RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive370

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 October 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>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <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>
, (new)(back)

Lawyer sues restaurant on behalf of goats[edit]

Lawyer sues restaurant with goats eating grass on roof for trademark "goats on roof eating grass" which allegedly the goats own. (and loses). Tulpa001 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Holy shit, somebody finally mentioned my family's vacation spot here! Rockford the Roe (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Baptists for Israel Institute: My next project here[edit]

Note: I mentioned Baptists for Israel Institute before


I will make a draft article of it this weekend but I need some information on seminaries that offer overseas study options in Israel. I mention this as the Institute's bachelors and masters "degree" programs are literally the same thing. Their curriculum amounts to a vacation to Israel. They only have two actual instructors (according to the faculty page, the others consist of two counselors and a finance worker). Would it be safe to call it a Diploma mill?

I want to make this a project and it would be missional. It is ran by rabid fundies who happily ignore Israel's crimes against humanity. This Institute certainly ties into the political and religious ideology of Christian Zionism. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Got a draft started Baptists for Israel Institute. --Possible Goat (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Xinjiang and Uyghur camp project[edit]

I want to make an article about Xinjiang's camps as they are rather trending right now. Naturally, tankies are attempting to deny it. We should try and refute common Tankie talking points such as attacking the character, misrepresenting information, and cherry picking. They also use fringe sources like The Grayzone (I made an article about it and exposed their bullshit) and Chinese state media. I think the format should be a combination of Holocaust denial and 9/11 where we try to provide evidence for certain abuses and refute certain talking points.


Reply if you're interested. --Noobmaster420 (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, very very good idea. I'll help out ShabiDOO 11:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This definitely constitutes as Islamophobia.Jeh2ow Damn son! 11:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Here is the article if anyone's interested:Draft:Xinjiang Re-education Camps. I'm working on getting The Grayzone and Draft:Avi Yemini mainspace. Thanks for your help!
For more info:
Probably our most important project at this time. What's going on is definitely an atrocity, but the issue is the limited evidence to the actual scale of the crimes since, well, China. It's not clear if the whole thing is a forced conversion or it's a mass extermination, but either answer is still a form of genocide.
I don't remember where I found it, but there was a report of China basically forcing interracial marriages. The Uighur men would be in a happy funtime summer camp, and then the Uighur family would "host" a Chinese man, and a woman would be "encouraged" to marry said man. Basically, the whole thing is a roundabout way of finding wives for all the single men caused by China's shortsighted One Child policy. That's what terrifies me more than anything else the Chinese have been accused of, that this whole thing isn't done primarily out of malice, but sociopathic indifference to minorities in order for China to solve a problem of China's own making. CoryUsar (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Here in one article on this, but it's more Chinese officials using the detentions as an excuse to sexually abuse the left-behind women.
Ah, here we go, here's an article about forced interracial marriages.
And here is a different article, about forced abortions and birth control.
Yep, it's definitely a genocide, even if the camps aren't extermination camps. CoryUsar (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Noobmaster420, suggestion. This whole thing is bigger than just the existence of the camps. Perhaps we should make the article about the Uighur Genocide, not just the camps? Can always start with the camps, and expand from there. CoryUsar (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. Please help me change it.--Noobmaster420 (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing!
Welp, added in my piece. You can move it to mainspace whenever, and just add a construction tag to it. If I could find the construction template... CoryUsar (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The draft is off to a very good start. I'd say it could go into mainspace already. If not already incorporated, there is some discussion of the ethnic cleansing here: Xi Jinping#Ethnic cleansing and here: China#Xinjiang internment camps. Bongolian (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The Grayzone[edit]

I'm currently working on Draft:The Grayzone and I'm unsure when it will become a mainspace page. How can the page be improved? --Noobmaster420 (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's probably OK for mainspace. Other than content, areas in need of improvement are formatting, and references. As far as references, it's inadvisable to cite Twitter directly in my view because of its ephemeral nature. Always make sure that Twitter links and links to crap website like Zerohedge or Grayzone have archive copies (archive.org and/or archive.is). It's better to cite the Twitter archived copy because people delete their accounts and/or tweets all the time. Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
References definitely need work. Even with more reputable/wealthy sites like the Daily Beast, it's good to provide headline, date, and possibly author, so if it moves or is deleted there's a chance of finding another copy. A bare link to archive.is isn't very helpful: it's good practice to say what's at the end, to save people having to click on the link and just in case archive.is is down (if referencing tweets, a full reference could be URL, writer, date, text of tweet, and link to archive). --Annanoon (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm new to the site so I think I need help with citations. --Noobmaster420 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This is racism. You're just going after The Greyzone cause he's Black. Black people are not allowed to have independent dissenting opinions from leftwing orthodoxy. nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What the fuck are you rambling on about now Rob? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. I got The Grayzone mixed up with The Blackzone. Sorry, My heartfelt apologies to anyone who was offended, except the part about being racist,. All leftwingers are racist scum. nobsBlack Guns Matter 03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I am starting to think that I am gay and not bisexual[edit]

For a while I heard a voice in my head telling me that I was gay. I kept telling it to shut up. Years before when I thought that I was straight, a voice told me that I was bisexual. I am thinking that I have been gay the entire time but heavily denied it. Over the past year the idea of being with a woman in a romantic and or sexual relationship has become increasingly repulsive. The idea of being with a man in a romantic or sexual relationship to be more appealing. Is it possible for someone's sexual orientation to change with age? I am completely confused so a little help would be appreciated. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I used to be attracted to 15 year old girls... when I was 15. When I was 20, it was 20 year old girls. Now, a girl that's under 21, I find kind of gross, my ideal is mid 20s. And it might shift older as I age further. Right now, the thought of sex with a 50 year old is repulsive, but when I'm 60 years old I'll likely be into GILFs. The people I'm attracted to has changed, and I suspect that's the same for other people as well. It's not out of the realm of possibility to have once been attracted to women in general but now no longer be. CoryUsar (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
what you look for in a partner can vary over time, especially if you repress what that is, and can hamper relationships for a while even after coming out as whatever you end up going for. you are young and free to experiment. try things out. things might not click right away. personal hang ups might mean years before you are truly comfortable. you are not locked into anything and you are never required to do something that makes you just dont want to. get grindr. talk to some folk see how it feels to say you like cock out loud. go wild. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I've gone through four clear phases of attraction. First it was I have no idea and tried so many sexual experiences. Then I had an extremely specific type (lets say five pretty specific things). Then I relaxed on a few elements of that type and experimented a little more. Now in my 40s I've whittled it down to three very specific things. I've tried dating outside of those and despite hoping it would work (one for example is tall, I'm 183 cm (which is quite tall for Spain) but I just really am not attracted to shorter guys than me. Finding that is hard but every time I dated someone shorter it just never worked out and I sometimes just hurt people. The rare fling (which is clearly only a fling) with someon around the same height is okay once in a while but not for long term. I found out that two of the features of my first "type" weren't important which was good cause that really really broadened the field (which is already far more limited in the LGTBQ+ world. The point is over time you can both narrow and broaden the scope of who you find attractive and it can happen more than once. ShabiDOO 15:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
In my case, I never had any type of romantic relationship. Never even kissing anybody. Worse yet, my Autism kinda impairs my ability to build relationships. Even worse yet- living in conservative territory, if I tried to pursue a relationship I would likely face harsh discrimination. I am only 26 years old and my situation does not look very good. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
In that case, are you truly sure what your sexuality is? Best advice I can give would be to find hobbies that let you be social, but, well, virus. CoryUsar (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The notion of sexual identity ("I am gay" rather than "I sometimes have sex with people of my own sex") is not always very useful. Most people are mostly attracted to people of the opposite sex, but it's mostly a matter of degree rather than a binary. I would advise taking stock of what exactly you want in a relationship. If you have a clear picture of that, the way forward should be fairly clear as well. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
just trying things out works better, especially when young and typically with no clue of what you want from a relationship. its how you work out what you want. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It's shitty you live somewhere where it will be difficult to show your true sexual self or walk down the street holding a boyfriends hand. I hope you figure out what you want in a partner and enjoy the exploration and perhaps finding somebody. It might not be an easy journey but my fingers are crossed! ShabiDOO 22:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. It means a lot. I know my family is supportive. Most of my neighbors are Republicans who support Trump. I will manage. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A banned Styx fan asks: Should Rationalwiki have an official Youtube channel?[edit]

I watched Tucker Carlson Tonight the other day, and now I regret it[edit]

One of the guests claimed that COVID-19 was created in a lab, and this got a "Pants on Fire" rating on Politifact. I gonna watch FOX, but not Fox News ever again.Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Tucker has the worst show on Fox News. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
"White Power Hour" - Drink every time Tucker says something racist, sexist or transphobic! (Drinks until completely blacked out)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Cute Seal.png CAUTION: SEALIONING AHEAD Cute Seal.png
This is a distortion of facts. The guest was a Chineese virologist who was part of a team which published a report "on ChinaXiv.org, an open repository and distribution website used by scientific researchers – suggested the market was likely not ground zero for the virus," according to Politico. [1] South China Morning Post also reported on the study. [2] So did the official CCP organ Global Times, [3] although the CCP took down the study from ChinaXiv. Politico says "The study was by a team of scientists from several institutions: Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden of Chinese Academy of Sciences; South China Agricultural University; and the Chinese Institute for Brain Research." The virologist fled China and has been granted refugee status in the United States.
This is a lame-ass, ill-informed attack on Tucker Carlson with no regarrd for the facts, typical of such mindless leftwing twits. nobsBlack Guns Matter 03:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@RobSmith Hence, PolitiFake. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 03:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
When one holds as idols those who seek hate and discord, one ought to remain silent, lest their words damn them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That guest was spreading an active conspiracy theory fuck off.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This is shocking and outrageeous. Was Albert Einstein a conspiracy theorist when he fled Nazi Germany? This defense of the genocidal Chineese regime you'll come to regret. nobsBlack Guns Matter 23:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This wiki feels like a hopeless endeavor sometimes, because rather than conspiracy theories regressing to a smaller and smaller base of people, it's becoming the entire basis for huge percentages of people's worldviews. And the gatekeepers of knowledge are more owned by interests that benefit from that than those that want information to be solid and reliably available to people. And we're all staring down the barrel of an infinite pseudoscience authoritarian nightmare, and I don't know how to stop it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed "Pseudoscience authoritarian nightmare", like totalitarian Democrats blocking access to hydroxychloroquine? As the common saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That would be because it doesn't work. Will you suggest drinking bleach or rat poison next LT? Perhaps you don't know as much as you claim to, and ought to spend less time trying to pull out gotchas and more time reading. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You personally certainly seem to be playing a part in it. Do you think you'll ever regret what you've done? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie@Ikanreed HCQ does work, and I created an entire CP article on the liberal denial over such. If that's not enough, see here as well. The phony "studies" that "concluded" that HCQ was somehow "ineffective" were improperly set up and rigged. The ridiculous part is that the entire liberal opposition was only because Trump supported it, which shows how bad TDS is affecting some people these days... LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 16:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, if you oppose HCQ, you are siding with Big Pharma and the corrupt medical establishment; if you oppose access to cheap, affordable treatments for serious biological hazards, you are irrational, anti-freedom, anti-American, and pro-Deep state. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 17:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I could link the six or seven articles I found easily, within seconds of searching for research, all stating that hydroxychloroquine has little to no effect. Or I could point out that this entire discussion is deflection to avoid discussing the original topic, utilizing fallacious and dishonest tactics such as poisoning the well and whataboutism. Which, in my opinion, suggests you know that you can't defend your positions and are being actively dishonest. And I despise being lied to, especially by those who can't even be bothered to do it well. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie GC, you're showing signs of acute HCQ denial syndrome. The fact of the matter is that most, if not all of those studies cited by MSM articles are phony because HCQ was administered (likely without zinc and azithromycin) to patients already about to die, and thus "concluded" that it was "ineffective". LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, whereas you have placebo controlled double blinded studies that exist somewhere outside your head, I suppose. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Those "studies" were simply put, phony. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure the only people pushing hcq at this point have a financial interest in it. It is a good treatment for Lupus. but besides the initial first study, every single large study shows it to have virtually no benefit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, you're saying, if I read you correctly, the studies you think demonstrate you are right are, simply put, phony? I thought they didn't exist at all, but phony is a real upgrade. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal Are you trying to tell me via your comment that you're blind or something? I note that the studies are fake, and you respond as if they have any credibility. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 19:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Have we entered some backwards world where every single thing you've said is somehow the opposite.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal You may perhaps be thinking that way because you are the one who's backwards, not me. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 20:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's time you got a casual warning that there's a limit to how much sea lioning bullshit trolling we all put up with here before we just collectively get tired of it and ban people. We try to be tolerant of people with different opinions, but there's a level of obstinate refusal to engage in good faith that you're reaching pretty fast, LT. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Ditto. You're empty arguments and cognitive dissonance may be acceptable at CP, but not here.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed@RipCityLiberal Lol, I'm just making clear points while you guys exhibit signs of TDS-related syndromes. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
No one understands your right-wing gibberish. Every post you've written could have been written by a bot exposed to 10,000 hours or Fox News and Breitbart.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My YouTube (Channel 48 WDEM-TV3) reached 100 subscribers[edit]

Took about five months but I finally reached 100 subscribers! Going to do an EAS scenario about the creepypasta creature "Laughing Jack" for a 100th subscriber special. I am happy. --Possible Goat (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

yay! Fowler (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A quote from former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis[edit]

We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
—Louis Brandeis as quoted by Raymond Lonergan in Mr. Justice Brandeis, Great American (1941), p. 42.

Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Capitalism and democracy are inherently opposed. Oxyaena Harass 17:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Because Communist countries have such a great track record of democracy?
Capitalism is orthogonal to democracy. You can have capitalism with a strong democracy, such as in the EU, you can have capitalism with virtually no democracy, such as China. CoryUsar (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
EU is more social democracy, than unfettered capitalism. The thing is, pure capitalism is anti-democratic.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Going to need a citation for capitalism being inherently anti democracy, given that numerous countries across the democratic spectrum are capitalist. As for "social democracy", bear in mind that John Maynard Keynes, the ultimate Social Democrat, was staunchly capitalist. CoryUsar (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/12/how-capitalism-is-killing-democracy/ -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no scientific law that says liberal democracy and capitalism cannot coexist. Occasionally, a liberal democracy like Venezuela can vote in anti-capitalist populists who wreck the economy. Conversely, unfree societies like Singapore, Thailand, or China can gradually liberalize markets but maintain single party rule. Arguably the most democratic countries in the world are the Nordic nations and Latin America's "Southern cone", all of them do very well on different economic freedom indices. The real way to solve this is not to go out and cherry pick democracies that junked capitalism or politically tyrannical regimes that allow capitalism. Rather, you take the broadest sample of all nations possible and on one axis of a graph rank them in terms of economic freedom. On another axis, rank them by the quality of their democracy. Both international[1] and regional studies[2] on this show that democracy and economic freedom go hand in hand. The real question is in what direction does causality run, or is there some kind of feedback loop in which both play off each other. Neo Stalinist (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


  • What is the most popular page on RW (other than the main page of course)? Sure, it can’t be Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? anymore?
  • What is the most linked page? Still goat?
  • Is the most popular page still Poe's Law?
  • Is there any way to sort editors, not through numbers, but through bytes contributed?
  • What is the largest image uploaded here?

𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 13:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The answers to these questions and more will be available after this urgent message: [4] Oxyaena Harass 17:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Special:MostLinkedPages disappointingly has Conservapedia‏‎ at #1. Special:MostRevisions has Gamergate still beating Donald Trump. Special:ListFiles lets you sort by file size but doesn't seem especially reliable. I'm sure you can calculate the rest by downloading the database. ==Annanoon (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Page view statistics are best requested on the technical support page... the lead time for requests is currently around four years. Judge Dredd (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh tragedy, the rightists are near to triumph...[edit]

Cute Seal.png CAUTION: SEALIONING AHEAD Cute Seal.png

As if this year couldn't get any worse, apparently RBG just died. I feel scareder than I have in years. Discuss.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

After the Fifth Circuit struck down Obamacare, it’ll go to the Court in the fall. There’s zero chance it survives. Plus the 6-3 conservative majority means no Medicare for All for a long long time. Worst, many of the conservatives are young, so they’ll be around for a few decades yet. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the likelihood of it... but this could turn out really bad. Not "We're yelling up and down the streets!" bad but actual secession and/or worse. TheTallMass (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
You are assuming that Trump WILL get the confirmation before he gets the boot. Since the Republicans decided in 2016 that it wasn't right to fill the spot in an election year, well, sauce for the goose. The Republicans may have a slight majority in the Senate, but there's the filibuster. CoryUsar (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Assuming Obama would get a pick when Scalia died didn't really pan out. Decorum has been weaponized, assuming the politics are normal is worrisome. I'm not going to say "Trump is going to push a new justice through" but he's teasing that it will be a woman, not that it will be a specific candidate. If Trump gets to nominate a new Superme Court justice, that's 3 judges picked by Trump. That's not good. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Expecting the GOP to be consistent and fair or evenhanded is naive; they WILL do everything they can to fill RGB’s seat while they hold the White House and McConnell has already said as much. My biggest two worries are that the useless Democratic leadership will yet again prove ineffective and fuck it up by either: A) Manage to lose to Trump yet again (and I won’t rule that out at the moment), or B) Retake the White House but fail to delay Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, allowing McConnell to wrangle the nomination through after the election, but before Biden takes office. Useless grandstanders like Pelosi (and Schumer and Obama to boot) have proven time and again that they’re generally much more interested in playing the game than actually winning, unlike the GOP; which is why they so often end up losing to the GOP. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to note, there's a clear difference between 2016 and 2020: in 2016, Obama was ineligible to run for re-election, where Trump currently is seeking a second term. At the time of Scalia's death, Americans had not yet decided whether Trump or Clinton would be president as to whether Obama would be succeeded by a Republican or a Democrat, whereas by now, Trump had already been chosen by the American people in 2016 and is seeking re-election. Furthermore, it's important to note that Democrats overall are more partisan then Republicans; ever notice how Republicans constantly use the term "RINO" yet much less commonly hear a Democrat use the term "DINO"? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 06:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and also, many Democrats are saying that we shouldn't fill the vacancy unless we have a new president; so if Democrats get their way and Trump's re-elected, we keep the vacancy there for four whole years? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 06:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Why does it matter to the SCOTUS nomination process that Obama was in his second term, while Trump is campaigning for his? There is nothing in either decorum or precedence that suggests that this is a meaningful distinction. The break with tradition and decorum was clearly when McConnell openly declared that he and the Senate GOP would prevent any Obama SCOTUS appointee to fill Scalia’s seat and kept the vacancy open for more than 10 months in their bet that their party would retake the White House. Not to mention then pushing Gorsuch through in three months, which, incidentally, is just about how much is left of Trump’s term, if he doesn’t win in November. And no, the Democrats aren’t saying that a seat should be kept open for four years.
As for the RINO/DINO difference (which is completely irrelevant to the SCOTUS question), I think that’s more to do with the purge of less than fully committed (hehehe) Republican Congress critters by first the Tea Party and then the Trumpers. Thus, the RINO discussion is not a sign that the GOP has become less partisan, but how extremely hyper partisan it now is: Paul Ryan went from being a standard bearer for the Tea Party to House Speaker to being labelled a RINO to leaving the House altogether within five years(!) The GOP has very much become a unified Tea/Trump party to an extent that you don’t see among the Democrats, which openly fight over their party’s ideological positions to a far greater extent both in terms of the numbers of issues and their scope. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The only difference between now and 2016 is that Scalia died before the primaries had settled, while in 2020 people are already actually voting for President. LT and the GOP's bullshit explanations mean nothing. The only thing they care about is power. In '16 the had the power and did the unprecedented. In '20 they have the power and they will do what they will. They will just have to live with the consequences when the Dem's get the power and use it radically realign the court, as well as fundamentally change the process. Pelosi and Schumer I think have finally realized norms don't mean shit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... I wonder if it's possible that SCOTUS would overturn Roe v Wade and declare unborn persons to be humans, but what that actually means in practice. For example, due to implantation having a surprisingly low chance of success, in-vitro fertilization generally attempts an implant with several embryos. For the health of the future infants and mother, if there's more than 2 successful implants then the extra are culled. Such a procedure could become illegal, and the future of IVF could become more dangerous (more frequent triplets and quadruplets) or less successful (only attempting with 2 embryos, much less likely chance of successful implant), not to mention more expensive.
There's also the elephant in the room when it comes to hypothetical "father's rights" when it comes to deciding on whether or not to have an abortion; the husband isn't always the father.
Virtually everyone agrees that abortion should be legal in the case of rape, but restricting abortions to cases of rape would become an MRA's worst nightmare. Think about it; a world where a woman would NEED to claim a rape to get an abortion. How would that even work? Would the rape have to be proven in court, a case that could last several years, before the judge signs off on the paperwork? Would any old accusation do? Does the abortion have to wait until amniocentesis can be done to verify that the alleged rapist is indeed the father? If a couple wants an abortion, can they just blame "some Puerto Rican guy" and call it a day?CoryUsar (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Rape and abortion are wrong for the same reason. Furthermore, according to abortion statistics in Florida last year, over 90% of abortions in the state performed were either marked as "elective" or due to "social or economic reasons". Only 0.15% were due to rape or incest. [5] If you care about rape victims, start calling for overturning Kennedy v. Louisiana and Coker v. Georgia so that the focus of punishment in these cases are on the guilty party and not the innocent side. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 21:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
What the hell are you smoking, and can you give me some?CoryUsar (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
ha, good old american family values, no cussing, no lewd behaviour, and HANG THEM HANG THEM ALL. very jesusy AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
actually prosecuting rapists and encouraging victims to report rapes would probably do more to cut down on rape than just going straight to state sanctioned murder. and decent sex education too. that helps with reducing the need for abortion too. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I mean, let's cut the crap. The GOP is going to ram their pick through, not because of nuance or merit, but because they're shameless power hungry hypocrites who don't give a fuck about us or our interests unless they threaten that lust for power. I mean, at the end of the day, that's how that party functions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I just showed you the facts. Your lack of a rational, meaningful response indicates that you currently seem to lack the ability to construct one. Checkmate atheist! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay So here's the utter problem with not allowing the death penalty at all: families of murder and rape victims are forced to subsidize via taxpayer dollars the public-funded care for the very pieces of scum who killed or destroyed the lives of the victims. One can't be on the side of violent crime victims if they support outright abolishing capital punishment. Also, your grammar skills are something that doesn't seem to exist, which indicates much about your ability to make a thorough response. Checkmate atheist! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@LT You are wrong. Checkmate cuckservative! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie My point is correct. If violent murderers and rapists aren't sentenced to death, the other alternative is life imprisonment. Since their food, water, and housing is subsidized by taxpayer dollars, that means families of victims must indirectly provide care for those who harmed their victims. Surely people like you on <sarcasm>this great website morally superior to those evil conservatives</sarcasm> wouldn't support such an evil institution that coddles malicious thugs, right? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Remember this? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@LT You are still wrong. Checkmate cuckservative! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Funny how you declare checkmate without providing any specific reason whatsoever. At least I give some facts on the matters. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
No you didn't. You provided evidence to try to support your position. Evidence and facts are not the same thing. And if I come across as an immature asshat who declares victory at every opportunity, imagine how you come across to others. Imagine how that smug little "checkmate atheists" after every single point, no matter whether it's informed or not, comes across. Now do you understand why I'm being a prick? If not, then I'll continue until it clicks. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Your denial of factual information because it contradicts your personal stance (which you apparently can't provide any facts to justify) means that you deny reality. The info in the National Review article and The Hill article I linked to is true, despite your insistence otherwise. And if it doesn't get through your head yet, I'll say it again: Checkmate atheist! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 22:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@LT Quote me where I said it wasn't factual. If you can't, checkmate cuckservative! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I didn't say that you said it wasn't factual, I just correctly noted that the information was true. You are now simply doubling down on a denial of reality. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually I'm not. Evidence is that which we use to establish facts, and that evidence can be true, partly true, partly false, or completely false. This is 101 level stuff. So when a I say things like "No you didn't. You provided evidence to try to support your position. Evidence and facts are not the same thing." in response to "At least I give some facts on the matters." I am correcting your terminology, and potentially an error in your understanding of the concepts in question. Now, if you do not understand these things, we here at RationalWiki do have articles on these subjects. Alternately, I could explain them to you on your talkpage or via voice chat. Now, if you continue to double down on your misunderstanding, I may be forced to assume you are engaging in bad faith and will possibly mock you mercilessly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie You are again living in denial by insisting that the factual information in the sources I linked aren't actually true and is somehow only evidence by not facts. You have not yet even specified with actual counter-points directly relevant to my points or provided sources on why it supposedly wasn't true! Of course, I can now see why you RW editors would avoid actually finding factual information to back up your claims and instead just spew gibberish/irrelevant arguments. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie This entire time, you've avoided directly addressing my points and instead deny the factuality of the sources I linked to. What is it about the information that you seem to be so scared of that you seem to be running away from it? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@LT "You are again living in denial by insisting that the factual information in the sources I linked aren't actually true and is somehow only evidence by not facts." I'm not sure if you're having trouble reading and processing what I wrote or if you are being deliberately obtuse. "Sam ate the cookie" (claim) > Footage of Sam eating the cookie (evidence) > Sam indeed ate the cookie (the facts as demonstrated by the evidence). This all very basic. So when I say "You provided evidence to try to support your position." I am making a descriptive statement, one which (obviously) describes (hence it is descriptive) what you are attempting to do without stating agreement or disagreement. "What is it about the information that you seem to be so scared of that you seem to be running away from it" I'm not addressing those arguments because A) I wasn't part of them and B), I am simply correcting your terminology, something I can do without getting engaged in whether or not the central claim is true or false. Just as a teacher can tell correct your terminology without giving you the answers to a quiz or test. Again, this is all very basic. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot LT. It costs MORE money to execute someone than to imprison them for life. So...if anything it costs MORE tax dollars from victims' family to cover long imprisonment and endless court cases and appeals (very very expensive) than to just imprison them for life. It costs a LOOOOOOOOOOT more. So your check-mate is a fucking resounding "I'm an idiot". If you're going to call out "check-mate" like an arrogant asshole, get your information straight. It doesn't work at all if you've fucked up (which you did) and ultimately makes you look like a pompous jack-ass (which you are). ShabiDOO 23:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

none of the facts LT's provided supported any of their dubious points, so them being true or not is irrelevant.
as for death penalties, i live in the uk, i dont have to support abolishment of the death penalty its already abolished. we're civilised here in blighty. the whole 'tax payers paying for criminals up keep' thing, aside from the insidious idea of the sanctity of human life being of less worth than ones bank balance (thats a real american family value right there - just look at your health system), its complete bullshit. the US fucking loves locking people up. its what you do over there. you lock up more of your population than any where else. hasnt done shit to cut crime though. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"you lock up more of your population than any where else." I've never heard a more rationalized reason to vote for Joe Biden thant this. Oh, and Shabi's argument that the lawyers get paid in death penalty case more than the cost of three hots and cot is an entirely different issue. nobsBlack Guns Matter 03:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
"none of the facts LT's provided supported any of their dubious points, so them being true or not is irrelevant." Evidence, not facts... and, no, they don't support his position, nor to they support his claims. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo About the death penalty currently being allegedly more expensive than life imprisonment, that would most likely be because it's the very court rulings made by liberal judicial activists that have granted new "rights" and privileges to criminals, using up more time and taxpayer dollars. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Basic human decently, a newfangled Liberal invention since 1840Wikipedia ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie You mean like affirming the sanctity of life for all innocent people, including the unborn? (my response that triggered this long thread was about abortion, after all) LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You don't give a damn about "the sanctity of human life", else you'd oppose the death penalty in the same breath. War too. And torture. And more. (fun fact, I oppose all of those things, except access to abortion, meaning I'm more pro-life than you are.) Oh, and to get back to the original subject of the thread, the GOP is going to ram through a SCOTUS pick like the shameless vultures that they are. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
ec you havent affirmed the sanctity of life for anyone. you've argued for people to be killed because of the supposed financial costs of not imposing barbaric punishment AMassiveGay (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie What you fail to differentiate is the difference between innocent unborn children and evil murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals alike, which really shows your cognitive dissonance and lack of a sense of justice. Regarding war, there are times that it's necessary to prevent even more deaths (and I'm not referring to super-hawkish neocon-backed interventions). LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice save there LT, wouldn't want people to think you actually give a fuck about human life in general now would you? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
"What you fail to differentiate is the difference between innocent unborn children and evil murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals alike, which really shows your cognitive dissonance and lack of a sense of justice." To use your own argument, since even prisoners should have basic rights it's cheaper to abort them. Also, if life is sacred, there is no modifier, it either is or it isn't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Firstly, since this debate includes arguing over the death penalty, it's important to distinguish between good, innocent people and the monstrously bad. Secondly, my point is clear: it is absurd and ridiculous to not see the difference between the innocent and those guilty of malicious, violent crimes; to compare them in any way without differentiation is to condone evil. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course the "evil" and the "guilty" should be slain in your worldview. After all, we can't let basic human decency extend to all of those death row inmates, now can we? What if they come for our nice white suburbs? Gasp! What if they demand rights?!?! What if we have to admit that state sanctioned murder is wrong?!?! OH GODS!!! WHAT IF WE KNOWINGLY LET A PANDEMIC RUN RAMPANT SOLELY SO WE WOULDN'T LOOK BAD, AND THEN IT BACKFIRED MASSIVELY!?!?!? WHAT IF WE'RE POWER HUNGRY PSYCHOPATHS WITH ZERO REGARD FOR HUMAN SUFFERING!??!?! Wow, I'm glad there isn't a group of people doing that sort of stuff. They'd be horrible monsters who we should probably try, imprison, and execute for their lack of regard for human life. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Unsurprisingly, you resort to defending society's evil criminals and spew gibberish in caps lock. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, you do. You defend the indefensible. You're a GOP voter. That stuff in caps lock? That was me escalating for effect and describing things which by your very logic, should see the leaders of the GOP executed. You never gave a damn about human life, you just like having power over others. It's as simple as that really. Deny it if you want, but that's the truth, plain and simple. But, if we ever do incarcerate you all for your crimes, I will still advocate for humane treatment and against the death penalty. I'm scum, but I'm scum with standards. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie So you concede that with what you vaguely describe as "standards", you are scum after all. Checkmate atheist! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I'm scum. And bootlickers like you are worse than me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Attention so-called pro-life moralizers: spare me your mansplaining "innocent unborn children" talk. My health, comfort, and psychological well-being comes first. I don't want smug self-righteous conservatives to gleefully torture me and disfigure my uterus with a pregnancy and then induce even more psychological harm of giving a child away for adoption. If you want me to carry to term, please give me a job, a professional education a secure place to live in, your insurance, a lot of your money, your emotional support, and I'll oblige. Otherwise, fuck off, anti-abortion assholes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Ah yes, because according to leftists, "comfort" comes before other innocent lives. Besides, for the most part, women can avoid "unwanted" pregnancies by abstaining from sex. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 03:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I do believe it was Karl Marx who said "we must comfort the proletariat, shelter them, and shield them for all danger. So what if a few hundred die in the process?" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Abstain from sex? I might be ace, but saying "abstinence lmao" works as well as telling people to avoid car accidents by not driving. Comfort? Yeah, so what. You cis male shit heads don't have to worry about the burden of pregnancy. Don't have to worry about the idea of the dire physical, economic, and psychological burden children carry. No, my needs come first. This includes comfort and security of raising a child. My parts are not a precious spawning bag for others, particularly oh-so-valiant people, especially cis men, to decide things should grow and disfigure inside. It's my decision what comes and goes. I wish people understand that cis women's needs come first and we need to ensure maximum health, mental readiness, and economic stability for them first. None of these, conservatives particularly care for. You people tend to hold exceptions for rape and incest and it just tells me you really don't value life as you guys proclaim you do. Also, please destroy your crisis pregnancy centers. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Wouldn't those concerns make a case for abstinence? After all, if women don't want to have those major issues to deal with regarding pregnancy, then it would simply be better to avoid sexual activity! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 03:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@LT Why the women and not the men? Why can boys be boys, but women are not so free? Why is it that you idealize servatude and slavery for others, when your own sins ought be looked after? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie My point is that if it's women who bear all the responsibilities and burdens from sexual activity that they don't wish to deal with, it would only be rational and in their favor for them to abstain. And regarding this issue in general regarding both men and women, the root problem in the modern day is that our increasingly liberal, atheistic culture promotes and glorifies premarital/extramarital sexual activity. No wonder the out-of-wedlock birth rate is going up... LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 03:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think not. The idea you promote is slavery, pure and simple. Women beholden to one set of restrictive rules, and men not. Again, you prove that for all your much vaunted ideals, you care for naught but power and control. Remember my standards? This fails to meet them. You are worse than self confessed scum. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie More lies coming from you. Exactly when did I say that men shouldn't abstain? My point was that if the consequences would fall on women, then it would only be in their favor to abstain. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 04:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

LT you really are one of the biggest fucking idgets I've seen here for quite a while. Liberal or conservative judges have nothing to do with the expenses of 20 year incarceration and expensive appeals. That has to do with the law and that law exists in ALL states be they red or blue ones. And those laws are there for a GOOD reason because innocent people have been executed. This means, if the sanctity of life is important to you, then you don't want those who aren't evil-monster-no-longer-human-scum-who-don't-deserve-to-live-any-more (as you seem to see it) to accidentally end up dead, as has happened. In order to ensure this is the case and to follow the LAW, it is extremely time consuming and expensive. This cannot be avoided unless you want to allow possibly innocent people (which has happened definitely far more than once) to be murdered by the state (do you want that)? Again, nothing to do with liberal or conservative judges or even biased-law-makers but to do with the law (you do care about the law don't you)? So your stupid ridiculous assertion that letting murderers live is cruel to victims family cause their tax dollars would go to support an expensive life-long sentence was one of the dumbest things said here in a while because even more of their tax dollars go to the execution legal-cycle (and sometimes they still don't end up executed after all that expense). That would have been fine, what you said would have been simply a big silly factual error, but you added that fucking arrogant "checkmate" at the end, which makes you look even more pathetic as you make smug confident assertions without even knowing what the fuck you are talking about. Why don't you fuck off and take your garbage-reasoning to another website that will swallow your bullshit? ShabiDOO 11:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This thread feels like reading people who speak different languages and make no effort to understand each other. No point of any value was made.-TheOldMan (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo And you still don't understand. It was the liberal judges that made the rulings allowing for criminals to excessively appeal and be granted extraneous "rights"; this means that in cases even when it's obvious that they're guilty, they're still allowed to continue appealing for a commutation of their sentences and demand certain privileges. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Also, you said "...to accidentally end up dead". Almost sounds like a reference to the Clintons. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 12:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
No. It comes from actual federal and state LAWS which are very clear about the right to appeal. And even if you were right (which you aren't) it still makes what you said stupid. For whatever reason it IS expensive and will be indefinitely or for a very long time making your claim WRONG and your CHECK-MATE fucking ridiculous. You are incapable of backing down or conceding a point making it useless discussing anything with you. Fuck off. ShabiDOO 12:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The Old Man were you expecting a reasoned nuanced discussion with someone who comes here and goes "this is why you are all wrong...check mate"? ShabiDOO 12:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Part of the costliness to taxpayers still come from some rulings made by the Warren Court, etc. that give criminals extraneous "rights" and privileges. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 13:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That's nice. I'm not reading anymore stupid shit from you. Fuck off. ShabiDOO 13:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo So you admit that you now won't debate properly anymore and basically concede by saying that you won't read my comments? Checkmate atheist! LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 13:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo I think this thread makes it apparent that LT doesn't give a damn about human life outside those he deems "worthy". This is likely a psychological defense mechanism to cope with his need to defend his leader no matter what. That and his compulsive need to have power over others. @LT At no point in this conversation have I lied. In fact, I haven't lied or intentionally misled anyone for over three years. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed GC but whether the death penalty is right or wrong is actually besides the point. He screwed up with an argument that actually argues against his case and now he won't concede. Again all of this is besides the point because he is a splendid sea-lion engaging in rampant sea-lioning and is here to make sea lion love all over the saloon. To read anything more he says is to participate in gross sea-lioning. ShabiDOO 15:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
LT is just blathering right now. There is no moral argument equating abortion and the death penalty, because it reduces the argument to giving the unborn human rights equivalent to a born person, which isn't helpful. Makes it easier when you recognize the only group with the power to take life is the State. As such they should be required to protect people from the unborn (ie, birth control for everyone, morning after pill) and do everything they can to ensure the safety of all of the born, including threats from others.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I wonder, is there an internet informal law that says something about every abortion debate inevitably shows the "against" side is actually against women having sex? As this thread has shown, LT just wants women to abstain from sex, this is his real end goal with being against abortion, as the pregnancy is the perfect punishment for having sex. Every debate that goes long enough, the against side goes "just don't have sex!". 2804:431:C7F2:806B:6DD3:5C56:E25C:29CB (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's the meat of it, but who wants to look (and feel) like a miserable puritan scold? Ban the baby butchers is a much more effective rhetorical ploy, and provides a lovely pure hit of rage and righteousness each time you sally forth. In the end, I imagine it's pretty easy to convince yourself that's what you're really fighting for. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This equating abortion is murder also places such an loaded label on who's carrying the fetus to begin with. I rather be called a murderer than being forced to carry to term but I really resent that this is the choice and it makes it stressful. They make me want to feel like a monster for making decisions I think are for the benefit of most and for my own health. It's telling not a lot of people engage from that pov and it saddens me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Who makes you feel like a monster, rightwing bible thumping fascists? I thought they weren't worth listening to, let alone letting them get you emontionally upset. Perhaps it's your conscience talking, assuming you have one. nobsBlack Guns Matter 23:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And then there is this asshole. Jesus let people enjoy things, just because you've never given a sexual partner any pleasure, doesn't mean every one should suffer. Quite literally this is critical to fascist authoritarian seizing power, controlling who gives birth.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal Hold on, so abstaining from sexual pleasure is suffering? Also, here's what puzzles me: why is it that the very left-wing postmodernists who believe in evolution and atheism insist that sex is about pleasure and not solely procreation? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Cool Story, Bro. Revolverman (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't misuse the label of post-modernism. Your illiteracy in philosophy very much annoys me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Well LT considering there is a difference between being celibate and incel, I'd argue whatever weird reason you've decided that sex is evil developed as a rationalization that you can't get any.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well that was quick[edit]

It seems that Trump already filled the vacancy for the Supreme Court, and that judge had apparently ruled that cereal manufacturers must re-classify their products as soup. [6] LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 13:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically, cereal is a soup, just like a hotdog on a bun is technically a sandwich. CoryUsar (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That's like saying the sale of bread is the sale of sandwiches because people use bread to make sandwiches. You don't need to make a sandwich from bread, and you don't need to eat cereal with milk. HairlessCat (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Has any comedy site ever managed an funny:unfunny ratio as bad as babylon bee? There's just no teeth to any of it. It doesn't matter what "side" their story is on, they can never land a single goddamn joke. This is some C-list podcaster what-trump-sounds-like-when-he-talks improv comedy in written form and it really doesn't work. They could take this premise in so many directions to actually build a bit, like Trump accidentally nominating himself, or a countercurrent joke about democrats wanting a compromise candidate of eric trump instead, or doing fake observational reporting about trump trying on ginsberg's robe and jewelry or something. You don't even need to be good at comedy to do better than this, you just need to fucking try. It's like their afraid of accidentally making a point along the way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The primary purpose of cereal is to be added to a bowl with milk. You could use corn flakes to make fried chicken, you could use rice crispies to make a marshmallow rice crispie treats, but that's not how it's usually done. You could eat cereal straight out of the box, but that's viewed as weird and not the intended method of consumption. Sort of like packaged ramen, which also sometimes gets used for things other than soup. Bread is a bit different, in that it actually is intended to be eaten by itself or in a manner that isn't in sandwich form. You can make toast, french toast, used with runny eggs, etc etc. Sandwiches are a relatively recent phenomenon, although using bread and bread-like substances to hold food is almost as old as bread itself. So cereal is a "soup mix", whereas bread is "sandwich ingredient". CoryUsar (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Conservatives can't be funny, because they lack empathy. Trumpkins especially can't be funny because they cannot question the infallibility of the dear leader.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I even posed a version of the article that didn't attack trump, because I know the Bee's audience. You can mock the dems' lack of conviction from any "side". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Jellyfish issue lawsuit over comparisons to Democratic party. Quote, "we lack spines, not convictions". There, I did the Babylon Bee's job for them. Pay me money now. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

i'd say cereal is more potage than soup AMassiveGay (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this is serious business. More investigation is warranted. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No, seriously[edit]

Just what the hell IS it with conspiracy theorists and the "technocracy"? Nothing on our technocracy page says anything about conspiracy theorists. Either that, or our documentation of CTs on our technocracy page is shamefully inadequate. Metazero 17:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Technocracy? What do you mean? CoryUsar (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a term you can find them using from time to time. I don't have OP's magic internet seive that shows me only insane conspiracy content to see how common it is, but I can verify that it's used sometimes? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynbgMKclWWc&ab_channel=TalksatGoogle Find a comment about george carlin, look in the replies, and you'll see this fucking whore bitch about it. I tried reasoning with the cunt and she refused. Bitch should kill herself if she hates this world so much. Metazero 18:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Shifting my attitude about you from "weird obsessive who I don't quite get" to "Go the fuck away, toxic asshole". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm toxic, but I feel like I need to be toxic towards CTs. Metazero 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that, but you're being toxic to every single woman and potentially suicidal person here just to express your anger at someone elsewhere. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Please refer to this page before injecting any more toxic commentary such as the above into our bar. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't like having read a gendered insults here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Pretty gross to bring that toxic language.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Woah, just chill. There are plenty of idiots on the internet but there is no need for that toxicity. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Ditto for LGM.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not only is the misogyny totally uncalled for, but if you think it's OK to just casually say people should kill themselves, you're come to the wrong place. Spud (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Pagan Origins of Judaism(and by extension Christianity and Islam).[edit]

Interesting video I watched and wanted to share.

Well this not exactly news. Judaism grew out of the Semtic pantheon rather than appear ex culo.—Tuxer (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Almost everything comes from something else. Almost everything is a process - though in a human lifetime things may look static. Languages grow and split into new languages. Life evolves in many different ways. Societies grow into new and different societies. Religions grow from older religions and evolve into new ones. There is no reason to believe that there is anything Special about Christianity - it grew from something else and will grow into something else.
But thanks for sharing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't get why christianity is supposed to be "special". By the way here in Norway, KrF changed "RLE"(Religion,Livsyn(Outlook on life), Etikk(Ethics)) to KRLE (Same but with K as in Kristendom(Christianity)).--HedvigsenSkreonk here 08:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, why special indeed? I don't like the word "pagan" for that reason. By implication we have "Christianity" and everything else - "pagan". The youtube thing would be better labeled "Religions which influenced Judaism" or something like that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This website could use more glossaries[edit]

I was compiling propaganda sentences for my own wiki (Like the infamous Despite being only 13% of the population...) and I noticed something that left me perplexed, most of those sentences did not appear anywhere on the website.

For instance, there is Taxation is theft which is parroted by Anarcho-Capitalists all the time. Of course, this would not fit any of the currently available glossaries on the wiki which, from my knowledge, are: The alt-right glossary, the Transgender glossary, the Feminist glossary, the religious glossary, the manosphere glossary and the anti-SJW glossary.

I am not sure whether I can create new articles as an IP/anonymous user, so that is why I made a comment here to let the editors here know that if they want, they could create more glossaries to expand the website. (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That is so broad and fraught. I doubt that it could be encapsulated into a glossary. Bongolian (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, think we have too many glossaries. I doubt that many people apart from those that compile them have much interest in them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Our alt-right glossary is tremendously useful, and is used as a resource by many people. Oxyaena Harass 14:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah! And how do you know this?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I concur with the less glossaries sentiment. Our LGBTQ orientation glossary consists largely of links to other glossaries or an LGBT wiki and consists of either shit people already know or could easily be found or completely useless labels like "Julietian"-Hastur! (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, somebody is still bitter about being shredded into thin red ribbons on the AfD vote, hmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If bitter is being consistent, then yes, I am clearly bitter. I very bitterly offered my very bitter opinion on a discussion about glossaries-Hastur! (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Trimmed the garbage out of the LGBT glossary. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bob M Well it's the first thing that pops up when searching, so..... Oxyaena Harass 17:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not in the first page of hits for me. (duck duck go and Google) Which is actually rather surprising as I would have thought it would be a really specific search term. I was just wondering if you had some other way of knowing about page hits on the wiki.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, I was more thinking about something like this. It's actually not a glossary just a long list that I can't believe anybody is going to read or refer to. (Unless Oxy tells me she knows it to be one of the most popular pages on the wiki.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the glossaries are of questionable quality, but if the option is to consult a glossary here or Urban Dictionary, I know which I'd rather people use. Glossaries should definitely focus on recent jargon/slang where there's a lack of good references, rather than stuff you can get in a dictionary, but they can be useful. Maybe we need a TODO list for glossary entries to capture what people actually need, rather than being a list of a particular user's favourite words. --Annanoon (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I feel stupid for being afraid of these things, but I am[edit]

I don't know if this fits here, neither I know why I'm talking about this with strangers on the internet, but I don't have anyone else to talk to, so here it goes...

This may seem like just another Fear of Hell™ post, and maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it causes me problems right now. I came across these alleged "Revelations from Hell". and I didn't even searched for them, I found them right here on RationalWiki, courtesy of some Christian Fundies vomiting lots of YouTube links with grammar mispellings.

Normally I would dismiss this shit as lying for Jesus or a hallucination of sorts, but there just seems to be many of them, and I'm not going through a good time right now regarding religion, I made two reddit posts about that some days ago.

The exact things that bother me are these:

GoodFight310 chapter 1, talks about a Hindu, Muslims and a Buddhist seeing Hell

GoodFight310 chapter 2, the supposed vision of a South Korean, along with demons in the April and Wayne show and exorcisms in Emmanuel TV

And an anonymous fundie throwing a bunch of YouTube links along with a threat

Just reading those things scares me a lot, and I don't know what to do about them.

I could just ignore them, but then for Christians I would just be ignoring the "evidence"

Or I could try to find an explanation for them, but even if I did, Christians would say that I'm in denial, that I'm rejecting Jesus, that I'm corrupted by Satan. This along with the unpleasant thought of "What if I'm wrong?"

I don't even have the guts to click on those links.

Please, if you have a rebuttal for these, a comment or a recommendation, write it down below. Moor (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Humans have invented so many conflicting versions of heaven and hell that it's worthless bothering about any particular medieval fantasy. Try this one if you want a more secular version. It's no dumber than the religious ones.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
While Christians and Muslims didn't invent hell, you might as well say they had because before some supposed God-human-zombie was nailed to a cross, hell was a pretty minor phenomena among world religions and Christians and Muslims certainly used it as an extremely successful mechanism for spreading their religion and maintaining control over people. Christians and Muslims also solidified the whole fire and dasemons part which was even a bigger rarity before they came along (though some religions did include burning as a torture the whole great fire thing was not widespread. Point is, you can be pretty sure that those who see a hell overwhelmingly believe in a religion where hell is central to their beliefs and that the qualities of that hell will overwhelmingly match whatever story those people have been fed. Did the hell in their NDE have fire and/or red/black daemons? They are almost certainly Christians or Muslims. Are there weird colorful animal beings performing really elaborate tortures? Its almost certainly the temporary Hindu hell. Considering serious fear of this hell isn't wide spread in Hinduism I'd be surprised if this is that common of a hallucination for NDEs amonst hindus.
It the majority of documented NDEs people fill in the blanks from their supernatural superstitions and the common mental/physical phenomena in NDEs (flashing lights, tunnel vision, euphoria etc). Seeing heaven or hell comes mostly from those who have been spoonfed ideas about heaven or hell all their lives. That's evidence enough its all made up.
But the fact that the Christian/Muslim heaven and hell are such preposterous absurdities should be enough to make you laugh at the idea. I mean, a great rational moral powerful being creates only two possible places for you to spend eternity, one paradise and the other pure torture? There's no sense of proportionality. Nothing in between. It doesn't make sense that you'd be tortured for endless cycles of trillions of years because you did some terrible things over your century long life (or less). And most CERTAINLY not because you didn't believe in some story about a singular God that people in the Mediterranean were pushing hard as an alternative religion. The kind of hell you fear is so clearly a tool of religious manipulation. These two religions have doomed people to irrational fear and it has been nothing but emotional cruelty for centuries (and child abuse when done to children). Making people fear hell is despicable and one of the most toxic poisons of Christianity and Islam. ShabiDOO 10:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
My favorite NDE story is this one. Guy was heavily into Star Trek, so his NDE took him there. Conclusive proof that Star Trek beats Star Wars.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, let me weigh in here, and not as an advocate or pitchman for any particular POV, but rather to simplify a universal theoretical concept of hell. Most traditional faiths begin with a concept of fallen man - realization that human beings are born into a corrupt world with a corrupt nature and that the natural state of things could be, and should be, better. Call it Nirvana or Paradise or Heaven or whatever; and to get there one either has to jump through a bunch of hoops or helplessly accept the grace of God. So these two worlds stand in contrast - a world of perfection, and the real world we all know and experience. Now salt in the concept of eternity. Hell is merely psychologically experiencing the world you already know (minus sex, drugs, and alcohol cause your dead) for eternity. Christians would call it eternal separation from God, or that world of perfection you know exists once you realize the world you were born into is fucked up, unjust, and against the natural order of things. nobsBlack Guns Matter 11:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
But don't you think the Star Trek story is better? Much nicer story than yours, though no more likely of course.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Nobs, nirvana is incomparable to Heaven-- (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It's used as experiencing a state of natural perfection. nobsBlack Guns Matter 12:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't the existence of Buddhism and Hinduism as religions of direct experience discount Christianity as a language of PURE faith? And Earth is basically already hell BTW. HairlessCat (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
That was the point, Earth is hell. Now, some would deny that conciousness ceases to exist after death of the flesh; for this we turn to the Second law of Termodynamics and a definition of "conciousness", which is still an open debate. As to your first point, you are correct. "Faith" simply means "trust". nobsBlack Guns Matter 13:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
So is your belief the earth is 6,000 years old based on faith or facts?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The fact that some inebriated sheep herder nomad invented a story to tell his kids about where the world came from, is a kind of fact. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
That's certainly true, I suppose. But that fact that Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about the age of the Earth (along with it's flatness or lack thereof) means that even that is a sort of "citation needed" kind of fact.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
How did we go from the etymology of hell to the age of the earth? 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your replies but, any commentary on the specific info given by this guys?, specially the anonymous fundie or people from other religions supposedly seeing Hell. It would be great if someone replied to this things. Moor (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably because most people regard them as superstition. If someone posted something telling you about experiences in the kingdom of the faeries and how the knowledge they gained from the Fairy King would change your life - how much of your limited time would spend investigating it?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
A few hours ago, I gave some of my young Taiwanese students a photocopied handout I'd prepared of the poem "hist whist" by E.E. Cummings. I am teaching it to them so they can recite it at our upcoming Halloween party. I drew some pictures on the handout to explain the vocab, including a drawing of the Devil with horns, a pitchfork, a moustache and a goatee. I was confident they would understand who it was meant to be a drawing of. Even though any religious beliefs they might have would probably be a hodgepodge of Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese folk religion, they know about the Christian Devil thanks to old Looney Tunes cartoons and the like. So somebody in a non-Christian majority country like India or South Korea having an NDE and seeing visions of flames and little red demons hopping about really doesn't surprise me at all. I'd just put it down to the pervasiveness of Western popular culture. And for somebody raised Buddhist or Hindu in a Western country where that same pop culture is even more pervasive is even less surprising. Spud (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Moor So you seem a bit disappointed with the responses to your post. I would suggest a number of things.

Firstly, you might get a better response if you posted along the lines of "I believe X because of Y" and, if necessary post a link to justify yourself. But the most important thing should be your argument - not the link (s). Because it's easy to link to lots of mad stuff on the net which supports any weird idea that might exist - so you shouldn't expect people to rush to click a series of them. But if you post an actual challenging personal opinion then people will be more likely to engage with you.

Secondly, when people do respond to whatever you post you should respond to them. At least then you have more of a chance of keeping the argument about the subject you want, and you will avoid giving the impression that you have just dropped a bunch of links and walked away.

Thirdly, don't say what your think about a series of links and then write something like "I don't even have the guts to click on those links" as this makes you seem disingenuous, because you have clearly already clicked them.

Fourthly, if you really feel that you can't get all your ideas and justifications in a Saloon Bar post consider writing an essay. This should be primarily your own words and not a series of links. Of course these are just my personal opinions about how you might make a good post and are in no way RW policy. Good luck with any future postings.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

community standards[edit]

FYI, There is vote on community standards taking place AMassiveGay (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation#Rules_on_voting

Thanks for the heads up. Regardless of the merits of the case it looks like an invalid process to me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

I have declared it officially closed and all votes to be invalid. Spud (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Democracy, eh. Fowler (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler What the fuck's that meant to mean? Spud (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It means exactly what it says. Fowler (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

California's Great Car Pledge[edit]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/23/newsom-bans-sale-of-all-new-gasoline-powered-cars-starting-in-2035/ I've had my share of criticism for Gavin Newsom before, but this is pretty good news. I think he did an excellent thing today. I'm curious to see which states will do this next: I'm guessing Oregon and Washington will follow next. Hopefully even my state (Texas) will do it soon. Aaronmichael5 21:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

If people complain, well where were they years ago? Ambivalent about the climate crisis? Push is becoming shove. I don't mind having to either go used or get a cute Nissan Leaf if I have to. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
As for combating climate change, a start would be making hybrid cars and non-gas powered cars more financially available. People in my area (and I assume in most places) cannot afford hybrid cars and or non-gas powered cars. Those type of cars are far more expensive and nobody can afford them, unless you have money to burn. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
For the time being, even after the ban after several years, used cars are still going to be around. Just there will be no new ones. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Note that in the "emissions don't keep growing exponentially, only linearly" scenario, much less the really bad course we seem to actually be on, the projected temperature increase by 2035 against will be almost as much as we've already experienced today. We don't have those 15 years. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

if you need an economic option just buy cars used. done. but yeah, we needed to push electric cars much more quickly than this tbh but this is better than nothing. also, we need to combat fracking as well, that's one of the critiques of the governor for not being harder on it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 05:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If we really want to get serious, we need to slap a huge tax on imports based on distance traveled. There is absolutely no eco-friendly way to ship hundreds of thousands of tons of cargo 6000 miles away, if not more. Those Suez-Max and Panama-Max superfreighters? They have engines the size of small office buildings, and they use bunker fuel, which is the sludge left over after all the lighter fuels have been extracted from the crude oil. The stuff is so nasty it has to be heated to a couple hundred degrees just to be viscous enough to flow through the fuel lines, and these huge engines use up several ounces of the stuff every time a single piston 'pumps'. There are rules on the quality of the fuel, but they are violated more often than (insert yo mama joke). It's not just CO2, oh no no, it's sulphur and other particulates, and it's estimated that just a single Panamax freighter pollutes the equivalent of fifty million cars. Do note that the heavier 'tar sands' of Alberta are heavy because they contain far more sludge than, say, Texas light crude, and there's a real terrifying possibility that the pipeline for this garbage oil will cause bunker fuel prices to drop so low that all the superfreighters travel at the even less efficient but faster speeds. CoryUsar (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Billionaire gave away his fortune[edit]

Billionaire Chuck Feeney has finally given away his entire $8 billion fortune after making secret donations for decades

Although estremely generous, I believe it's silly from a philanthropic point of view. What would you have done with 8 billion $ to help the World?-TheOldMan (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Bought out facebook and shut it down. Bought out Tesla before that annoying bastard did. Given the rest to anti hate research groups (Hope Not Hate etc)Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Well according to the story: " Feeney has been making secret donations to charities, universities, and institutions worldwide under his foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies, for decades." I guess you would better unidentified recipients?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bob_M I don't understand what do you mean.-TheOldMan (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. :-) You wrote "I believe it's silly from a philanthropic point of view" but the very act of giving money to "charities universities" and suchlike is by definition philanthropic. So I guess that I'm not following your point. AH! And In my post above I see I should have written "I guess you would have identified better recipients?" Sorry.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I would do something similar to chang only I'd just build a time machine with the money and go back in time and stop social media from ever happening. ShabiDOO 15:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You can't stop social media, it existed LONG before Facebook. Remember MySpace? If Twitter didn't exist, someone would've created it, just at a later date. Same with Uber, Airbnb, Youtube, eBay, and so forth. Heck, Amazon itself isn't even the only major online quasi-retailer; there's Etsy, Newegg, that one for auto parts, whichever one is being used for sex workers now that backpage is shut down, etc. CoryUsar (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bob_M I see. No, I did not mean that it was silly because of the recipients.
Personally, I think it would had been better spending the fortune on building something that would had last in time. For example, buy/build real estate, rent it (never sell it), and give all the profits to, say, healthcare. Forever.-TheOldMan (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah! OK! Then I will cover your Real Estate bet, and raise you Investments which Mitigate Global Warming so that the real estate continues to have some value in the medium future.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Nothing lasts forever (says Ozymandias) - what if one invests in this place? Investing in a universal network of libraries with reference sections and/or MOOCs (for-interest as well as 'practical interests') would be more useful.
With the time machine - go back to 'those who constructed the Bible-as-we-know-it' to turn it into something that is more fundy-unfriendly ('God loves everybody, of whatever origin, interests etc, who should be given equal opportunities'; 'the great flood reached to the boundaries of the known world'). Anna Livia (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The problem there is that there were often valid reasons for, what are today, silly rules. It's easy to snub our noses at an ancient society's rules on sexuality, when we live in a world with condoms, penicillin and paternity tests. CoryUsar (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
When myspace existed it didn't mean that I had to scrub my department's myspace account of horrific comments or deal with trolls or even criminal matters because of online shittery. Perhaps social media of this kind was inevitable but I would have used that money to delay it. Even a delay of five to ten years would have made life better for most people I know. Having said that, perhaps delaying the invention of the combustion engine and leaving the tecnology for solar panels and other green energy would have made more of a difference. I don't know. ShabiDOO 22:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
That was because MySpace was still when most people didn't have a computer at home, let alone a smart phone. As a result, the worst thing to come out of MySpace was a random hot chick that simply friended as many as people as possible then ended up with her own show on MTV. CoryUsar (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Handling challenging behaviors in mentally challenged people without being abusive[edit]

youtube.com/watch?v=q81sQBGtu9A (an excellent video about working with developmentally disabled people with challenging behaviors)

In people with developmental disabilities, there is often challenging behaviors in these type of people. Because of challenging behaviors, care takers think that it is an excuse to be abusive. Just because someone with a developmental disability might throw things, scream, kick, hit or bite that does not mean that you should be abusive. For those people who have challenging behaviors, that is part of their disability. Care takers should develop techniques to work around behavioral issues.

Yes I am passionate when it comes to social justice issues like these. I am also sure that there are people equally passionate about other social justice issues. Not saying that I am ignoring other issues in society, disability rights seems to be the main social justice issue that I am passionate about. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed a challenge, and at least at my agency we get a lot of training on it. Most of it is focused on deescalation if at all possible, though of course we'll restrain someone who 's punching himself in the head. One of the keys is to know when you're getting to the end of your tether, and to let another staff take over if you're feeling stressed. I will say, though, that some who aren't familiar with our population can misunderstand things; we've had the police called on us because staff had to restrain someone in a public place, and I remember an intern who freaked out because we told a client he wasn't going to be able to eat lunch if he didn't behave (in addition to having a medical issue that meant he had to be in a calm state, he was laying on the floor naked because he was mad and ripped his clothes off over... something, he never did explain what it was or how that was supposed to help). And while it is part of some people's disabilities, there are those who act out knowing they can play the disability card to avoid consequences and have family members feed into it; the trick is to find something that incentivizes actually behaving yourself, which varies from person to person. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Be passionate about disability rights. Tulpa001 (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Too many times I have seen disabled people treated as second class (Hell even third class) citizens. Abuse by care givers is rampant and government agencies largely ignore it. Worse yet, trigger happy cops who see a developmentally challenged person acting out will happily shoot them. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
dunno how things go in the us, but in the uk care assistants are the folk looking after the day to day needs of the disabled enough to require day to day care of some kind, be it a mental or physical disability, and man care homes. these people are not trained professionals. they are not nurses. but they a demanding job, very stressful, with long hours, at minimum wage with little over two hours training. you hear horror stories about about abusive carers. you get what you pay for and we pay fuck all to people we entrust the care of the most vulnerable. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay there are mountains of horror stories in the US. Sadly a lot of these abuses take place in public schools. When I was in elementary school (or as you brits call it "primary school"), there was a special needs class that had a padded closet where kids having a meltdown were placed. There was no light in there either. After the parents of the victims of that room found out, there was public outcry. May I add the fact that this class was for kids with severe learning disabilities. You could probably figure out the results from that. From my own personal experience as a kid with Autism- on the special needs school bus I sung a song making fun of the bus driver. The bus driver instead of being civil choose to get in my face and scream at me. I was horrified. So yes the treatment of the handicapped is subpar. I have watched YouTube videos from British and Australian disability groups such as Mencap who provide excellent services for the disabled. Wish the US had their level of competence. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a complicated problem, to be sure, and having worked as one of the low level grunts in the field I can confirm we're badly overstretched. We end up doing a lot of the things nurses do, such as using and cleaning feeding tubes, positioning people, Hoyer lifting them around, restraining them for sometimes several hours at a time, changing diapers and colostomy bags, and giving suppositories (thankfully I've never had to do that last one, but all the others I have many times), but we get paid nothing like that. The only time I got anything close to a fair wage was when I volunteered to work 58 hour weeks with COVID-positive clients for a month, and even then I was on my own; if something went wrong absolutely no one could help me. That of course doesn't excuse abuse or neglect (although neglect can be for surprisingly trivial things, like leaving someone in a car for 30 seconds so you can fill up a company car with gas), but it's very hit or miss with the types of people you get. I'm normally a job coach, which tends to attract more educated types and higher functioning people, but the group homes are very hit-or-miss; there are some great ones (like the one I helped out at when COVID ran through the house) and some that are horrifying (I'm not too far from the Southbury Training School, which is a thoroughly unnerving place to go even today). Unfortunately, I doubt there's any really great solution, but I do think we're at least trying a lot harder and doing better than we once did; to the extent I can make their lives better I sure try. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I personally know a 35 year old developmentally disabled woman from birth who was coereced into a hysterectomy by social workers, nurses, and doctors "for her own good". (Were they motivated by science?) This is real Nazi-stuff in modern America. nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That's awful, nobs. It's so bad because the victim usually needs help navigating their day to day life. They can't comprehend or verbalize the abuse in real time. I've worked with a few "disordered" kids. My high school job was daycare, I had a kid who was so autistic he couldn't be left alone. My mom was a para when I was growing up, now she's a resource teacher, and a lot of these kids are not well taken care of at home. The solution isn't to forcibly stop them from having kids, it's to educate and provide opportunities. If it's as little as "hey, condoms work, come get your free condoms" that's huge. I did a little bit of work with Planned Parenthood, they also give out stuff to kids that basically says "your body is yoirs. tell your teachers if you think this is happening." Only one public institution is actively doing that. Yes Sanger was a rampant eugenicist, and yes, the people volunteering at Planned Parenthood had a real problem with having sex with each other and then getting mad about it, but the actual function of education and provision isn't bad. It's just, people are so fucking diverse. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for a fallacy[edit]

What is "You cannot be [X] if you're not [Y]"?Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

At a guess, the "No true Scotsman" fallacy Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Or at a second guess "Association fallacy" Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Unless it's the no true scotsman, it's not really a fallacy either. "You cannot be a planet unless you've cleared your orbit or most similar sized objects" is a valid scientific definition, e.g.. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It depends. If I say "All Scotsmen are men from Scotland", then I have set up a falsifiable set of criteria, which can reasonably be demonstrated. This is in contrast to "all Scotsmen wear kilts", the fallacious argument. We often forget that certain logical fallacies merely incorrect applications of logic. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
But remember - Kentish Men are not the same as Men of Kent. Anna Livia (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think I would go for False dilemma. But a concrete example of what you are thinking would help.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If ~Y, Then ~X.
It's true unless there exists X that is ~Y. E.g., "If it is not a car, it is not a Toyota Camry" is true since all Camry's are cars. However, it becomes wrong when we change the statement to "If it is not a car, then it is not a Toyota vehicle", because Toyota makes trucks and motorcycles too. The fallacy is in the assumption that Toyota only makes cars. So you are looking for some sort of fallacy that has an error on what constitutes the nature of X. Yes, "no true scotsman" is a form of this, but not the only form. CoryUsar (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking more of "You are either with with us or you are against us". But I think your explanation is better. Or Jeh2ow could tell us what he was thinking of.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
What you've stated is a simple example of a False Dilemma: falsely claiming the situation is either/or when at least one other possibility can exist. To use some examples, "You cannot be [knowledgeable about American politics] if you're not [an American]". "You cannot be [attracted to women] if you're not [a man]". "You cannot be [able to recognize good music] if you're not [a musician]", and so on.

Ireland's very own Covid shyster, Ivor Cummins[edit]

There is a, I do apologise in advance for any offence certain language coming may cause but it is warranted, fucking charlatan wank-stain faux scientist on youtube (No surprise) with a patreon (no surprise, the two platforms attract contrarian voices seeking profit and attention.) called Ivor Cummins who on a daily basis spews out utter bollox in relation to sars-cov-2/Covid-19. I'm not posting any links to his youtube page or patreon, but there is a recent take down of his emetic drivel here and daily refutations by Dominic Pimenta and Jocami Ca points out that Ivor Cummins "evidence" in a dropbox link turns out to be drum roll please, written by a Dutch dance teacher This snake oil sales man for pandemic times has a pestilential hard on for herd immunity, even though it's in no way shown to be effective in relation to Covid19 (see the latest BBC Radio 4 programme The Briefing Room "Sweden and the Pandemic" Swedens response to the pandemic has been, in relation to other Nordic countries, that have more robust welfare states and better funded public health compared to the UK, Ireland and most of Europe, well dire, an excess death rate ten times that of Finland for example.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if this bloke is on mission, anytime he's taken to task he resorts to name calling, see https://twitter.com/jocami_ca/status/1309794725805858816/photo/1 and https://twitter.com/jocami_ca/status/1309794725805858816/photo/2 Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ready for a horribly put together creationist website?![edit]


The "Institute for Scientific and Biblical Research". While not as bad as Cambridge Theological Seminary, this site looks like something out of the 90's. --Possible Goat (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I just love the giant space below them that goes on for fifty miles. The background doesn't even tile and makes you see spots in your eyes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Are they stuck in the 1990's in terms of computer software? --Possible Goat (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nearly Everything BLM and media outlets Is Saying About The Breonna Taylor Case Is False[edit]

Initially, it was reported that police burst into the wrong apartment without knocking during a botched drug raid and murdered Taylor while she slept. That would be indefensible if it were true. It isn’t.

As Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron explained in his press conference on Wednesday, officers were serving a legal warrant at the right location and they did knock before entering. An independent witness corroborates that they announced and identified themselves. Upon entering the residence, Breonna’s Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, opened fire on the officers. When police returned fire, Breonna Taylor was hit and killed. A warrant had been issued for Taylor’s apartment because there was reason to suspect that Taylor, or at least her apartment, was in some way involved in her criminal ex-boyfriend’s drug enterprise. As court documents show, Taylor’s car was spotted multiple times outside of a known drug house that was under surveillance by law enforcement. Taylor is reportedly on tape referring to the drug house while speaking to her then-boyfriend while he was in jail. In 2016, the body of a murder victim was allegedly found in a car rented by Taylor, which she said she had lent to her boyfriend. Shortly after her death, the ex-boyfriend was again recorded in jailhouse phone conversations claiming that Taylor was “handling [his] money.”

The point is that the warrant was issued for entirely valid reasons. The cops executed it according to the law, following all of the proper protocols, and only opened fire after Walker had begun shooting at them. There is no basis for calling this a “murder,” much less a racist murder by agents of white supremacy. It is a tragic accident, a catastrophic confluence of events. Many other terms could be used to describe it, but the fact remains that officers were serving a lawful warrant, acting within the bounds of the law, and responding with lethal force to the lethal force being used against them. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Assuming, arguendo, that's correct, now how does Kentucky change the laws so that doesn't happen again? One obvious point is to ban nighttime raids without some very good reason, which the law there currently doesn't do. And although the police did knock, they shouldn't have obtained a no-knock warrant. That's what I can think of off the top of my head; platitudes about society aren't things the law can change, so I find appeals to that useless. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok. If Cops raid a house, don't identify themselves, then get massacred, you should keep your trap shut. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I very much dislike the bootlickers who defend these crimes, who ignore any fault by the cops solely so they can sugarcoat murder. Again...
I heard the cops were charged with reckless endangerment because some of the twenty bullets they blindly shot into the apartment penetrated into some white folks' apartment.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Have SOP in no-knock raids to carry flashbangs and less-lethal weapons? Although I have reservations about less-lethal weaponry; it isn't non-lethal, and the fact that it's much less likely to kill results in it being used in cases where lethal weapons would never have been rather than displacing the use of lethal weapons.CoryUsar (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Given how armed the general populace is, cops are going to have to do these raids with a gun ready, with that always-possible-and-feasible outcome that they could be shot. Nothing about this raid tells me it'll end pretty, though a gun, ultimately, sealed the fate of the interaction. Kenneth Walker thought he was being violently robbed and had his life flash before his eyes and fired his weapon. Police, who insisted they did announce their presence (though in dispute), believed they were shot at and fired until their targets are down, as how they're trained. It's a clusterfuck but aside from the possibility of needing to announce their presence, I really don't see how the police could've tackled this without risking getting shot and killed. If they didn't announce themselves, there's no excuse for police. I don't see how the "bootlicker" comeback is an appropriate response, though. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
"The point is that the warrant was issued for entirely valid reasons. The cops executed it according to the law, following all of the proper protocols," This is false. The warrant issued was identical to four others approved by the same judge. The Supreme Court has stated that each "no-knock warrant" needs to have specific reasoning for this purpose, specific to each situation. Copy pasting from different warrants doesn't meet that standard. Additionally, journalists embedded with the Louisville PD in 2015 found that the application in practice, was for officers to declare they were police at the same time as they hit the door, making the announcement moot. I take particular issue with this accusation that people are lying when they say "Taylor was killed in her sleep". They tried knocking her door down at 00:40, while she was in bed. Of course it woke her up! They still murdered her in her own fucking bed. Two other aspects of the announcement from the investigators are also intensely frustrating. Her BF had the legal right to have and fire his weapon, because he feared they were being attacked. Walker was arrested for this, but was quickly released and charges were dropped for this reason. Investigators seemed to imply he was a drug dealer, which he wasn't, or that he is responsible for Taylor's death, which he very much fucking isn't. Her ex-boyfriend was a drug dealer, and was already in custody. Prosecutors floated a lower sentence in his case, if he implicated Taylor in his crimes, which he didn't, because she wasn't.
All of this shit stinks to high heaven, the Louisville PD lied repeatedly about this incident, lied to get the warrant, lied about Taylor's involvement, and then tried to get her Ex to lie for them. Fuck all of them.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As usual, those accusing the officers of criminal conduct have not bothered to explain what they might have done differently. Should they not have obtained the warrant for the apartment, despite having credible reason to believe that it had ties to drug trafficking? Should they not have executed the warrant? Should they have waited outside for someone to come to the door, and if the residents refused to answer then just packed up and gone home? Or should they have not returned fire once fired upon, instead diving to the floor or hiding behind furniture and hoping the assailant stops before a bullet hits them in the face?

Radical BLM activists have made it clear that their problem with the police is that the police exist at all. Anything the police do, therefore, is wrong, for the simple fact that the police are the ones doing it. For the BLM and its “Defund the Police” allies, the fight against police brutality is a fight against policing itself. All law enforcement is “brutality,” in their minds. And anyone who dies at the hands of police — any black person, anyway — has been murdered, no matter what, regardless of context. This is the radicalism that holds our cities hostage, the madness to which we are all supposed to bow. It dresses itself in the garb of racial justice, and carries signs that say “equality,” but it is all a decidedly unconvincing disguise for their radical assault on law and order, and civilization itself. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Radical assault on civilization? There is a serious strain of trust between society and law enforcement, particularly between the black community and law enforcement, don't deny that. Tensions are extremely high, for a good reason, and fueled by media and social media, for mixed reasons. The statistics don't lie, though, given which demographic is disproportionately killed and brutalized, given who's infiltrating law enforcement, given entrenched police culture, given the disastrous War on Drugs, given disastrous gun and healthcare policies, and so many more factors such as the court system and the incarceration rates and racial profiling. BLM has its reason to exist. To extrapolate from this incident into some wider narrative about how BLM is holding cities hostage is ludicrous. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
1) Not done the raid at night
2) Lead with less-lethal weapons, NOT guns. In fact, more that I think about it, guns shouldn't be drawn until AFTER the police have credible evidence the other person is armed/dangerous/whatever. There's a 911 call about an active shooter? Yeah, guns out. Conducting a no-knock raid? Stun guns and pepper spray only, until AFTER they confirm the suspects are armed. CoryUsar (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Bull. Shit. Here's the BBS report today about the reaction of the family lawyer - at the bottom it has a short summary of what happened that night - nothing about their report is false. You haven't shown what is currently false in any current report at all - you noted that initial reports were false - but that's not what your bullshit clickbait headline says. Stop being the bloody problem! Aloysius the Gaul 03:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I have been following this relatively closely because it happened next door to me, in the place where all the local papers and TV stations are. Assuming that the warrant was 'lawful' and that all the legal blanks were properly filled in, answer me one thing. Assuming for the sake of argument that "Taylor’s car was spotted multiple times outside of a known drug house that was under surveillance by law enforcement", how does this justify that surveillance, much less barging into a home in the middle of the night in the manner they did? Very simply, regardless of what you think about drug laws, I think all reasonable people should agree that their enforcement is not that damned important. Not important enough to justify this type of home invasion. Not important enough to put anyone's life in danger, including the police officers involved. Just not that big a deal to play wantonly with human lives that way. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This is even grants too much credit. The cops lied, they lied about the reason she was being surveilled, they lied about her involvement, they lied about the evidence they had. This wasn't a mistake, there is clearly blame that needs to be assigned, to the people that shot at two innocent people 30 times.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It's also been whispered locally that the whole police attention focused on the area where she lived was the result of some developer or other wanting the block, and as such the coloreds had to be chased out. In Kentucky, or at least in Louisville, too many police incidents involving a specific property can turn it into a 'nuisance' and allow the city to condemn it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 06:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Racist sigs[edit]

Is there any interest in disciplining Nobs for his frequent racist signatures? Bongolian (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you do something constructive with your life, like trying to convince covid 19 is a conspiracy theory and not the result of Trump pissing off the CCP with tariffs. nobsOoooooooooooooff 01:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I mean, we acknowledge the reality that it's just a disease with a rapid spread so... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Even those who claim it is naturally occurring in nature, the evidence still points to it escping from a lab. nobsDarn! I melted my purple crayons! 01:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Things have been so relatively pleasant since Raven fucked off I haven't even registered Nobs's grotesque stupidity. One day he won't be careful and say something punishment worthy instead of just hinting at it, though I'd say after his asking Delibrida if they prayed re: their gender transition nobs should have been given a warning by a mod. ShabiDOO 01:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Do I detect a hint of bigotry in your statement? nobsOh my god I love candy corn 01:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo I mean, he's currently confessing that he plans to commit electoral interference so... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit. nobsSpinning in a circle on an office chair! 01:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Who awe the wacist scum who beweive bwack guns down't mattew, awnd who iws the wacist scum who thweaten tuwu depwive bwacks of the 2nd amendment at the bawwot box? nobsI spent my quarter on bazooka bubble gum! 01:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice reflexive sig, Nobs. I'm sorry that you hate yourself so much. Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
"Who are the racist scum who beleive Black guns don't matter, and who is the racist scum who threaten to deprive Blacks of the 2nd Amendment at the ballot box?" Republicans. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the worst comics ever.[edit]

There WAS a comic named Rocky, which I hate cuz it was very misogynistic and incel-point-of-view. It has been transphobic and biphobic. Unlike Pondus, which present such stereotypes in a way that it does not seem -phobic, Rocky present them as if they were truths.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Biphobic against Bi men or Bi women? Because I could see where incels would hate Bi women. CoryUsar (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It attacked both.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
To add to the beauty, a strip was about the characters discussing a party where the was a boy "who turned out to be a girl and vice versa". It also purported the "trans=gay" by one of the characters thinking they are not hetero. One strip outright said "Fuck feminism!".--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

To all my American friends...[edit]

...I am a Kiwi, NZer - whatever epitaph you wish to use. We have an election this year and while politics and an election are polarising events we at least remain civil to each other and their different political opinions. There is often to be found dark, sharp and negative commentary on right-wing/left-wing blogs but in general we don’t have great partisan differences leading to public disorder or the like. We have a participation rate of around 85 - 90% on Election Day, always peaceful. So my message to all my American friends to please vote and make sure your family and friends vote. I understand your biggest voting bloc is the people who don’t vote. So get out there and do it! That’s my public service announcement for the day. AceModerator 21:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

My sample ballot is filled and I'm just waiting for the real one to come around. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm volunteering as a poll watcher; we're still in litigation over my concealed carry permit while on the job. nobsThe wheels on the bus go round and round. 00:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
So far, Nobs is the best reason I've heard to vote by mail. Bongolian (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I certainly like the new sig. Honesty is a rare treat from Nobby. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
That was actually my vandalism. Bongolian (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Two points. One, Nobs had better not fuck around with his voter intimidation nonsense in Texas. Two, the new sig is a massive improvement. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm just doing my civic duty. nobsWatch out for the tax man :3 01:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Nobs, if you come to my county and try to fuck with my ability to vote, I'll send you to the ER. Be safe, and don't piss off someone who'll just plain kill you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Huh? WTF you talking about? nobsI like the blue M&M 01:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Why the fuck do you need a gun at the polling both, Rob. AceModerator 05:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't leave home without it. In modern progressive America, you can't eat in a restaurant without a gun. nobsAnd Tango makes three! 14:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Great sentiment. From across the pond I also hope that everyone who can vote finds a way to.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Nobs is a bit eccentric, but has never done anything to actively harm people. I could be wrong though, but there are certainly worse people that are carrying guns around out there. CoryUsar (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As for nobs, he is mostly a right wing prick who spews nonsense. In terms of threats, he has not made actual threats (as far as I know, could be wrong). Mainly he derails discussions. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Any good female and/or queer YouTubers?[edit]

See title--HedvigsenSkreonk here 09:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Plenty, but depends what kind of content you're looking for specifically. Lindsay Ellis has an excellent series looking at feminist theory through the lens of Michael Bays Transformers movies.[[7]] Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 11:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, when I first read that on my phone while walking to work, I misread it as "Any good feminist and/or queer YouTubers". Well, Lindsay's definitely female though and pretty much all her videos are great. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I look for them in general. Want to make my sublist more diverse.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 11:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hbomberguy[8] makes mostly measured responses to reactionary bullshit, but he's made couple of videos specifically from his perspective as a queer person. I especially enjoyed his video on why he liked Lovecraft as a kid.
Curio[9] on the other hand does a lot of videos especially about videogames from their nonbinary perspective. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 13:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't think the guy is queer himself.Machina (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
You mean bias. — Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs
@Machina What? Do you know what bias is? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Machina, if you're refering to Hbomberguy, he refered to himself as queer in that Lovecraft video I mentioned.[10] The video itself is mainly about adapting Lovecraft for film, but he covers what appealed to him in Lovecrafts writings as a queer/gay kid who well knew what a homophobe Lovecraft was (in addition to all the other things). Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 09:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Still kind of doubt that is true about him considering how he does his videos. Also he clearly doesn't understand the man or his material if he found it appealing. Then again most don't.Machina (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Anarchopac and Mexie are also good ones. Oxyaena Harass 13:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at my YouTube subscriptions there's: OverlySarcasticProductions (Red does Miscellaneous Myths and Trope Talks), Strange Aeons, NotEvenEmily, Sarah Z, and TiffanyFerg. WhatIsAGoodUsername (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Seconding OSP. They're very informative. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 07:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy about COVID being an international hoax- would it not be easier just to release a virus?[edit]

Why would some shadow government try to perpetrate a fake pandemic knowing the sheer amount of money, time and resources needed would not be logistically possible. Would it not be easier just to release a virus and cause panic? Now if the whole thing had the sole purpose of bringing down Trump, it would be simpler to off him using an assassin (I do not condone the use of violence). No collateral damage.

These conspiracies make no logical sense. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course they don’t make sense. Conspiracy theories are just security blankets for scared stupid people who want to want to feel special. They can’t accept the fact that they are insignificant parts of an uncaring and arbitrary world, so they invent a scenario where one bad guy is responsible for their problems and that they are special for knowing about it. In reality, of course, no problem is that simple. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Now someone taking advantage of a public health emergency to make money would be very easy. Churches and quack doctors are pros in that department. You could easily sell a fake COVID cure, just mix some vitamins and CBD extract into a glass of orange juice then boom- a fake COVID cure you could sell for hundreds of dollars per dose. As for using a church, faith healing is very profitable. Benny Hinn is an expert on how to cheat desperate people out of their money. --Possible Goat (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Illustrert Vitenskap has a very good article on consspiracy theories.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, under normal circumstances I wouldn't comment on this until well into President Trump's second term, but there may actually be something here for you guys to learn about strategic thinking. Put aside your biases for a moment, which are all based upon early reporting originating with the CCP and echoed by global media, and assume momentarilly that covid 2 may indeed actually be a deliberate CCP bioweapon attack in retaliation for Trump tariffs. Let's further assume that in two or three years this fact may either become firmly established or at a minimum, the CIA issues an assessment to that effect. Wouldn't that make Trump look awfully naive and reckless? Xi Jinping ate his lunch. That's why I see no need to be quick on the trigger, echoing CCP and CNN bullshit, calling the release a "conspiracy theory". But I know what it's like to be a dumbass leftist, pissing your pants to comment on things you don't know or understand jackshit about. nobsI look majestic without hair 06:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay I’ll do you one better. Yes, it’s a ‘bio-weapon’, but it was ‘our bio-weapon’, Trump sought to unending the CCP but they got wise and allowed it to spread to the West. Or, how about you GTFOHWTBS!? 21:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Actually, it was a joint effort, of which there's a logical explanation. nobsBecause I have nothing better else to do 23:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
How are you still here...--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Trump needs no help at all in looking naive and reckless. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Then why defend his legacy by calling his greatest failure a 'conspiracy theory'? nobsI scream for ice cream!! 23:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The two conspiracy theorys (a) that Covid is a hoax created by someone for some reason and the conspiracy theory ( b) that the virus does exist and was released by someone for some reason are both equally dumb, lacking in evidence and illogical. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@RobS You're a fucking cunt and I fucking hate you. Spud (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit- See Below) Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ditto @Spud.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bob M Consider these two "illogical" facts: (a) the CCP has no regard for the lives of the Chinese people, as more than aptly demonstarated by its own history; and (b) with the loss of an $850 billion yearly trade surplus with the United States, Chinese economic growth rates looked increasingly dim for the foreseeable future, imperilling the CCP legitimacy among the people of China. The CCP would have every motivation to wipe out unemployment in the crashing Chinese economy with a pandemic,. and attempt to mobilize opposition to a Trump second term by Trump's recklessness in upsetting the established international order (i.e. the transfering of wealth from the U.S. to China). nobsI love colored contact lenses! 17:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh my God! It's suddenly so obvious! A fool could see it!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
So you'd agree, calling covid a conspiracy theory protects Trump's legacy. nobsThe rubber ducky says, "SQUEAK!" 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Remember when Trump first met Xi Jinping at Mar-e-Lago and had his granddaughter sing Xi a song in Chineese? Ask Trump what he thinks of XI now. Xi ate Trump's lunch. Trump, the busnessman, had no idea he was negotiating with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao rolled into one. Xi ate Trump's lunch. nobsI am a happy old fogey! 17:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
COVID being a bioweapon doesn't even make sense. Why would the Chinese engineer a virus that can be easily thwarted by having people put pieces of cloth in front of their dumb fucking mouths? Why is the fatality rate not much higher? Here's why COVID happened: (1) Viruses are a lot more adaptable than our primitive primate immune systems can deal with, (2) Lots of people in lots of places made stupid decisions, and (3) Bad shit happens and no one cares about any of us. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
1) The theory is that it was being developed as a bioweapon when it was released early, not that it was finished
2) A more plausible theory is that China didn't actually intend to ever make a bioweapon, but delayed any action because they wanted to make sure that it spread to other countries so China would not "suffer alone" CoryUsar (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
more plausible maybe but zero evidence for it. even more plausible is that they thought they could contain it but couldnt AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Even more plausible is that, being Autocrats, much of their low-level government is corrupt/lazy/incompetent and was doing their best to pretend it wasn't a big deal, so not even the upper levels knew what was happening. CoryUsar (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Still doesn't deal with the more plausible and scientifically verified idea that Covid occurred in nature.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
One needs an understanding of weapons development. Go back to the Manhattan Project as your model. The excuse for funding the project then was not that the U.S. would ever use nuclear weapons, but if our enemies turned a theoretical concept into reality first, we'd be at a disadvantage. So this type of research is constant, and in recent decades there has even been shared research efforts between the U.S. and others, such as China, not only to develop things like a lethal bioweapon, but a vaccine to offset it, as well.
Welcome to the world of global peace and cooperation. nobsBurp! Oopsie! So sorry.... 23:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
After studying the virus scientists have concluded two things. The virus looks like a naturally generated virus. The virus shows no signs of being artificially manipulated.
But it's much easier for people who like conspiracy theories to believe in a world where where things are under the control of "someone" because then the world is a less scary place. Nobs is an ideal case in point. He is unable to accept the mountain of scientific evidence showing the true age of the Earth and he insists its 6,000 years old. He equally unable to accept scientific evidence about the virus because he has a worldview which suggests something else - so again he rejects the science.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
So the question is divided into two camps, Truth seekers such as myself and Trump apologists such as Bob. nobsMy favorite body lotion is lilac 16:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
If you wanted truth you'd get the age of the universe right and you would say mad stuff like "God won't let America win any more wars because there are too many atheists in the military". If Trump wanted truth he would take Covid seriously. You and Trump hardly know what truth is.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never been involved in any discussion or mainspace article anywhere in my 25 year internet career related to the age of the universe (except perhaps once here at RW on a fact-gathering mission to understand what the controversy was). I've never expressed any position pro or con this or that on the subject. Looks like more supposed "facts" you're pulling out of your asshole. nobsWhy don't you come sing with me? 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I handed you the issue on a silver plater - Trump's recklessness provoked a global pandemic and economic collapse. But your love the Chinese Communist Party leads you to call it a "conspiracy theory". nobsPretty trash can embroidery! 17:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Really? I thought you had made your opinion the age of the Earth clear? But I could be mistaken, and I'm sure that you will me more aware of what you have written than I am. You can clear that up very easily now in that case. How old do you think the Universe is and how old do you think the Earth is?
With retard to the Trump conspiracy thing. The virus is real. People who say the virus is a non-existent conspiracy or or who follow the other conspiracy theory that it is a Chinese bio-weapon (perhaps gone wrong) are idiots. Trump is a congenital idiot. If we agree on these points then maybe we are going forward.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The age of the earth and/or universe (you seem to have switched the premise of your question) is not only something I've never really cared to ponder, but like God, my own personal sentiments on the subject do not dictate truth or scientific reality. From what I gather eavesdropping on RW/YEC debates, 6K-12K seems like a low ball figure; I've been told by RW editors of a "belief" that the figure is somewhere between 14 billion and 23 billion, and some say as high as 40 billion. Whether that's the age of the earth or age of the universe I don't really recall and don't really give a fuck. The question of how "beliefs" become scientific facts I find far more fascinating.
As to the origins of covid controversy, I'm glad we haven't pitted supposed reference cites and authorities against each other so far in an unending arms race. I've proposed a logical hypothesis - for which more arguments and evidence can be presented. You've made a controversial assertion of fact. Can we agree on that? nobsOreos make me giggle 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are questions of established scientific fact. The fact that some people have erroneous ideas about the age of the Universe, the age of the Earth, or (for that matter) the flatness of the earth does not stop the reality being established scientific fact.
As far as Covid conspiracy theories are concerned: the number of possible items of evidence you can find about almost any subject is enormous, all conspiracy theories are based on a selective reading of this evidence. It's really easy to look for evidence which supports a conspiracy theory and ignore the evidence which does not. In fact negative evidence may well be incorporated into the conspiracy to show how well “they” have covered their tracks.
As always with conspiracy theories some questions are "who benefits and how". Usually conspiracy theorists will give multiple differing answers depending on the person proposing the theory or the people proposing it will themselves shift ground. Another question is "How could someone disprove your conspiracy theory?" "Or what, if anything would you accept as counter-evidence for your conspiracy theory?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we agree, the guess that the universe and age of the earth is somewhere beween 14 billion and 40 billion is a scientific fact.
As to covid, we'll just have to wait until the National Security Archive declassifies its intelligence assesmnent in 40 or 50 years to see if your conspirarcy theory about covid has any accuracy. Meantime, we have the global decoupling movement which tends to refute some of your basic premise. nobsSHINE GET! 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
If a government or terror cell wanted to simply generate fear and unrest, they would just stifle pandemic response. As for a bioweapon, that would take years of research, billions of dollars and attempting to stay out of the lenses of international authorities. If your group is too big, you risk exposure. If your group is too small, not enough resources. Starting another arms race would not be in the best interests of world governments. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Such research had been going on since the founding of the PRC. The PRC was born amidst biological warfare. Unit 731 § Biological warfareWikipedia. And as noted earlier, cooperative research between member states has been going on since the PRC's admission to the WTO. nobsAll my sigs suck 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Court Nominee[edit]

2020 Live Updates: Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett as Supreme Court Nominee

-TheOldMan (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
At least it's not Judge Jeanine! Seriously, though, the media has already beclowned itself mistakenly linking her religious sect to that which helped inspire The Handmaid's Tale (which itself lays it on more than a little thick), and to make me sympathetic to a Catholic is truly an achievement; if it ends up being her I suppose there are worse options. She did, if nothing else, come down firmly for due process in CA7, which is sorely needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
No one is seriously considering her religion a problem, but her covenant is. Also, 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices will now be Catholic, even though they represent 12% of Americans. Are Catholics really the ultimate arbiters of democracy?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If anyone else is amused by Austin "BabyQ" Steinbart, who claims to be running the QAnon movement, we have an article on him now.[edit]

This guy is beyond absurd even by QAnon standards, and now that he's back in FBI custody I figured this was a good time to finally make an article about him. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What does everyone think of debt in the United States?[edit]

39 states out of 50 don't have enough money to pay their bills, as written at https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/financial-state-of-the-states-2020 I'm not sure how this will end but it doesn't look good.

Rugged individualism will save the day. Oh, and the Laffer Curve. AceModerator 09:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You all remember Yugoslavia? Think that but worse. Oh, and we've fucked the planet to death. YAY!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Defunding the police will be a step toward balancing the budget. And once private property is abolished, so will the national debt as well, being that Treasury bills and Treasury bonds are private property. It's an incremental solution, rather than revolutionary. nobsI'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs! 14:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Economic growth will always be sufficient to repay the debt - until it isn't.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You almost reach the point where you realize capitalism is the problem, but you don't. Oxyaena Harass 15:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious, Oxy. Why do you believe that you, personally, would do better under a communist system? I get the appeal of communism for someone working long hours in a low wage job with no hope of promotion, but you said yourself you can't hold a job, and communists would absolutely have no patience for someone incapable of working. Being autistic you would have trouble making friends, to say nothing of trans issues, so you are all but guaranteed to be sent to the gulags. I don't understand why you believe that communism would somehow work out well for you in particular. CoryUsar (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hate to put words in her mouth, but you are clearly describing a Soviet inspired society when she has repeatedly stated she does not consider that "real communism."-Flandres (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
And the Latin American style commie societies would ALSO have made her disappear, even if she could work; Castro was hostile enough to gay people, chances are he wasn't exactly pro-trans (though Iran does occupy that weird spot of being vehemently anti-gay but relatively accepting of trans women). Same with China, who isn't exactly known for workers' rights. You'd think they'd be more accepting of gay men and trans women, considering their issues, but nope, so again, double screwed there. No communist society in history has ever put up with people who don't/can't work, and there's no reason to expect that there'd be a communist society in the future that would. CoryUsar (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstand me-When I said "soviet inspired" I meant "every lennist regime ever," so pretty much every "well-known communist society ever". Don't just rule out Stalin, but get rid of Castro and Mao too. Hence the "Anarcho" part of "anarcho-communsim."-Flandres (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
But even in a hypothetical an-com society, she'd STILL be kicked to the curb. Even if they'd accept her for being 'weird', they absolutely would not accept her inability to work with others and she'd have too much trouble making friends with anyone to prevent her from getting the boot. I mean, that's what I don't get, why she's so deluded into thinking it's "Capitalism" that's the reason she can't hold a job, rather than her inability to get along with others. CoryUsar (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, ancoms believe they strive for a utopia where nobody is obligated to work and everyone is accepted regardless of any social traits and thus is provided for(too each according to their need is just as important, if not more so, than from each according to their ability). Such a society would view the very act of "kicking someone to the curb" as a nightmarishly barbaric anachronism. Also, the idea that chronically unemployed people only have themselves to blame and that the system as a whole is sound is...problematic.-Flandres (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


1) Every society, without exception, has some system to get rid of problematic individuals. It's pretty much a human constant, and there's really no reason to assume that some hypothetical society would tolerate anyone that both pisses off others and does not contribute.
2) Yes, there's something wrong with blaming everything that happens to people as being their own fault. However, in the case of Oxy, she regularly fights with people here with little ability to compromise or simply "get along". I suspect she does this in the MeatScape as well. If that is the case then her inability to get along with other people, and not Capitalism itself, is the reason she can't stay employed.
3) Little is more infuriating than someone so convinced of an idea that when other, similar ideas have proven to be failures, they find some excuse as to why their particular idea is still valid. It's like if a religious person creates a fundamentalist hellhole, and in spite of the existence of secular societies being much better even with their flaws, the religious nutjob insists that the hellhole could be the utopia if only it was MORE religious. If communism truly was so great, you'd expect that near-communism would be a near-utopia, not near-dystopia. CoryUsar (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I`m sure capitalism works wonders for the people who work two or more jobs and are still unable to pay their rent. You're militantly committed to misunderstanding anarchism, aren't you? Oxyaena Harass 00:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Oxy, coerced compassion is not compassion. nobsThis Earth kitchen is super cool!!! 00:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Oxy, I'm not talking about why a wage-slave working at Walmazon would look at Communism and say "yeah, maybe that system will be better for me". I'm asking why YOU think Communism will be better for YOU, when all evidence points to the opposite. You aren't some menial drone who is underpaid because the corporate structure has enabled a system to abuse you, you are someone who is too incapable of getting along with others to hold a menial job at all. The same things that caused you to 'fail' under Capitalism will cause you to be murdered by the state under Leninist-Communism, or banished from the community under Anarcho-Communism. CoryUsar (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
If you need a little inspiration, I'm not transgender but I have The Big A and at your age I was grossly underemployed as a lifeguard. It took several years to get my shit together (there was a lot about society that ground me down, but I had plenty to improve about myself), and I got plenty of help from family (if not the people who call me "friends"), but now I own a condo; thanks to capitalism COVID has actually been a huge boon for my finances, since for a much higher price than normal I was willing to risk my health and work with COVID-positive people. I suspect the big picture is overwhelming, if the intense world hypothesis is correct it's due to getting stuck on all the details of what it takes to support yourself, so don't try to do it all at once. Just find a small thing to work on. However much the system sucks, no one person is totally changing it so you'll have to go along; if you hate the way things are now, the worst you can do trying something else is to end up where you started. And above all, go easy on yourself; a certain band once warned of being so full of what is right that you can't see what is good or true. Things won't change overnight, but if you end the day even a little better than you started it's progress that you should celebrate. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
How many of you own shares in major companies? How many of you have lobbyists on retainer? How many of you can directly influence politicians? How many of you are part of the capital class? I'm guessing very few, if any. Now, these defenses of the current system remind me of Hegel's defense of constitutional monarchism as the end point of civilization. To which I reply, there is no end point other than the grave. Will capitalism, the current system, give way to a new system? Almost certainly. How do I know this? Because that's how society has historically evolved. Thusly, I think it's rather small minded to look at capitalism and think "yeah, this is where we'll stop, it just needs some tweaks". Now, what will the next system be? Anarchism? Communism? Socialism? Fascism? Social Democracy? I don't know, though I doubt any of those ideas will come to pass as their proponents expect, if they come to pass at all. Something new may yet arrise, as liberal democracy and capitalism did before it, and that will be that. Or not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
i would agree that it is best to look at what you can do now than be too concerned about some theoretical end point that may or may not even be possible. people are too hung up on their chosen ideology and get too distracted with ideological feuds that absolutely nothing practical gets done and certainly no closer to whatever utopia they are imagining. its pointless to even discuss an end game when you havent even got the opening sussed AMassiveGay (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @GC

Uhh, the entire middle class owns shares in major companies. Just where do you think your 401k gets its returns?
As for "capital class", it's actually very easy to start your own business; it's making that business successful that's the difficult bit. The easiest route for that is to get a professional degree; every accountant, attorney or doctor is capable of forming their own practice in any podunk town. Heck, a group of doctors owning their own practice is the Socialist Ideal; the workers owning their own means of production, no?
For the working class, it's actually even easier, so long as you are willing to live in Crapville, Stateasota. EVERY small town in the US is paying out the ass for electricians and plumbers, no seriously, that's only slightly hyperbole but try talking to people out in the sticks sometime. You simply CAN'T get an electrician because they all want to live in Boston or DC or another decent city where the girls area, but any that do decide to live in the small towns make a relative fortune with a business that has minimal startup costs.
If you don't have any specialized skill, the competition is much more fierce of course. Small family restaurants are still a thing, but the competition is fierce and even if you are good it could take a long time to become successful. CoryUsar (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
small family restaurants arnt thing any more, what with covid and all. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
1) COVID is temporary, 2) there are still a lot of restaurants open at lower capacity, 3) while yes, it's sad that some will close, that means there's room for more to take their place. CoryUsar (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
"Uhh, the entire middle class owns shares in major companies. Just where do you think your 401k gets its returns?" It doesn't, as I am unemployed. Further, once again, you seem to have missed the point. Again. The "capital class" would be the wealthy, such as Jeff Bezos. Do Amazon workers own shares in the company? Can they vote on the board? Can those same workers even begin to compete with the kind of wealth and power wielded by Bezos? Should anyone even have that much power to begin with, let alone one singular man? The answer to all of these questions, is no. Everyone below the Millionaire rung is fighting over scraps, while the lion's share is hoarded by the wealthy few, who use their vast fortunes to buy off elected officials, to further expand their wealth, and to consolidate power and prestige amongst themselves. This is not a healthy society, one with a future. It is a society mired in despair and decay, unable to move forwards because it's too hung up on defending those who ought not be defended. "As for "capital class", it's actually very easy to start your own business; it's making that business successful that's the difficult bit. The easiest route for that is to get a professional degree; every accountant, attorney or doctor is capable of forming their own practice in any podunk town. Heck, a group of doctors owning their own practice is the Socialist Ideal; the workers owning their own means of production, no?" No. That is not control over the means of production. You speak of the wealthy, the well to do, and call them the prols, and thusly show you know naught of which you speak. Can a waiter start their own restaurant? No. They are kept below the owner class, the wealthy class, the capital class, because it is in the interests of the wealthy to keep them there. It's cheaper and more effective for the next fiscal quarter, you see. The larger the business, the greater the incentive. You really are quite ignorant of how this whole thing works. It's like saying that I could declare independence from the US government and found my own country out of my backyard if I brought up a complaint against said government. Power dynamics don't work that way. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
GC, you claim I don't know what communism is; reading your comments, I don't think you understand what capitalism is. nobsThis is an itsy bitsy spider 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
In that original state of society, where people lived in caves and hunted woolly mammoth's for food with sticks, and all membrs of the clan, including grandma and children born with special needs, partook in dinner, eventually some ambitious member of the tribe discovered that by smashing two rocks together, flint could start a fire to cook dinner. Generations later another member of the tribe discovered that fire could be used to forge from rock shavings a hammer head and nails to build wooden houses. Now, should the intellectual property rights of those innovators be protected to grant them a hierarchial respected place in society because of their contributions to improving the lifestyle of all human beings, or are thier inventions and discoveries public propoerty? nobsYOU MUST RECOVER!!
Capitalism is the socio-economic system most if not all of humanity currently exists under. Originally arising during the enlightenment in conjunction with Liberal Democracy as a rival system to mercantilism, which was itself a socio-economic system tied to monarchism, it eventually won out and became the dominant system that it is today. It's primary characteristics include an emphasis on private property, wealth accumulation and the glorification thereof, and private business. Again, this is as opposed to the previous dominant system, which capitalism is a vast improvement over. However, one of the major flaws with capitalism is its retention of an upper class, which in turn retains a number of flaws from the previous systems. (mercantilism and monarchism.) I think you'll find that I do indeed know what I'm talking about. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Capitalism is much older than that, in fact, it's as old as the human species. All wealth is acquired by labor. Property is an extension or preservation of unconsumed labor. A hammer head used to drive nails is a product of an earlier labor process which has not been fully dissapated or consumed yet. Only capitalism preserves unconsumed labor. In fact, that is what capitalism is. Your flaw is looking at capitalism as a social system, and ignoring the economic processes and improvements to living standards involved.nobsCh-ch-ch-chia! 21:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Rob, I understand that you're a deluded troll, so this may be a shock to you, but you are wrong. "Capitalism is much older than that, in fact, it's as old as the human species." This is incorrect, as I explained earlier. "All wealth is acquired by labor. Property is an extension or preservation of unconsumed labor. A hammer head used to drive nails is a product of an earlier labor process which has not been fully dissapated or consumed yet. Only capitalism preserves unconsumed labor. In fact, that is what capitalism is." Rob, are you advocating the fucking Labor Theory of Value?!?!? Gods... "Your flaw is looking at capitalism as a social system, and ignoring the economic processes and improvements to living standards involved." Rob, again I know you're disnhonest and or illiterate, but I actually said that this was true. "Again, this is as opposed to the previous dominant system, which capitalism is a vast improvement over." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The ability to trade one person's work product for another's is as old as the human species. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for another. [11] Honest people have no problem with this capitalist system, only thieves complain. nobsLOOK FOR THE GIANT CHICKEN!!!! 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@GC Doctors and Attorneys work. There's no guarantee that Doctors will always make as much money as they currently do; in 1900, a physician barely made more than a bricklayer would. Their pay comes through their own labor, and no one else's, unlike, say, someone who owns a Taco Bell franchise that depends on ex-convicts working for minimum wage to make the owner wealthier. If you are going to dismiss doctors and lawyers and accountants and so forth, who make virtually all of their income through their own labor with little to no capital of note, simply because they earn more, well, that makes it a bit more difficult to take you seriously. CoryUsar (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Do you have a Discord or Skype account? It's sometimes more useful to use voice chat than text, as I can respond to responses and clarifications. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
No discord, or maybe I do I've used it in the past but maybe years ago. Prefer to talk here though. CoryUsar (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft pages I made that need help (please)[edit]

I hate to ask. --Possible Goat (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of them are. I have never heard of them either, and am too lazy to do more research. Do you have any resources on those topics? I guess the best thing to do right now is to simply make a list of all credible news sources reporting on those issues, like Wikipedia does.𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 06:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
They need a lot of work. Pages like Bob Jones University will show you the sort of things to include in articles on an educational institution: their history, important/evil people on faculty, any weird policies, controversies they've been involved in. I always say this, but please do proper references (see other RW articles, such as the ones on the front page). I'm not familiar with Coronavirus Hoax website so I don't know if it even deserves an article, but provide summaries of what it's saying, quotes from the website (ideally archive the website if you're quoting stuff but you'll probably need help; I need help with archiving) and quote other people who've commented on it (preferably actual real COVID experts who've said it's rubbish). If nobody has commented on the website, it's probably too obscure to deserve an article. --Annanoon (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair warning. Anything to do with I/P will result in a huge headache for everyone involved. Here, Wikipedia, anywhere. CoryUsar (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing Information is not Understanding Information[edit]

There's a little kick that Princeton self-owned by calling out their own racism and then the government is going to take away their money because they called themselves a racist institution and that's funny, self own, air horns. It's Princeton, yes, there's probably racism in admission, it's getting called out, the fuck are you talking about? Oh now this and we're all just going to pretend that this isn't the "Get woke, go broke" argument. Who fucking cares if Princeton gets a fine, if they are willing to address their internal racism? How is that a win? How is an admission of guilt in a critical investigation into one's own institution a self-own? Take the money away over breaking institutionalized racism. is Princeton gonna die or did they just make an empirical statement? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There is the problem of remediation of such problems as historical racism. How is it accomplished? Confession and repentance are not helpful if one is uncertain of exactly what activities one has confessed. The Trump administration appears to be trolling Princeton University for what it regards as virtue signaling, which is not yet known to be a violation of any federal statutes..Ariel31459 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Not going to die anytime soon. Princeton endowment as of 2018: $25.9 billion.
For context, the federal government supplies funds to educational institutions contingent on adherence to various federal laws, including nondiscrimination laws. On September 2, the university president wrote a letter in which he claimed that there was persistent racism at Princeton, and that he intended to use race-based hiring quotas. Taken at face value, this implies that Princeton’s applications for federal funding have been fraudulent, and the Department of Education is obligated to investigate credible claims of fraud. About $75 million in funding is involved, in addition to possible fines. Princeton has also been under investigation for race-based admissions policies. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I perceive that you have missed the point entirely. The letter concerns a post-modernist idea of racism, for example, from the President's letter: "Racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself. For example, Princeton inherits from earlier generations at least nine departments and programs organized around European languages and culture, but only a single, relatively small program in African studies." In view of the fact that such biases are exactly the sorts of programs the Trump administration would want to subsidize, complaints of this sort will likely lead nowhere. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't address the argument directly because I couldn't. It's really tough to get hit randomly with "proof" the left is burning itself to ashes. Unfortunately, the person who was jazzed on this doesn't care about it anymore. It's awful here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
“The letter concerns a post-modernist idea of racism, for example” I was referring more to the part where he said, “Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention”, and the part where he announced his intention to implement race-based hiring quotas, acknowledged that those are illegal, and reiterated his intention to implement them anyway. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Covid testing[edit]

So someone I know tested positive for Covid. She had a very mild illness, kept in quarantine for a couple of weeks or so and then wanted to go back to work. As she is in contact with elderly people she wanted a second test - which also came up positive. But she was told she could go back to work as she was probably not infectious.

This sounded kind of odd to me, so I went to the net to find out more. To my surprise it's not difficult to find other instances. In fact you may test positive for weeks while presumably not being infectious.

But that leads me to question the statistics we read daily about cases identified by PCR. How many of these will be real live cases and how many will be residual infections? A kind of false positive really. I'm not for a moment trying to deny the reality or seriousness of the disease, I'm just wondering if some of the numbers are over-interpreted.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that because of the climate created by media and social media, in which every opinion is interpreted assuming the worst possible intentions, most of the people read your question as: "Coronavirus is a hoax created by China! QAnon is truth! MAGA! Booo Science!" I lost any hope about a honest and skeptical conversation about pandemic occurring on the Internet.-TheOldMan (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, this is a pretty interesting turn of events. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a difficult considering how little we know about the virus. Do you know what type of test was administered? Or how it was collected? Which lab tested it? unfortunately, these are all factors regarding the effectiveness of tests.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
In the case of my friend both tests were CPR. I have no idea what lab(s) carried out the test, so this is obviously anecdotal.
However this from the CDC says: "Although replication-competent virus was not isolated 3 weeks after symptom onset, recovered patients can continue to have SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in their upper respiratory specimens for up to 12 weeks. Investigation of 285 “persistently positive” persons, which included 126 persons who had developed recurrent symptoms, found no secondary infections among 790 contacts attributable to contact with these case patients. Efforts to isolate replication-competent virus from 108 of these case patients were unsuccessful"
Which is essentially the same thing. You can test positive for weeks and not be infectious. Which, as I said, was somewhat of a surprise to me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

TF: WFC: Kingdom hype[edit]

For those who do not know, a new WFC toyline will be released next year, including both classic characters AND Beast Wars characters! *Hype intensifies*--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


I want to convince my parents to take me to a doctor so the doctor can "check" if I am trans, which hopefully should also convince them to let me transition and stop misgendering me, but I am worried that I will be "checked" by a transphobic doctor.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Medical professionals who assess gender dysphoria, are specialists in dealing with trans people, it's unlikely you will encounter a transphobic doctor in this exercise. Judge Dredd (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
How can I tell?--HedvigsenSkreonk here 11:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Ask 'em straight up any questions you have, and decide on how good they are based on the answers. You should be able to tell quick enough. Judge Dredd (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Right, but I think what they're afraid of is that a transphobic doc will affirm the parents' "you're just rebelling"(or whatever, I'm guessing) position, and it will "be the end of that" as far as their parents are concerned. I think that's a reasonable fear, but one you'll probably have to face. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Their position is that it will go away. They asked if I was "born in the wrong body" and I said no. I still want transition, and they checked my Discord cuz I forgot to turn off my phone in which I stated that. Dumb that they don't respect my identity at all. They call me "he" and the rest. So I suppose that if it is temporary, it is invalid. I don't protest either since I don't want idiotic questions.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
If their position is that it will go away, then surely seeing a doctor will help you be more at ease and it'll go away faster, no? CoryUsar (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The hell?--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
If your parents are sooo convinced it's just a phase, then they should still let you see a doctor, since they should also be convinced that a doctor would clear up any questions you have and make the phase end sooner. If they are refusing to take you to a doctor, barring financial issues, it's because they are afraid they won't like the answer. CoryUsar (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I will get a therapist!--HedvigsenSkreonk here 15:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Presidential debate tomorow[edit]

I'm really surprised there hasn't been any fanfare about the debate tomorrow. I'm extremely curious to see how Biden deals with Trump's bizarre theatrics and assholtry. My friend and I are going to watch it out of pure cultural fascination (almost like its a semi-Jerry Springer ring). There are bookies in the UK taking bets on who will "win" the debate. Its strange there aren't bets on how many gaffes Biden will make and how many times Trump will say something revoltingly grotesque. ShabiDOO 17:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would there be fanfare? It's not like presidential debates actually matter in a nation this polarized. People watch them to confirm what they already believe, and poll fluctuations due to them rarely last.-Flandres (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd quite like to see what these two old men have to say to each other. But it would be something like three in the morning for me - so I'm not that interested. Should be interesting to see if Biden can retain focus or if Trump can actually make a coherent sentence.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Biden is quite capable of delivering a formal, coherent, and rational debate. Gaffes are just funny things people one doesn't like do. Trump is another matter. Can Biden make the debate look right all by himself? Ah, it'll be fine.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's to you not jinxing America for another four years!Beer.gif

Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Ariel has it right. Biden should hammer over and over again 200,000 people are dead because of Trump incompetence, and the most all Americans paid more in taxes, than Mr. Self Made Man. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I mean, I always hope for the best for all countries but the only two reasons I really care about the election is so that Trump stops disrupting global trade and messing about in international conflicts and that the US at least pretends to take climate change seriously. The second reason is, and I think this applies for the vast majority of people in the rest of the word: can't fucking wait to see Trump give (or most likely avoid giving) his concession speech and watch him pretend not to be utterly humiliated. It's like the tiny bright side of a four year nightmare. ShabiDOO 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
A Trump concession speech would certainly be something to watch. That is if he actually makes one given that he is not committed to respecting the result of the election. But if he does make one it will be a vainglorious mix of self-pity about how "he was robbed" and self-congratulation about "how well he did and how people should have voted for him" and hate for Republicans who "betrayed" their Great Leader and contempt for the real winner. Graciousness I would not expect.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Welp, that whole thing was one giant farce. Trump just can't shut the hell up and let someone else talk. Biden looks terrifying with his face lift, almost like Anderson Cooper's older brother. Both refused to answer simple questions from the moderator, who appeared to be just a few minutes away from shooting himself in the head. CoryUsar (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we can safely evaluate each candidate without making comments about their features. Biden came to debate, he had points to make, and arguments to support. Trump came to shit all over the entire process, with a plan to fight the moderator, and slander/insult Biden. Biden directly addressed the camera, each segment trying to make clear he was communicating to viewers that their problems matter. Trump addressed the moderator, looked at Biden the entire time Biden was answering, only looking away to have a smirk with someone in the crowd. No one won the debate, but that is good for Biden, who has a consistent lead, and bad for Trump, who needed something to change conversation of the race. I personally think there is no need for any other debate, but the town hall format is a threat to Trump, and I expect he'll see how his debate performance hurt him, and will bail.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


So here is something. For those ppl whomst also live in Australia or at least know what the deal is there, what do you’ll think the effects would be if America got into some kind of period of significant unrest after whatever the fuck happens with the election? My guess is that some of it would diffuse into here, but for the most part the politicians would tactically avoid publicly mentioning it, people would just go “thank fuck that’s not us” and there might maaaaybe be some closer political/economic ties with China. Cant really guess though. 💙 ASELAಮಾತು 💙 18:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Can picture Pauline Hansen being so polite about that. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I can imagine her, Fraser Anning, Blair Cottrell, even Peter Dutton, and all those other wastes of collagen would try to start shit, hopefully someone Gives em a good smack if they do so that they Shut The Fuck Up. Pauline Hanson gives me the shits. 💙 ASELAಮಾತು 💙 14:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think many protesters might vote Trump[edit]

I mean the people who initially got together to protest after Floyd's death. In my opinion, the movement is now way beyond just protesting police brutality and racism. It's became something against most of the current social/economic American structures. If Biden will win, then some police reforms may happen and the protests will slow down. So many protesters have probably already realized that is better for their cause if Trump gets reelected, so that protests can continue.-TheOldMan (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Or, and bear with me on this, if Trump wins the cops will just murder them in the street. So, logically, since they'll get at least some of their demands if Biden is elected, they'll vote for Biden. Or not vote at all. I'd also like to see a source on the claim that BLM is now against "against most of the current social/economic American structures." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
But Trump is already in power. So it's not like if he gets in power then he'll do something he can't do right now. Biden would satisfy some of their demands but my impression is that some is not enough and could be seem counterproductive to some protesters. Regarding American structures, note that I did not say BLM. The movement is much more than BLM. Note also that I said "In my opinion", so it's impossible to give you a source. That is the impression I have after watching and listening the protests. Don't you think that they are for a reform of the way justice and wealth are in the United States? More wealth redistribution and social justice, like European countries.-TheOldMan (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
So allowing trigger happy cops to get away with their crimes is a good thing? At the rate things are going, more people will be needlessly shot by cops. Far right nationalism is killing the US. --Possible Goat (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
There'll probably be protests even under Biden imo. If Trump gets reelected, whatever semblance of democracy is there they can use to their advantage gets further dwindled and I don't think that's a result most protestors want. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Oh, far-right nationalism is helping kill the USA, but be careful not to stop there. The whole social model of the USA is unsustainable-Trump just highlighted the weakness.-Flandres (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
He's highlighting it and doing whatever is inbetween at chipping it away and driving a sledgehammer. Chiseling it?? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, that is more along the lines of what I meant, thank you-he is making things much worse, just remember he is not the only problem and among his critics there are several people partially responsible for this in the first place.-Flandres (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

TheOldman, that's a pretty elaborate argument and while it may be the case that a few people are so addicted to protest that they would vote for someone who would not satisfy their demands yet give them the opportunity to continue protesting...I really don't believe this is a significant portion of BLM protesters and you'd have to back up your claim here with some evidence that this is the case. ShabiDOO 18:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I mean, if Biden gets elected and pushes through reforms, which let's be honest aren't going to be enough, people will still protest, they'll just have slightly different gripes. The idea that electing someone alone will fix these ills is pure naivety. But I digress. I'd like to see a sourced for the original claims, same as you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The big question is, what exactly can President Biden do to reform local police departments that Obama failed to do after Michael Brown and Trump failed to do after George Floyd? nobsI'm a little teapot short and stout 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo I don't think that they are addicted to protest, but that they have a strong desire to significantly change the whole system. Now they have a lot of momentum and the anger against Trump is a strong part of it. If Trump gets out of the equation, then their momentum can only diminish. For this reason, they should see a reelection of Trump as better for their cause albeit they surely won't say they are gonna vote for Trump.-TheOldMan (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay I understand better what you are trying to argue, but I still think you're exaggerating the numbers here. Do you have any evidence that a significant number of BLM protesters think this way? ShabiDOO 01:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
This is just accelerationism. Is there any example anywhere of accelerationism having a notable impact? It's always thrown in as a joke when the options are shitty, but I doubt a big accelerationist movement would be the reason for an unlikely Trump victory. McUrist (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Quite likely...

Ariel31459 (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice cartoon; the whole soundtrack is from the anti-capitalist piece, Das RheingoldWikipedia. nobsFighter flies, holy cripes! They're all coming out the pipes! 20:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
You socialists seem to attribute classical sounding romantic music to Wagner. That's right, you're wrong. Carl W. Stalling wrote the music for that cartoon. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the old man got confused 'cos What's Opera, Doc? was bundled in with a load of others for the '79 Bugs/Road Runner movie. Spear & magic helmet ftw. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the arranger uses three basic leitmotives and makes a minor alteration to slow the rhythm of one toward its end. All three can be heard in this 2 minute clip of Wagner from Bangkok, but the cartoon uses them in somewhat of a backward order. nobsMoooooooove it 02:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
In fact, Wagner recycles all three lietmotives in the Prelude to Siegfried, so they should be recognizable to anyone familiar with Wagner. nobsBee boo boo bop 02:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Variations on themes by Wagner make good soundtracks for cartoons, even if Wagner didn't write them. Watching cartoons is not the best route to music appreciation, evidently.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I just enjoy playing name that tune and music theory. It begins with a passage at the end of the Descent into Nibelheim (Scene 2-3 transition) just before Alberich's line Was wohlt ihr hier (this is where the arranger slows the rhythm) than transitions to the section culminating with Alberich's cry O schändliche Schmach!, then has the recurring two note chord known as "the power of the ring". Deryck Cooke makes the connections of all these leitmotives beginning at about 5:30.
For the serious student you can learn about the evils of gold and capitalist exploitation from these musical themes.
Actually, I'm grateful for this opportunity to get away from the intensive study of the counterpoint in the finale of Bruckner's 5th, which is an unending task that I've been involved in for the past week. Oh, and Helena's link begins with The Flying Dutchman which predates Wagner's extensive use of leitmotives. nobsMmmm donuts 06:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Someday soon, I may write an Essay either here or in CP documenting how the modern feminist movement begins with Wagner in Das Rheingold and Die Walkure. In both, Wagner shows shows how women are treated as chattel in this greedy, unnatural capitalist society. nobsGuh-huh 07:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

In any event - it seems pretty unlikely that any protesters would actually for Trump. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily; Trump has about 25% of the Black vote and about 40% of the Black male under 40 vote. Many of those are sympathetic to the idea that Black lives matter without being sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter Marxist organization that wants to burn America to the ground. nobsSmile, and be friends.. 10:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You know, I've always found that when reactionaries talk up an organization for the purposes of demonizing it, they somehow make it sound cooler than it actually is. Well, except the Marxist part, since Marxism is overrated. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
"Trump has about 25% of the Black vote and about 40% of the Black male under 40 vote." Excuse me? What are you on about? If he actually had that level of support Trump would be trouncing Biden in WI, PA, and MI not to mention challenging in MN. Instead Biden has led consistently in all these states, and is threatening Trump in FL, OH and IA. Where the hell are you getting these from besides pulled from your own ass.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
24% of Black people approve of Trump. That's not the same as going to vote for Trump, but if 1/4 of Black people vote for Trump, that's enough to put Biden's victory in serious jeopardy. Black people tend to vote Democrat 90% to 10%, but shifting from 75% to 25% means 2 million voters for Biden switch to Trump.
Why would Black people vote for a racist White old man? The Black community often feels that illegal immigration is screwing them more than anyone else. All those menial jobs done by immigrants that "should" go to Black people? Illegal immigrants squeezing Black people out of Black neighborhoods (including alleged ethnic cleansing in the LA area)? Well, suddenly Trump's racism has an audience among non-Whites.
But the thing about racists is that it's very rare for the racism to end with one group. Heck, industries pop up full of people whose paychecks rely upon groups being oppressed, and they don't care much about who it is as long as it's Someone Else. But there isn't any guarantee that the next Someone Else won't be Black people... CoryUsar (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Woof there is a lot to unpack here. One, that poll is from late August, and as you correctly note, it is merely approval. It also polled registered voters, not likely voters, which is an important distinction. Considering in '16, '12, '08 it was 6%, 6% and 5% respectively, 24% was represent a massive shift, which again, would indicate Trump should be leading in MN, WI, MI and PA. But he isn't. He also then would have a commanding lead in TX, GA and FL. But he doesn't. Also Black voters aren't nearly activated by immigration, as they are by healthcare and racial justice, where Trump doesn't align with them. I would also seriously question any document that says Black voters are more concerned about "latino gang members" than police.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't look now, but the Democrat party is imploding, and along with it, its longterm strategy. Anyone standing within 10 feet is bound to get splattered with the entrails. Secondly, Blacks, Hispanics, gays, Chinese, women, and other groups don't buy the "Trump is racist" bullshit too many people have wedded themselves to. Thirdly, Blacks know it wasn't Trump Republicans that burnt down their communities and shopping districts. And now they should reward the criminals with their votes? What planet do you live on? nobsSmile, and be friends.. 23:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You need to seek help, nothing you just spewed is true, or honestly any sort of argument. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, "Blacks" is racist, and fails to give humans any value besides the color of their skin. Black people, Black voters, those are the correct way to address Black Americans. Also, not that it matters, as a Black person, living in a predominately white city, in a predominately white state, I think I have a better understanding of what other Black voters value in my conversations with family and friends.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I have many Black friends I see and speak to daily, and I see a wide diversity of opinions. And if I did a poll, the pro-Trump Blacks seem to be much more enthusiastic and optimistic than the anti-Trump Blacks. And the anti-Trump Blacks tend to be divided in two groups, between machine Democrats and apathetic Democrats. nobsSmile, and be friends.. 21:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The "I have Black friends" bullshit aside, polls seem to indicate your friends are among the minority of Black voters.[12][13][14]-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
If you can't see the implosion of the Democrat party, just tap your ruby slippers together and say, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home".
Just pay attention to where candidates are campaigning; if see you Trump working so-called Democrat safe ground of Northern Minnesota, he's on the offensive. If Biden's campaigning in so-called Democrat safe ground like Wisconsin, he's on the defensive. Polls mean nothing. nobsSmile, and be friends.. 23:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and what a pile of crap your YouGov poll is; why didn't the bigots who run YouGov ask Blacks on page 50 if they requested mail-in ballots? Hmmm? They think Blacks are too stupid to ask for mail-in ballots so they didn't want to embarrass them by asking? 00:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll answer the question for you. When the shit-hits-the-fan in post-election litigation, Democrats will allege Blacks who requested mail-in ballots never got them. No data collected will add to the confusion. Then the mutherfuckers who commissioned this piece of garbage poll will scream "Voter suppression!". We've seen al this crap too many times before. nobsSmile, and be friends.. 01:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Presidential Debate or Ugh[edit]

First off, any number you hear about dollars, jobs, coronavirus cases is based on projections. And I'm not confused about blunt propaganda, people asking for your vote will look for the highest number possible. So, ignore the numbers they say because side is willing to put out, they are phoney baloney. My Q friend has not pointed out anything that stood out to him for the debate. I will say, personally, I am very concerned about Trump saying "there has never been an administration" and then saying "Like I've done" and then complaining that "observers" aren't allowed at polling places. By "observers" he explicitly means people who support him who would look out for illegal voting.

Now, I'm not happy about Trump's response to the fires, calling it mismanaged. His party, his administration is for defunding and deregulating land management. It's a very stupid position to take. Of course Biden couldn't dig him on that, Biden doesn't care. I had to fight Biden over this shit. I don't love the guy. And he was absolutely silent on this point. And that pisses me off, but it doesn't lose my vote.
Is there anything y'all have seen that stood out? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm watching it through now and there's absolutely nothing new. Trump never shuts up, argues with the moderator, accuses him of being biased, repeats every other slogan of his, "I was just kidding when I said that <obvious lie>" etc. Joe Biden barely speaks a sentence without getting interrupted or stumbling over his own words. The moderator needed to step in, but I dunno, Trumps just to childish to shut up without a mic cutoff.McUrist (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've said it before, and quite recently too, face it , the American political system is rightly fucked and proper fucked. What you saw last night should have left anyone stunned at the abject reality dysfunction BOTH candidates suffer from. America really does get the politicians it votes for. There's no hope for yiz. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The plurality reaction among polled debate watchers was concern for the country. And it's hard to fault people for being right. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This isn't anything anywhere near close to a "both sides are bad". The American political system is only possibly fucked because roughly 40% of the American population somehow worships a man-child, who defends violent racist groups, does not believe in democratic norms, and would rather tweet race-baiting bullshit about the NFL than think of anything resembling coherent policy. The Democrats have issues, but nothing compared to the Republicans being completely taken over by the Trump Baby. The debate was a mess, but it seems like the main takes that came out of it were: A) Donald Trump telling the Proud Boys to "stand by" (his worst fascist wannabe statement out of many that night), and: B) Joe Biden telling Trump "Will you shut up, man". Which fits.
If there is a good bit of news out of this election, it is possible that Donald Trump represents the "white Boomer's Last Stand". Voters who are millennial on back tend to prefer far more progressive policies, 2018 was the first year Gen-X on back voted in greater numbers than Boomer+, and in my opinion the memory of a polarizing politician like Donald Trump will linger for a very, very long time. Take it for what you will. (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I would rather be ruled by a capitalist than a fascist. If you equivocate falsely, do not complain when it bites you in the ass. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
America lost the debate. But because Trump didn't win, he also lost.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
People would be wise to ignore what their candidate didn't promise and focus upon what legislation their congress can actually pass. The great man theory does not apply.. I was listening to an NPR affiliate radio program this morning and the host recalled that when he had criticized Obama for not supporting gay marriage in 2008, Barney Frank, the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay, called into the program. Frank stated that Obama could not win the presidency in 2008 if he publicly supported gay marriage.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

With the increased attention to Proud Boys since tonight's presidential debate, should the article on their founder Gavin McInnes include mention of the famous incident where he filmed himself inserting a buttplug on his show?[edit]

I'm not trying to be sensationalistic or derogatory in McInnes' article, but that incident is really pretty famous online, and it seems odd that an biography on a site this snarky fails to mention it. Thoughts? TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Or the Amazing Atheist article not mentioning Banagate. HairlessCat (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Banana. HairlessCat (talk)
Honestly, I don't care what stupid sexual antics people get up to. And it makes us look like weird prudes to focus on it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
But the Trump article mentions his urophilia. HairlessCat (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
the urophilia in trumps article a link to pissgate disguised by a crappy strike thru joke, where the urophilia thing is the least interesting thing about an intelligence report of uncertain merits, but relates to more than a fetish that he may or not have.
mcinnes doing some dumbfuck stunt on the telly is just one in a line of many dumbfuck stunts that arent particularly illuminating to his hateful views nor to anything related to the proudboy activities. as nazis go he can be 'wacky'. reactions seem only to be ZOMG he put something up his arse. what does it say about mcinnes putting something up his arse beyond that he put something up his arse? probably one the least offensive things hes said or done thats hes pretended is satire. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@ikanreed Depends on McInnes views/actions regarding butt stuff. Ted Haggard soliciting men for sex in bathrooms would normally be a stupid sex thing, but given who Ted Haggard was, it's almost as juicy a story as Strom Thurmond's Black daughter. CoryUsar (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
the haggard thing is the hypocrisy that makes it so noteworthy, but people being outed today in the public eye still get the headlines, for reasons that vary from press intrusion (happens still too often) to more worthy reasons like increasing visibility in fields, like sport, where it is lacking. haggard didnt get caught cottaging, he was outed by a rent boy because of said hypocrisy. and smoking a ton of tina. i think there was another guy who got caught in toilets around that time (specifically and related to hypocrisy again). lots of people have been done cottaging. it used to be what you did when gay stuf was illegal, then later what closeted people were drivn to because of their situation. the mcinnes thing wasnt even sexual, it was a stunt to prove some vague point about not being homophobic, i think? i not watching a youtube clip of it, and i can find little else about it that says anything more (i hav seen a still - its on a tv show set - it wasnt a sex act. its not like you can see his arsehole getting penetrated like a pornhub clip. his trousers are just at halfmoon with hands done his pants.) its inane when you compare his 'satire' often is saying some overtly racist shit then claiming its satire and didnt mean it. satire that accurately depicts your views are not really satire though. they are just your viewsAMassiveGay (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's the hypocrisy that made it so juicy. I thought that was clear from the mention of Thurmond? If you aren't American, Strom Thurmond was a really, really old senator who most infamously stood for over 24 hours yapping against the civil rights act of 1957, was an ardent supporter of segregation, and barely (if at all) softened his views on race after it was clear he was on the wrong side of history. That it turned out that he had a mixed-race daughter was just hilarious. CoryUsar (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
With McInnes, I think we should include it, if not for the mere fact that he did it completely out of nowhere with a statement that is "owning the libs". That and there's this entire thing where the main gimmick of the proud boys is refusing to jack off (see Nofap), which makes McInnes' shoving a buttplug up his arse rather hypocritical. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
is it though? their main gimmick is that they are nazi hipsters (nipster is a thing apparently). theres that thing with the cereal brands and taking a beating as an initiation. the beating initiation is standard for neo nazi groups, its a thing that street gangs do. theres a similar thing that the paras do. its a hazing ritual and the cereal thing is their spin on it - they are nazis but like a laugh too. its window dressing, as is the no fap thing is some bullshit notion of spartan self denial and masculinity. its window dressing. misogyny, racism and violence are the central points, the rest is branding. i doubt anyone has been kicked out the proud boys for beating their meat instead of antifa. its a huge stretch to suggest mcinnes stunt with the buttplug is hypocrisy. it wasnt masturbation. it was not a sexual act. its was a stunt, only notable for its luridity, and as inane as it was lurid. mcinnes main thing is claiming his horrendous bigotry is ironic or a joke, but still his actual views. there is still too many people who use that only joking defense after saying some awful shit. mcinnes gives them pithy lines to express and reaffirm their hate.
monty python have fans who are incessantly not expecting the spanish inquisition. mcinnes fans have gone with racism and fred perry. i used to have fred perry tennis shirts. havent done for a while, but skinny jeans and tennis shirt is still my standard kicking about town look. its a classic look. clean lines. modish or skinhead before the association with political extremism. currently rocking an actual skinhead too. i need a new pair of DMs though. best pair of boots ive ever owned. i dont care what some prick put up his arse and proud boys can do one AMassiveGay (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Well stated! A focus on the superficial stunts detracts from criticizing the true pit of vile miasma that the Proud Boys call an ideology. And worst of all, it's exactly what they want you to do. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

B-b-but Hitler was an atheist![edit]

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people.
—Adolf Hitler, being a fan of homeschooling. The teacher that gave him an F in art class is very sorry. Not that it matters, since he's probably dead by now.

No, he wasn't. Hitler hated atheists, viewing them as "uneducated" and the "state of the animals". He believed that a lack of a belief in a deity was created by Jews, Commies, and Jewish Commies. Sound familiar? He even threatened to get rid of secular public schools because they were "immoral". Once again, This has happened before. For more evidence, See thisWikipedia.Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hitler didn't get an F in art school. He never got in to art school in the first place because they said all of his paintings are flat and boring. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
He was rejected from the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna - twice. That's close enough :) Aloysius the Gaul 19:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Hitler ought to have tried architecture school instead, because the evidence of all his paintings is that he was much more interested in buildings than in people. You wonder what buildings he would have designed. I could see him thriving in the sort of 'architecture' that flourished after WWII. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Neoclassical, with the hubris turned up to 11. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Introducing the official RZ94 Social Distancing Pole![edit]

Do you want to enforce social distancing?

Do you also want to be an asshole for fun?

If you say yes then the RZ94 Social Distancing Pole is perfect for you. The RZ94 Social Distancing Pole is made from hand carved Red Wood and has inscriptions of how to protect yourself from COVID-19. At the end of the pole is a very sharp titanium spike. The RZ94 Social Distancing Pole is perfect for keeping a COVID-19 infected person away from you and it even has the function of keeping Trump supporters away.

It can be yours for only $45.99. Order now and get a free box dart gun filled with MMR vaccine darts. Supplies are limited! --Possible Goat (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Pffttt..... come up with something original for a change - this is rip off from the ancient Greeks. Next you'll be suggesting some sort of barrier to keep people away too!! Aloysius the Gaul 01:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking of something similar. Something like a hula hoop Which you would wear suspended from your shoulders. If everyone wore them then you would need to ensure that your two hoops never touched. Though possibly this solution is too low-tech. Perhaps some smartphone gadget which would bleep when the two phones were closer than a certain distance.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we can bring back the hoop skirts. Antebellum fashion for the win your health. Kencolt (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
RFID implant. thats not a vaccine being worked on, its the mark of the beast. this are the end times people AMassiveGay (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Am I a troll?[edit]

After being recommended to post my question on the Debunk this reddit I did so. However, because I don't use reddit I had to create a new account and I've come to find out that there's like an approval process to be able to post in some subreddits.

Whilst waiting for seeing if the post is appropriative for debunk this, I posted the post to r/skeptic and a user commented "We should follow the other sub this troll has posted and remove this post also." (https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/j2rksj/help_with_fear_of_doomsday_caused_by_a_1997_alien/)

I kind of was bewildered as I've never been labelled a troll and it me worried that I might be a come across as a troll when my intentions are sincere? What could I do to not appear like that?--WMS (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a pretty bizarre thing to maintain you are worried about, so I guess that somebody just doubted your sincerity.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Reddit calls everybody trolls, and on the internet (especially on Reddit) pretty much everybody is a troll. Posting a basic-level question is sometimes seen as trolling if people think you should know better and suspect you're mainly doing it to stir up shit or waste people's time. Don't take it seriously. For instance, posting about Reddit here could hypothetically be seen as trolling because Reddit and RW aren't particularly friendly (read Reddit), and if you have a question about Reddit why not ask it on Reddit? But it doesn't matter. --Annanoon (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Time for ikanreed's hating the internet corner. Reddit is a bad community, broadly speaking. Not facebook or youtube comments bad, but nothing is taken as being made in good faith unless given a framing in an bit sized meme like "Unpopular opinion: blahblah" or "Look at this thing I did". The structure of the site itself does it, what with the upvoting and the karma and the front page, and all the other assorted motivations away from thoughtful dialog and towards consumable content.
And the insular subreddit specific communities somehow amplify that problem by creating a kind of distrust of outsiders who don't do things "our way".
But to get on topic and help you, what you did to push their buttons was "Debunk this, I can't figure out how" which I'm sure they're used to people doing as a way of drive-by trolling in that subreddit. They don't want to do skeptical grunt work there, they want to post about people being unskeptical and laugh at them, and post "brilliant insights" about how to be skeptical and cheer it. (we like doing both those things here too) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bob M Yeah, I'm aware it's a really bizarre thing to keep worrying about, I am going to the doctor's about this as this obsession has gotten really out of hand. Maybe just the bizarre nature to of the whole thin was seen as insincere.
@Annanoon Ah, I see. That is why I steered clear of Reddit for the most part as I was afraid that maybe my intent would be misinterpreted. The reason I posted this on here is because I prefer RW and I like the people on RW and I knew I could get a coherent answer, which is what I got.
@Ikanreed Ahhh, so I misinterpreted the purpose of the community and reddit as a whole. I think it's best if I just don't use reddit anymore as it seems it has the potential to cause more grief than it's worth.
Thank you all for replying, this has been insightful and has put things into perspective.--WMS (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It's tough resisting and drawing away from internet debates and general shittery. Probably the best solution is to find better websites that have less obnoxiousness and stress you out less. I know it's easier said than done but honestly if participating in a website is having negative effects on your mind and health...stop visiting the website. Reddit in general is rarely ever worth the hassle. ShabiDOO 16:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
If you have to ask that question you're probably not a troll. Oxyaena Harass 17:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you live under a bridge? Aloysius the Gaul 01:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo I swear I left a response saying that I agree with you and that you're right that reddit is not worth the hassle. Hmm, must have been an error or something. But yeah, I think I'll just stay away from reddit as it could have the potential to screw with my mental health. Thanks for the advice.
@Oxyaena I didn't think of that but you're right, it's just due to my pedantic nature, if I'm accused of doing something wrong without being aware of it, I like to address it to see if I was in the wrong and if there's anything I could do to rectify the mistake and not repeat it.
@Aloysius You do pose a intriguing argument, I think I'm going to have to double check to ensure I don't live under a bridge haha :P.--WMS (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Going to look through the Cedarville University website for material to expand the article[edit]

Trying to find something really notable to put in the article. Wish me luck. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I await to see your findings. ElectrosPardon? 01:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Donation question[edit]

Could someone update the ribbon. Anna Livia (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. ElectrosPardon? 20:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Bunch of fucking cunts[edit]

I was at the gas station and I was waiting for a woman who just parked up and sat in the car doing her hair. I waited for a few minutes and tooted my horn. Nothing. So I drove around her, turned around and backed into the next space. She wasn't even filling her car - she was sitting there watching her husband gas his motorbike up in front of her. She then got out and her and her husband had a 10 minute conversation with a friend in the middle of the forecourt. Cars were queued up but they just stood around talking. I said to the guy at the counter "Look at those fucking cunts over there" and he said once a guy pulled in next to a pump and spent 45 minutes wandering around the store looking for something to buy and left without buying anything or getting any fuel. Infuriating. AceModerator 06:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep. You convinced me now. We need to do away with fossil fuels nobsSmile, and be friends.. 21:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey now, fucking cunts are the best kind of cunts... CoryUsar (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

On the quantum stuff...again[edit]

So I know I posted a few things on quantum physics in the past and got some answers about how it doesn't really tell us what reality actually is and that the interpretations can be spun so many ways.

The guy I linked to before sent me some journal articles that seemed plausible: https://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/public/journals/1/PREPRINTS/DiBiaseII-1.pdf

That is until I got to the end and saw this:

This quantum-holographic informational, self-organizing view of consciousness show us directions toward a holoinformational theory of consciousness. In this model information is understood as an irreducible principle of the universe with a status more fundamental than energy, matter, space and time. It is the unifying principle, capable of connecting consciousness to the whole universe and to the totality of space and time. It also allows a better understanding of phenomena and theories related to transpersonal consciousness which up to now we could not explain or understand adequately, such as synchronicities, archetypes, the collective unconscious (Jung), near-death experiences (Moody Jr.), premonitory dreams, psychokinesis and telepathy (Rhine), morphogenetic fields and morphic resonance (Sheldrake), extracerebral memory (Stevenson), memories of past lives (Weiss) and holotropic mind (Grof) among others. Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Prize winner in physics, believes that Bohm’s theory of the implicate order can even lead someday to the inclusion of God in the scientific framework (personal communication during the debate after my presentation at the international conference CASYS- Computed Anticipatory Systems, in Liège, Belgium in 2007) . This holoinformational view of consciousness which has in Bohm’s quantum theory one of its very foundations, implies the inclusion of a Cosmic Consciousness - a Universal Intelligence that originates, permeates, maintains and transforms the universe, life and mind, through the holoinformational process. Finally, we would like to state that in the Cartesian-Newtonian reductionist paradigm, the question about the nature of consciousness is unanswerable. It can be useful to unfold new knowledge and generate new questions and answers. However, the inherent fragmentation of this perspective increasingly obscures our understanding of what reality and consciousness are.

Which doesn't sound like science and more like woo trying to use science to seem plausible. Most of it is from Jung, who from what I can tell is mostly garbage with a few good ideas. Near death experiences have been shown to be hallucinations (and again not actually being dead). In fact none of the stuff they say it verifies has been shown to exist or work. So then it makes me wonder whether this journal is actually science or just dressed like it.Machina (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"It allows for better understaninding of [list of phenomena]. No I will not elaborate on how." I've said it before and I'll say it again, if someone tells you there's a "Quantum physics" explanation for a phenomenon, and don't give you a fucking equation, or at least tell you what kinds of particles are interacting with each other, they're bullshitting you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe in transpersonal aspects of reality, as Machina knows, although quantum physics woo certainly isn't evidence for that. I see the connection though. Quantum physics is spooky, and consciousness is spooky, therefore they may be related. Although, I've never seen an actual adequate model for this. Penrose's idea of quantum consciousness is the most convincing, although it's not proof of anything. Deepak Chopra's use of "quantum healing" is laughably absurd and quite humorous indeed. HairlessCat (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Consciousness isn't the slightest bit spooky. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Then quantum physics wouldn't be either. HairlessCat (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Except inasmuch as spooky action at a distance is a real measurable phenomenon, I suppose. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
So we do no really understand consciousness. We can sort of describe it, but we do not know exactly how it is produced by the brain for example. We do not understand quantum physics. That is to say we can describe it, but we do not really know why it does the things it does.
This turns out to be yet another example of describing some thing we do not understand by appealing to another thing we do not understand. Like strange things in the sky explained by aliens or the origin of the universe explained by some Mighty Being. There is a difference of course that we know that both consciousness and quantum physics exist - while aliens and Mighty Beings are somewhat speculative.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
What exactly are you alleging we don't understand about consciousness? We know a lot of very important things about it, like which regions of the brain are associated with the phenomenological feeling of being conscious, how different sensations are triggered and how they tie into neurological function, we can chemically activate and deactivate consciousness for medical purposes, and we know a great deal about how humans reason. I don't particularly care for statements like "we don't understand X" just because there's some open questions about X. It's like saying "We don't understand Jupiter" because no one has sampled the atmosphere. Humanity doesn't understand everything about everything, but writing off entire fields of study that have decades of serious research as if they're complete unknowns is, frankly, contrary to everything this wiki stands for ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
What we do not know about consciousness,as I understand it, is how the brain produces is. I am not arguing that this is not knowable and am not arguing for any position of dualism which it is not the consequence of biological process. But as far as I understand it, we have no way of starting with a neuron and layering our understanding up through the brain until we end up with thought and consciousness. Not yet.
Compare this with physics. We can start at the atomic level, build up to chemistry, classical physics and end up talking about suns and galaxies. If we are able to do something similar with the human brain and consciousness then clearly my understanding is lacking.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
When it comes down to it, those that say don't know, and those that know don't say. HairlessCat (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, those that know publish in Neuroscience and Biobehaviorial Reviews. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh wait, except for the fact they don't. I am not a materialist, but when I was, even i would acknowledge we have no idea what consciousness is and any other claim would seem absurd. Then I'd say, We know consciousness is an emergent property of physical complexity in the brain and certain regions of the brain are responsible for the generation of certain functions of consciousness. This, and other patterns, is what neuroscientists map out. Yet, they have literally no fucking idea by what process subjectivity becomes a thing. The simplest materialist solution is that it's just a property in the same vein as gravity or any other arbitrary law of the universe, that things have consciousness, and that's perfectly reasonable. It also happens to be wrong. HairlessCat (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"As the simplest possible explanation was wrong, I decided there could be no explanation" is what I'm getting from that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh no, there's a simpler explanation. Just not a rational logical positivist one. It's very esoteric. HairlessCat (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel like I'm being a bit rude and blunt, but that's a very sorry excuse for being intellectually lazy.

ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no objectivity. HairlessCat (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Postmodernism is a great treatment for some serious philosophical diseases in science, to blindly accept things as truly objective just because they deal with numbers and measurements is all too easy, and a fatal road to follow. However... to make this kind of generalization as a way of avoiding even casually examining information that has survived much scientific rigor and instead adhere to your own preconceived notions is frankly a noxious behavior of a person who wants to consider themselves a rational skeptic. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to read through the paper but such density leaves me wondering what was said. I barely understand QM now and then at the end they suggest it proves all this stuff? I don't know.Machina (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant that quite literally. HairlessCat (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Dennet (one of the four horsemen who has written on New Atheism) has written several books on theories of consciousness and free will (some of the best I've ever read) and he very clearly spent most of the time in his books on the limits of our current understanding and the most promising theories based on what is understood. You better not read it Machina cause he is a philosopher and so it's all a total waste of time. For anybody else, I highly recommend reading any work by him or work by Raymond Tallis on the topic (a neurosurgeon and philosopher) who has also written on both topics and have clearly defined the limits of what we know and has mapped out the future for the search for a proper explanation of how consciousness is as an emergent property of the brain. He basically claims, as do others, that in the field of consciousness we need a cracking good breakthrough, something along the lines what Newton, Darwin or Einstein did for their own field(s). But the idea that it cannot be understood is nonsense. That quantumhood has anything to do with it, has been soundly rejected by just about every neuro-scientist and notably philosopher of consciousness. ShabiDOO 16:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy is useless when discovering answers that matter, as I mentioned before. When it comes to consciousness neuroscience seems to be in a better spot for figuring something out. So far it has shown that it doesn't exist outside the body, that the brain causes it but we don't know how (yet). What we don't need are spiritual teachers or gurus who think quantum physics says that there is consciousness outside us (it doesn't) and who only have personal experience to guide them (which means nothing):https://myconsciouslifejournal.com/articles/interview-jac-okeeffe/ In all honestly though I think people saying we don't know the "how" is like the last thread they have to cling to to make any sort of spiritual belief still valid, and as I have seen people will try to fill that "you don't know how" with their pet theory. According to the non materialist neuroscience it seems like dualism is dead. There doesn't seem to be any such thing as a mind, or self, etc. Seems like people are scared by the prospect that we are just machines.Machina (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina I see words words words but all I read is blah blah blah.Your intellectual nihilism is tiring bullshit. ShabiDOO 03:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nihilism is about the only truth philosophy discovered and has been trying to patch over it with meaningless nonsense. IT has yet to fully reckon with what it has uncovered. Stop trying to think it gives answers, all roads in philosophy lead to nihilism.Machina (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahem 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
That's cute Machina, but you've gone a step beyond plain old Nihilism to pure intellectual nihilism. Which is cute. I went through that phase too while studying. We almost all do at some point. Have fun working out your daemons. LMAO ShabiDOO
"...all roads in philosophy lead to nihilism." No, they don't. Nihilism is realizing the first basic fact about existence and obsessing over it for eternity. As such, it is giving up traveling the road of philosophy after the first step. Speaking as a cynic, I find Machina's conclusion to be absurd, and without merit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That's because you're wrong. You like every other philosopher is scared of taking it to the logical conclusion, the same end point that all philosophy ultimately goes to: https://newhumanist.org.uk/1643 See it's not simply a "phase", that's what most would call it because thinking about it too hard tends to invoke despair, and eventually they see that it's the endpoint of every philosophy. When the curtail falls and our little land of pretend ceases to be, that's where the actual work begins. Reckoning with the truth of nihilism, which nearly every philosopher tends to avoid.Machina (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

AHEM 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Good read. As far as I can tell, pretty accurate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Machina, I'm at least partly an existentialist. I think you ought to read up on it before talking about being scared of lack of objective meaning.. Also, if you think existential dread is too much for most philosophers, you need to read more philosophy. I'd suggest the link that's been posted twice now by 192․168․1․42 for start. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

All the responses to nihilism on that flow chart are wrong and is exactly what the link I posted is saying is wrong with philosophy. None of them start from Nihilism they all lead to it so you have to reverse all the arrows. Each of those replies runs from nihilism rather than deals with its reality. Meaning cannot be made without becoming meaningless, it’s sort of the same problem with faith (which by the way that description is wrong about faith and what values are faith), the same with everything else. A life of the senses as a response to life was discredited years ago, Camus doesn’t address the why behind living. In fact all of the responses to nihilism ultimately fail because they don’t address it, they run from it or try to ignore it. It’s like you didn’t read the link. As was proven all roads in philosophy ultimately lead to nihilism and what you recommend aren’t solutions to it but attempts to hide or run. Honestly whoever made that chart doesn’t understand nihilism or why none of that works, let alone philosophy.Machina (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No Machina you have reached an extremely exaggerated conclusion from the premise of Ray Brassier's book. He doesn't claim that all philosophy leads to nihilism. He says you have to take an approach of meaninglessness when dealing with some philosophical topics. That is not even remotely the same as your claim that all philosophy leads to nihilism. TONS OF IT DOES NOT. How on Earth does formal logic lead to nihilism? It doesn't even deal with meaning. How does the formal layout of the mechanics of critical thinking and the fallacies lead to nihilism? An application of it might but the study of it does not. How does studying the history of ancient philosophy lead to nihilism? It's the pure study of a historical discipline, not jamming modern ideas on top of it. Theology (a major branch of philosophy) does not lead to Nihilism, unfortunately it is the opposite. You're talking out of your god damned ass. A philosopher says we should start from a place of meaninglessness and you conclude that this single philosophers personal approach to philosophy somehow PROVES that all philosophy leads to nihilism? The chart that was given was completely accurate. It is not meant for someone who makes the presuppositions that you do and it clearly is written by someone who knows a whole lot more about philosophy than you do. For the love of God just go study something else. ShabiDOO 18:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually his book does say that:

According to Brassier, "the disenchantment of the world understood as a consequence of the process whereby the Enlightenment shattered the 'great chain of being' and defaced the 'book of the world' is a necessary consequence of the coruscating potency of reason, and hence an invigorating vector of intellectual discovery, rather than a calamitous diminishment".[6] "Philosophy", exhorts Brassier, "would do well to desist from issuing any further injunctions about the need to re-establish the meaningfulness of existence, the purposefulness of life, or mend the shattered concord between man and nature. It should strive to be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem. Nihilism is not an existential quandary but a speculative opportunity."

As I have tried to show but you clearly don't get, all of it leads to nihilism. It essentially disenchanted the world when it looked too closely at everything we value and as a result we end up seeing that none of it matters. That's why I said that your entire chart is wrong because it runs from nihilism and tries to patch it up by making meaning when making meaning doesn't work, it's living in denial. Theology leads to it when you realize how many religions there are and how everyone thinks they're in the right one and has the truth, I've seena few people disenchanted by that knowledge. The mechanics of critical thinking and fallacies dismantle the illusions we have about the world and what we take for granted to reveal castles of sand. Studying the ancient history shows how the same old arguments have been on for years with no solution, how everyone has their own school of thought but no one can say what is right, and realizing that all our logical systems are based on something that is unprovable. The better question is, how could it not lead to nihilism. It's why he called philosophy the organon of extinction. Oh and I guess there' this by him too: http://www.glass-bead.org/article/transcendental-logic-and-true-representings/?lang=enview It seems like you are out of your depth trying desperately to deny what is before you and anyone else practicing philosophy, just like me.Machina (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina, where are you in the real world? Like, right now. I need to know so I can smack some sense into you. You've cited mystics and called it philosophy, you've said all philosophy leads to nihilism, and when shown to be wrong, you double down. I really feel that the best approach at this point is to firmly cuff you on the ear. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Machina that quote does not imply "all philosophy leads to Nihilism". I don't know how "Do well not to..." is magically the same as "all x leads to y". You are projecting you own ideas onto someone elses. You DEFINITELY should NOT do that. It's not cool to claim someone elses's ideas justify your own when they don't let alone remold them and claim someone is saying something when they clearly don't. That is pure intellectual fraud. That is a big no no in any academic field, humanities or science or whatever. You tried to "explain" your claim all philosophy leads to nihilism but you've spectacularly failed because its impossible to prove that. I can't buy your argument because its impossible. Some fields of philosophy could literally NEVER lead to Nihilism because they have nothing to do with it. You don't get it because you are either unfamiliar with many fields of philosophy cause you've only took a few course or are not at all well read on the topic (likely) or because you are in love with this idea and won't reflect on how absurd it is. In any case as I've said you aren't a plain old Nihilist but an intellectual nihilist, meaning you are afraid of the pursuit of knowledge and the process of asking questions and see where they lead but you just consider it all a stupid pointless waste of time. That is not nihilism, that's just "what's the fucking point of even talking about stuff?" which is just being an intellectual asshole. A sort of uber-dickish-Nietzsche. Do the world a favour, study something else. ShabiDOO 10:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

His book gets at that road that philosophy is the organon of extinction. It is essentially saying what I am saying by telling others to not try to shore up something that has been lost and never existed to begin with. There are other segments that show him saying the same thing I'm telling you (which is where I got this from also). I have demonstrated my claim that all philosophy leads to nihilism, but you refuse to accept that. You are still in the stage that Brassier refers to as trying to bring back meaning. I'm not afraid of the pursuit of knowledge, honestly not sure where you got that. But I am keenly aware that the pursuit of knowledge leads to a dead end just like philosophy has. Solipsism is one such dead end which is the end result of any philosophy that relies on sensation or consciousness: https://vernonpress.com/file/7502/e19b0d05052691e5d1fa06f3a2939a5f/1543562412.pdf That is the problem with philosophy as shown, it's questions lead nowhere because in the end you settle on something you have to take on faith, otherwise you cannot build anything. Descartes is an example of what happens when philosophy questions too much. That is a form of nihilism, that nothing can be known (because it can't in a sense, which is another thing I didn't care to learn). Despite all our certainty of knowledge it amounts to little more than mere belief in the end, not any form of knowing. You can't know if someone loves you, it's just a belief. You can't know there is an external reality, it's just a belief. Much of what we call knowledge is just belief. That's what happens in philosophy, everything is broken down to the point that you can't act on things anymore, it's why it's stuck in the same arguments for over 1000 years. I don't like the idea of nihilism at all, but there isn't an argument against it that doesn't involve avoiding confronting it dead on or some form of psychosis. Like in your chart all the examples listed just run away from it except for Buddhism which just removes desire. Again, it's clear from the writing that you don't get nihilism and why responses to it don't work, nor you you grasp what it's saying and it's implications.Machina (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC) And of course this gem:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma Machina (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

No you are again projecting your own ideas onto someone else's work. And you are totally mixing up nihilism with "lack of certainty" which may overlap but are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. You really need to read more before making such broad claims. In any case, please explain how formal logic leads to nihilism. I'd be amazed to see your explanation. ShabiDOO 18:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have to explain, it's pretty clear as day. I showed the Trilema which is pretty much the dead end of any claim to truth and even the book Nihil Unbound is evidence for it. I'm not projecting anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism#Criticism_of_epistemological_skepticism Machina (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina, if how formal logic leads to Nihilism is as clear as day, then you'll have no problem explaining it, because it is completely beyond me how it does. I'm beginning to think you don't even know what formal logic is. If you are so confident in your claim that all philosophy leads to Nihilism, this should be a piece of cake. Explain please clearly how formal logic leads to Nihilism (and not skepticism or uncertainty which is not the same quesiton). Linking to vaguely vaguely vaguely related wikipedia articles about skepticism or "lack of certainty" and not explaining how formal logic directly and clearly leads to Nihilism. That is NOT an explanation. Let's have it please. ShabiDOO 12:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I just did, check out the Trilema link and Pyrrhonism as well.Machina (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No you linked barely relevant articles and didn't explain anything. You are avoiding giving an explanation because you cannot. Please do me a favour and do the following three things, cause I know for a fact you cannot defend your claim but I am ready to be proven wrong and I promise to concede my position here if you can.
1. Please define nihilism (please keep to to maximum two sentences)
2. Please define formal logic (please keep it to maximum two sentences)
3. Please explain (WITHOUT LINKS PLEASE) but through your own words, how formal logic leads to nihilism (as many sentences as you like). You do not need to link anything here, I am very familiar with the wikipedia articles that you linked (they do not deal with formal logic by the way). If you cannot do this, then have some intellectual integrity and admit that you have, at the very least overstated your claim and reformulate it. I will be very surprised if you do these three things and shocked if you can put together a convincing explanation, but here I am, eager to be shown wrong. So please stop evading this challenge and defend what you have claimed as obvious and clear as day, several times. ShabiDOO 04:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Again I just did with the Trilema. Any truth claim eventually is based on three solutions that are not satisfactory in the least. I have not overstated my claim you are just trying to scramble a haphazard defense of something plain as day. That at the base level it's all just faith, hence you can't really know anything or base meaning on anything at all, and there goes nihilism. You've been shown wrong paragraphs ago but just won't accept your tool leads to a dead end like philosophy tends to do.Machina (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMB2sYbB7DI I mean even the concept of matter is pure faith: https://www.reddit.com/r/solipsism/comments/7b74v0/mathematical_proof_there_is_no_evidence_for_the/ Machina (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No you are not explaining how FORMAL LOGIC leads to nihilism. The trilemma has nothing to do with formal logic. Explain how FORMAL LOGIC leads to NIHILISM please. If you cannot follow up on a very simple request: 1) Define formal logic, 2) define nihilism and 3) clearly explain how 1 leads to 2 (without the fucking links) then your claim is dubious. If you don't know what formal logic is, then admit it. If you cannot defend your claim then admit it. Fuck off with the links, the irrelevant trilemma and avoiding giving an answer. ShabiDOO 00:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Again...for the last time I did. The trilemma shows the endpoint of such logic in that it leads to infinite regress. I even showed a link that uses said logic to show how matter has no evidence for existence. I haven't avoided giving an answer, you just don't want to accept the reason why philosophy is waste of time. Formal logic is rooted in essentially nothing, as the trilemma suggests. You are essentially trying to say that something follows from nothing, which is insanity. Pyrrho figured it out years ago and you're still trying to plug your ears and shut your eyes. Or to put it blunty, nothing times something is nothing. You cannot divide by 0. Any claim with formal logic does not follow logically because the beginning is essentially nothing. Axioms that we can't prove but can't do without. It's the reason philosophy spun it's wheels for thousands of years and wasted people's time. Buddha at least figured that it doesn't matter and so did Pyrrho. At least read the links before you reveal your ignorance.Machina (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I read the bloody links. They don't deal with formal logic. You have no fucking clue what formal logic is. Stop being so stubborn and investigate what formal logic is before responding to my questions. You are just pointing me to irrelevant websites instead of doing what I asked you to do: DEFINE THE TWO THINGS AND EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN BLOODY WORDS. Why can you not do such a simple bloody thing? You never defined either and you just posted links and kept claiming you had done it when you hadn't. I WANT DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION IN YOUR OWN WORDS. You are ridiculous and I cannot take you seriously. ShabiDOO 02:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, I did. Even how explaining that formal logic is meaningless through the Trilemma. If anyone can't be taken seriously it's you because you keep trying to defend a practice that hasn't yielded anything for 2500 years.Machina (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Machina you are beyond ridiculous. Just fuck off. ShabiDOO 01:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I once read a scifi story in which Gödel's incompleteness theorems prompted existential dread in the characters. Apparently, conclusive proof that you can't know everything even in principle really disturbed the author. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I've seen many philosophy students fall into a kind of mental derangement over existential dread like issues of certainty, skepticism, doubt and worrying about being a "brain in a vat/simulation/living-delusion/solipsism" not to mention theology students who lose their faith or atheists so bothered by metaphysics that they turn to religion (really gross that one). Having said that, they were most certainly in the minority and I think all of them needed mental counseling anyways and shouldn't have been studying such things.
That we cannot be certain of anything, that serious skepticism is important, that there is no inherent meaning written into the fabric of the universe and that knowledge should be taken with a grain of salt...is nothing new or profound. People have rightly been saying this for centuries. It's nothing but obvious to most people who study epistemology, ontology, the scientific method and many non-philosophical subjects. The problem I have with Machina's stupid fucking ridiculous obnoxious claim that "all philosophy leads to nihilism" is that he misses the point that a lot of philosophy isn't actually answering questions but methods to approaching problems. Studying the methods themselves (like formal logic or critical thinking [think the fallacies]) don't lead to anything unless you apply them in specific ways. It's like saying studying the scientific method leads to a publication of an article in a journal. I mean...yeah if you use those tools and apply them to a certain list of inquiry and follow it to its logical conclusion you end up publishing something but you could also simply just learn about the methods (and its history and problems) and analyse how others have used it. You can also apply it to certain subjects that don't result in any publication or any knowledge at all. You can also use them to do many other things than just publishing. The same goes for philosophy. Studying its history and how methods were used back then doesn't lead to any conclusion at all unless you specifically try to make one reinterpreted for our times. Formal logic is nothing other than the study of logical arguments like symbolic logic which is just putting logical arguments in symbolic form (nothing else). if it leads to anything it leads to computer programming and electric circuitry, not fucking nihilism. Same with studying the fallacies. I mean if you apply them in a certain way you could end up with nihilism (among many other answers), you could also just use them to analyse statements other people make (which is like 95% of what people use it for or to simply avoid making fallacies yourself).
Applied ethics doesn't lead to nihilism either, it leads to hospitals having a formal policy based on social ethical consensus, the moral system the hospital uses and the technical arguments worked out, its not that different to technical work. That doesn't mean they devise the BEST system or that they answer the question "is there a best system". That is an inquiry that could lead to nihilism, applied ethics doesn't. It's just grunt work. It's working out a policy based on axioms, the ethical frame work the hospital wants to use and the best information they have and the most logical arguments they can make. Nihilism plays no role in this work unless you want to just drop it all and have no policy whatsoever and let doctors do whatever quackery malpractice or steal and sell patient information in whatever way they feel like. He also makes the error of equating skepticism and lack of certainty with nihilism which is NOT the only way to be highly skeptic or acknowledge we don't all have certainty. Its just one answer to these problems, and one that has its pluses but also serious problems. In other words some branches of philosophy could never lead to nihilism because they cannot lead to anything because its just a set of tools. And even some fields that can lead to something cannot lead to nihilism because "meaning" isn't even involved in the answers. But you know, you can just read a book written by some guy, misinterpret it, make an overly broad claim about it, keep repeating it, fail to defend critcism against it, not answer questions but keep claiming you did and refuse to concede a single point even when you cannot defend it anymore. ShabiDOO 05:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing the point still. You say that philosophy is an approach to a problem but it's not, not in the useful sense anyway. As has been mentioned before, the same problems from the beginning of philosophy has been raging for 2500 years. So if the approach is to do nothing in the most verbose way possible then yes it is an approach to a problem. I've already laid out how it leads to nihilism, including the book by the guy who essentially proved it. Applied ethics does lead to nihilism as well, I mean there is no ultimate foundation for ethical principles after all. You say it's a consensus but that doesn't really mean anything and it seems more like a logical fallacy than anything else. It's not an error to equate skepticism and lack of certainty with nihilism either since the first two lead to it by essentially questioning the foundation for us believing anything and in the end seeing that we have no grounds to question the knowledge of others if we can't be certain either. From there it's just a short step into nothing really matters because no one can be sure of anything. I haven't misinterpreted anything so far, it's just that you can't seem to see how philosophy itself leads to nihilism when it breaks down established norms and questions why we do things. You guys don't take nihilism to the logical conclusion as well as the rest of philosophy, you still are guilty of what he refers to as using philosophy to shield human self-esteem. I mean the trilemma itself is evidence for metaphysical nihilism. My point is pretty solid but all your responses seem to do is dodge the conclusion that is plain as day. I mean the skeptics started it all by questioning the structure of arguments, truth, and how do we know. Ultimately it all leads to nothing in the end. Ethics is based on axioms that can't be proven, just like any other philosophy. If your basis is essentially nothing then in the end only nothing can flow from it. It's like a kid who keeps asking their parents "why" all the time until it gets to a point where they just don't have an answer. That's sort of the conclusion of philosophy, eventually you realize you don't have an answer and are just ultimately playing pretend. We pretend that actions are ethical or not ethical when they're ultimately just void of such things. It's as he mentioned in his book, everyone is afraid to take philosophy to it's ultimate conclusion because there's no coming back from that. In my view the skeptics did a number on the philosophy's claims to be of any use and you can't begin any sort of philosophical argument without committing some sort of fallacy. Why does X statement follow from Y? No one knows, it's just something you have to take their word for. You could say because logic says so but that is circular. Those who fell into the "trap" as you so put it caught a glimpse of how things really are and rather than try to deal with that revelation you try to convince them otherwise of it. I don't think those who know that nothing is certain quite grasp the implications of that and just see it from an academic point of view. As I have already mentioned, you haven't refuted anything, you merely try to deny the truth that is plain to see. That is that philosophy is ultimately a useless tool unless your goal is nihilism.Machina (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No Machina I said PART of philosophy is studying the tools to approaching problems. Not all of it. You don't pay attention to what people said. If you took critical thinking (the most important class you could take and you should have taken) you'd learn that the words people use matter including such things as "some, part of". Show respect to people addressing your arguments by actually fucking reading them for once and addressing what they say instead of skimming, paraphrasing and generalising. I said SOME and those SOME things are important elements of philosophy that don't lead to nihilism because they cannot. You also misunderstand applied ethics because, as I said, it is not about claiming that something is moral in and of itself or that you can even do this properly but is technical grunt work (no different than administering something like psychology policy or economic policy). This is clearly an example of a branch of philosophy that cannot lead to nihilism, pure moral study can...applied ethics cannot. So take a step back and concede or admit that your statement is overly broad. Your guy never proved what you said, he made a claim which you then took as proof and used to justify your overly broad generalisation. Your dismissal of philosophy (all branches of it) is so extreme and your flippant brushing away of all fields of philosophy (including formal logic and critical thinking and the fallacies) is fucking preposterous. We use machines based on formal logic every day. You do. That is not useful? Formal logicians and symbolic logicians are constantly devising more advanced forms of logic and symbolic logic all the time which are directly used by both mathematicians, engineers and programmers. You'd know that if you were more knowledgeable about a topic you so easily dismiss. You use critical thinking and the fallacies every time you write a paper on the humanities. This website has an extensive section on the fallacies...are you saying its all useless? Don't be such an arrogant ass. It's one thing to say I reject 95% of philosophy (extreme but not as absurd) or that much of it leads to Nihilism (also extreme but far less absurd). But saying 2500 years of philosophy has all been useless is fucking deranged and claiming that it all leads to nihilism after having agreed that at least two branches of it doesn't...is just pure intellectual pride and stubbornness. Grow up or fuck off. ShabiDOO 21:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude just admit you've lost and stop trying to defend a waste of time that doesn't yield anything. We aren't talking formal logic in terms of computers, in fact that still proves my point. I mean a computer itself cannot act without someone placing a value on what to do otherwise it just sits there as a pile of plastic and metal. I've already explained how it all leads to nihilism and how it all starts from essentially nothing. Applied ethics still suffers the same problems here because of what it is attempting to apply, which is not based in anything. It can't tell you why the things it's enforcing are important or why they should be valued. It suffers the same problems ethics does. To this day no one can really agree on right and wrong so yeah, philosophy has kind of spun it's wheels. Same with metaphysics, which is an even more colossal waste of time. Also from my experience in the humanities no one really uses critical thinking or the fallacies when writing a paper there, certainly not the type you would get from philosophy (unless you wanted to go around in circles, which as the trilemma states is where everything eventually ends or starts). It is all useless because even the fallacies are still based on human "say so" which itself is a fallacy. Why are all these reasonings fallacies? Because we said so that's why. You can't say it's not logical or it doesn't follow but that is still just someone's say so and not an actual fact or argument, like I said philosophy is full of the fallacies it claims when you look closely at it. The fact that science came from that mess is nothing short of a miracle. But yes, 2500 years of philosophy and the same problems persist. I'd call that a waste of time. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Philosophy doesn't really approach problems so much as create ones that never existed and then proceed to NOT solve anything. It still hasn't overcome nihilism and is too scared to take it to it's logical conclusion because it would destroy the discipline itself. Even your example of in the critical thinking class explains it perfectly by saying the words you use matter, but in that sense people have to agree on what is meant by X or Y which is something that can never end in philosophy at times. Basing an argument on how you define when you are arguing about is sophistry at best and nihilism at worst. In the end you arrive at something that is based on how you define it which could have nothing at all to do with what that thing is at all, and therein lies the problem. Just more "because I say so". It honestly sounds like philosophical debates is more like children throwing words at each other. If you think applied ethics doesn't lead to nihilism, you don't quite grasp the concept as well as you think. At this point you're like a Christian trying to defend God. You can't see the dead end philosophy is. If you have to start with axioms to get anywhere it's not a discipline to take seriously. I get science does that too, but at least it's useful. Even then it still suffers from having to start on axioms. It's almost comical how a philosophy praises critical thinking but can't get anywhere without constructs that defy that. All in all I have shown how it all inevitably leads to nihilism, you however have done nothing but insist it does not and you chide me for not being critical.Machina (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're such a fucking intellectual fraud. Grow up. ShabiDOO 05:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Machina, can you define what you mean by "nihilism" in the discussion above? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Mostly Nihilism in all it's forms, that there is no right or wrong, no meaning, and no such thing as knowledge (hard one to get by that last one). Shabi has failed to defend his own assertions or show how none of this leads to nihilism. Thing is, there was a point where I did respect philosophy as valid. But the more I looked into it the more I began to see that it doesn't really reveal anything and more often then not complicates matters because.....well I don't really know. Like pondering the origin of the universe, I never saw the value in that as it's not like the answer impacts one's daily life. Most animals seem to get one fine without such questions and it's only humans who think they matters. I was also disenchanted to find that philosophy was more like glorified opinions with no real right or wrong answers and that by questioning everything you'll find you have nothing left to stand on without taking some rather illogical leaps. Axioms was the one problem I had with it.Machina (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)