren is a socdem, not a socialist proper) candidate would have been a smarter move, as it would have might it harder for left wing critics to attack the campaign on that front. Further, I'd like to point out that there are elements of the left-wing that have been pushing the envelope for Biden, and taking advantage of their platforms would be a major asset, especially given the current attempts at voter suppression. To be clear, I'm not saying Harris was a stupid move (from what I know of the demographics), only that in my opinion she wasn't the best move. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the thing, she's not just a cop, but a "black" female cop, and by "black" we mean "daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants". So this also opens up a nod not just to the Black community but to the fast growing Asian-American community as well. Policy wise she is a little to the left of Biden as well, though probably not enough for some of the far-left crowd. Actually now that I think about it more, Warren's age may have been a bigger factor than anything else for the VP pick role (at some point, the Boomers really have to let go). The suburbs align really well with "college-educated voters" (this realignment is really why Dems I think are paying attention) and from what I saw, Warren's support was *really* high with the college educated crowd. So if Biden was *just* going for a segment of the 'burbs, Warren would not have been a bad choice, either. Female wonks can make for some very good leaders after all (just ask Germany) so in some ways it's a shame. But in the primaries, it seemed like Warren's appeal outside of the college educated crowd was tepid. Oh well. I wouldn't be surprised if Warren ends up somewhere in Biden's cabinet should Biden get elected. It is true that the biggest negative of the Harris pick is that her past "top cop" history doesn't quite align with the Black Lives Matter / George Floyd protests. From what I see her rhetoric has changed, that's probably not enough for some people. But we'll see what her current policy thoughts are in future days I suppose on this matter. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think you have something to add to our article about Harris, please do so. Occasionally terrible Vice Presidents are a part of the American tradition. Here are some of my favorites:

• Aaron Burr. Killed the former Treasury Secretary in a duel, subsequently charged with murder and teason.
• Elbridge Gerry. Liked to draw congressional districts to his own advantage. Hence the verb, gerrymander. A delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he refused to sign it because he did not like the way it had been written down.
• John C. Calhoun. Proposed that any one state should have authority to nullify any act of Congress, for the purpose of maintaining the practice of slavery.
• Richard M. Johnson. Called "the most vulgar of all vulgar men," he scandalized the senate by taking one of his slaves as his common law wife. As VP, he proposed an

expedition to the North Pole for the purpose of drilling to the Earth's center, thinking the planet was hollow (his resolution was defeated).

• John Breckinridge, James Buchanan's VP. Towards the end of his term Breckinridge returned to Kentucky, hoping to join the Confederacy. But no dice, Kentucky decided not to secede, prompting Breckinridge to join the Confederate Army. The legislature of Kentucky charged him with treason. He eventually escaped to Europe.
• Hannibal Hamlin. Spent most of his term at home in Maine. Finally joined the Coast Guard and served as a cook for three months before quitting.
• Thomas Marshall. After Wilson's stroke in 1919, Marshall refused to take up the Presidency, worrying that if Wilson recovered, the country could erupt into a civil war.
• Richard Nixon. You should already know.
• Spiro T. Agnew. Resigned, later indicted for bribery committed while governor of Maryland.
• Richard B. Cheney. I hope you already know.

Ariel31459 (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Really, so between Biden and Trump (a fascist). You decide that this is a really hard choice to make? Really? You can't fathom voting for a conservative democrat over a fascist? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 04:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to relitigate this, but I'm not voting for any rapist, and if you are, fuck you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's between Trump (a proven rapist[18]) and Biden. If you don't vote for Biden, you are allowing Trump (a rapist) to stay another 4 years in the oval office. Not to mention that the actual feminist vote goes to Biden. So you are in favor of making American rape culture worse? @Ikanreed — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 04:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That's... not what the article says at all. She claimed it was "all lawyer's talk". Basically, it was a high profile divorce, and in divorce court, EVERYONE is a rapist and/or pedophile. Trump is a monster, I wouldn't put rape past him, and if he did he would truly believe that it wasn't rape because he is likely incapable of conceiving of the idea that someone wouldn't consent to his obviously overpowering manliness, but try to get the right sources. CoryUsar (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Says the guy who earlier was pretending that asymptomatic people transmit COVID-19 less. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 05:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Asymptomatic infected people don't cough all over the place. Infectious aerosols matter for an airborne disease, and asymptomatic people produce less. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

But being out and about, rather than home in bed feeling like shit, probably more than makes up for any reduced coughing, methinks. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So I see Raven hasn't curbed his trolling tendencies in any way. What a shock. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well you called me a "fucker" and other pejorative names. So I might as well laugh in your face when you don't get your way. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you've gone out of your way to actively goad me and others, so "fucker" is a pretty accurate descriptor. Besides, you've been running the persecution complex gambit for two months now, it's getting tiresome. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is offtopic, but then stop reverting my stuff for no reason. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 09:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My god, for a 2020 election topic this thread was going so well and I was so satisfied with the community and then GR ruined it.-Flandres (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Simple advice, @Flandres: Ignore me, deal with it or stay mad? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So, you have no defense for blatantly derailing an otherwise productive thread?-Flandres (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude, it's the saloon bar. If you want to have super serious convos, make a Debate: post. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That justifies frankness, some ad homs here and there, and some laziness when presenting evidence. Not blatant shit stirring and goading other users. Get better, GR-Flandres (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh, where did all that come from? I made a joke about Harris, and then (the usual suspects, like yourself) get angry about it, despite the fact that I dislike Harris. But sure, be upset. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So, joking about oxy(when it was completley off topic, even) was totally conducive to productive conversation? Then dragging it out into a personal quarrel with her even you admit is off topic?-Flandres (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean the thing she does all the time and I usually ignore? Flandres, go read a book. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Um,this isn't about her conduct, GR. It's about yours. May I expect a certain ability to read from the modern day Giordano Bruno?-Flandres (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You're an obvious partisan, so I don't really care about your critique, since it is always the same hacky, one-sided, opportunist and bad faith criticism. Hastur criticizes me in good faith and good will, I take his criticism quite seriously. You? Nope. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ohoho, hit a raw nerve with that one, didn't I? I gave evidence for my criticisms. It can be one sided because I am criticizing one person-we can deal with Oxy another time. Opportunist? How does that even apply? Always the same? Again, the evidence mounts you do not actually read my post before responding to them. Say you won't take my criticisms seriously but just admit it's because I bruise your ego and don't go on this ego-saving absurd rant with no validity in this context.-Flandres (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Verygood — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC) No actual response, eh? I will take that as your concession and bow out of this confrontation with grace.-Flandres (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Bringing peace with honour to Vietnam" Fowler (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll; attention is all that flandres craves. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

mk Fowler (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Everyone is a troll except Raven and the people he likes. Really trying to be skeptical and evidence based eh? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What have I done to deserve the appellation of troll? If you look through my contributions, I really don't fit that pattern of behavior. I know I said I would bow out but accusations like that require responses.-Flandres (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I will not be too picky on the VP pick

While I would prefer Pelosi or Gov. Gretchen Whitmir, I am happy with anybody. I would even be happy if Biden choose a two month old ham sandwich, it would still be smarter than Pence. --Possible Goat (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, YOU would choose a ham sandwich, when pastrami is the clear winner. CoryUsar (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Pelosi was never on the short list. She's 80, and is needed in the House.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, Pelosi would taste terrible on rye with swiss. Kencolt (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kencolt would Pelosi taste good on wheat with Munster cheese? How about Biden on French bread with Gouda? Okay I have a weird sense of humor. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

is this just about optics?

ok, not a yank. whats the significance of vp choice here? is it really just how it looks to particular demographics, or will this have wider implications? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It is an insight into what the nominee sees as a priority(which groups to pander too, what optics/spin they are aiming for). Also, as I said above, unique factors make it more important than usual.-Flandres (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Two primary things; the first is functional the VP is second in line to the Executive branch. Unlike the UK where there is no constitutionally defined line of succession. Picking Harris (Age. 55) for Biden (who will be 78 when he's sworn in Jan 20 2021) almost certainly means that old age will not take her. Additionally as VP, you serve as the Senate President, considering she currently is in that body gives her an institutional advantage. The Second @Flandres alluded to, it is a communication of values for groups to support the ticket. Obama pushed Black voter turnout in '08 and '12, and while Clinton still won Black voters in '16, less Black voters turned out to vote, likely costing her Wisconsin. The historical choice of a Black/South Asian woman will not be lost on Black and South Asian voters who are among the groups that tend to support Democrats. Black women voters historically however are the pillar of Democratic voters, so this is a big nod to them.

I also want to pick up on a couple of things I missed in this thread overnight, the first is addressing this "Kamala is a Cop" nonsense. Yes she was a prosecutor, yes there are things in her prosecutorial record that may seem "unwoke". But this examination of records is virtually non-existent for any other politician (especially white men), and it seems ridiculous to hold a candidate serving as a prosecutor other than "Did they apply the law fairly, and without prejudice?" If the answer is yes, that is all that is necessary. Second is the idea that there is any rational reason to not support Biden/Harris over Trump/Pence. I understand there are some hurt feelings, perhaps some simple math that makes clear that in the EC system your vote doesn't actually matter. However, if you support universal human rights, and the goal of government to help people, there is no decision. There is only one ticket to support, and your motivation must be to do everything possible to remove the threat to those principles.

Again the fact that the consensus pick was a first generation American with immigrant parents from India and Jamaica, representing the most populous states is incredible.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure a white male politician would not be subject to such scrutiny? If you want something specifically related to criminal justice, Bidens past as a tough on crime hawk is one of the most commonly expressed gripes progressives have with him.-Flandres (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but it was never really something that threatened his support, the way Kamala's record essentially neutered her campaign.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That he didn't have an active hand in suppressing records and keeping demonstrably innocent people in prison is probably relevant too. Plus, when Biden was tough on crime he was working hand-in-glove with leaders of the black community, when crime was a lot higher and the argument was that that not cracking down was a form of racism; just check out what David Dinkins and Chuck Rangel were saying and writing at the time. Doesn't make it right, but it was in keeping with the time. By contrast, by the time Harris was playing hide-the-Brady we already knew mass incarceration was a bad idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this to an extent about optics and personal political branding, hence my earlier comments. But it'll also be at least tangentially about policy focus as well. You'll note I didn't suggest Sanders as a VP choice, even though he was and still is my preferred candidate. However, his "socialism" is viewed as "radical", and so in my opinion Warren would have been the middle ground pick on that front. I really don't think, based on my knowledge of the voter demographics and optics, that Harris was the best choice, but we'll see. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

He promised to appoint a woman, and name recognition is pretty much the most important factor in early polling. So... that left few choices if you're the kind of idiots who chase early poll numbers. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Face it, The United States is fucked politically (and possibly proper fucked too)

What? You think Trump is that much of a outlier? FFS if Lincoln was to stand as a candidate he'd fail to get a party nomination Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah, last I checked he wasn't strongly in favor of letting women vote. CoryUsar (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Shush you.

Anyways, that's an interesting analogy, given that Lincoln basically created a brand new party due to the fact that the two major parties at the time were either deeply in bed with slavery or full of candidates who half-heartedly supported slavery to avoid controversy. The fact that a candidate offering a limp "The government should buy out slaves and end birth into bondage" view of abolition was viewed as an intolerable radical is... something. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

im not so sure not liking the idea of women would necessarily be poison at the ballot these days AMassiveGay (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering the GOP is now the party of White Nationalism, pretty sure Nixon or Reagan couldn't win the nomination let alone Lincoln. Misogyny is also part and parcel with White Nationalism so...-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nixon might. He was pretty damn racist. I say this as someone who has listened to a playlist of the Nixon tapes.-Flandres (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Nixon was behind the Southern Strategy after all (regarding his racism). For misogyny, I remember Rutger Bregman claim that Nixon supported the UBI in principle, but thought that it would make women "too independent".

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering Nixon was pro-free trade and globalism I'm certain would all but eliminate him from contention.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be more specific to say he would not win on the platforms he ran on in 1960, 1968, and 1972. His personal views were very similar to those of Trump he just kept them relativity secret for the sake of expediency. If he thought he could get away with be the nationalist america first candidate he would be proud to run on that platform. Essentially, Trump blundered into politics and thus has no knack for subtlety whilst Nixon knew what he could and could not get away with in public(well, until Watergate). Rest assured, in personal views Nixon was VERY similar to the average 21st century republican. The overton window was just too far to the left at that time for him to act on them.-Flandres (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In what world were reagan and nixon not both super racist? Reagan admittedly did not like gross, ugly segregationists like Wallace, but Lee Atwater, his advisor, described his reason for taking those positions much less classily behind closed doors. While I'm focusing on Reagan here because I loathe him, it's worth noting that Nixon believed in a secret global jewish conspiracy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't think anyone is arguing Reagan wasn't racist. But he also fundamentally believed in globalism and America as a force for good in the world, which the GOP currently does not.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

They absolutely believe the second one, absent any evidence. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

They confuse being a force for good with being a force.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Funnily enough, Reagan was in favor of amnesty for undocumented immigrants ("illegal aliens"): Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 23:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny thing. Nixon started affirmative action. Funny thing, Reagan passed the Martin Luther King holiday when the racist Democrats under Carter controlled both Houses and wouldn't even vote on bill the Black Caucus put forward. nobs^{Black Guns Matter} 00:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Affirmative Action started under Kennedy, and was strengthened by Nixon. CoryUsar (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Culturally African-American?

What I find most interesting is that while she 'counts' as a 'person of color' due to her skin color (and how else are you gonna figure that?), she does not really strike me as culturally African-American. None of the POC Democrats who have succeeded politically really are. Bsrack Obama really wasn't (though Michelle was, which may be a reason no one tried to talk her into pulling a Hillary). Her background is Jamaican and Indian. Her upbringing probably did not resemble a typical African-American one, Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a conversation that matters. Race is a reflection of society and American society has decided One-drop rule means your Black. She also graduated from an HBCU, so quit this bullshit.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smerdis

There's 40 million unique African American experiences. Some tropes are repeated, perhaps more often in those African American stories than in, say, Asian American stories, but AA stories are just as diverse as any other ethnic group. Saying that there is only one "true" story is, well, it's definitely a form of racism and a dangerous and pervasive one at that.

@Rip

Eh, the One Drop Rule has always been ignored the moment it became inconvenient. Thomas Jefferson's kids by his wife's half-sister/slave Sally Hemmings were "octoroons", but were all accepted by "White" society. The upper crust old Bostonians used to insist on pure whiteness without even any Native ancestors, with the exception of the tribes with whom virtually all the original pilgrims had intermarried. Rednecks used to accept those with "Cherokee" ancestors, which was basically a way of pretending that Great-Granny's dark complexion was from reasons other than being part African. And of course, there's the weirdness the US has had with Jews. CoryUsar (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Being ignored because of privilege is not evidence, and it was the law of the land for awhile Dred Scott v. Sandford - RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not evidence of what, exactly? My point is that your claims that "American society has decided 'One-drop rule' means your [sic] Black" is not exactly true, like all rules based on bigotry that rule has been overlooked the second it became inconvenient for those in charge. "Passing" has always been a thing, not even just in the most extreme of circumstances, One-drop or not. And that's not getting into Colorism, where "black" was separated into multiple categories, even within the African-American community, rather than just the "Black-White" binary. Are we seriously going to debate Kamala's merits based upon the gorram brown paper bag test? CoryUsar (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the debate is pointless. She's Black. American society says she's Black. Her father being Black makes her Black. This is not a worthy frame to analyze her as a candidate.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mostly about trying to make some sense out of her support of the prison-industrial complex. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not an extreme position in the US to believe that the quickest way to reduce the crime rate is to lock up criminals. Not the best solution, long term, but not an extreme position in the US. I happen to know several people who believe that a single bullet is both cheaper and more efficient than prison, which is... disturbing to say the least. CoryUsar (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No, not an extreme position at all. I personally would allow prisoners facing, say, more than 10 years in an American prison to choose humane execution instead. But I do find at least a bit of dissonance in the tokenish huzzahs for her as a 'woman of color' on the ticket when the real issue is whether she represents the African American experience meaningfully. As CoryUser noted above, there are 40 million different African American lives out there. One of the things I would hope for from an African-American on the typic is healthy skepticism about police and prisons. But the child of Caribbean and Indian immigrants is probably going to be an outlier on several axes, and nothing about her background suggests that level of skepticism. Hoping she's quite cynical by now. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

just... why?

The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 07:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

LOL Youtube. This looks like someone had a bit of "fun" running some bot-generated bullshit against select Urban Dictionary entries. Which of course means the top viewed videos of this account are "brazilian wax" and "incest open mother". Perfect things to put on any resume, that will surely attract an employer's attention! Soundwave106 (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We have been called worse before. We have been called Men's Rights Activists by TERF's and Femininazis by so called Men's Rights Activists. We have also been called Big Pharma Shills by the Alternative Medicine Community. --Possible Goat (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Make enemies worth having. To see offense itself as a goal is stupid and petty, but to never offend anyone, especially the worst assholes? Can only be understood as cowardice. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please unblock nobs

Can someone please unblock RobSmith nobs or at least shorten the expiry time? I might need to ask him on updates as to whether CP functions for him or not, etc. Thanks! LT^{May Dataclarifier be well!} 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't have do this on RationalWiki. Maybe Rob should consider not being a jerk too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

He's mostly harmless, and entertaining in a weird way. CoryUsar (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobs is a sysop. He can unblock himself with no effort. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobs is not mostly harmless. He's a major creator of conspiracist crap on CP. Bongolian (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

^^ This. Gunther1987 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What's been said about him being a sysop. Also, he gets blocks here near constantly, I don't think he's really all that concerned with getting blocked. Furthermore, frankly? Looking at his comments, I think he got off pretty light. Doesn't CP have a mailing list or something? Can't you guys communicate on that instead of using this wiki as a platform to talk about that shit? Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RobSmith doesn't create "conspiracist crap" on Conservapedia; at least most of the information he adds to CP is true. LT^{May Dataclarifier be well!} 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Rob is openly racist, and his contributions to this platform are minimal at best.RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean that RobSmith is "openly racist"? He's literally one of the least racist people ever. LT^{May Dataclarifier be well!} 16:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Literally just scroll up to see examples of his racist screeds.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobs may be an unrepentant asshole, but read this request back and consider what the fuck you care about, if nobs is the breadth and depth of whatever you're against, you're a dope. Nobs may have some ideas, but it's not like I've ever felt like an asshole asking him for them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In other news, nobs, you're a star. What got him banned? 03:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The two specific and extensive conspiracy theories that Nobs promotes on CP is the one on the deep state and the one on Clinton Body Count, but he's also dabbled in others (Conservapedia:RobSmith#Conspiracy theorist). Bongolian (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether he dabbles or not, he's not convincing anyone here. nobs is an indefatigable punching bag, banning is stupid. His views won't be corrected here, but they won't prosper either. nobs doesn't fuck with anything, he's not abusive, what got him banned? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he doesn't fuck with you, but he should be banned because he's a fucking racist. Read the lede of his Kamala Harris article to see him dishonestly downplay her blackness and qualifications in the same paragraph. Don't be an apologist for this shit. 2600:1702:3D90:6650:78CF:6408:29B1:9AB0 (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My defense is not intended as apologist rhetoric, nobs just really gets his bad ideas beat up here, and yeah, if he feels secure in them. It's not like he's being platformed. He's feeding in the actual fallacies and xenophobia, and he's not upset by the massive amount of off-point hatred he gets. It's normal to make fun of nobs here. But I would say, his viewpoints aren't so tight or quiet that only nobs has them. Banning for consistent views that are non-normative here but informed by people, viewpoints, and a culture that actually exists out in the world is not ideal. nobs doesn't need an advocate as long as he is allowed to post his nonsense. Basically, from what I've seen nobs has not found an advocate for his nonsense here. This is not apologetics for bad ideas, I am advocating for people to have bad ideas in a forum, and the importance of practice shitting all over said bad ideas. If he was disruptive or abusive, I would have a different take. nobs just believes some dumb shit that is, yes, hurtful, but he believes it. I still think it's possible to get through and the worst case scenario is we have an angry racist that we all disagree with. Sorry, the worst case scenario is we refuse to engage with an angry racist that we all disagree with. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A lot of people are very mean

I have grown my hair out, past my shoulders. I am a cis straight man. I walked to the gas station. On my way back, I got made fun of by a dude in a car. As quietly as I had to take it, I said "Oh, cool, you got to buy a car instead of leasing it, that's cool." The thing is it wasn't a cool car and I'm sure he has car payments. It still hurt and the joke will never land. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to explain. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

When someone makes fun of you, you roll with it and quickly make it friendly-insulting back. Someone calls you fat? Say you know, you can't help yourself, you just like eating his mother's pussy too much. Someone makes fun of your long hair? You'd cut it, but his sister likes the ladyboy look too much.CoryUsar (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's something that's far more common in some countries than others. Especially in many English speaking countries. I remember the sheer horror of bullying in Canadian schools, something that barely existed in Spain or Belgium (at least in my generation and only slightly exists in some city schools now). A lot of North Americans are pretty shocked to find out that, in fact, yes, schools exists in other countries with minimal or barely any bullying, that there is no reason to have such a vicious personal attack culture. That it isn't a natural or inevitable result of children congregating. It is a reflection of society...not children. How nice it is to be around with people who just want to have a pleasant time. But I noticed this, true to a much lesser extreme but still, utterly shocking that some adults still do it in the street even after school. This is the most obscene part, that as you become a mature person some people still feel the need to be cruel in public. Every time I saw an adult in Canada say something super nasty, for no apparent reason, to a stranger in public and then laugh, I was always utterly gobsmacked. I saw it happen while traveling around the US a couple times as well, and it was even more casual and pointed. So fucking socially aggressive! It sucks that someone would be such an asshole to you like that in public. It's not cool Gol. I don't think it's normal. And I doubt what they said was a fair comment but a terrible reflection on their own insecurities and unhappiness, because after all, someone who puts down strangers in public must be a deeply miserable person. You wear your long hair with pride Gol! ShabiDOO 12:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo It's funny you mention that; it seems that Spanish people are among the most tolerant people, it seems. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lesterfeder/this-is-how-23-countries-feel-about-transgender-rights Spain ranking at first with 81/100 for overall support for trans rights. I need to check which source but Spain also seemed to be very tolerant towards Romani people, if not the most... Could that be related to what you said about bullying not being "cool" in Spain? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

you should probably avoid attending any football matches in spain, you might be disappointed AMassiveGay (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I have been in Spain multiple times, namely in Madrid and Las Palmas the Gran Canaria, and they have been very nice, although I am a tourist and that may taint things for me. But otherwise, I think football tends to aggregate the worst of people (see hooligans in Germany and England as examples)... — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

or the black face formula one fans put on for lewis hamilton. point being there are racists and bigots everywhere. thats not really whats being described above. thats more the provincial kind of dickishnessAMassiveGay (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

but to be honest, with regards to racism in football, just blaming hooliganism is just a cop out. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Not Spain, but I went to school in Portugal for a while, and even tho it wasn’t exactly representative of most Portuguese school experiences. We weren’t super wealthy, but my dad was a pretty skilled technical guy in his field. So when his work wanted him to go to Portugal and not take a different job they decided to pay for an English speaking school that’d normally cost way too much for anyone except the richest of the rich. Like, kids whose parents owned the biggest companies in PT, or were old retirees from the British upper class. I found the bullying there was extremely bad. Like, “destroy your mental health permanently” bad. Maybe that’s just bc there were more English speakers there, or maybe because almost everyone was a 0.1%-er, but yeah. I got a fair amount of shit but the people who got it far worse than me were like. The disabled kids and the kids who already knew they were LGBT. Idk just my exp make of it what you will. Tbh the biggest thing I noticed is that public/state schools tended to have a much nicer, more accepting culture overall. So maybe that’s part of it. Idk. 203.111.4.57 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Spain is by no means a paradise of unlimited tolerance though yes I would say the rate of people keeping their nasty comments and homophobia to themselves is quite high, in general in public (though Latinos face microagressions all the time). In fact public displays of aggression, hostility or anger are big no no's and it's super rare to see people lose their cool, freak out over a restaurant run out of their favourite dish, couples arguing in public, people airing their private feuds, yelling out fuck over missing a bus. It's not done. Spaniards do this all at home. Of course once you add seediness like a dive bar in a bad neighbourhood or sports you can find some unpleasantness. It's usually easily avoided by not going to football games with the worst supporters or to dive bars in neighbourhoods you have no reason to go to. The biggest problems in Spanish society are obscene corruption by literally everyone (citizens, leaders, groups, even charities), political disfunction and a super lagging economy. ShabiDOO 15:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as corruption is concerned you forgot to mention the Royal Family and the (ex) King who is apparently now in hiding abroad.

As far as tolerance is concerned the place in general seems pretty tolerant to me, though if you want to find exceptions it's always easy to find them. The simple existence of the far-right party Vox shows that tolerance is not universal. But I have read a few articles which statistically put Spain high in the tolerance league. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly didn't take it that hard, but thanks everyone. Back in 2015, I was at a bar and a guy called me a Bernie supporter, and I said "How can you tell that?" and he said it was because of my glasses, and he wanted to break my glasses. I told him that was fine, he could try. His friends cooled it. I'm saying a lot of people are mean to supplant actual ideas, I'm just confused by the impulse and I don't tolerate it well. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I also have long hair, and a beard (usually I keep it around an inch, but lately I've mostly just let it go). Since I have wavy brown hair my family has several times said I look like Ted Kaczynski (even though, among other things, I'm about 6 inches taller; people more sympathetic to me will say I resemble Jim Morrison in his later years or Hank Williams Jr., who's almost my height), because (for reasons no one can explain) it's some sort of crime to "body shame" the women in our family but men are fair game. I've told them that if I get all nice and clean cut like the pretty boy they want me to be I'll only look like another Ted, namely Ted Bundy, and that I'm not clear on how that's supposed to be an improvement. I only rarely hear things from strangers, but that's probably the result of being a New Englander; we're known for our standoffish and laconic nature, it's a sign of politeness to move you along as quickly as possible because we assume you have other things to do besides talk to someone you don't know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

i have four hats. nothing remarkable about that. 2 are of the trapper style to keep my hed warm in the winter, and i like the way the flaps frame my face. the other 2 consist of 'sun' hats. a panama hat and a bucket hat. still nothing remarkable there. always worn hats of some kind in the winter, but i've only just started wearing hats in sunny weather. the panama hat was obtained about 3 years ago, at the age of forty, and is the first time wearing anything on my head to keep the sun off. it was a revelation. i could go out for the first time in daylight hours without physically wilting. why did it take so long to don headwear instead of living like a vampire and not going anywhere in daylight? because i have been living in london for 10 plus years now but previous to that i lived in a small town in the centre of essex. you do not wear such hats in essex. you do not wear anything outside a narrow criteria. deviation will be commented upon. if your face doesnt fit, you will be pointedly told so. for the longest time, going out on the town required shirt, smart trousers, and smart shoes - it was the dress code for the local clubs, but its what you'd wear down the pub too, if you'd been home to change. nothing too loud either, less you be taken for some kind of poof. maybe i overstate the case of conformity or maybe i undersell it, but essentially if you stood out, you would be a target for shouted abuse. there is no witty comeback to be had that will not lead to punches being thrown. this is its purpose. im a 6ft4 albino (probably just very blond). ive always stood out, that was always made very clear. a night on the town more and more meant a choice between eating shit or getting glassed. i never went out locally after coming out, thats for certain.

small towns, small town mentalities. i live in london now. ive seen a larger lady in a cape at the bustop. ive seen a skinny guy dressed like herr flick of the gestapo. ive a guy pushing 60 at least in a skin tight purple catsuit. i can wear a hat now.AMassiveGay (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

the only occasion when in london that someones appearance stood out to me in its ridiculousness that it was genuinely hysterical to me (i didnt shout at them across the street or anything) was when i saw two burly fellas with matching blonde, billy ray cyrus style mullets wearing matching tshirts 'goose' and 'maverick' on them. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I worked really hard on the anti-Keystone Pipeline deal. I had a friend who bought us all tickets on a bus to go to DC for a climate march, she's a very sweet lady, and she's more or less married to another friend of mine. Jealous, but they are great. On the bus, there was also the college town crowd, and one guy, and I say guy because he identified as a guy, was also enjoying drag and it clearly wasn't his first day doing it. He had a girlfriend, and in hindsight, maybe that was a beard, but a lot of boomer farm crowd, and on that ride nobody expressed any discomfort with i, despite him really going all out on the fancy lady deal. Like, me, I've never thought it was so important to follow rules that don't have an explanation. Is there a rule that says gender is limited to two outcomes? I still in my heart of hearts feel like a cis man, and I know if I cut my hair I would be back in the game, but I'm kind of having fun with my long hair and the distance it provides from total assholes. It is confusing to my family. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You’ll ever just

Get so fucking overwhelmed and terrified by how Shit the world is that you think “okay so I’m definitely gonna b put in a concentration camp when my country inevitably goes full fascist, may as well do a shitload of meth”??? Bc that’s kinda the vibe I’ve been getting. We’re either on the way to full level fascism or we’re gonna have some kind of brutal civil war. How nice. 89.41.26.56 (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well aren't you just a little bundle of happiness and joy Fowler (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Might as well take shrooms at the same time as the meth...or payote? ShabiDOO 15:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I take it (by your IP) this is the United States. In which case, do not mistake keyboard warriors (99% of the Internet bullshit) for soldiers or fighters; judging by the Trump / anti-mask crowd pictures at rallies and protests, most are too old or too obese to do much of that sort of thing. Also, a lot of them are not very bright, if you ask me, and subject to strange diversions of fantasy. (I have a feeling that master troll Hunter S. Thompson is smiling from his Great Gig in the Sky, regarding how some other Internet troll turned "adrenochrome" -- an obscure biochemical until Thompson trolled it into a massive fictional psychedelic in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas -- into a major hash tag of QAnon.) Finally, it's pretty clear to me that the Westpoint military brass crowd is on the anti-fascism side of things, so it will take a larger amount of elected representatives than Trump and his gang of loons for me to worry too much. The major issue with this crowd, as it has been for the past 4 years and beyond, is random lone wolf right wing terrorism, and problems of over-aggression with the also-not-bright-yet-thuggish segments of some law enforcement agencies. With a side annoyance of occasional bad behavior (like anti-maskers being assholes to poor store clerks) as well. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

HairlessCat (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As things stand we'll die of melting glaciers before Fascism is actually implemented. That or we go full circle and the US government makes FEMA camps a real thing, somehow.Lyobaa Auriga (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I gave birth...

...to the draft of Michael Tracey's page. Please help expanding. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 12:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that was a misleading title Fowler (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is conservative religion going to win?

Conservative religious people have lots of kids, and start families at a relatively young age too. Secular progressive people tend to have few kids, and have them older. I'm not talking about any particular religion here, I mean Jews and Muslims as much as Christians – religious conservatives of all religions.

If those trends continue, conservative religious people will become an ever bigger percentage of the population, until they become the new majority. I'm not talking about tomorrow – I think this is going to be a gradual process over the next couple of centuries.

Of course, some people who grow up in conservative religious families end up defecting to the secular progressive camp. But, what percentage do this? If the percentage is high enough, it will prevent any religious conservative demographic takeover. If the percentage is lower, it won't.

Look at hyper-conservative religious communities like the Amish or ultra-Orthodox Jews, which consistently get retention rates of 80%+, even 90%+, generation after generation. If enough conservative religious groups can attain those levels of retention, I don't think defection will be sufficient to prevent religious conservatives eventually becoming the majority.

There is also the suggestion that while defectors will replenish the falling numbers of secular progressives, they will bring with a genetic predisposition to religious conservatism, which may not bode well for the long-term health of secular progressivism.

What are secular progressives going to do about it? Just let it happen? Force population control on religious conservatives? Start having big families for the greater good of secular progressivism?

Another possible outcome is an abandonment of democracy, in which a rich minority of secular progressives rule over a disempowered majority of religious conservatives. You'd wonder how long such a system could survive, before the oppressed masses revolt and take over. DepressedAustralian (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Is conservative religion going to win?" Win what? Didn't realise there is a competition taking place. At present Conservative religion is winning in the child sex abuse and murder stakes gold cup Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have this extremely flawed notion that beliefs are genetically inherited. Plenty of people in this wiki were raised in religious environments and for various reasons decided religion wasn't for them. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It's "winning" in Judaism. Years ago, Chassids and Charedi were almost a joke, but since they all have 10 kids per family and start said families early, and very rarely convert or marry out, their population has grown to about 15% of the Jewish population and increasing rapidly. By the end of the century, there will be far more Ultra-orthodox than Conservadox Jews in the US. CoryUsar (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Amish, for example, have an average of 7 children, and have been in America since the middle of the 18th century. Likewise, the orthodox Jews have large families (average of 4,1 children, according to Pew). Evidently, the Amish Children do not all remain Amish and continue the process.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's among ALL Orthodox. Meaning, it includes Conservadox (not really Orthodox), Modern Orthodox (Jewish but still very much integrated in all parts of society), regular Orthodox (kippas and beards, but nothing too extreme), as well as the ultra-Orthodox ("Charedi", black hats, long curls on men, white button down shirts and black pants and clothing every single day, strings from undergarment) which also includes Chassids. The Charedi and Chassid are the ones having the huge families. Conservadox are lucky if the kids marry Jewish. CoryUsar (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the Idiocracy premise, eh? At any rate, the notion that "conservative religious people have lots of kids" is not universally correct, either. In America, in general, I do not see it as true at all, a few minority movements like Quiverfull notwithstanding.

Generally speaking, birth rate has fallen independently of any religion or culture globally, due to a combination of better medicine (you don't need to have 6 kids to ensure 2 or 3 lived to adulthood, as you did 150 years ago), better access to contraceptives (allowing couples to actually plan their births easier) and most importantly, economics. In developed nations, children are expensive. A premium is placed on education and other "best start in life" type decisions, which cost resources (time and money). You can't just plop out kids and have them work on your small subsistence farm a few years later. Having a child is a 20+ year effort.

The ultra-Orthodox I guess are an example of trying to buck that trend, but they are known for being poor and unemployed. Yes, it possibly is a future problem for Israel. Already, Israel is "kind of" an "apartheid" state (they are not anywhere near South Africa at the moment IMHO, but that's the direction the future points to, in my opinion, on current trends). And given that the other fast growing population in Israel, of course, is Arabs, it does sound like "interesting times" for them in the future. But from my perspective that is, to borrow from Douglas Adams, "somebody else's problem". (Incidentally, the ultra-Orthodox also had the shittiest response to COVID-19 from what I read in Israel, so...)

I don't know about Australia, but my perception is that "no religion" has risen in America over the last 20 years largely because the loudest religious voice in America is insanely political and hyperfocused on regressive cultural issues, and that the church crowd as a whole is greying. It does seem like "no religion" is a fast rising "religion" in Australia, too, from what I can Google. Not sure if the reasons are the same. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The poverty in the Haredi community is self-inflicted, though. Manual labor is taboo, and secular education is mostly ignored. Not everyone can go on to be a lawyer. Heck, cell phones are actually restricted to only who the rebbe approves, televisions aren't allowed in homes, making friends and connections with the outside community again requires approval from the rebbe. CoryUsar (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You're on to something here, Soundwave. The big collapse of religious faith among the younger generations in the US happened at the precise moment that the Religious Right ascended to a position of political and cultural power, and by all accounts, it seems to be driven by backlash against the Religious Right. A lot of people have wondered why the US never secularized in the postwar era the way that Western Europe did, and right now, I think we're finding out the answer. During the postwar era, the US didn't have a politically empowered state church like many Western European countries did, and so the political convulsions of the '60s and '70s didn't breed anti-clericalism here like they did there. Both liberal and conservative politicians were, at the very least, implicitly Christian, so a religious/secular divide never emerged during that era. Billy Graham, arguably the most important American religious leader of the postwar era, cultivated close ties with both Democrats and Republicans. The evangelical movement, on the other hand, has functioned like a state church in all but name, connecting Christian faith with right-wing nationalism and lining up behind conservative Republican politicians. The moment the US saw such an explicit connection develop between Christianity and conservative politics, Christianity ceased to be a unifying undercurrent in American politics and became a marker of one's political identity, just as it did in Europe fifty years ago. KevinR1990 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Winners don't do drugs but they do drink

I think drunks are going to win. Drunk people have more sex and more unprotected sex. Therefore they will have more children and will win ... something. So in the future we can loook forward to drunk religious people inheriting the planet.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This already happened. Why do you think drinking is so ubiquitous across the planet? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

YouTube video I am working on. Here is a segment from the Australian alert I made

Warning: This is highly disturbing material. Reader discretion advised

This is what I will be using for my Australian alert. This is for my Big Rip EAS scenario I am making.

“”This is an Emergency Warning. The current threat level is emergency which means an emergency is taking place and immediate action is required. Astrophysicists have confirmed that the Earth is moving away from the sun. This is being caused by an event known as the Big Rip. The Big Rip is where dark matter causes the universe to rapidly expand. This rapid expansion is forcing celestial objects away from each other. The big rip will eventually cause objects to break down into pure energy near the end. Individual atoms will break down as will the particles that make them. Nothing will survive this event. Once everything breaks down, the universal temperature will drop to near absolute zero or -273.15 degrees centigrade. You are advised to gather loved ones into one place and prepare for the end. If your are part of a religious denomination- pray to your god. You may choose suicide as an option. If you plan to commit mass suicide with family, tend to your children first and talk calmly to them as you deliver them over to God. Matthew 11:28, "Come to me, all who labor and heavy laden, and I will give you rest". Stand by for the last playing of the national anthem. The government thanks you for your service to Australia.

--Possible Goat (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

F Fowler (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs more snarky conspiracy scary-ness to be interesting. Aloysius the Gaul 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But that sounds like it comes from Texas, not Australia. "Deliver them over to God"? Don't take the fucking piss! No, actually do take the fucking piss. That's what Aussies would want. "The world's coming to an end? Strewth! That's not much bloody good, is it? Have I got time to have another meat pie and a Tim Tam?" Spud (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

= — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 12:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Good thing I did not actually put the video together and I can make a new version of the audio file. Won't be difficult. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Fuse US political parties pages into a broad category

There's no reason to have half a dozen pages for US parties, a lot of them irrelevant crackpots. So I propose to fuse these pages into a broad category of political parties like the ones we have for Germany, Canada and others. Obviously independent pages for relevant parties, especially ones with notable crankery.Tuxer (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I second that measure.-Flandres (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not. I prefer it as it is. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about merging pages or merging categories? I couldn't care less about categories, but I'm not a fan of pages like Political parties of Canada which have almost no interesting or unique content, few references, and are almost always instantly out of date (and hard to update without growing incredibly unwieldy). With US political parties, there is so much written about so many of them (and almost all are somewhat cranky), it's pointless to try and reduce it to a paragraph, especially a paragraph that seems nifty now but will soon be years out of date. --Annanoon (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the GOP and Democratic Party pages are large and should not be fused. Even without fusing these two, it's likely to get unwieldy. Bongolian (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Although the US doesn't have nearly the diversity of parties that France and others may have, with the GOP being openly white nationalist, it's probably fair to keep them apart.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny ancap post

Not sure if its worth incorporating this into Anarcho-capitalism, but I found this quite hilarious:

"How Property Rights — Properly Understood — Limit the Spread of WMDs"

Some treasures:

“”...The concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.

“”The same considerations would apply to one building nuclear weapons in their home: assuming the riskiness of building and storing an atomic bomb is as high as Freiman argues, they would only be able to do so if their home were so far out in the middle of nowhere that an accident would not create negative externalities for third parties, or if they were able to purchase this right from all third parties who would be affected in the case of an accident. Such a requirement would likely make it prohibitively costly for anyone to build a nuclear weapon without violating someone else's property rights.

“”The broader lesson here is that a theory of rights must be grounded in property, if rights are not to become fuzzy and self-contradictory as Rothbard warns. By comprehending all rights as deriving from property rights and contracts, we can avoid the frequent clashes between contradictory “rights” and “freedoms” of today, such as the battle between “religious freedom” and “employee rights” or “LGBT rights.” This is not to say that these rights and freedoms do not exist, but that they only exist and are compatible with one another as an exercise of underlying property rights.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Why can't I own a Canadian? Walter Block. Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

New flag loop gif for WIGO entries - Europe

@Spud and Tuxer Well, I finally got around to making that Europe flag looping gif. Here it is: . (The wiki code: [[File:Sovereign-States-Within-Europe-Flag-Loop.gif|43px|link=Europe]] ) This is an alphabetical loop of the 50 sovereign states considered to be in Europe. I'm lazy and just used this list List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe to collect the flag images and determine which ones to use. Each flag displays for a half second.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you're not lazy at all.Tuxer (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Uhm... Did anybody ask for ananimated gif flag? Because that is, I'm sorry, supremely annoying. Dendlai (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@NavigatorBR Excellent! I love it! Spud (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Spud, Tuxer, and Noir LeSable So, does anyone understand how (or know if we wrote down somewhere) how the Country and US state flag templates actually work? I'm thinking that it might make sense to just make a template for these, like {{rf|europe}} or {{rf|middle east}}, instead of having to either find a previous example to copy/paste, or provide copy/paste-able versions somewhere that's less user friendly. (I'd like to try doing it this time, but I guess the part I don't understand looking at the template text in the editor, is how you say 'Use this image', since I don't see any links to image files in any of the codes.) Also, aside from groups of US states (I might do those, *shrugs*), are there any other regions with multiple countries that this sort of graphic would be useful for? (If you can, link to something that has a list of the countries you're thinking, or be prepared to list them.)--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 05:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To answer the second question, I think that all the other continents should have similar animated flag gifs. Probably one with the flags of all the countries in Africa and one with the flags of all the countries in South America would be the most useful. I know there are already plenty of ones of all the Spanish-speaking countries, but there isn't one of all the Spanish-speaking countries in South America plus Brazil, Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana. Those two would be my priorities. Spud (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think animated gif flags like that are very distracting and annoying, and doesn't even give much info, if any, really. It doesn't really convey that "this is about Europe or Asia or Africa or whatever" in a good way, if at all. It's mainly, well, visually distracting and annoying, on a "oh gawd, how do I turn this useless thing off?" kind of way. Dendlai (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What, can't you differentiate between the flags of Chad and Romania ? If someone can find a map that's discernible at that scale, that would be better (I'm not aware of any actual symbols for continents, although feel free to make some up). --Annanoon (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And what's the difference between the flag of Monaco and the flag of Indonesia ? Fuck all! You'd think some sort of international agreement would meant that would never happen. And. of course, the flag of Poland is just the same thing upside down. Spud (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dendlai I changed the speed/time it takes for it to change to be slower, matching the other two versions, is that better? (I halved the time originally due to the number of flags, but this may have been a mistake in retrospect.) To be clear, if you can devise something better to indicate "this is about (Blank) region/continent", I'm not opposed to it.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 21:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

pizza

help me cook a pizza pls 79.67.92.165 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Pick up a phone and dial Piazza Hut, ask for macaroni and you're all set. Fowler (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It looked nice but then I clicked the image and zoomed in Fowler (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay.

1. You want good white flour and some yeast. Don't try a whole wheat or alternate grain crust until you're experienced with breadmaking. Definitely follow a recipe exactly; no shortcuts. Let your dough rise in a warm, wet environment. Floating a mixing bowl into a pot of hot water with a lid is a good choice.
2. Plain canned tomato sauce with lots of oregano and garlic and a bit of pepper is my goto for sauce. Let your toppings do the heavy lifting for flavor.
3. Real mozzarella, but maybe not as much as you think you need to cover it
4. Toppings are whatever you want. Put fucking ice cream sprinkles, I'm not gonna stop you.
5. Baking for a shorter time at a higher temperature tends to make tastier pizza. 450F for 15 minutes will cook all but the deepest of dish pizzas. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think my girlfriend would like ice cream sprinkles on her pizza, thanks ikanreed. 79.67.92.165 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Pineapple on pizza

Yes	19	Vote
No	19	Vote
Agnostic	8	Vote

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why fruit shouldn't be allowed on pizza. Technically tomatoes are fruits, and highly acidic at that, pineapple is just a sweet acidic fruit. If you want a pizza made with bananas, mangoes, pineapples, and kiwi, sure, why not. CoryUsar (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What about vegetables like - say - cabbage?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Never tried it, but apparently there are a few places that sell pizza with kimchi on it (this place for instance sells a "Lady Zaza" pizza with "italian red sauce, kimchi, korean sausage, serrano peppers, scallions, sesame, soy-chili glaze". Doesn't sound too bad to be honest. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Move to Italy for some time, go through a series of boyfriends, girlfriends or theyfriends, get their mother (or pizzailo father) to teach you their recipe and stretching technique. Incorporate the best features of every recipe into one uber-recipe. Stay there and enjoy the good life or move back home and make it yourself all the time. Don't teach it to anyone but just make it for yourself and your friends. One day, after truly perfecting it, teach it to a worthy child or niece/nephew who will respect the shit out of your recipe. Die a happy person. ShabiDOO 16:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

the correct toppings for a pizza are whatever it is you like on a pizza. you believe pineapple on a pizza is an abomination? dont put it on your pizza. job done. and if you insist not just your steak but everyones steak MUST be and can only rare, you can do one. i likes me steaks crispy AMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want a well-done steak don't come to Spain (or at least my bit of it). The very concept of a well-done steak seems beyond them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A well done steak? Why would you do that to a perfectly innocent piece of meat? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What if I call Pizza Hut and ask for 'macaroni in a pot'?[19] Will they… deliver? Bongolian (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Pineapple on pizza is amazing. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I have to say about pineapple on pizza, because I personsally need a little levity. Everything is good as pizza, disqualifying shit is bonkers. So, pizza starts with dough, can it be gluten free dough? I don't care, sure. Then there is sauce, does pizza have to be sauced with tomato, or can it be barbeque sauce? Again, I do not care. Cheese, is cheeseless pizza still pizza? Fuck you, I don't care. Almost anything that goes into a pizza oven comes out delicious. If you dislike the idea of pineapple on pizza, it's because you've held your favorite ingredients too preciously. Pineapple doesn't work on a tomato sauce cheese pizza. What maniac would even try and order that? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Pineapple doesn't work on a tomato sauce cheese pizza."

Yes it does. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Pizza and pineapple. Well... I'm actually of two minds about that one. See, pineapple and pork-- especially a cure pork-- is a natural and beautiful combination. There's this synergy between the two that makes magic in the mouth. I don't know why, and I don't care. Pineapple paired with pork -- like a sausage, bacon, or especially ham ("Canadian bacon" is just ham from the back for all pizza purposes)is a magnificent thing. Pineapple by itself, or without porky partnership... not so much. You're dealing with this weird-ass tomato and pineapple taste that, at least for me, doesn't work well. It's like ordering a banana split and asking them to leave out the banana but add sardines. Just somehow wrong. Also, curse you all because now I want a pineapple and ham pizza with onions and my budget isn't allowing for that. Jerks, making me hungry like that... Kencolt (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Pineapple works on pizza because most of the traditional toppings are pork based, at least in origin (pepperoni, sausage, ham) and pineapple works well with all of those things in other contexts. I wonder if sliced or candied apples would work on pizza. Kim chi also has possibilities. Just keep filthy dead fish off my pizza. If it lives and grows in water and isn't a plant, it's cat food. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the pineapple + salty meat pairings on pizza. If you guys hate sweet toppings with overwhelmingly salty toppings and salty coating, I'd hate to see you guys try a lick of Chinese food.

Also I dislike pepperoni on pizza more than pineapple. It's just a piece of salt on top of an already-salty coating, and it has a tendency to slide right completely off while you're eating it. No thanks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Pineapple pizza is heretical. No sweet toppings for me unless it’s a dessert pizza! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude, this is Rational Wiki. We're all about heresy here. Kencolt (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Rant on RationalWiki

Rare footage of children in their mom’s basement. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 04:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at the flag in the background. Lol. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

460 subs. Literally a nobody complaining about something that he doesn't like. Also, he needs to clean his room. It's a fucking mess. Gunther1987 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, headset. Probably an angry loserGator. Gunther1987 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

He looks nice but when he opens his mouth I almost cried Fowler (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are we even paying attention to a video with a mere 1.5K views? Why is he even paying attention, for that matter? He gets far more views when he posts music videos. (I'll check his gabber video and raise with some fuckin' happy hardcore!) Soundwave106 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I actually have the first song myself (not the radio version). And although I'm subscribed to alot of music uploading channels, his isn't (luckily) one of them. Gunther1987 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lmao, y'all found a video I made years ago! This was back when I did bait and switch rants for a gag, apparently I thought they were funny. Don't worry, I cleaned my room since then and I look much less like a crack addict. - Universetwisters (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This video is five years old. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sqrt-1 Enough already! OK, so you've proven that if you search for "RationalWiki" on YouTube and look at the least popular videos, you can see some really weird shit. Weird shit that really has fuck all to do with RationalWiki. We get it. But trust me, if you search for "Listerine", "Pringles" or "electric fan" and watch the least popular videos for those searches, you'll see some equally weird shit. You don't have to labour the point anymore. If you think these videos are funny, you can stick them on your user page rather than clogging up the bar with them. Spud (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I watched the DNC

Watched the Democratic National Convention. So embarrassing. They started out with a prayer at around 24:25 (timestamp); wasn't the US supposed to be secular? Or, at the very least, the Democratic Party should try to uphold a secular standard? Also, at around 1:36:40 (timestamp), I can't and still don't want to believe that they used a greenscreen for a kitchen. Can someone tell me whether they actually couldn't just use a normal/random kitchen to do a pre-recorded "speech"? Also, they focused on Trump's "mean tweets" (yes, they are mean, divisive and dangerous) but did not touch on Trump's authoritarianism, the southern concentration camps he built for undocumented Latinos, his inability or unwillingness to deal with COVID-19 and the probably around 200k deaths that could've been avoided by his disastrous response? His rhetoric DOES matter, but his actions are, in my opinion, one layer of importance aboveè Like, my god. Please vote for Biden in November, Americans, but the Democrats need to get their shit together because this is embarrassing. This makes me slightly more sympathetic to the Bernie-or-Bust voters. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think this is embarassing, just wait for the presidential debates. Tuxer (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah not sure I want to watch those tbh. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Did not watch, but the 538 and electoral-vote summaries sounded like they were hammering Trump over COVID-19 pretty heavy. I mean, apparently one of their speaker's messages was essentially "My father died from COVID-19 because he trusted Donald Trump." Also, the United States historically has been way more outwardly religious than most European countries; it's starting to be less the case in the last 20 years, but it usually takes a while for government to catch up. :p I do think even today there's still a balancing act the DNC has to pull because a lot of minorities in this country are quite a bit more socially conservative and religious than the current progressive bloc. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Trying to target trump's authoritarianism or concentration camps means they might have to answer for things like who set up the camps or funded the militarized police of the country, or whether they'd actually take policy positions that might oppose those things and, in the process, drive away all the "Centrists" they burned all those bridges to "win". The democratic party has configured itself in such a way that it can only raise procedural or politeness based objections to the policies people see as evil, and hope we don't notice. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Think of how much easier our lives would be right now if Obama actually followed up on most of his campaign promises to dismantle the national security state he inherited from Bush instead of, you know, railing against it until the exact point he was elected. Even ICE was a part of that post 9/11 power grab, you know. Democrats do have a nasty tendency to call out republican excesses on the campaign trail but then keep a large amount of these once elected.-Flandres (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know if Obama didn't want to or was merely afraid of the political fallout, but I've come to realize it doesn't matter. He didn't do a thing to stop an Orwellian nightmare from growing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it was because he was afraid of being called "soft on" fill in the blank. Whatever it was, it changed these agencies from "recent creations" to "part of the background music, the american status quo." Has the idea of dismantling the National Security state even come up at all in this campaign? It's just been accepted as normal. Obama's role in all of this has been politely ignored. It's not that the USA has a toxic and unsustainable status quo! Agencies like the NSA and ICE are good tools used by a bad president, and electing Biden, who was at the center of their abuses for eight years, will make all of this go away with "reforms"(which is DNC speak for hollow promises and cosmetic changes)!-Flandres (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In defense of Obama, he wasn't elected King of the USA. The democrats were also really different back then. Remember Joe Lieberman? He was the reason why the US couldn't have a public option, which is what Obama campaigned on. Obama is not blameless, don't take me wrong, but the democrats back then were also much more to the right. Also, @Ikanreed, what you said makes perfect sense: condemning Trump's concentration camps would raise "uncomfortable questions" about Obama and Biden's involvement with those. Although, it was only done to children without parents or relatives rather than the broad policy enacted by Jeff Sessions to target any undocumented family... — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That's true on the legislative front, (though bear in mind the senate dems have some pretty damn right leaning members today, like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) but a lot of these authoritarian agencies are part of the executive branch and he was thus capable of at least reforming them significantly, not make them worse like what he ended up doing.-Flandres (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

They really need to learn the first rule of being an attorney, which my mother (who was a corporate lawyer for a time) taught all of us; when you're winning, be quiet. Right now they're out in front and the current president looks like a total disaster, so they're winning; don't derail it. I have no great love for either one of them, so the less I have to think about them the easier it'll be to vote for them (though since I live in CT I could afford to cast a protest vote, as I did in 2016) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else found

Michelle Obama a little bit tone-deaf? All that talk of "going high" led directly to Kavanaugh and repeating it in the present age is setting up the Dems for 4 more years of accommodating for bad-faith Republican dunks. Just my 0.02 from watching her speech. Going high is fine, but the Dems really need to stop letting the Republicans define "going low", which is what she's playing into and it kinda annoys me. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the Dems fucking suck at actually doing anything to counter the 'low attacks', they basically stand there and allow the fucking Republicans to fucking linebacker tackle them. They need to actually start being defensive to stop this shit, and offensive to claw back shit the Republicans got through garbage tactics. Their inablity/outright refusal to do so is an actual problem that's fucking us.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 15:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, isn't Biden the great bi-partisan reconciler? Was that not one of his main selling points? In practice that means a certain tolerance of those who are blatantly acting in bad faith.-Flandres (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The DNC is going with a unity/country over ideology theme. It's been mostly meh so far, with the most notable speakers being Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders. I'll be covering highlights from it on Ratcord tonight, same as I did last night. The worst part has been the spotty TV coverage though. Too much editorializing, not enough coverage of the convention itself. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Her explanation of "Going High" is 100% right, you don't lower yourself to the type of BS tactics, but that doesn't mean at all you pull your punches.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you thought the Dem convention was bad...

Just wait until the Republicans start theirs... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

At least the democrats can recover from their fumble. I saw a new tRump ad on Facebook where it claims Big Pharma is attacking the orange. The RNC will likely be very disastrous. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

DNC is trying to build a larger tent, which is inherently messy. RNC will be Trump boot licking, wild conspiracy theories, capped off with an incoherent Trump stream of consciousness filled with lies, venom and delusions of grandeur. There will be no comparison.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that we expect that from republicans. With democrats there is more room for disappointment.-Flandres (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The RNC is apparently inviting the Covington kid and the crazy gun lawyers from St Louis, so it’s gonna be a shitshow. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Will it be in person? No social distancing, no masks? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It will be more live, but still few people if any crowds. Unless Trump plans on busing people in to stare at him on the South Lawn.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Masks are for cowards. Real men use body language to establish their dominance over the virus. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You have to shout at the virus and say it is a democrat conspiracy!!!!! --Possible Goat (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Trump Campaign Knowingly Worked With GRU Part 100

This Senate report makes it pretty clear, Russian agents sought to and in some cases worked directly with the 2016 campaign, including this lovely bit concerning Roger Stone and WikiLeaks:

At approximately 4 p.m. on October 7, The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape. Witnesses involved in Trump's debate preparation recalled that the team first heard of the tape about an hour prior to its public release. According to Jerome Corsi, however, news of the release also made its way to Roger Stone. Corsi and Stone spoke twice that day at length: once at 1:42 p.m. for 18 minutes, and once at 2:18 p.m. for 21 minutes. Corsi recalled learning from Stone that the Access Hollywood tape would be coming out, and that Stone "[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle" either "right then or at least coincident." According to Corsi, Stone also told him to have WikiLeaks "drop the Podesta emails immediately

Guess what happened 32 minutes later? -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I added a section on the Senate Report to the end of the Mueller investigation page. Bongolian (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Bongolian, I may go in there and spice it up with my now general belief that Mueller vastly failed to really dig deep.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, feel free. Bongolian (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Kannst du mir bitte helfen?...

... to help improve the Draft:List of media biases article? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 04:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nein! LT^{May Dataclarifier be well!} 05:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Könnt ihr mir bitte helfen? Would be correct, as "du" means "you" in singular. Unless you meant only one specific person, which you probably didn't. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 08:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

And i thought he was speaking spanish... Fowler (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Idk where to ask this or whatever

I’m p. sure I used to be able to find a thing that listed all the red links and shit??? Did that exist and if so where can I find it? Removing red links is very “calming”. ❣️ ASELA^कुरा ❣️ 09:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Try Special:WantedPages. That should give you what you're looking for. Spud (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! ❣️ ASELA^कुरा ❣️ 11:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

'Category of things that are obvious when they are pointed out.'

Works with most wikis (some are only editable by specialists - eg GANFYD (looking for an adopter/foster carer) and medical professionals). Anna Livia (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Need some help with an article

A user created this draft and I added on to it. Still needs more and I am struggling adding to it. --Possible Goat (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

An issue I hope Biden takes seriously

I will be voting for Biden nonetheless but here is the issue that I take seriously and I hope he takes seriously- increasing accessibility to services for disabled people, ending discrimination against handicapped people in the public school systems and increasing voting accessibility for mentally handicapped people.

Even though the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act have been around for a while, public systems still manage to sweep disabled people under the rug. That needs to change. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

His running mate came out with the first and most extensive disability platformof any of the 2020 Democratic primary candidates.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, stupid question. How is a mentally handicapped person going to be able to make an informed vote? CoryUsar (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

How does Joe spaghetti stain who only watched FOX News make an informed vote? ShabiDOO 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

One difference is that Joe Spaghetti-Stain is mentally competent enough to be on a jury, whereas the mentally handicapped person may not be. CoryUsar (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@CorruptUser mentally handicapped people have the right to vote, even if they have a harder time understanding the issues. Hell my second oldest brother who has a severe learning disability votes. Everyone should have the right to vote even if they have a disability. Do you think that just because someone has a handicap that means their rights should be violated. That happens too much as is. --Possible Goat (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying Black people were "mentally handicapped" was a great way to disenfranchise them.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"A law being abused and twisted" isn't the same as "a law with no rationale for existing". If the law is too easy to abuse and there is no way to amend the law to prevent abuse, then yes, the problems created by removing the law are less severe than the problems created by keeping the law, and it should be scrapped. If the law can be amended to cheaply prevent abuse, and the amended law creates fewer problems than from not having the law, amend and keep the law. To me, it seems there are some real easy solutions; for example, if the state declares a person too mentally incompetent to vote, then said person must automatically qualify for Medicaid, mental health care, etc or other similar services at the state's expense, or perhaps forever immune to being declared mentally fit to stand trial. CoryUsar (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the law was abused or twisted. It was explicitly targeted to disenfranchise Black people. Look I understand the broader argument you're making, however this is one of those things that requires detailed and specific regulations with the appropriate support from affected groups, which isn't something I can say the US has a great track record of.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you are now moving the goalposts a bit. The literacy tests are a separate beast from declaring people mentally handicapped, especially when most states currently bar the mentally handicapped from voting. Note that it is not automatic in most states AFAICT; a court has to declare someone "insane" or an "idiot". Special note about Louisiana; in the mid-20th century, one particularly eccentric and corrupt governor from an incredibly corrupt political dynasty (Earl Long) pissed off enough people that they had him committed to an insane asylum. However, while an insane person wasn't allowed to vote, there was no law preventing an insane person from holding office, and, well, Louisiana holds the distinction of being that state where the inmates were literally running the asylum.

As for the Literacy Test, let's say there's a universe where institutional racism isn't a thing, where hating someone for having dark skin is about as common as hating someone for having grey eyes. In such a world, would there be any valid reason for restricting the right of the illiterate to vote? It's possible for the illiterate to still be informed, and when it comes to the vote itself an assistant/guardian/random-schmuck can help the person fill out the ballot correctly. So there really isn't any legitimate need for a literacy requirement, unless your society is intentionally set up to be a Technocracy. CoryUsar (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in many states, the severely mentally handicapped are not allowed to vote. To bring one example, here's Florida's definition: "A person who has been adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting in this or any other state and who has not had his or her right to vote restored pursuant to law." "Adjudicated mentally incapacitated" typically means, as per the CFR, "a danger to himself or to others, or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." It seems strange to mention this in a discussion on general disabilities, which could include many mental issues that do not reach either point? Soundwave106 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, stupid newspeak and euphemism treadmills. When we are talking about "mentally handicapped", who are we talking about? Because I thought we were talking about the people who need a legal guardian that has to manage their affairs (basically your Florida definition right there), not high-functioning mental illnesses or learning disabilities. Because I wouldn't refer to a mildly autistic or dyslexic person as being mentally handicapped. CoryUsar (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

in the uk, a lack of mental capacity is not a legal incapacity to vote, this includes those with a legal guardian of some kind. if you have been sectioned you still have right to vote. no one can lawfully prevent you. the there is little to no threat to electoral integrity from this and so no reason to have mental incapacity as a bar on voting. a greater threat is disenfranchisement such a bar represents and more should be done to encourage people to vote. in the us where the history of tests for capacity tells us they are absolutely about disenfranchisement of some group or other (usually black people) and should be viewed with suspicion and/or opposed, at best such test are outdated and promote stigma and discrimination of those with disabilities AMassiveGay (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)