RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive372

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 November 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>, <370>, <371>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, (new)(back)


"The first fully online Physics degree"[edit]


Liberty University now offers an online physics degree. Now I will not actually trash the quality of the degree as I am not a physics expert. One odd thing I did see is that the same physics degree is not offered on campus. While LU has regional accreditation I do find that the degree solely being online kinda off.

So any physics geeks on RationalWiki- please tear this degree apart. --Possible Goat (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The only objection I have is "What kind of university teaches multivariate calculus as a 400-level course?" As one out of every 40 american high school students pass it, it seems a bit extreme to label it 430. Triple integration isn't that hard. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no. Stupid goddamn u substitutions, trig derivatives and substitutions, etc. And I say this as someone who basically majored in Probability which was almost entirely multivariate calc once you got past the 100 level courses. Quick joke; how did people find out your girlfriend was cheating in calculus? They noticed she was really good at making a U Substitution. CoryUsar (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Usually multivariate calculus is given a number in the mid two hundreds. One might expect the word "advanced" to appear in the course name for the course to be a 400 type. There are such critters Ariel31459 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
UMass has a 400 level class in Differential Equations for scientists and engineers (the lowest of the low in math circles). That also surprises me.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I did triple integrals in 2nd Professional (300 lvl) mechanical engineering :p Loved them - so elegant! :) Aloysius the Gaul 00:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
oh and that was 1986! Aloysius the Gaul 00:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
That's easy to explain. Scientists and engineers take typically that class in their junior or senior years, as they have other classes to take in their major earlier on. You don't really need diff-eq to get through statics or heat transfer. The level of differential equations you're solving in those contexts are almost always the easily integrated sort. The math department just labeled it as according to when people take it.
A physicist not getting to vectors until their senior year on the other hand? Stupefying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The degree completion plan does seem peculiarly weak.[1] The suggested course sequence doesn't have any physics at all the first year, and only introductory physics in the second year. That's a whole year wasted. Also, the last semester seems like a total waste ("Physics Capstone", basically just a review with more Bible indoctrination[2]) I was not a physics major, but I took physics freshman year, and I never had a saw a course before that was designed to just review everything before it. Bongolian (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The general problem with a Liberty University degree is that their hardcore evangelical, Trumpian political bent is possibly going to be seen as a net negative just on this issue alone. Let's face it -- if you are a global corporation who might have employees or offices in non-evangelical territory (say, Latin America or nations with significant Islam presence), you're going to cast a wary eye on someone with a degree where the university president wanted to violently target Islamic terrorists and there is a strong alignment with a US president that got into power declaring Mexicans to be drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. Global corporations need people who can work with multiple cultures at the top. The physics degree seems to waste an awful lot of time on The Jesus, and seems awfully week even comparing the physics degree of other Christian oriented schools, such as an explicitly Christian college with a much better reputation (Taylor University) or even a not explicitly Christian, but church affiliated school with an outstanding reputation (Notre Dame). Also, while the actual Liberty U's not quite diploma mill level, I'm personally suspicious about their online initiative (which this is part of). Knowing the Falwells, they were probably jealous about University of Phoenix's ability to scoop up federally subsidized student loans and deliver so little value, and decided to copy their business model. I'd need some placement data to change my mind. (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump is an side effect of this hardcore right wing ideological engine, not its prototype, nor its originator. LU is an intentionally designed part of that engine, to create ideologically blinkered radicals with nominal academic credibility. "Win power for our faction at any or all costs" is poison to any society, especially democracies, and while you'd think Trump would be a warning sign and people would back off from that, it seems to only be getting worse. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed; "Trumpian" was meant to more meant as a shorthand for this engine's rhetoric and ideology, as he is the current figurehead of the ideology. We'll see with this election what happens as far as people backing off from this goes. (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I know, but he's also pretty different from them. He's obviously not at all committed to Christian dominionism, and only courts the evangelicals entirely through pointless token statements towards things like "Merry Christmas is Mandatory". He wins them by being a racist fuck, but we don't talk about that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK. This will apparently come as something of a shock to you, but there are these things called courts which are run by these people called judges. I'm reliably informed that a lot of conservative evangelicals were pretty fucking excited by Trump's (mostly fulfilled) promises re. those things and people. It's even rumoured that one of those judge-court thingummies might be underway in the Senate right now. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Now I do wonder about the academic credibility of the Osteopathic Medicine degree, History PhD, Anatomy/Cell Biology PhD, Psychology PhD and Engineering PhD (http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=27267). Something tells me that there will be less standard quality than other schools. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No, ikanreed has a point. Trump's a New York City real estate mogul, so he is quite unlike a typical person in the evangelical heartland, on one hand. He doesn't give a shit about Christians other than seeing them as a source to fleece and admiring the prosperity gospel hucksters fleecing the rubes (because, if there's one thing Trump is really good at, it is Z-grade carnie huckstering). On the other hand, "evangelical Christianity" really has strayed far from the core tenants of Christianity and increasingly looks like an identity oriented political movement than anything religious. Trump *is* committed to authoritarian-wannabe promotion of this identity; my impression is that this is good enough for too many evangelicals. In the end, it seems, all that "Moral Majority" stuff was just surface level bullshit, used to attack various "others" and nothing more. It actually says a lot to me about the nature of their church these days when the popular moral panic of the day QAnon has Donald Trump literally in a role that past evangelical memes assigned to God or Christ. (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No, if you want to talk about Trump's courting of evangelicals, and your analysis excludes his judicial nomination policy and its successful implementation, then you're in the unfortunate position of saying Dumb Shit Contrary To All Available Evidence. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The court appointments (combined with the refusal of the McConnell Senate to confirm many Obama appointments) fit neatly into the authoritarianism-wannabe oriented nature of this movement, which at the evangelical end is largely driven by identity issues. So, no, such is not excluded. (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Which bit of "...and only courts the evangelicals entirely through pointless token statements..." are you unable to parse? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
If you want to be anal retentive and argue absolute wording with ikanreed, feel free. From my perspective, it's more than that. I will note that, though, most of these judges are tied with the Federalist Society from what I understand. These are going to be reliable judges at embracing capitalist oligarchy or libertarian oriented decisions. It is questionable whether they will reward the evangelicals with all they want on the identity politics, though (eg Neil Gorsuch, a Federalist Society member, judged that LGBT people are protected from workplace discrimination this year). So some elements of the "tokenism" applies. National health care and climate change policy is more in danger with these judges than gay marriage, in my opinion. (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You can fuck right off if you think I'm going to let "No, ikanreed has a point" slide without acknowledgement. Own your own dumb shit. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are not interested in a conversation. Hopefully you will be in a better mood to engage in interesting discourse in the future. Until then, toodles and have a nice day! (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Any evidence for the inequality in the country?[edit]

I know it exists but in conversations with my parents it usually comes down to them saying how this country (US) provides people with the opportunities and that people who don't make it just don't want it enough. No matter what I say they cling to their own experience (my mom who fled Cuba and my dad who had to work to put himself through college), even though I say that not everyone has the opportunity because they have to spend a good deal working and can't afford college. I don't even know if you can still pay for college with a part-time job. I honestly don't know what to say to people who use the "they don't want it enough line".Machina (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This might provide a base explanation- https://www.thoughtco.com/sociology-of-social-inequality-3026287#:~:text=%20There%20are%20two%20main%20ways%20to%20measure,of%20conditions%202%20Inequality%20of%20opportunities%20More%20. I personally do not know how to explain it. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's just hard because they try to deflect onto me who is currently unemployed and I keep trying to say to people that that is not a valid counterargument. But it either comes down to them preaching their own experience or trying to make it about me.Machina (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

From Bulbapedia[edit]

"https://nintendosoup.com/pokemon-go-team-mystic-leader-blanche-confirmed-to-be-non-binary/ the use of they/them pronouns confirms Blanche to be non-binary." Pikachu210 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 "Everyone knows that official sources use "they" to refer to Blanche, even the article mentions that. But saying that Blanche is non-binary based only on this is jumping to conclusions. It would be fine enough if NintendoSoup was an official source, but as far as I know it is only a fansite interpreting official material. Furthermore, this conclusion is somewhat contradicted by the designer's statement that Blanche's gender is "whatever impression or feeling you get from the design", which clearly suggests that his intention was to leave Blanche's gender ambiguous, without forcing any gender identification (neither "male", "female" or "non-binary"). I think "Unknown" reflects the designer's intention better, at least for now." --Maxim (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"The initial reveal of her at Comic Con made it pretty clear. 
"We're debuting for you the leadership of Team Mystic, and her name is Blanche."--Arkz (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  "The "her" in that article is not a quote from the actual reveal." --Abcboy (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeez.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 06:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A leak that Nintendo has figured out an economical implementation of quantum processors for their next game system? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I was targeting the enby erasure.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Gaming wikis. Filled with gamers. Fucking gamers ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the current state of the page it seems that this might be a thing specific to the US release though? In german, spanish, french, italian and brazilian portuguese it appears that the game specifically defines Blanche as female. German can be scrapped if you're not feeling too generous since German Pokemon has... notable freedom in a lot of ways due to a fairly entertaining situation dating all the way back to Red/Blue, but the other languages are just straight up translations. YMMV I guess. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Felt like this NPR story/ JAMA study was worth putting here too[edit]

Journal of the American Medical Association studied 19 high-income countries since May and found that the US had and has per capita death rates averaging 50% higher than all of them. 85% worse than Germany, Israel, and Denmark. 29% worse than Sweden, which literally did nothing. Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a professor of health policy and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania: "The United States really has done remarkably badly compared to other countries. I mean, remarkably badly." If US death rates were the same as Australia, the number of deaths would have been 94% lower. Here's the study. Here's the NPR article. Just holy shit. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 14:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Bill Burr hosting SNL![edit]

At the risk of making the Saloon Bar more off-topic than usual, I'm actually pretty stoked for Bill Burr hosting SNL tonight. He's one of my three favorite (living) comedians. Artificius (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I take it you watched his quasi-autobiography, F is for Family? CoryUsar (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure did! I think my favorite bits are how he reacts to Vic Reynolds' drug-fueled romp through life. After the guy does an epic line of coke and speeds out of the driveway in like three frames into a suburban afternoon, he delivers a deadpan, dark "...He's gonna kill someone, Sue." And then the absolute schadenfreude when Vic talks about losing his job: "YEAH?!?" His oldest son's puberty dreams are friggin' hilarious too. Also, Smokey poking holes in the condoms: "One, two, three, BABY! One, two, three, BABY! One, two, BABY! BABY, BABY, BABY, BABY!" Artificius (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


Can somebody put the same userboxes on my userpage in my userbox box in my sandbox? (Don't remove the existing ones in the userbox box)--HedvigsenSkreonk here 08:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A Problematic Circumstance for Illuminati Cranks[edit]

So after reading The Vigilant Christian's list of everything that's allegedly run by the Illuminati, I've been asking myself: Is it just me, or doesn't it seem like that, according to essentially every Illuminati conspiracy theorists (Not just TVC), LITERALLY EVERYTHING is being run by them. And by literally everything I mean literally everything, to the point where it's a legitimate challenge if not downright impossible to think of one thing that ISN'T run by them.

Then yesterday, I was reading the comments recently of the Taco Bell "Bellumanati" commercial (which was a BIG mistake...) and people were saying we gotta boycott Taco Bell. Okay so hang on... that means we're supposed to boycott everything the Illumanati is running, right? Naturally this means we're literally boycotting everything. Boycott Walmart too. If they're the closest grocery store to your house, you're screwed: Can't buy from them because they're being run by the Illuminati. Oh shit you drive a Ford? Better junk it, they're part of Illuminati too (I'm sure YouTube Illuminati conspiracy theorists are first in line to give up their cars). Got GE Appliances in your house? Throw them all out too (that includes your washer and dryer), because who they're Illuminati appliances. Oh shit, your baby food has to go too. Gerber is in on this too. And just think if Fruit of the Loom is in on this too... But wait... Here's the big one. What if ACME Brick is in on the Illuminati too? What if you live in a house that was built by ACME Brick? Guess the only thing left to do is go buck-naked and homeless. And if you don't know how to kill a wild animal for clothing or build a log cabin (and don't even think about going to The Home Depot for tools to do this cause guess what they're in on it too), well congratulations, looks like you're naked and homeless for the rest of your life.

But hey, it's all good, at least the big bad Illuminati isn't gonna win now, right? Oh but wait, given that in these circumstances, millions would inevitably die of starvation, heat/freeze, guess that would fulfill the Illumanati's depopulation agenda anyway. Well nevermind, I was on to something for a second. Aaronmichael5 3:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you, Aaronmichael5, because the Illuminati control you and you don't even know it. Bongolian (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The ides is generally that a secret ruling society would want to entrench its power against challengers. That means getting some sort of control over prominent political, economic, etc. figures, shaping media and other narratives along desired lines, and setting up controlled opposition to steer people with grievances away from troublesome paths. They wouldn't have to control literally everything, let alone have a finger in every single economic interaction or product, just significant parts (not even a majority) of the system. But suppose that every part of the system is compromised beyond salvage. One response would be to build a system of your own with like-minded people. It's not like no one's thought of this before. Have you ever talked to anyone who believes those things? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Just feed it all into Abulafia like Belbo, Diotallevi and Casaubon and believe it all. Maybe go one step further and bring back Operation Mindfuck for a well deserved resurgence. I mean at least it was more fun than the nonsense in that Qanon shite Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The Illuminati controls the anti-illuminati conspiracy - you should boycott it. Aloysius the Gaul 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Lincoln Project[edit]

Has anyone looked into it? In case you don't know, they are mostly Republicans against Trump and resort to dirty tactics that the Democrats mostly won't. They have a whole slew of commercials that maybe some Americans have seen but foreigners like myself wouldn't have. I went to their website and watched their videos. While I personally highly detest vicious ads and I am pretty shocked by how nasty and even scary some of the American ones are, it seems they are doing something Democrats won't which is playing by the dirty rules that Trump goes by. It's pretty fascinating to see Trump as the target using his own narrative. I've seen a dozen of those adds, some are actually a little macabre but they are thoroughly entertaining, if not sad that things have come to this in the world's largest democracy. ShabiDOO 15:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Their ad "Wake Up" from a couple months ago is a work of art. It's practically a short film. (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that there is a God, then they're doing His work, and all power to them. They're admirably clear-eyed about the danger posed by Trump and his enablers in Congress, and have resolved to burn the current GOP to the ground because of it. If / when the likes of Tom Cotton and Nikki Haley start their runs for the '24 nomination, I sincerely hope the LP is still in there bringing the Trump collaborator receipts. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Already looked into them. They are a textbook case of Black Propaganda, as their biggest donors are all hardcore Democrats. For those unfamiliar with the term, Black propaganda is where you pretend to be your opposition when releasing a propaganda story, as opposed to White where you release the story openly. E.g, if the US has a story about how Boris Johnson has a tiny penis, if the story is released through the State Department it's White, if it's released by a spy within the BBC it's Black. CoryUsar (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
You did yer lookin' wrong, then. The founders are the real deal: ex-GOPers with sense enough to realise the party now represents many of the very worst aspects of America, and of humanity more generally. Of course Dems are going to pour money into such an outfit, but that doesn't make it a Democrat outfit any more than bankrolling the Soviets in WWII turned the USSR into the USA. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you think democrats don't play dirty?

Ariel31459 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

While I certainly don't disagree they play dirty, the "Black propaganda" take above is fucking...? Ok I'm going to go out on a limb and say not just flat earth but hollow earth, yknow? Keep your enemies close, I guess. (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"Fucking" what? Is it the "Propaganda" piece? The definition of propaganda is literally "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view", which means that literally every political ad in existence is propaganda. And that includes the Lincoln Project. Is it the "Black" piece? They are being bankrolled almost entirely by Democrats, while claiming to be Republicans, ergo, Black Propaganda. The definition of Black, White and Grey is a bit fuzzy, but if, for example, an American radio station is promoting Putin and is being bankrolled by Russia, even if the staff is made up of US citizens that just happen to be Putin fanboys, it would still be considered Black Propaganda. CoryUsar (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


How do you abandon deeply held beliefs about character, personal responsibility, foreign policy, and the national debt in a matter of months? You don’t. The obvious answer is those beliefs weren’t deeply held. … [I]t had always been about power. The rest? The principles? The values? It was all a lie.
—Stuart Stevens, former GOP campaign strategist, co-founder of The Lincoln Project[3]
Bongolian (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser What's causing you such difficulty here? By your own definition, "black propaganda" requires Democrats bankrolling Democrats who are pretending to be Republicans. Democrats funding Republicans at war with other Republicans isn't even close, and whilst you're free to triple-down, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Are we in agreement that they are being bankrolled predominantly by Dems though? CoryUsar (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure. I haven't seen any data one way or the other, tbh, but it's a perfectly reasonable assumption given the relative dearth of committed anti-Trump Republicans, and I'll happily concede it for the purposes of argument. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster changing (the definition of) preference[edit]

Apparently, Merriam-Webster has changed the definition of "preference," adding that it is offensive when used as "sexual preference."

Compare: September 28, 2020 and October 14, 2020

This seems to be related with Amy Coney Barrett hearing: Sen. Hirono grills Amy Coney Barrett for describing sexual orientation as a ‘preference’

I find very disturbing the idea that a dictionary can changes words definitions to score political points.-TheOldMan (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I honestly had no clue "sexual preference" was considered an offensive term. Frankly I can't help but doubt that it even is. I know "lifestyle choice" was the right's preferred euphemism, but this is the first I've heard of anybody being offended over "sexual preference."-Hastur! (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess that "taking offence" is a personal thing and I suppose that someone could take offence about almost anything. But it seems kind of odd to be offended by the mere term "sexual preference".
On a secondary point - dictionaries really describe usage: they don't dictate it. Though in this case it seems a somewhat doubtful description.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sexual preference is indeed a very offensive term. It implies that sexual orientation can be changed through unethical methods such as conversion therapy, thus legitimizing such heinous "therapies". It would make a false analogy between changing someone's food preference by offering them different food and changing someone's sexual orientation through forced sexual contact with a person of the opposite sex. (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
By that logic I shouldn't say I prefer cold weather because that's what I've found I like, and no amount of effort can change that. To prefer something just means you like it more than something else. Dictionaries trying their hardest to make someone look bad by stealth changing their definitions is patently ridiculous, and is very much the opposite of being descriptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The "weather preference" argument is besides the point. Society does not discriminate against people based on what weather they prefer. HOWEVER, society does discriminate people based on their sexual orientation. Thus, we must be very careful with our use of language when referring to sexual orientation. We must not make ANY concessions to these right-wing, anti-LGBT sociopaths. (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
We see this sort of false implication more and more these days. When I state a preference, that is a polite way of stating what I am asking for, or what I want. It doesn't mean that I can be convinced to accept some other choice instead of my preferred choice. It should not be taken personally. Nobody is going to ask you what your sexual preference is today, as though it would be different from every other day.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
See the reply I gave to The Blade of the Northern Lights. Sexual orientation is different from regular, everyday preferences. Society does not discriminate people based on what food they prefer or what weather they prefer. However, society does discriminate people based on their sexual orientation. Thus, our language must be carefully used to respect the LGBT community. By accepting sexual preference as a synonym for sexual orientation, we are giving a concession to the right-wing, anti-LGBT sociopaths. In order to truly advance the progressive movement, we must disagree with the right-wing community on as many points as possible. Otherwise, we would be on a slipperly slope to going back to the conservative value of 1950s Western culture. (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course it is different. Honestly, people will use simple words to formulate their thoughts irrespective of your preferences. When you attempt to impute ideological connotations to simple English diction you will put off a lot of people who are neither right-wing nor expressing a complicated idea. Words do not have the authority you appear to imagine them to possess. Your argument is basically, don't say "sexual preferences" ( and I won't out of courtesy) because bad things will happen. Bad things may well happen, I hope otherwise, but if they do, it won't be for the reasons you suggest.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with "orientation" being the proper term and "preference" being the pejorative. But now? Now, everything's gotten... weird. CoryUsar (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with @Ariel31459. Anyway, my post is not about if "sexual preference" is or is not offensive. My post is about a dictionary updating its definitions in light of political climate.
As I said, I find it very disturbing. Image saying or writing something, and then finding that your political opponents change the definitions of the words you used, in order to attack you.-TheOldMan (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is - there is a difference between 'orientation' and 'preference' - (Generic) You can be sexually orientated in (various ways) but have a preference for blond(e)s, particular activities etc (but will do others).
Is it my preference or my orientation that I wish to use anything other than the current MW dictionary? Anna Livia (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Preference has a broader meaning than you're giving it. Language is big parts intent. But just for laughs, do I have an orientation for cilantro or a preference?-Hastur! (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Sexual preference is a valid use of the word preference, unless and until society decides otherwise. As an abstract and subjective concept the word itself holds no intrinsic meaning, since it is a set of mouth noises given meaning by the rules of our language. If those rules were to change, it could lose an old meaning or gain a new one. To paraphrase Ludwig Wittgenstein "Language is use". Basically, Hastur is correct. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I would personally put orientation in a different class to preferences. To say you "prefer" guys would insinuate that you would still consider women which is pretty unlikely for a lot of outright gay men...though it is true some say "I prefer guys" as a polite way or soft way to communicate that you are gay. However that doesn't insinuate it is simply a preference that is negotiable. Preference would be like preferring blondes, tall people, non-smokers. I personally have a preference for tall, dark, masculine guys but I am willing to consider less tall or blonde guys if they have other particularly great qualities. I am not willing to consider women regardless of any circumstance short of having a gun held to my head. In which case it is NOT a preference. A sexual preference is also practices (top, bottom, fetish, hard, violent, slow etc) something people either have super fixed but more usually willing to deviate from or even be very flexible about. These can change over time, for many people they are not willing to entertain a change in the gender of their partners. I would easily overlook someone saying that I "prefer guys" in a passive sense. But if someone says it as though it is a choice or implies that I could change it if I wanted to or that I am being hard headed or stubborn about it...then without any doubt that would be extremely offensive. It is perhaps over kill for the dictionary to put it down as possibly offensive as its use in an offensive way is so uncommon, but I don't think it is outrageous to do so either. ShabiDOO 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
But there are people who are bisexual or pan-sexual who might well have a preference for men or women at different times.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
dictionaries have often gone for a prescriptive approach, attempting to define how words should be used rather than how they are used. i imagine which approach varies in the dictionary. with online dictionaries i imagine there is a lot less oversight and definitions getting updated constantly, one or two odd choices might slip through. they are dictionaries at the end of the day and not the final arbiter for any argument or discussion except maybe a game of scrabble. as for preference, i much prefer the oed. they know to spell colour correctly. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
i tried searching for controversial definitions in dictionaries, to show that it happens, but all i got in search results is page after page of the definition of controversial. i try rewording the search a few times but still page after page of the same. its a little frustrating. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay racism and migrant, from searching for controversy over the definition of a particular word. Still plenty of dictionary definitions of "controversial" in the results. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there are certainly cases such as with bisexual and pansexual people where the preference and orientation are more difficult to distinguish. The point isn't that saying it is a sexual preference is necessarily offensive, but in the context where one uses preference implying that sexual orientation is the same as choice or that it can be easily changed...is offensive. Again, it is really uncommon and since the two terms are used almost interchangeably in some contexts I don't think it is, at the moment, a serious enough issue for a dictionary to mention. However I have no problem agreeing that in specific contexts it CAN be, and is, offensive to use sexual preference especially in a disparaging sense towards LGTBQ+. ShabiDOO 18:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Shabidoo, you are underestimating the serious problem with using sexual preference as a synonym for sexual orientation. Such usage can conflate the discrimination that mixed-race couples face with the discrimination that gay couples face. If we accept sexual preference as a synonym for sexual orientation, then both types of couples would be considered as being discriminated based on their "sexual preference". However, the two discriminations have their differences and by rejecting sexual preference as a synonym for sexual orientation, we can more clearly see the differences.
For example, a couple consisting of a white man and a black man would be doubly fucked by society as they would be discriminated based on their sexual preference AS WELL AS their sexual orientation. A couple consisting of two white men would still suffer from discrimination, but less so, as they are only discriminated based on their sexual orientation. (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure where we are disagreeing here. ShabiDOO 21:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Luigi go to the bathroom.[edit]

Did anyone here see that picture of Biden's son sleeping with a crack pipe in his mouth? What a joke. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:7027:C0B0:43B2:EDBE (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Even it it's 100 percent true - so what? I guess it's supposed to say something about Joe Biden , but as they can't I suppose they want to try for Biden's family. It's an admission of failure really. On the other hand there is this which would seem to be a lot more on the mark.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem with Trump's scandals is that he's had so many they rarely stick. Remember when he burned an Israeli spy in order to impress the Russians?-Hastur! (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
If he loses the election and goes down into the darkness of private citizenship in three weeks, could it be said they had a cumulative effect? Artificius (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 14:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Article idea[edit]

"Refuting the Deep State conspiracy"

I am always hearing arguments about the "Deep State" when anybody criticizes Trump or mentions the COVID pandemic. There are so many flaws in the Deep State conspiracy. Think I might make a refutation draft later. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Put it here-Hastur! (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathy regulations may be put into place by the FDA[edit]

The FDA is putting up some basic regulations on homeopathy because homeopaths poisoned a bunch of people again but a group of homeopaths called Americans for Homeopathy Choice are planning on flooding the comments to tip the scales. Hopefully it still goes through.

You can see the regulations here: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/drug-products-labeled-homeopathic-guidance-fda-staff-and-industry Vorarchivist (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how effective it will be but if it prevents poisoning then I am fine with it. Homeopathy, Chiropractic and Naturopathy are not going away any time soon. Making strong regulations on alternative medicine quacks may limit the damage they do. Not saying it would. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a simple enough regulation - "Anything "homeopathic" must not contain any ingredient other than water." - there - written it for them. Aloysius the Gaul 03:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Help pls[edit]

I got 2 hours to clean my apartment or I’ll get in the shit with the building owner landlord type person. I slept like 2 hours the past 3 days so I keep procrastinating. Anyone have any motivational advice? Thanks a bunch A S E L A និយាយ 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Asela JUST DO IT! Motivation doesn't come before tasks to fill you with energy. Motivation comes ONCE you have begun something. Just start. It will come. But don't sit around and wait for it to come. It never will. Just chip away at it, trust me. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Ur right. It’ll be easier once I start for sure. But right now? My legs hurt so bad. I got chronic pain and lack of sleep makes it 10000x worse. Right now the big struggle? Get off the dang bed. Thank u for the advice, I will do everything in my power to just start cleaning. A

S E L A និយាយ 22:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

meth AMassiveGay (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
2 expensive rn lmoa (also been trying to avoid it, maybe I’ll treat myself once the semester is over but ideally I’d not go near it again). Anyway I successfully cleaned in the end. A

S E L A និយាយ 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The Evidence for Climate Change[edit]

Zuid-Florida reliëf.jpg
According to NASA[4], we are getting 414 parts of carbon dioxide every million years but is now at its highest in 650,000 years. 19 of the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the 21st century. 13.1% of Arctic ice melts annually and reached its lowest in 2012. 427 billion tons of ice melts every year, and the sea levels rise 3.3 millimeters annually. Miami could end up underwater by 2050 if we're not careful.Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"Miami underwater" is always the tamest and least worrying part of climate change. There are three words that should fill every sensible person with dread: "perennial crop failure" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I also imagine people living near the Equator are not going to have a good time...-Flandres (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Ew, screw Miami, it's NYC that I'm worried about. A 1m rise won't do much of anything, but 10m would threaten entire neighborhoods and 30m would basically turn the entire place into Venice. Greenland alone melting is 6m.
I don't think we will ever get to the scenario where there is no ice caps at all, but the world without permanent ice caps, where Antarctica and the Arctic are ice-free for a few months out of the year, is not out of the realm of possibility. I doubt we will get lucky enough that the changing climate results in the Sahara, Northern Canada and Siberia becoming lush, fertile forests, so at the very least, we won't have wars over those territories. Current farmland, well... currently, China is "solving" the problem of "not enough women to go around", a problem it created for itself, through human "embezzlement" from North Korea(1) and a genocide as a cover story with the Uyghurs(2) (and that's just what we know about!), so I do NOT look forward to how they plan to solve "not enough farmland to go around"
(1) Basically, men and women are doing anything they can to escape from NK to get to the South, and this involves being trafficked through China first. Not all of the women make it to their final destination, some are diverted to be sold as sex slaves/brides in China itself. "Embezzlement" is the best fitting word, I suppose.
(2) Most of the Uyghurs being detained because of "terrorism" are men, and part of the process of "secularizing" the Uyghurs involves having a Chinese low-ranking official live in the homes of the Uyghur families and forcing the unmarried (or forcibly separated) women to share their bed with the official. To keep an eye on them, of course. This enables many of the Chinese to find a wife, while at the same time ensuring that the Uyghurs become ethnically Chinese permanently. If the unmarried Uyghur men become a problem, well, back to the slave-camps. CoryUsar (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm always stricken by how easily Communist regimes become Fascist ones in all-but-name with the passage of time. The concern with ethnicity and Chinese national pride has completely supplanted any calls for world revolution within the CPC. The Horseshoe model is probably hewn very close to reality. Artificius (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
When exactly was the good times with lots of freedom in Chinese history? Certainly not during the cultural revolution, definitely not during the civil war, not during the nationalist government, definitely not during the imperial occupation, not under the republic of China when many people were still literally serfs. I'd guess you mean the 90s through early 2000s when the outside world and economic opportunities were opening up a bit for the average Chinese citizen, but Xi hadn't begun his campaign of personal power consolidation? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
WOOOAAH buddy, I never said there were good times in any civilization. All I said is one regime could easily switch to its effective left-right doppelganger given sufficient time (and meant to imply the absence of oversight present in liberal democracies). Not *anything* about China specifically, examples given being sparse. I could have and almost did mention Rodzaevesky, or North Korea's whole "Juche" situation, or how Berlin's Commies easily switched back and forth from Communism (as defined within the twentieth century) and Fascism and neo-Fascism (I think the only difference is neo-fascists can't get representation in any democracy worth its salt), or how for anyone who has ever written more than a poorly formatted pamphlet on the subject their understanding was that *anything* (including Commies or fucking Fascists where appropriate) is better than classical Liberalism. People fucking and enjoying life and forming opinions and conducting business in relative peace, free from from the state's influence? *Those* are the demons of the subjects of the horseshoe theory, those are the assholes making the world hard to live in. Artificius (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Just needed to clarify, my words were defensive and in haste. I did originally single China out, but only because their specific bullshit was most recently the subject of this discussion. But I am not a fan of their regime, and I'd be surprised if you couldn't tell. I look forward to the day when their people storm the citadels of that degraded workers' state, assuming they don't turn nukes and less on their own people.Artificius (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the Florida images, Florida is a hotbed of climate change denialism,[5] and they're engaging in widespread legal fights over trespassing on private beaches (the majority of Florida beaches are private)[6] that will be submerged in our lifetimes. Bongolian (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Arti Communist China was always fascist. Mao got some idea stuck up his anus, and everyone had to go along with it even though they knew it to be an impending disaster. Having peasants smelt their own iron? Encouraging 6+ kids per family? Killing all the sparrows? Yeah, everyone knew that there was going to be massive famine, but anyone who dared speak up was obviously one of the foreign saboteurs responsible for the famine. CoryUsar (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
what does anyone expect of these places? they were born from unimaginably brutal conflicts with victories paid for by massive human cost and their lands devastated. where your enemies could not succeed militarily, they stand ready to crush you economically. tough decisions need to be made and the determination to stay the course is in jeopardised by any kind of democracy when enough of the old order remains to tempt people fall back to old certainties. you must industrialise to survive and you must do so quickly. the horrors of war have hardened you and brutalised the people. you stayed the course during war, endured millions of dead, but soldiered through. famines and hardship, you are used to death. stay on course. the soviets industrialised rapidly and transformed the country. the human cost was tremendous, but their industry crushed the nazis, and then go toe to toe with the us during the cold war in terms of industrial output. despite starting a position decades behind the us, who untouched by war. china did also industrialise rapidly at tremendous human cost. it survived the chaos of the great leap forward and cultural revolution and is now surpassing the us as the world super power. totalitarian rule saw countries through times of great strife. in the stability of post ww2, the cold war had the soviets locked in a struggle that threatened its existence with nuclear annihilation. why risk democracy then? for china, stability and economic growth and success its seeing now, has totalitarian rule embedded within. necessity and pragmatism meant postponing any democratic ideals of their communism, but as with the soviets, the consolidated power and bureaucracies that formed arent easily dismantled. with communism being the end point, a utopia for which the conditions are yet to appear to move onto, you are stuck with your centralised authoritarian state. for the individual, its dreadful. for various minority groups, its appalling. but the for the state, for china as a whole, for those in power, its working. its a success even. why risk democracy now? where will that take them? why risk it all for something you've never known? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
1) Much of that struggle was self inflicted
2) Russia's industrial might? Are you forgetting the Lend-Lease program? 1/3 of Russia's airforce was manufactured by the US, as were 1/3 of their trucks and something like 90% of their railroad equipment, to say nothing of the raw resources themselves.
3) Democracy's real advantage is that it presents a release valve for revolution. Revolutions become obsolete, in a sense, as any popular movement simply becomes part of the ruling agenda. Civil wars are almost non-existent in Democracies with one very notable exception.
4) Free speech is the more pertinent issue. Xi really had no idea what the hell was going on in the early days of COVID, because the low level bureaucrats had been sweeping it all under the rug, and this is just the latest example. Having an independent news industry is how you tackle corruption such as this. CoryUsar (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
the point was circumstance ensured authoritarian government was a necessity for their survival, and once down that road, with power consolidated and bloated bureaucracies, a reluctance of those in power to relinquish control, and just the sheer difficulty dialling it all back, is why thy they've all turned out a lot less utopian as imagined by marx. the practice works out different from the theory.
i sure democracy is super great for all manner of things. the problem though is getting it up and running. people seem to forget that most of the european liberal democracies all have their roots in traditions and laws going back centuries, evolving piecemeal over time. the magna carta was signed in 1215 for example. we only let women in to vote 1920s. one needs only look at at africa to see how post colonial countries that started democratic at independence, didnt stay so for too long. it seems to takes time to take hold, for new traditions to form of good governance, accountabilty, anti corruption, if these things have never been present before. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Medical and Religious quackery: The time tested method of money making[edit]


The COVID pandemic has certainly brought out all forms of medical and religious quackery. Pandemics are the best time to peddle bullshit for extra cash. --Possible Goat (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Help me out here[edit]

So I'm arguing with this Christian on youtube who tried claiming Christianity promotes racial equality. I then pointed out the Bible verses about taking slaves from other nations and he responded with a "but that's the old testament" type argument. I then responded telling him that Jesus said to follow the old testament and then he claimed that Jesus only meant the 10 commandments, whilst pointing out contradictions between Jesus's teachings and the old testament. I then responded by pointing out verses where Jesus brought up Mosaic law and circumcision and 2 Timothy 3:16 but this particular argument piqued my interest so I went looking for answers and, weirdly enough, I couldn't find any response from any of the atheists I tend to listen to addressing this, which sugggests to me they've never encountered this argument before. Basically what I'm wondering is this. Is this an actual Christian school of thought? Or did he just pull this piece of apologetics out his arse?

TL;DR Some Christian I'm arguing with online claims that only the 10 commandments matter when it comes to the old testament. What do i say? Evilatheistheathen (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

All I can say is this- You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. --Possible Goat (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean? Evilatheistheathen (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I would say that you might point out to him that the ten Commandments are largely crap as our article points out. As to your other point - I would guess that there are as many opinions about Christianity as there are Christians to make them up.
In my opinion though it's not really best to base arguments on the bible. It's such a conflicting hodgepodge that for every verse you might bring up, a Christian can bring up another. And so what? It's just cobbled-together old book. Better to ask for evidence of the existence of his particular version of God.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I ended the debate with him on good terms after realising there was no real chance of convincing him otherwise when he full on admitted to me that the bible is full of contradictions. Ultimately as you said there are as many opinions about Christianity as there are Christians to make them up. Thanks for your advice anyway mate👍 Evilatheistheathen (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It really sounds like you did as well as could be expected. So - Well done!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone looked into China and the Uighurs?[edit]

John Oliver has a good piece on it, China & Uighurs: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO). Things are only getting worse... — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:594e:7300:b947:44fc / talk / contribs

Yes, we have an article about the camps somewhere. CoryUsar (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It's currently a draft. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 17:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Welp, I moved to mainspace. Xianjing Re-education Camps.
Maybe needs to be renamed to "Uyghur Genocide"? CoryUsar (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Ethnic cleansing seems the most accurate. My opinion though. --Possible Goat (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
"Ethnic Cleansing" is the class of genocide that involves forced removals rather than mass rape/murder. This doesn't require any death, but generally, they aren't being relocated to any land you wanted in the first place so starvation isn't unexpected. The Uyghurs as a people aren't being relocated to other areas, nor are there mass executions (that we are aware of!). What is happening is mass detention, forced "reeducation" and what appears to be forced marriages and probable mass rapes, with the result being that the Uyghurs will permanently become mixed-race. I don't think there's a word for this particular type of genocide, but it's actually disturbingly common throughout history and it's ongoing in parts of the world other than China. -CU (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden texts[edit]

Wtf I regret ever clicking that article. Some seriously personal stuff there. And what I saw was not incriminating. Indeed if anything it makes me more sympathetic to Biden. I don't recommend it.-Hastur! (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Which article is this? Artificius (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I voted and it was weird[edit]

I registered as an independent when I turned 18, I have not changed my political affiliation.

So, I filled out my mail in ballot. Thing is, my official address is still my parents' house. Same county, I don't think that's fruad, I left the school district stuff blank. But I drove over and voted and dropboxed the thing.

What was weird was when I was voting on state stuff, (I voted against unpaid prison labor, against extending tax easements to 20 years as opposed to 15 years, and for gambling in racehalls), my mom asked me if I wanted the TV off. Kinda frustrated, I said "no, I just wanna focus on this."

While I was filling in every circle completely for judges, Jeopardy went to break and political ads started. I was like, "I knew Volvo was the Swedish car company, I'm voting right now and listening to political ads." It was weird.

Jo landed on my state's ticket. That was also like "holy shit." Libertarians could be the wall, they could separate Republicans from their base. Let your friends vote Libertarian, sort it out next year. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Y'all wanna know why I`m a socialist?[edit]

This. Oxyaena Harass 09:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Y'all wanna know why I`m a socialist?" Nope. But it looks like you want to be a billionaire too. Best get the champagne ready for when that happens, so. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cardinal Chang She doesn't. Just let it go. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Let what go? Was merely attempting humour out of a vague question. Sorry. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
as socialist ideals go, the impossibility of ever becoming so stupidly rich that magazine articles will calculate how long the average prole would need to work to earn my wealth, is maybe not so high as a priority than, i dunno, healthcare, housing, basic needs being met, plus some time off work once in a while and just little bit of cash left at the end of the week for frivolities. and meth. a shit load of meth. metrics like this are pointless to me, 100 years, 1000 years to earn a billion, or trillion, is meaningless information to me, its just varying shades of never. how long do i need to work to cover rent and will i have enough cash left that i can afford to not get scurvy is more pressing. a growing divide between rich and and the swelling ranks of the poor is of note, but its the rich getting richer by not just ensuring that the poor stay poor, but actively working against any efforts that might alleviate the hardships that go with being poor. if i got a roof over my head and im not going hungry, im not going to begrudge someones ivory tower. if i have to choose between feeding the kids and buying medication, and i literally piss myself at work because the company policy forbids toilet breaks as basic human dignity means a tiny fraction of a percentage point less of an obscene amount of profit for someone, i might burn their tower down. i dont need to super rich. just little bit less poor will do AMassiveGay (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't care if people are rich. I just want the rich to pay their fair share so that the rest of us can actually live our lives. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 14:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I care if people are rich. If you got rich by managing a company, but your employees didn't, it means you underpaid them. People should be paid what they are worth, not the minimum amount they will accept. Workers should be, and are, more valuable than management. Management accomplishes nothing without the labor of others. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that people have fortunes of 50 billion dollars tells us that our competition laws, tax laws, labour laws etc. are completely inadequate and not enough is being done to limit extremely predatory companies. I have no problem with huge corporations. I do have a problem with ones which so thoroughly dominate a market because of preferable treatment, lack of regulation, the inability to consider breaking them up (or forcing them to break up) or even force them to allow competition though creative means. For example telecoms are forced to rent out their infrastructure to other companies...there is no reason amazon couldn't be forced to rent out their infrastructure or suppliers to other companies to encourage more competition. Google should also be broken up so that their various divisions do not gain such an insane advantage because of their enormous size and market dominance and ineffective regulations. Does that mean that there wouldn't be billionaires? No. But it would make earning 50 billion over a short period of time difficult, and Oxy is right, amassing that kind of fortune is obscene and it can only happen because a country (and other countries) enable it. ShabiDOO 14:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Meh, Google hasn't really done anything evil. They share the first 3 letters of the word "good"; they aren't "Evigle". When I tried googling "Google Evil" I actually got a website telling me how Google's motto is specifically "don't be evil" quick, someone help me please, Google's "AI" is actually millions of humans locked in a cage figuring out solutions, I only have a limited amount of time before- OH NO! so they must be the good guys. CoryUsar (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Google eliminated that motto after they bought YouTube ("not googley", according to the head honchos before they snatched it) and became an evil piracy operation/fake news site/conspiracy promoter. 😉 Bongolian (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I honestly think this discussion (wealth inequality) is done to death on this site. Despite the broad range of political alignments, most of us that participate in these discussions agree that it's a bad thing. So Oxy trying to move people left by pointing out that the rich are unjustly powerful and wealthy, well beyond that of the average person, seems to me like flogging a horse's corpse. The question therefore becomes, (and this is where we all start to fight) is what is to be done about the problem? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess in the short term you could dramatically reduce poverty through certain programs such as universal healthcare, universal education, universal basic income, a living wage, vienna style social housing and providing things like birth control tampons and pads free of charge to at least the poorest. In the long term I think you need to think about a full on democratisation of the economy. A world where the vast majority of businesses are worker owned co-operatives, where banks that are too big to fail are nationalised instead of being bailed out time and time again, and where lobbying and other forms of corruption are illegal.I think reforming the justice system completely would also be essential to reducing income inequality. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Snarky answers ahead, warning, some black comedy
Encourage gay marriage, obviously. By having poor gay people marry, you reduce the number of poor households and thus reduce the metrics for inequality.
Increase access to abortion and sex education. If poor people have fewer kids, that's fewer poor people in the inequality numbers.
Stop wearing masks. Old people tend to be wealthier, and through death the wealth passes to their children, and thus is spread out a bit more. On the flip side, poor people tend to get worse health care, and dead people aren't included in terms of inequality.
Cut Medicaid. Again, no poor people, no inequality. CoryUsar (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what can be done about it short of what we United Statesians will be doing over the course of the next three weeks, followed up by folksy civic engagement like writing our representatives or becoming one ourselves to ensure they remain servants of the people. Much of what makes socialism work when it does is a culture which expects it, and the US seems to have a certain strain of bloodthirsty capitalism baked in. Even the suggestion that there’s such a thing as a fair share our corporate masters ought to pay or that they should clean up after they despoil the wilderness comes off like the Red Speech of Mordor. Artificius (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I think we should empower workers. Stronger labor laws and forms of corporate accountability will weaken the vice grip of the wealthy, allowing some degree of a domino effect over time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This is probably a crackpot theory of some sort, but I have long believed that a 'dollar' in the account of a billionaire is a different kind of marker from a dollar bill in your wallet. The billions they own are accrued to them by various largely automated processes operating on a ledger entry in a financial institution. The transactions that result in these payoffs are quite different from the ones for which paychecks are written. So too are the sorts of things that can be bought with them; the main economic activity of the billionaire's funds are moving them from one kind of ledger entry to another. It's only rarely that the billionaire funds interact with the world of scarce goods and services; primarily in the buying and selling of interests in land. And we've also managed to build the fairy castle of finance on top of those transactions as well. The system has improvised some sort of barrier between the two sorts of money. If the plug got pulled on the computers where the ledger money lives, and every billionaire had instead to accept a dollar bill for all of the fairy pelf that formerly lived in their financial accounts, the barrier would be weakened and chaos would erupt. And if the plug were really pulled, and all the billions in finance were to simply go away and be irrecoverable, would any 'wealth' be destroyed, really? The billionaires would still be much better off in that they'd still have their yachts and fancy housen. But the gap would be shortened substantially. We may simply be seeing a form of partially hidden hyperinflation from which the world of real things has been mostly insulated. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
It's really not all that different from gold sitting in a vault, doing nothing. If the vault were to just disappear, the economy wouldn't even notice. If the rich man were to suddenly spend all the gold, the world gets a little weird. At first, all the stores sell their goods, but then they have to restock their goods. If the craftsmen were otherwise sitting around Dick'n'Hand, they produce more goods than normal no problem. If the craftsmen were already working at full capacity, prices rise, and then the stores in turn raise prices, and inflation sets in. You might think this means you could simply print money to hire the unemployed with no problem, and this would be true... until they in turn buy goods and services. If the goods and services they rely upon have extra capacity, e.g., the unemployed would for example, only buy clothes, and the tailors are mostly sitting around with their dicks in their hands, then no inflation would occur and the economy would boom. If the poor are now buying houses, well, now you have a housing bubble being supported through the printing of money, and that does NOT end well. Economics is complicated. CoryUsar (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena I see no relation between the article you linked and being a socialist. Of course it would take an eternity to become a billionaire by saving an average salary. Indeed that's not how billionaire become billionaire. And of course, more generally, it's extremely difficult to become a billionaire. This is true in any social/economic system. It's not like socialism makes easier becoming a billionaire.-TheOldMan (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan Socialist generally hold that it is immoral to be a billionaire, as it necessitates the existence of multiple people in poverty. So you are correct, socialism doesn't make it easier to become a billionaire. Further, most billionaires got there via either luck, already being well off, or both. Not a lot of rags to riches stories. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Most billionaires started in the upper middle class or below. While being upper-middle isn't exactly poverty, it's not the privilege of the rich; you can afford a lawyer but you can't simply ignore the law, you don't have to worry about paying for college but you can't bribe your way in, you don't have to worry about medical bills but you can't jump the queue for organs or other treatment, etc. George Lucas, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and Bill Gates started in the upper middle. Steve Jobs was actually a bit weird, born in the upper middle but given up for adoption to the middle. Jeff Bezos was also hard to classify, but lower middle to middle. Larry Ellison was solidly middle. Oprah and JK Rowling started poor. Warren Buffet, Steve Ballmer and maybe Elon Musk started in the upper class.
Huh, the only two women I listed were the only ones actually starting poor. Interesting.
Anyway, being a billionaire isn't inherently "evil", so long as the money was obtained in exchange for goods/services worth at least as much as those billions. Everyone loves to hate Bill Gates, but ask any of the old-timers in IT and there really was a need for a standard operating system. Honestly, I despised Apple and everything it represented; a greedy corp run by a complete psychopath masquarading as the Cool Kid and millions of young people too dumb to see it. CoryUsar (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
oh the good ol days when bill gates and microsoft were the face of evil corporations. with billionaires background of mostly not being of from old money, i wonder how long thats been so? it seems like a lot of the more self made ones seem to have made their cash as a result of the internet/it. at least the more high profile ones
a list of rich fucks AMassiveGay (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I live in a country with a socialist government and have lived in two others with them, most of my friends are socialists (or at least sympathetic to it) and honestly, I don't know anyone attacking all billionaires as inherently immoral. They should be properly taxes and they shouldn't be given super preferential treatment nor free access to brute labor exploitation, tax evasion or hard core market dominance but its certainly possible for someone to become a billionaire without being obscenely immoral (though it's hard to imagine how its possible without being a douche-bag). However generating multi-billions in a short period of time, cannot possibly be done without grossly immoral actions like labour abuse, extremely aggressive manipulative business tactics, deceptive marketing and deception of clients/consumers, full out assault on competition etc. You simply cannot become a mutli-billionaire in a decade or two without doing several of these. And governments enable it (including socialist ones) and should enable it less. The EU has been chipping away at some anti-competitive practices, tax evasion and increasing labour rights...but I doubt its enough. Certainly light-years ahead of some US jurisdictions. Oxy does have a point, comparing a well off middle class person with a billionaire is like comparing a brick with a skyscraper. It's extremely hard to visualize this kind of disparity and putting it into perspective helps. ShabiDOO 17:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser "Anyway, being a billionaire isn't inherently "evil", so long as the money was obtained in exchange for goods/services worth at least as much as those billions." Gods, what is this childish drivel? Do you not understand the difference between immorality as a result of equations and evil? You can be the most compassionate person in the world, and so long as you are a billionaire, your station necessitates the suffering of the lower classes, on which it is built. Furthermore, I am frankly insulted that you read as childish a notion as "evil" into my statement. We're talking about the dynamics in a socio-economic system, not a fucking fairytale villain! Finally, how they amassed that wealth isn't necessarily the point, though there is commentary on that dynamic as well. The major point I was making is that the majority of goods are concentrated at the top of the metaphorical pyramid, which by definition means they aren't going towards the rest of the socio-economic structure. I need fucking aspirin now... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
1) Going to need some citation for the claim that being rich is predicated upon the suffering of others. Relative poverty? Sure, can't be relatively poor without others being better off. Absolute poverty? Doesn't do anyone much good to be equal if everyone is equally starving to death.
2) I'm a mathematical genius (with credentials to prove it); everything is equations for me. Even Philosophy. Especially Philosophy; just what do you think Formal Logic even is? CoryUsar (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser You're an illiterate moron. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser And yes I am pissed as fuck right now. Not only did you read childish drivel into my initial explanation, but now you're actively ignoring my explanation as to why your initial bunk is bunk. I honestly want to reach through the connection and hit you, that is how pissed I am. At the very fucking least you could fucking acknowledge where you were wrong, for fuck's sake. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

GC it's difficult to grasp what actual point you're trying to make here because on the one hand you have dismissed the utility of Oxy pointing out the extent of the disparity between a schmoe and a billionaire and even if its worth further discussing this at all and yet you continue making claims (though a little difficult to pin down) about Billionaires. Could you directly state your position on morality and the existence of billionaires and the general ethical (or unethical) behavior of billionaires? I'm honestly not quite sure what it is. ShabiDOO 23:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(Not a response to the comment directly above, but without an indent it's blowing up the formatting) Apropos of nothing, would I be the only one who sees some of Charlie Brown's baseball team here? (Schulz himself absolutely hated the name Peanuts, it was forced on him and frankly never did make much sense) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Earlier in this thread you spoke of the ethics of rapid wealth accumulation. That is one aspect. But as to the two main points. Firstly, It is my shared view with other leftists that a massive stockpile necessitates the existence of its opposite, a massive scarcity. This does not make the individual millionaires "evil" or immoral per se, but it does make their them complicit in the suffering of the less well off. The conclusion is clear, the station of "billionaire", by definition, is predicated on and complicit in the impoverishment of others. Secondly, as to my view of this subject and conversation as a whole.... Oxy keeps talking about these problems, but doesn't ever seem to talk about solutions, nor does she seem to elaborate on what leftists goals would look like. This frustrates me, as the solutions are what I think people are more interested in, which I'd rather talk about instead. It's bit like someone always bringing up climate change but never talking about proposed solutions, you see? Finally as an afterward I should note that I don't believe in "evil" as a concept, as it seems too simplistic for a realistic moral framework, since it implies an excess of malice, a rare occurrence outside the theoretical and fictional. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
"Evil" is not some definition woven into the fabric of the universe; if an alligator rips off your leg the Heavens don't part with a thunderous voice scolding the alligator. No, "good" and "evil" are human descriptors for actions that benefit or harm society. Those that add to the wellbeing of others are "good", those who harm the wellbeing of others are "bad". Those who add more are "better" than those who add less.
Not everyone adds. Some people can multiply society. A fisherman catching an extra fish will add, an inventor that designs a better net so that all fisherman can catch an extra fish will multiply.
Let's say there's a town of 1000 fishermen catching 1 fish each. Someone develops a method to catch 3 fish, and will exchange it for 1 fish from each fisherman. Now you have 1 person with 1000 fish and 1000 fishermen with 2 fish each. This person is not the "proletariat", feeding themselves through the sweat of their own brow, but rather through the work of others. But the workers are still better off, and this person is a "good" person because as a result of their work, all the other fishermen have more food. Sure, an even "better" person would have agreed to only half a fish, and have 500 fish while all the fishermen have 2.5 fish each, and a "worse" person would've demanded 1.5 fish and have 1500 fish while the fisherman only get 1.5 fish each. A "bad" person will use some of the fish to bribe the town mayor to prevent anyone else from fishing, and demand 2.5 fish from each fishermen. But as long as this person results in the fisherman catching more fish, this person is "good" even if they could have been "better".
This is the crux of the issue of billionaires. Simply having the money does not make them "bad". So long as their billions were obtained in a manner that benefited others, they are "good" because society is still better off for that billionaire having existed. If those billions were obtained in a manner which actively harmed others, then they are "bad". Sure, billionaires could've been "better" if they had given the workers more money, but that doesn't mean they are inherently "bad" for not doing so. (CU) (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
What the fuck is this nonsense? Are you a fucking troll? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
“Firstly, It is my shared view with other leftists that a massive stockpile necessitates the existence of its opposite, a massive scarcity.” But that’s silly. Economics is not zero-sum. Wealth has to come from somewhere in the first place, and this is accomplished by making or harvesting things that people want. It’s not like people are allocated a certain amount of wealth at birth, which is all that is available to shuffle around. People produce things of value over their lives, and trade those for other things of value, with a societal stock of valuable things that typically increases over time as people make them. If a whole lot of people want what someone is offering, that person can become very wealthy. J. K. Rowling, for example, has made up to $95 million per year from Harry Potter, and while this represents a transfer of money from consumers, they got in return something that they value more than the money spent (or else they wouldn’t have made the purchase).
As for solutions, that depends on what the problem is. Communism is effective at restricting the number of billionaires (to the upper rulers), but capitalism is more effective at keeping supermarket shelves stocked. Also having supermarkets in the first place. Is it more important to increase wealth at the bottom or to reduce wealth at the top? A high degree of wealth inequality brings problems, but wealth inequality is an attribute of all human societies beyond the scale of a small commune, and capitalism is far from the worst system in this regard. But regardless, once the specific problem is identified, the solution is likely to establish incentives such that people acting in their own interest will act to accomplish the desired outcomes.
For consideration, capital income inherently scales better than labor income, so people with enough wealth to invest can more easily make more money, which is a driver of wealth divergence. This divergence is usually reset on the scale of multiple generations in crises that wipe out investments and finances, but there are systems that have historically grown lower-end wealth enough to mostly keep up.
As for evil, malice definitely has conceptual overlap (and malice is usually evil), but evil is more generally something that interferes with attaining moral goals (though in common use it usually refers to intentional interference). For example, if the wellbeing of the general populace is a moral goal of public policy, killing the kulaks is evil because it results in famine. If you construct a moral system in which some things are better or worse than others, you’ve just implicitly defined what evil is. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 What the fuck?!?!?!? HOW THE EVER LOVING FUCK DID YOU EXTRAPOLATE ADVOCATING COMMUNISM FROM MY FUCKING EXPLANATION?!?!?! ARE YOU A MOTHERFUCKING MORON!?!!?!? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently I have to tell people this, because they're too stupid to think for themselves, but I am not a Communist. I cannot be a Communist, as I support the use of money, am critical of Marx, distrust central planning, and am neutral on whether the state should exist or not. So again, not only am I not a Communist, It is literally impossible for me to be one. Ok? Ok. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I used Communism as a prominent historical example to provide a contrast with the current system being critiqued (it’s been proposed as a solution for various problems in capitalist systems, and you mentioned that unspecified solutions are of interest). In a section titled “Y'all wanna know why I`m a socialist?”. In which I gave small communes as an example of functional wealth equality. In a reply largely aimed at a user named “GrammarCommie”. I know you didn’t advocate for Communism there, and I didn’t say that you did. I could have used feudalism as an example, but it’s less relevant today. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wealth inequality is a problem. I think things should be done about it. So far, I'm still within the realm of what Adam Smith wrote about. You know, that Adam Smith? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Current mixed European systems, ones with high tax brackets are examples of non-communist attempts to both maintain the engine of wealth and development and avoid the worst of the toxic overkill of people dying in the gutter (an inevitable consequence of capitalism). You do not need to resort to abandoning capitalism to address disparity. You need to aggressively fund generous social programs, have super strict competition and labour laws (with effective enforcement) and a whole slew of social reforms along with it. Being so filthy rich that you cannot even find ways to spend your money...and yet you still pointlessly pay people a non-living wage (when that money is even less than some pocket change you find under your sofa cushions) and ruthlessly monopolize the market in the process...is not moral in any moral system I know. It's bad for everyone but the billionaire and a few accompanying parasites, overpaid board members, bottom feeders and succubi. You can have a roaring economy and growth without the abuse, the over-concentration of wealth in a few people's hands, workers who cannot make ends meet and one company thoroughly dominating a sector. ShabiDOO 22:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Honestly, I think you could argue that it's bad for the rich as well. It's just that in their feeding frenzy they haven't really suffered in the same way as the rest of us. Instead they've become insulated an enfeebled, cut off from society at large and trapped within a gilded cage and too greedy to use the bejeweled key to free themselves of the weight of their own wealth. Like I said before, I don't think the rich are evil. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
People at that level of wealth are long past the point where additional wealth increases happiness, or even material living standards. Rather, people at the very top of the wealth distribution have been historically concerned with entrenching their position against challengers rather than getting richer per se. A Vladimir Putin is not as rich as a Bill Gates, but a Bill Gates is more likely to have a Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos challenge his position.
"Wealth inequality is a problem. I think things should be done about it.“ Like what? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's what I'd rather discuss than "we should just jump straight to socialism/anarchism/communism/etc". Which was my earlier complaint. Please see my earlier post wherein I compared it to someone talking about climate change but rarely going beyond "this is bad and it is happening." Most of what Shabi suggested sound like a fine start, and I'd add that there'd need to be labor protections such as unions actually being able to do things (here in the US). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Capitalism is better at keeping the supermarket shelfed," yeah, after it throws out and wastes most of the food it has produced. Supermarkets are very inefficient at allocating resources to the general populace, while a huge amount of people are too poor to afford even bread. Oxyaena Harass 05:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But it's a lot better at allocating resources to people who have things called "jobs". (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest, that's hardly the "gotcha" you seem to think it is. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I can admit the Offspring song is hilarious and has its place, I've used it before, but this isn't it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Health insurance and Sex Reassignment Surgery[edit]

Obviously many trans people face hardships due to stigma and discrimination. How many health plans view sex reassignment surgery as necessary for a trans person's wellbeing? Sex reassignment surgery should be considered for a person's wellbeing nonetheless. Keeping people from living a happy life is just wrong and needs to be changed. Health insurance policies should cover sex reassignment surgery. Side note- please keep the discussion civil and no trolling. --Possible Goat (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Insurances are businesses. At the end of the day, they can cover only what is profitable (or at least not bankruptish) for them. This should be handle before any consideration about what they should do.-TheOldMan (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Can't speak for the rest of the world, but the "basic package" here (which is the insurance that all healthcare insurance providers have to give on a government mandate and that everyone here is required to have some form of at least) doesn't include SRS. I'm unsure on whether it should be included, hormones should definitely be covered (and here it is I think), but from what I know, not every trans person wants to undergo SRS (looking at this Vox article, it seems that only 33% has transitioned through surgeries, and an overwhelming amount of trans men don't want to undergo surgeries, although the amount is smaller when it comes to trans women).
The argument in favor is easily made, it reduces stress for a non-insignificant amount of trans people, which would make it a positive on a humanitarian basis. On the other hand, it's a set of fairly expensive surgeries that isn't something that concerns the overwhelming majority of people who get the basic package, which could raise the prices of the basic package significantly, which would justify making it an extra package.
Personally, I could see this argument going either way. I won't lose sleep if it's added and I'd be happy for any trans people who could get better access to the type of healthcare they need, but I also can see the arguments against adding it in a system like ours (based on rarity of need and adding extra costs to people who won't need it), if that makes sense.
Before anyone jumps my gun, I recommend reading up on our healthcare system to understand where this comes from. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Benny Hinn STILL has followers...... (Plus other news)[edit]

I did some editing on the Benny Hinn page earlier today. While I was collecting my sources, I found this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mebfDe6uDE) on Hinn's YouTube channel. This was from Oct 2nd 2020 (So 2 weeks ago as of this post). Holy CRAP... look at that like/dislike ratio. How does Hinn STILL have this much support in 2020 even after at least a DOZEN exposes (From both sides of the fence)?? I know it's easy to laugh at people like Hinn but there's not much more depressing to me to think that very well meaning (and not even always irrational) people follow this man but only end up SOOO misguided, or worse yet, conned. On a positive (when life gives you lemons as the ol' saying goes), it's a good lesson/reminder that YouTube ratings mean jack-shit when judging reality.

While I'm at it, I'll also throw out: I've been on this site for more than a year now, but I haven't been active much other than editing my favorite page. Gonna try to be on more frequently and actually make more meaningful contributions. Most (though probably not all) of them will likely be pertaining to conspiracy theories, since that's really what caused me to join this site anyway. We'll see where it goes. Aaronmichael5 22:45 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The ratio probably reflects that not many people look at him except the believers - 1.9k likes doesn't seem much for any sort of "influencer" or YT "personality". And his dislikes just increased by almost 3% ;) Aloysius the Gaul 09:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It's really no surprise, as it's quite common:
  • Shoko Asahara still has followers even though he ordered his followers to commit crimes against humanity (and he also croaked).
  • Heaven's Gate still has followers even though most of them committed suicide (and did not enter Heaven's Gate).
  • And on and on…
Bongolian (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that the leaders of the examples provided by Bongo are all dead guys, and Hinn is still alive. I have to think that gives him an advantage in the game. Kencolt (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Holy shit, freakin' Camping still has followers? I wasn't even aware his radio station still even existed (Blame me, I never thought to check). It's definitely beginning to make more sense to me now, if he still has followers, then truly, I can never be surprised by this kinds of thing ever again. Kencolt has a point too, I would imagine being alive rather than dead kind of helps. On a side note, I can't believe I forgot about Heaven's Gate. Another eye-bleeding website they run. Aaronmichael5 19:53 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Death by religion[edit]


"A history teacher in Paris was beheaded on October 16 after he showed his class cartoon pictures of the Islamic prophet Muhammed. [...] The assailant, who was reportedly an 18-year-old Chechen, attacked the teacher just outside of the school. When police arrived at the scene, the assailant reportedly attempted to attack the police while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” prompting the police to shoot him dead. French prosecutors currently consider the killing to be “a murder linked to a terrorist organization.”"

-TheOldMan (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Death by Islam." A bit crass, don't you say? Oxyaena Harass 13:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena I posted with the title "Death by religion", see the logs. It was changed by a BoN, see logs. You can change it back when you reply (I'm not changing it now otherwise it's unclear what we are talking about.)-TheOldMan (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I've changed it back. Spud (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I would say that killing the poor man was the objectionable thing - not the title of this section.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You're not wrong there. Spud (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Monthy Python's Ministry of Silly Walks sketch considered ableism?[edit]

I was thinking about that old sketch and if it suffers of ableism:

-TheOldMan (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not. If you want to complain about Python sketches try one where they were in blackface-Hastur! (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It's always a bit problematic when you look at stuff produced last century. It's clear that standards of behaviour and appropriateness were different and almost everything can be criticised in one way or another. Strangely, I don't think that that particular Monty Python sketch would be at the top of my list. In terms of British comedy perhaps something (or almost anything) from Benny Hill might take that spot.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It's less about walks and more about bureaucratic insanity. Governments tend to grow, new departments are added, and not everyone agrees on which are needed-- or which are more important. (For example, the right would place a higher emphasis on defense over health, where the left will tend to push for the other way round. Well, around here anyhow.) What is constant, though, is that every department is absolutely convinced that it's essential. Cleese's character's complaint that the Ministry of Silly Walks is getting less than Defense is pretty much how any department reacts to their slice of the pie-- dammit, it's their slice, and they want more pie!
I'm inclined to think that reading "ableism" into a sketch first performed in 1970, rather prior to the idea of ableism being a significant thing on the political stage, is digging a bit deeper than the actual ground goes. Sometimes a silly walk is just a silly walk that makes an entirely different point. Kencolt (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
on the buses was pretty awful, and that seems to get re run on digital. never saw love thy neighbour and its never been repeated, i hear that was very bad AMassiveGay (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some you probably won't see again are It Ain't Half Hot MumWikipedia, Mind Your LanguageWikipedia and Curry and ChipsWikipedia. And I wouldn't half love a portion of curry and chips right now. Spud (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
on the buses (almost) its a piss take but its not far off AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a way to make it much easier to answer your question. Don't use the passive voice. Considering is a thing done by a person. A person considers. An object or idea is considered by a person. Someone out there surely considers it ableism. Does their opinion matter to you? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Patched up WIGO Nav[edit]

So now WIGO Covid isn't using WIGO worlds mini-icon anymore. Y'all are welcome. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sirius Thanks.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Who the fuck is brian rose?[edit]

i keep seeing this prick's adverts on youtube for his bid to be london mayor. no idea who he is and i can find little about him other than he does a podcast that among others, counts david icke as frequent guest. his policies seem to be low tax, anti lockdown, and anti congestion charge. his personal bearing is that of a massive prick.

But who the fuck is he? i've never heard of the guy before i started seeing ads for his mayoral campaign. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

london real is his thing, whatever that is AMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
hes not even listed as a candidate on the london mayor 2021 wikipedia page. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

also, ive only seen his ads on youtube and no other candidates. isnt this a breach of uk political advertising rules, or if not shouldnt it be? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

He's a dodgy fucking tosspot, https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2020/10/15/bellend-lockdown-sceptic-brian-rose-stands-for-london-mayor/ Should fit right in then, I suppose. Shame, Sadiq Khan has been a great breath of fresh air, after the previous bellend Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
But Londonreal, does have a bit of a history with some right bleedin' chancers https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/youtube-conspiracy-theory-videos/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
indeed. a real shyster AMassiveGay (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Throwback to Some Crazy Dude on The Atheist Experience[edit]

(Yes I know it's not Thursday but "Maddened Time Monday" is the best I could come up with and isn't exactly as catchy as "Throwback Thursday" so, deal with it nerds)

Shortly after my article on Zachary K. Hubbard went up, user "Bob:life is short and (insert adjective here)" told me about some crazy dude who had recently phoned into TAE and tried to use football stats to prove that God exists (very similar to what Hubbard does). Tonight I did some digging and I found that episode. In case you haven't heard it before, listen here and get a HUGE laugh out of it: https://youtu.be/rBwN9NjSxns?t=1425 (Timestamp is in the link). Matt Dillahunty sounded like he wanted to crawl under the couch and die listening to this dude on the phone. Can't blame him. Dillahunty is like the Gordon Ramsay of religion talk shows at this point. I would pay hard money to see him debate Hubbard, but let's be real, he'd (understandably) never waste his time doing that. Aaronmichael5 3:26 20 October 2020 (UTC).

I still remember that. It was certainly a bizarre argument. (And you can call me "Bob") :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
No problem Bob. I wrote out your full name that time because I wasn't sure how many "Bobs" there were on this site. Think it's safe to say the world isn't in any short supply of Bobs (but maybe more-so than Joes perhaps?). Aaronmichael5 22:35 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016[edit]

But he is in 2020. Listen to find out why. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:4185:9870:CA06:212B (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't care less who Ben Shapiro votes for, his opinion is usually idiotic and not worth the effort or time to listen to. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know what rationalwiki donations show up as on credit card statements?[edit]

I can't remember if I donated this year and I want to check. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"PURCHASE / PAYPAL *RATIONALMED" with some numbers after (for my bank, at least)-Hastur! (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Welp, can't find that item, but I went to donate, and PayPal refuses to accept that I live in any country other than New Caledonia, which is not where I live(I kinda wish I did, New Caledonian crows are awesome). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Attack on Titan: Making you question the meaning of right and wrong[edit]

If you never read the manga nor watched the anime, avoid this post

This actually goes into the philosophy of conflict. In the story there are man eating humanoid creatures called the Titans. Humanity on the brink of extinction and is trapped behind walls. That is what is originally believed. However it is revealed that Titans used to be people and humanity outside the walls is not extinct. A small ethnic group known as "Eldians" have the capability of becoming Titans by injection of spinal fluid. Some humans can become Titan shifters. They can transform into a Titan at will and are used as weapons and they came from the Founding Titan who controls all Titans. In order to pass a Titan down to another person, you transform the person into a regular Titan. The previous Titan shifter gets eaten and the person in the Titan comes back.

Now as for the Eldian people before the original events in Attack on Titan, they had a empire and committed the ethnic cleansing of various groups. They used the power of the Titans to crush enemies. Keep in mind that the Eldians are universally connected through time and space (it is important information). The royal family held the founding Titan which could alter the biological structure of both Eldians and Titans. At one point an Eldian king who was tired of war made a vow to renounce war. He gathered as many people as possible from the mainland continent on to an island, build the walls and erase their memories. The king also made the walls with Colossal Titans as to scare off invaders, aka The Rumbling.

For a while in the main story the royal family held the founding Titan until it was stolen by the main character's father. The purpose was to liberate the Eldians who became oppressed by the world. Keep in mind that the dad already had a Titan form which can see into the future memories of their older self Then the first wall gets a hole broken through it releasing Titans. In haste the father passes it down to his son Eren Yeager. Over time the truth about the outside world is discovered. It is also revealed that the whole world hates Eldians and wants them dead; mostly the ones living on Paradis Island (where the main story takes place). The other nations intended on doing so

Had to give the general summery of the store for context

Now here we get to the main purpose of this post. The character Eren Yeager begins the Rumbling in which the Titans in the wall are released and are destroying the world. His line of reasoning is that the world was going to destroy the Eldians living on Paradis Island. As for the world intending on killing those living on the island, it is 100% true. The other nations were gathering their militaries for the genocide of the people on the island. That is why he releases giant Titans on to the world in an attempt to kill everyone but his people.

Here is the question: do you destroy the world to save your people as the world was going to kill them anyways or do you let the world kill you? Keep in mind that the world had no intention on changing their minds. Bear in mind that likely millions are already dead in the story (Manga is still ongoing and the anime has not caught up yet). --Possible Goat (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Let the world kill you. Everyone dies eventually and if the whole world wants you dead that's sort of a sign your time has passed. That was easy.Machina (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've got no love for it.

Whatever else its writers are saying, it happens on the back of grotesque cannibalism. I can't watch humanoid creatures tear their way into the last human settlement, grab humans, and devour them as you and I would sushi. Sushi doesn't wave and howl and scream (or have other sushi which will need psychological help from watching Mom or whoever get eaten by something that used to have a mom). I don't root for them, I don't care. I just switch to another reality. It's amazing that they got this much exposure, but I'd bet the exposure they got has been bolstered by shapely anime characters playing the main cast. Artificius (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, just to counter that horrific imagery, here's dancing in the moonlight. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dancing+in+the+moonlight+the+umbrella+academy&&view=detail&mid=4A88B02867EF5122BF934A88B02867EF5122BF93

Artificius (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

you've just linked to toploader. the horror, the horror...AMassiveGay (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Whilst it might speak volumes of my credits as a weeb, I've never actually seen Attack on Titan. A large part of this is because from what I know, it's one of the series with some of the heaviest pro-military, pro-imperialism, pro-WW2 japan narratives out there. In full fairness, I will say that Attack on Titan isn't the only anime/manga with those kinds of undertones. The medium as a whole tends to suffer from it because Japan in general has a uh... interesting relationship with this kinda stuff to say the least. Personally I'd judge it as mostly negative, but sometimes you get things like Hellsing using the Nazis as villains in a way that I think is very interesting compared to how we portray Nazis as villains (here they're seen as an easy villain, something you can easily use as a bad guy, hell one could say that is the majority of the appeal of Wolfenstein. Hellsings Nazis on the other hand really go the extra mile in showing their depravity to make it clear that there is no way you are supposed to root for them).

That said, Attack on Titans problem from what I can gather is that it's the most outwardly supporting of those far more questionable kinds of mindsets, whereas in the others it tends to be more of a case of set dressing with a slight degree of culture shock having to be looked past before you can criticize those things. Where AoT then seemingly stands out in that it still seems excessive even with keeping that at the back of your mind. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Attack on Titan's problem is the nonsensical worldbuilding and plot. That summary above is accurate. It starts out as a unique take on a humans-vs-monsters conflict, but things get stupid as the main characters uncover the big picture. I wouldn't read too much into it because the setting is populated by bizarro-people who run bizarro-societies where things are done because they advance the plot rather than make sense as things humans would do. Anyway, if you like Hellsing, I'd recommend Hellsing Ultimate Abridged. Humor aside, the characterization is better than the original. If you want jingoism, check out Gate. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I love abridged! Takahata101 (Alucards VA) is amazing. He also voiced Ciaphas Cain in a relatively recent Warhammer 40k TTS video. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
In my honest opinion I would not say AOT is pro-imperialism. The main theme is actually supposed to be freedom. Now what I find interesting is that many fans speculate that the character Eren Yeager is a slave to the concept of freedom. Where the manga is currently at, he has truly lost his mind both figuratively and literally. Would it be possible for someone to be enslaved by the concept of freedom? Side note, I am actually a big Attack on Titan fan and I cannot wait to see how it ends. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of Anime being pro-Japanese, I always found it interesting that in Dragon Ball Z, Piccolo Jr didn't begin his redemption until after killing Goku. His father was basically Satan and had tasked Piccolo Jr with murdering Goku because he was petty and spiteful even in death, yet for the Japanese, family honor was so important that a person could not be "good" without fulfilling their parents' orders no matter how vile. But once Goku was dead, then and only then could Piccolo Jr start forming new family bonds and discover the value of others. CoryUsar (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
As for the OP's question, regardless of what you deserve, if your enemies won't even let you offer an unconditional surrender, do they deserve to live? CoryUsar (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


Ok, I'm about to throw in forty bucks, my first ever donation here. Are there two people to match to put it to the goal? Let's do this. (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll chip in $40, sure. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Will someone please update the f'in donations so far? With me and MIM here it should be at least at 3460. (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Kitty Gingivitis[edit]

The vet says my cat's gingivitis has gotten bad enough that he needs to have all of his teeth removed to keep him from dying. He is only 3. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Should have voted for fluoridation then! :O Aloysius the Gaul
It's more likely feline odontoclastic resorption lesions. My own cat, Siúlóir Oíche, had some teeth removed because of it too. Good news though, your cat will still be able to eat his food with no worries, cat gums are quite hard. Shame it's all the poor mites teeth though. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The election is almost upon us![edit]

With the election almost here, is anyone taking any precautions for what may very well be rioting and looting in the aftermath? Such as purchasing materiel, purchasing foodstock etc? (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Someone tried to start a riot up at the Downtown Square not too far from where I live during the George Floyd protests. Wouldn't surprise me if they tried again after the election results. As for materials, I'm quite good. I've never panic bought before but ESPECIALLY in 2020 I will certainly not be doing that because I don't want to give anyone else ideas. Had a big enough problem with panic buying already this year and I'm not interested in re-triggering anything. Aaronmichael5 22:53 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm keeping a bottle of champagne either for celebration or for a sad display of politically-induced alcoholism, depending on the victor. My money's on the former, and also any civil unrest coming from the Trump base. Artificius (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Being brutally fair here: there's gonna be riots no matter who wins. Then again since only 1 candidate will win I guess I'll never officially be proven right, I concede. Aaronmichael5 23:31 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump wins, it's Movement 1 of Beethoven's 9th symphony at such a volume that the floorboards shake. Biden wins, it's the choral finale from Movement 4 at such a volume that the windows shatter. Scotch whisky will be present, regardless. Semipenultimate (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I am just wondering when we will elect mods.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 08:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The process starts on November 2nd.-Flandres (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
We probably aren't going to know the results of the election the night of November 3/Morning of November 4. I anticipate it will be at least 10 days before we have any real idea about who won, unless there is massive landslide Biden victory, which is still pretty remote.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Donations goal[edit]

As it has been reached, should a new target be decided upon. Anna Livia (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Historically, the fundraising banner has been put up, updated, and taken down manually, and consequently there is some slack involved. The goal does not get updated unlike some cheezy sites like Change.org. RW fundraising has been needs-based, not hype-based. Bongolian (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I know - but something that indicates 'further donations still welcome' might be appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest deleting xenogender (I can't use AfD cuz it redirects to the archived page)[edit]

My reasoning is this from LGBTA Wiki: "Xenogenders are non-binary gender identities that can best be described with how they related to things or beings that most people don't think of as having to do with gender such as animals, plants, things, or concepts, as they do not have to do with gender. They are not related to masculinity, femininity, neutrality, or terms commonly used to describe gender. It is sometimes describes as any gender that "cannot be contained by human understandings of gender". People who identify as a xenogender gender may call themselves xenic." The article we have is psuedosceptic and does not even attempt to understand the concept. It is like many kinds of enby-"sceptic" videos on the internet, like Bearing's.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. The page seems to be under active work. Xenogenders from what I know are some amount of certifiable bullshit similarly to how Otherkin are and similar to Otherkin, I think what's currently happening to the term is a case of people not quite understanding things like gender being a social construct and then basing an identity off of that. It's not remotely the same thing as someone being enby, which to me indicates a far more solid grasp of what we as a society mean by gender (which is a set of social expectations and behavior). Like, the one example listed on the page "aethergender" <-- this means literally nothing from where I'm reading it. Especially when it then goes ahead and combines the term with boy/girl/enby, which just makes it a useless prefix (not to mention the genders that are literally "incomprehensible", which is bollocks). Xenogenders are at the most positive just an example of what you get when people start a cargo cult around words due to not understanding hte term, and at worst actively incite enbyphobia by making non-binary people look dumb (which isn't the case). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

FUN: Benefits of Awful Societies[edit]

So, just for fun, what do you think would be some tiny benefit of some godawful society? I mean, some minor inconvenience that wouldn't exist. For instance, I get annoyed by people with fake food allergies. But, under a horrific eugenics-obsessed society, no one would dare claim to have any allergies lest they be deemed unfit to reproduce, and so in such a society "gluten sensitivity" wouldn't be a thing. CoryUsar (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of people don't want to reproduce - at least while they think they have a choice. Maybe they'd get all contrary if they were actually banned from doing so?Aloysius the Gaul 21:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

James Randi died.[edit]

Fuck. AceModerator 21:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

FUCKING HELL. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure it's not a trick? THat said, he had a good innings. 92 years of age. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Aye, a long life. And a good life too. Fucking legend. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
2020 can fuck right off. Goddamned mutha fucking walrus raped year that it is. AceModerator 22:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Shrug - you expected him to live forever?? come on folks - ain't no one getting out of this life alive!Aloysius the Gaul 22:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. I'm turning 40 in a couple months and I should have checked out a long time ago from some organ or another failing (liver and pancreas being the two which should have failed). AceModerator 22:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I expect you'll be gone within 70 years. Aloysius the Gaul 00:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm expecting some psychics to start saying they're hearing from him and he's sorry he was wrong.... y'all can bow down to me now or wait until it happens - makes no difference :D Aloysius the Gaul 02:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Well that is a bummer. Guy was certainly a legend. But he had a better run than most.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, he had a good run. Still will be missed. 2020 seems to really try and turn into the shittiest in a long line of shitty years. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 17:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Can't say really say I'm shocked. He was 92, and I knew his candle was about to go out soon. At least he lived long and prospered. RIP James Randi. Aaronmichael5 21:16 22 October (UTC)
I will dearly miss him. This is really sad. He was truly one of a kind. RIP legend! Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Working for Amazon[edit]

I've heard it often said that if I am looking for a job that Amazon is hiring but I'm a little hesitant to apply because I heard some pretty grim things about the hours and the workload to the point that some say it's not worth the 15/hr. Anyone heard anything about this?Machina (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've never worked for Amazon before but from what I've heard it's pretty good. Don't have to take my word for it though. Aaronmichael5 21:42 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You can always quit-Hastur! (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
injuries common, shitty working hours, back breaking workloads. this is for for amazon uk, i cant imagine things would be better in the us.AMassiveGay (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
It pays relatively well for a warehouse type jobs. The problem is that type of work is known for abuse, and Amazon seems to be an innovator when it comes to that abuse. If you work there, learn how to drink only just enough water in a physical labor job that you don't dehydrate, but not enough where you need to use the bathroom. CoryUsar (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That.....sounds pretty awful. Looking at the links and hearing about the workload does too. 100 packages in 3 1/2 hours? I didn't even break 50 in my whole day at other delivery jobs.Machina (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone watching the Trump-Biden debate?[edit]

We are lucky to have him. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:D572:5465:1593:F61A (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It sucks ass. Shit moderating, the Orange Nutzoid is still constantly interrupting. Bongolian (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Addendum: I listened to the last half hour which was reportedly worse than the preceding proceedings. Bongolian (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In the alternative reality of Fox News I saw an article this morning "Trump manages to get points across despite Biden interruptions". But I've just been trying to find it again and can't turn it it. Almost split my coffee when I read it. Edit - I was wrong. Clearly it was too early in the morning for me. It must have been: "Trump managed to drive debate despite Welker's interruptions"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Trump managed to not shit all over the stage is considered successful. Virtually everything out of his mouth was still a lie, and he continues to bring these wild fucking conspiracies to millions of viewers. For the uninitiated "laptop from hell" or "pillows and blankets" doesn't mean anything. As an aside, the contempt Trump obviously has for people is astounding. I'm certain that a fair portion of his supporters just loves when he says he doesn't care about them or their issues.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatra "Whitewashing"[edit]

So apparently, there's complaints on social media that Cleopatra VII will be played by Gal Gadot.

For those that are only barely familiar with history, Cleopatra VII was the last ruler from the Ptolemaic dynasty. Ptolemy I was one of Alexander's generals, and after Alex died, Ptolemy managed to inherit Egypt, whereas Selukos inherited Persia. Both families were Macedonian, i.e., Greek. While constantly at war, the families intermarried a bit, because politics. Soon, however, the Ptolemies turned to incest, as per Egyptian tradition that resulted in the children having "stronger" claims to the throne due to having "more" Royal ancestry, e.g., the grandfather on both sides was the King. Several generations of incest later, Cleopatra VII was born. Ruling during a time of Romam conquest, she managed to keep Egypt as a major power. She would marry both of her brothers (Ptolemy XIII and XIV), before having an affair with Julius Ceaser and later marrying Mark Anthony. It did not end well for her, or any of her children. Allegedly; history is what was recorded, not what happened, and historians and archaeologists try to fix the record but there's only so much that can be done.

Anyway, Gal Gadot (known for portraying Wonder Woman) is Israeli. The complaint on social media is that this is whitewashing one of history's most famous characters. People are complaining that Cleopatra should be portrayed by an Arab/ Egyptian actress, though the original Cleo was most definitely Greek. Some are even demanding that she be portrayed by a Black actress, even though, again, Cleo wasn't sub-Saharan African. Neither were most Egyptians at the time, but race is complicated and Egyptiand were definitely not "purebred" in Cleos time. Demanding Cleo be "Arab" is also weird, considering that Egypt was ethnically Coptic (and arguably still is) until 1000 years ago, which is long after Cleo's time. The modern Arab ethnicity is... complicated.

I could see a case for wanting a Greek actress, but Gadot doesn't look specifically non-Greek. There are some claiming that since she's an Ashkenazi, Gadot is ethnically European rather than Eastern Mediterranean, which is all kinds of thorny.

Anyway, thoughts on any of this? -CU 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:84 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That she was an inbred Greek princess is something which matters mostly just to historians and certain historically-minded cranks. I roll my eyes a bit when someone claims a Ptolemy for their chosen people, but there's only so far I'm willing to push the issue: I don't care enough to take a role or a dream away from some young woman of color. Cleopatra's synonymous with a beautiful, sexy, cunning woman from Africa, and she's been dead for two thousand years. I really don't care who plays her as long as they capture the incest and power struggles which brought an end to the pharaohs as an institution after being on life support since the bronze age.
The other bit about it I've heard is that Gal Gadot is booking the movie and casting herself as Cleopatra. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is then she can basically do what she wants. It's a vanity project. Artificius (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I remember hearing about this on OSPs podcast. Blue (one of the hosts, and a historian) was excited because apparently the director seems likely to not just turn her into a -pick your least favorite female fanservice trope here- (and because he said the day before it was announced that this director would be a good fit and was pleasantly suprised). From what I know of that, apparently that family is also the result of a lot of inbreeding (since y'know, royalty), so one thing that would be an interesting contrast is to show her as the only white/non-egyptian actress in the movie, if they're going that route. I'm not too willing to steelman any side here however, but "historically accurate" is the wrong drum to bang this one on. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 19:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Cleopatra was obviously white - don't you remember her being played by Elizabeth Taylor?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Even by royalty standards, that was a particularly stumpy family tree. Most royalty veers off into cadet branches often enough to keep porphyria uncommon knowledge, but for two hundred years before the Romans got directly involved in Egypt Cleopatra's ancestors could basically all claim to be descended from the general Ptolemy Soter, with like three exceptions. Artificius (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
They did have a Black Cleo in one movie way back when. It just doesnt seem to be a real issue to complain about when the actual person was Greek or whatever. It'd be like casting a White guy to play Abraham Lincoln and then people complaining about how it's whitewashing. It's as if all of Egyptiam history, regardless of context, somehow is the exclusive property of Sub Saharan Africa or something. -CU 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:47 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Why does it matter to you if she's white or not? You keep saying Cleopatra isn't the property of "Sub-Saharan Africa" but well... What does that even mean? It seems to me that you're a bit insecure about the idea of the character not being white. Just my impression. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
From what I can gather, The Guardian wrote a dumb opinion piece, which was either inspired by or incited a dumb Twitter controversy. Why the BoN cares is beyond me though. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sirius Honestly, I never really understood people who go off on supposed history spiels over movies that ultimately boil down "Will this turn a huge profit?". Like, do people honestly think the execs went off and did that level of research? Fuck no, they had underlings skim Wikipedia and watch some old movies at most. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to them whether she or the actor was/is black or not. It matters to people who are crying "white-washing" and the author is trying to point out that it is not a case of white-washing. As we have seen cries of white-washing or hetero-actors playing LGTBQ+ roles have led to actors quitting such roles. On that related topic I don't have the slightest problem with non-LGTBQ+ people playing LGTBQ+ roles because 1) It is called acting after all right? 2) It helps normalize LGTBQ+ culture and 3) It is called acting after all isn't it? It would be very swell if there were more LGTBQ+ actors playing all sorts of roles and that should be encouraged but I wince when I see people shaming hetero actors for taking up such roles. ShabiDOO 21:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie In this case, the choice seems to be slightly more deliberate, given the director and the lead actress are the same as from the Wonder Woman movie, which suggests that execs are banking on this being "the progressive take on Cleopatra" (inject as much cynicism as you want). @Shabidoo I fully agree within your stance when it comes to non-LGBTQ+ actors playing LGBTQ+ roles. It might just be because over here half our media landscape is made up of LGBTQ+ people (mostly LGB, T and Q could have better representation, but I digress), but I genuinely don't mind if a straight dude is playing a gay dude. Also because fuck it, I want to see Ryan Reynolds' exploring Deadpools pansexuality in Deadpool 3 like he announced and that shouldn't need that stupid drama attached to it. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Three points. First, just make her black. Almost no one except complete morons goes to these movies for historical accuracy, they go for entertainment and/or power fantasy. Second, the problem with non-minority actors playing minority parts is that they and the writers (almost completely overlooked in these sorts of debates) tend to reply on lazy stereotypes, which has historically not aged very well. Thirdly, let's be perfectly honest. Article aside, the execs making this movie did almost no research. Like, the BoN probably did more research than the execs making the damn film. They don't care. I know that comes across as a nonissue to you, but that's sort of why the whitewashing controversy is a thing. They don't care. Really think on that for a moment. They'll make her Asian if they think it'll put more asses in seats, because they don't care. The only people that care are the insecure morons, the clueless public, and the marginalized groups. Put some thought into that, because I have. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
In full fairness, as I proved with my response, historians also seem to care. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sirius Just from giving this a quick look, it seems to me that they (the execs) are going to let some women who were profitable in the past and are associated with the "woke" "brand" make a movie about a female pharaoh. And if I seem cynical, it's only because I've seen how shallow Hollywood's "wokeness" can be. Remember the godawful "woke" Disney remakes? Remember Bright? This is just another line of products to the studio execs, nothing more. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh I'm not blaming you for being cynical, I'm just saying that the shallowness is slightly deeper than normal. Like, instead of toe-deep, its now ankle-deep. Also dear god why are you reminding me of Bright. That movie was horrid. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't expect to see black actors promoted in movies destined for successful release in China, where colorism is a thingAriel31459 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

if its whitewashing egyptians you want, i give you 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods_of_Egypt_(film)' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet another argument for ceasing trade with China.
My original complaint isn't that Cleo should be played by a White person, but that it shouldn't be controversial that she is being played by a White person. The implication is that the casting is Whitewashing and/or racist, which is just plain wrong. If you are making a historical period piece, you should cast someone who generally resembles the person being portrayed, within reason of course. You don't need to cast an actual redhead to play a redhead, but you shouldn't have Genghis Khan portrayed by John Wayne. Fictional stories are a bit different, and while on the surface it might not seem like it matters too much if the race isn't actually integral to the characterization/plot, having a minority character being portrayed by a White person can be a problem if you are effectively eliminating all minority roles. If you are making a fantasy, sure, you could have Cleopatra played by Jason Mamoa, Julius Caeser played by a talking dog, and Marc Antony played by Marc Anthony. CoryUsar (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Except this is fiction. This a dramatization loosely based off an older movie, loosely based off a play, loosely based on historical events. It is fictional. This is what I get, and what the corporate execs get, but you seem to have failed to get in all your "historical accuracy". This isn't some historical documentary, it's a romance drama. It's fiction. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
And why would it being purely fictional make it any bit controversial that a white woman portrays her? CoryUsar (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser CorruptUser, buddy, pal. I'm going to ask you to stop openly strawmanning me, which you have done in the last 3 conversations we've had in the saloon. I'm going to ask this, because if you don't I'm going to [threat of physical harm redacted] Are we clear? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
If I'm misrepresenting the point you are trying to make, well, what the fuck is the point you are trying to make? Because your last comment was that this was a fictional story, which seemed to imply that it's OK to change facts around Cleo's ethnicity. My point is that having her ethnicity unchanged should not be controversial, and it seems that the people who complained about the casting decision probably have a warped view of history. As for the physical harm stuff, some of us pay good money for that sort of thing. CoryUsar (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser When I say "it doesn't matter" I mean "it doesn't matter". It isn't "the character should be black" or "the character should be white". You've been blathering on about why you think your position is right, and I'm saying, repeatedly, that the whole debate is stupid and doesn't matter. I don't know what fucking reading impediment you have, but you really should do something about it. It's honestly annoying when I say one thing and you respond to another thing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to calm down, bro. Just relax. It's the internet, don't get worked up over it. CoryUsar (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Fuck off, you disingenuous twit. Don't sit there, making a big deal out of a controversy on the internet, putting words in my mouth and tell me "Lol it's just the internet!" You disgusting hypocritical swine!!!!! If this wasn't the internet I'd beat you within an inch of your life for that kind of open dishonesty!!! Fuck right off with that shit!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
No seriously, you need to calm down. You've insulted me numerous times, and this is actually not the first time you've made vague threats about physically harming me. And honestly, any physical attack on me, well, I wouldn't recommend getting in a fight with someone who has a 300+ lb bench press. CoryUsar (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Other historical stuff[edit]

Even though it’s primarily set in Egypt I’m looking forward to how they depict Rome and the Romans, particularly the collapse of the Republic. The grain shortage from Egypt due to said incestuous power struggles was a contributing if not primary factor in the emergence and permanence of the Caesars. Artificius (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

RW in Slovak language[edit]

Hi, I would like to create a RW translation in Slovak language.— Unsigned, by: Kuko / talk / contribs

Seems like a good idea!--HedvigsenSkreonk here 12:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Go for it. I would help but I don't speak Slovak. --Possible Goat (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not how many Slovak speakers we have though. You should also read RW Languages. Good luck.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a pointless poll or two would be of interest for languages that editors have 1) fluency/near-fluency and 2) some reading capacity. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Made a pointless poll about what languages each editor speaks. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice. Seems German and Greek speakers out number English speakers. Hmmmmmmmmm ShabiDOO 00:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Rationalzombie94, actually reading/writing ability would as a poll would be more useful: it's not the same thing as speaking fluency. E.g., I can read/write well in a somewhat obscure language that I can't speak fluently. Bongolian (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It also does not allow for multiple choices. I read (formal) French about as easily as I read English. and after about a half an hour's immersion I can understand a French broadcast or movie fairly well; my ability to compose French off the cuff is rather limited, as is my ability to speak the language. I also have a pretty good passive understanding of medieval Latin, especially legal Latin. I have a smattering of other languages, mostly ancient ones like Ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Sanskrit, that is largely limited to being able to interpret the scripts and recognize a few words. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like a pointless poll isn't really the best way to do it. If you're really interested, you'll probably need to set up a questionnaire on another website, like FuzzyCatPotato used to do. And I think the important questions are: Can you read and write any language other than English? Could you translate existing RationalWiki articles into another language? Would you be willing to translate any RationalWiki articles into another language? Could you check if articles written in another language are appropriate for RationalWiki and relevant to our mission?
And I'll say again that I'm happy to take requests if anybody wants me to translate any articles into French, Spanish or Esperanto, preferably ones that don't have much to do with science and preferably ones connected to folklore and literature since that's what interests me most.
And I think I've proven that I understand enough written Portuguese and Italian to immediately tell if there's something a bit dodgy about articles written in those languages here. Spud (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Man I love language learning[edit]

Along with French I have chose to study Portuguese at the same time on Duolingo. Might be crazy of me to study two languages at once but I have found my interest in linguistics, languages and education to be growing. My dream job a few years ago was to be a medical doctor but I love the idea of teaching foreign languages and or teaching English to non-English speakers. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's necesarily bad to study two languages at once (though I think for most people it's better to put a lot more effort into one of those languages than the other at the same time) but studying two languages from the same sub-family (French and Portuguese are both romance languages) may not be wise, as there are a lot of false friends between the two (words that appear quite similar but have different meanings), very close but subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different grammar that can get you tripped up sometimes and then there are even pronunciation differences that may be confusing (Portuguese and French both pronounce their nasal yowels rather differently). But hey, if you can pull it off and learn the two languages at once, effectively, that's amazing. The biggest thing I'd recommend is talking practice as much as possible which may be difficult in Michigan but there are lots of online resources for meeting people to have language exchanges online (30 minutes in your language and 30 minutes in their language by video chat). Super important for language acquisition. Have fun! ShabiDOO 02:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In my experience people studying two languages at the same time run the risk of "language interference", but not everyone is subject to it. At some point you will also want to try talking to people in your new language - and Duolingo, for all its convenience, is not very helpful with that.
But go for it! Most worthwhile things require effort.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
If you like we could Skype and have a five-ten minute conversation in French each week if you like (just to get the ball rolling). Conversation practice will turbo-charge your language learning. Don't worry I'm super patient and always impressed by anyone starting to learn a language no matter their level! It can be just audio if you aren't up for video for whatever reason. ShabiDOO 11:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't have Skype and I do not know how to use it. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Well if you change your mind (there is also whatsapp, google hangouts etc, send me a private message. ShabiDOO 12:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Horror Movies are Getting worse[edit]

I've told my sister this for a while every time I get dragged into a horror flick, but it feels like they're getting worse to the point that it's not even scary. Today took the cake with The Empty Man though. The first 20 minutes had me thinking I was in the wrong movie. Then the title shows up. Then they try to bring in metaphysics by saying "How do you know things are real" (they never touch on that again) or that " nothing can hurt me because nothing is real". Then it tries to go detective horror, then slasher, then supernatural, then back to philosophy with "Nothing exists. Even if it did nothing can be known about it. Even if something could be known it can't be communicated. Even if it could be communicated it can't be understood" which is about as terrible logic as it gets. Then it tries the cult angle, then detective, then ghosts, and finally it has a "twist" that has ZERO impact because nothing else made sense. My GOD.....I was too confused by the terrible story to even bother being scared at all. What happened to the genre?Machina (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You know it's funny, I was thinking about this just earlier today. The Terminator movie actually did horror better than literally 99% of all "horror" movies. Think about when Sarah Connor realizes that the other two Sarah Connors' die when she sees it in the news, and she realizes very quickly the Terminator will come for her next (since he goes through the phone-book and tries to kill all 3). That, to me, is way more terrifying than any fucking ghost/demon/spirit/etc you'd see in a modern day horror flick. Modern day "horror" movies makes Scooby-Doo! look scary, for fuck sakes. Aaronmichael5 23:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
After Death is online on youtube, free of charge. Little pixilated though. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:547F:2B3A:E3BE:1525 (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It could just be because it's not the stuff I normally watch, but "The Haunting of Hill House" on Netflix was pretty good. I'm still looking for silhouettes in the darkness a month later. Artificius (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I have stopped being scared of horror films when I was 14 years old. I do like to try and find a horror film with a good story, acting and excellent production. In terms of my criteria- I have barely found any films that I like and the ones I do like I barely watch. In a movie somebody could get ripped apart by zombies and I laugh. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I read that The Empty Man tried to break the mold with horror films (hence all the "woke" existential and metaphysical stuff). But when they tried to do that it muddied the plot. I mean the "big bad" wasn't even clear, 2 hours in and I'm still not sure what the problem is or why. I guess they tried the psychological part with cults and questioning what is real (which to me there were WAAAAAYYY better films that questioned what is real). The director seemed overly ambitious with this one in trying to be different they made a mess instead. I mean at least in the previous horror films I saw with my sister they plot and the "evil" was clear, they weren't good by any stretch or scary but at least it was coherent.Machina (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I've long thought of A Clockwork Orange as the apotheosis of anything even close to horror films, and ever since I watched it I've never had a reaction to anything calling itself a horror movie. None of them show an actor actually scratching his cornea and actually breaking his leg, to say nothing of the near rape it depicts in the beginning (and the book is even more intense, the film shows a consensual threesome where the book has him violently raping two ~10 year olds). No amount of special effects and costumes can hit that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Get Out (2017), directed by Jordan Peele, is an excellent horror film that transcends its genre while still staying true to it. Bongolian (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Get Out, Us, Hereditary, and Midsommar are all really good. Body horror and preternatural fear, like Alien but done really differently. I swear to you guys, since I've watched Antrum, I've had two fortune cookies with no fortune in them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Midsomar has really stuck in my head since I've seen it (not that it didn't have a few issues that stick out) but it had so many uniquely and memorably disturbing moments (and was over all unique and disturbing). The film that most scared the shit out of me was the Ring because I was told a ghost story involving televisions when I was a kid and it had thoroughly freaked me out, plus I watched it in a country that was ghost-story crazy and the movie theatre was full of people screaming during scary moments. Mass hysteria. Hereditary was scary mostly because of the music (have to see it in a movie theatre). I particularly love teenage comic horror like the scream franchise and Final Destination. It's such terrible cheesy self-referencing garbage I cannot help but laugh and enjoy. ShabiDOO 12:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I love the Universal monster movies of the 1930s and 40s and the Hammer films of the late 1950s to early 1970s, although they don't scare me one little bit. Only two scenes in horror movies have ever scared me, and it must be saying something about me that they both depict nightmares, when the hand comes out of the grave at the end of the original Carrie and the white-faced hospital patient in An American Werewolf in London. Spud (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
i think i watched american werewolf in london when i was about 5. on the whole is not a scary film by any means. but when hes recovering in hospital, his nightmares and their nazi werewolf jumpscares gave my five year old self nightmares for about a couple weeks. when the wind blows is the only other film that gave me nightmares, buts thats horror of a different kind.
dont normally watch anything billed as 'horror'. slasher flicks and gore porn are just unpleasant, while anything that gets its horror solely from jump scares usually have little else to offer. im too much of a pussy to sit through anything where i am just waiting for it make me jump, they arent usually worth the ordeal.
midsomer or get out i think are wo recent examples (i have seen neither
i guess the horror films i have watched and rate as good movies arnt so much edge of the seat stuff or grand guignol extreme graphic gore, but provide more an unsettling athmosphere or sense of unease or dread. you can probably only call them horror movies because they depict events that are horrific, and they fit easily into another genre. the shining, the wicker man, rosemary's baby that kind of thing. the horror flicks that make jump out of your seat in fright into the arms of your date, they are formulaic trash for the most part that are super cheap to make but still fill seats. every film that is a little bit more than prole feed then sees a dozen sequels smothering any novel or innovative idea. superhero flicks are the only sure fire certainty to fill cinemas but they cost billions. the cinema is less and less the place for art or a cerebral experience, net flicks is the place for that kind of thing, some flicks only get a cinema release so as to qualify for the oscars. spectacle brings in the punters and merchandising brings in the cash. marvel, dc, star wars are the safes bets and more and more likely to be a disney property. these films cost billons so they make damn sure they maximise their profit by taking up every screen in your multiplex with flicks where the only art displayed is how they the made to appeal to as many people as possible and as many markets as possibles and be as anodyne as possible. in the off season and there is no obvious cash cow of franchise to push, ten a penny rom coms and horror flicks of jump scare variety, found footage wank, and contrived saw style gore porn, the tenth film in a franchise, are all pumped to pick up any slack.
if horror films are 'getting worse' its because modern cinema has gotten worse. the cost of effects driven movies and the fact disney owns everything, the ever shrinking competition ensures the big budget offering are shallow spectacle and everything is else is churned out cheaply to a formula. neither the studios nor the movie theaters make any money by providing variety or depth. why green light a film thats only to on one screen in one town in one state for one week with no promotion that nobody will go see. the studios dont make any money if it gets popular on video or there is buzz on netflicks. try your independent art house cinema if you have one near you, or just get netflicks, or the amazon version. directors of serious movies have more less been forced to accept that tv or streaming services as their medium regardless lingering feelings of its inferiority. straight to tv/video isnt an indicator of a shitty film anymore. artistically it has the more scope for a director than traditional celluloid ever did. i guess the romance of making a film and then holding a premiere is missing a premiere on netflicks. its only the likes of speilberg and others who are still box office draws making effects driven movies that will still get a general release that are still a bit sniffy about television.
cinema is dead if you are old enough to get served in pubs. wheres the next avengers that generates billions at the box office? or the next one, or the one after that? you can scratch any itch you like from the comfort of living room, with flat screen tvs nearing cinema screen size. who still goes to the flicks regularly as their primary choice for mass media? outside of an 'event' movie that everyone will go see, the demographics of folk going every week must be incredibly narrow. can adding scenes in shanghai to panda to chinese money sustain hollywood? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how people think that the concept of the New World Order is possible[edit]

Conspiracy theorists cannot even agree half the time on how the NWO would come to be. I am not going to say that rich people do not have any sway in politics because they do. I doubt every rich person would get together for world domination nor would the United Nations. Everyone has different views and there would be conflict. Also conspiracy theorists only look at the modern age, they tend to ignore world history except the Freemasons and the Illuminati. How would you get every single nation on Earth to join together?

There are still ongoing conflicts with no sign of resolution in sight. Examples:

  • The dispute between North and South Korea on the subject of which is the "real" Korea.
  • The Israeli-Palestine Conflict which is both political and religious in nature.
  • The People's Republic of China and Taiwan over who the the "real" China.
  • The dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region.

I could go on with modern conflicts. As for large nations in the past:

  • The Federal Republic of Central America which failed due to geographical and cultural differences.
  • The Roman Empire for similar reasons.

With past and present conflicts pertaining to politics, religion and culture- no NWO could be sustained for very long. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It can be argued the the Roman Empire hasn't really gone away, it became the Holy Roman Empire, changing seats of power a few times and settling back in an enclave in Rome. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
As for Grand conspiracy theories of one shadowy cabal ruling everything. I always remember Alan Moore's response after True at First Light was initially canned, "The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless." Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s very easy to follow. It’s organized like this https://www.pinterest.com/pin/413909021983489227/ Antigem (talk)
"Everyone has different views and there would be conflict." Oh but haven't you heard? It's all theater. At least it is according to those who explain away ANY evidence against their beliefs. Literally everything that goes against their beliefs is secret evidence planted by the NWO. Of course, no wonder the NWO is so obvious. WAKE UP THE FUCK UP SHEEPLE!!! aaronmichael5 23:53 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Half of nightmare scenarios proposed by conspiracy theorists would be utopia compared to the world that actually exists. Oh no, a secret gay agenda of human depopulation, I'm sure glad there's no overpopulation crisis pending threatening to throw half the world into nasty, brutish, and short lives. Oh no, a new world order removing all the shitty governments that constantly mistreat their populace. Oh no, evil is caused by literal demons that you can fight and repel, that's so much worse than evil being a grim, and near inevitable necessity arising from conflicting needs between people and a touch of human nature. Oh no, Jewish people run the media, can we have our 4 company panoply of greedy megacorporations back? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I've realized lately: most conspiracy theorists teach that once this "New World Order" is "overthrown"... whatever exactly that means, EVERYTHING bad will be gone at that point. Earth will become like something you'd see in Star Trek where we'll all live happily ever after in this complete utopia of perfection, scientific advancement, happiness, etc etc etc. Until I began studying Hubbard I didn't know this, but I think it's exactly like that quote Cardinal Chang shared. These people don't exactly believe in heaven, but that Earth will essentially BECOME heaven (even if they're not exactly religious). That, I think, is a major reason why some of these people are so far off the deep end and can't be reasoned with no matter what. That's why they will go to ANY length necessary to preserve their conspiracy theory. Kind of sucks when you think about it, because these people could just be enjoying life when all they are doing is wasting their time fighting for a utopia that will never come (You'll have to forgive me but I happen to disagree with the idea that even if all of Earth becomes atheist, we will establish that perfect utopia. Won't happen. That's pure fantasy. Maybe some things would improve but bullshit will be around until the moment the universe dies). Aaronmichael5 2:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I think at some level I'm fighting for a Utopia that will never come. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Shoot for the moon, because if you miss something something you'll be in the newspaper. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If you shoot for the stars and hit the moon, do not be ashamed, for you have aspired to greatness... and the moon had it coming. (Pandaren proverb) Kencolt (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The 'rich and influential people' will prefer a world that is relatively peaceful with minimum constraints on their freedom of action: they may well want 'different states and regimes' because they will have direct and indirect benefits (much as 'we ordinary people' prefer there to be several (chains of) shops in a given category, so we can benefit from the competition - including in 'snob value'). And if 'every sign of conflict is theatre' - why are there a range of newspapers (and do the proponents not compete for actual or notional benefits with others)?)
The conspiracists are looking in the wrong places - quite apart from the ISO why should not each country have its own calendars and rulers?
And besides - the anti-NWO conspiracy theorists are forming their own conspiracy against the NWO, which is being countered by the 'Sheeple Conspiracy (to confound the anti-NWOists, and do exactly what they want, rather than what 'them who think they run the world' tell them to do). Anna Livia (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
lol - the "Star Trek utopia" is precisely the sort of one world government most pf these people think is hte ultimate evil - I've seen this from 10 yrs ago or so when I first started looking down the rabit hole - the evil socialist government ensuring people get according to their need thus destroying capitalism and private gun ownership...... etc.... Aloysius the Gaul 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
We’ve had several “new world orders” in living memory. Colonial empires disbanded, global geopolitics was reshaped with WWII, and the United Nations was established. Then the Soviet Union fell, leaving the US as an unopposed superpower. Globalist free trade has been big for a while, but you may have noticed the pandemic disrupting it. As for the more conspiracy-minded aspects, I would remind you that we live in a world where governments and corporations spy on everyone all the time, every public issue runs on propaganda, and governments have claimed such authority as assassinating their citizens without meaningful oversight, shutting down arbitrary parts of the economy until further notice, and compelling citizens to purchase and use certain products. We don’t live in Shadowrun, but plenty of people seem to be trying their darnedest to make it happen. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Youtube-DL got taken down[edit]

Well, fuck. Seems the RIAA went after youtube-dl. This is a pain... Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. youtube-dl has perfectly legal use cases. It can be used to download public domain videos and videos licensed under CC-BY 3.0 (which allows noncommerical and commercial distribution) on YouTube. It can even be used to download videos NOT on YouTube such as Vimeo. RIAA's case is baseless and is a pathetic attempt at applying copyright laws to inappropriate situations. It is akin to Disney suing Xerox because somebody used their photocopier to make illegal copies of Disney film images. (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Fuck the RIAA. (Also sorta annoyed I only found out about this awesome tool like this.)--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 01:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It's been 2 days, so some updates IG:
  • No update from the youtube-dl maintainers, although the EFF has spoken out against the RIAA for their move so it's possible that they're gonna get involved.
  • People have been doing tons of shit to reupload the source code, sometimes in really entertaining ways. The favorite one I've seen so far was encoding the entire source tarball into a picture so you can pick it up from there. Some folks also put the entire source code in pull requests on the Github DMCA repo which is pretty funny.
  • youtube-dlc, a fork with a higher focus on merging new features has been reinstated under the name yt-dlc and removed the offending tests that caused the takedown.
All in all, still developing but there's been a few changes that I thought could be worth sharing here. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 10:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I am among the greats[edit]

Conservapedia recognizes me as one of the most notable Rationalwiki editors. Also, I must point out that I was in the first version of the list too, not the later expansion by Liberaltears. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 21:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I clicked that link you just sent: within seconds I stumbled across this https://conservapedia.com/Essay:_2020_was_a_very_bad_year_for_atheism._VERY,_VERY_BAD._HORRIBLE Um... what the fuck? Seriously? "Attracts all sorts of weird people" is supposed to be a fucking ARGUMENT against RW?! I'm convinced someone wrote that on CP as a joke. No way that can actually be real. Aaronmichael5 23:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
What the hell? I've been here for 6 years, how am I not on that list? CoryUsar (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ken's "essays" are getting more pathetic. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
So, I took a look at that, curious. And I find myself astonished. I was not aware that so many of us are, apparently, deer, the victims of taxidermy, and also unaware that Mr. Trent's main disqualification for being a proper editor is apparently "He's a fatty and RatWiki doesn't like quacks so he sucks".
Well, so much for conservative reliability. No, no, I'm the sane Ken, dammit. (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Fuck you Ken Ham. You ruined this too? Stop ruining thing... wait a minute. That ain't Ken Ham. What is it with Kens? 50 bonus points for anyone who gets the reference. Aaronmicahel5 3:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Were I one to believe in hell, I would tell you to go there. Ass. Kencolt (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't talking about you Kencolt. Aaronmichael5 3:09, 24 october 2020 (UTC)
Lmao, I'm on that list. Kenny needs to find a hobby. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 07:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Struggling over the proper way to poorly-capitalize the title of the essay is important for Ken.[7] Bongolian (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sirius I'm sorry to say that you weren't on the original list and that Ken didn't add you. You were added by our own, our very own LT.
There is an essay nominally about me on Conservapedia, Essay: Mr. "Spud" Atheist is put through the potato grinder. Of course, most of it hasn't really got anything to do with me. It's a rehash of stuff Ken had said about atheists before and would say again. The essay's been there for a little over two years now. I guess Ken forgot to delete it. Spud (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Dagnabbit. I still wonder why LT added me, I think the only stuff I ever said to him was to stop pinging me and stopping him from using us to play telephone game with nobs. It's pretty funny tbh. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I looked at that other article and it confirms that I’m a fuckin legend. I’m so important that a single comment from me helped make this the worst year in the entire history of atheism. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 14:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Folks are you sitting down? Are you ready for this? Rational wiki is the most racist and religious website on the interweb! I'm serious...and listen people...it's only a matter of time until those racist and religious rationalwikians take over the world! I found a single professor in a single university who claims so...don't believe me? Read it for yourself. I'll post a link at some undetermined date in the future. ShabiDOO 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at that "gallery of obese atheists" linked on that page. I can't decide whether or not I think Donald Trump should be included.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC) im on the list and im not notable at all. i just called conservative dog shit and helped get him banned from here. dunno why hes got trophy heads, thats the only time ive ever interacted with the prick and i was on the winning side there. i doubt i will pay any more heed than the zero amount i already do just because i got a name check form someone essentially smeared in his faeces. metaphorically speaking. but it is 1 nil to me. we really shouldnt humour the prick. one day we will all learn to not feed a troll so desperate for attention of any kind. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

My proposed micronation[edit]

Kingdom of Rationality

Motive- to encourage skeptical thinking, free thought, civil rights for ethnic, religious and sexual minorities along with bringing to light the issue of police brutality.

I will be the king but it will be a constitutional monarchy.

The main territorial claim will be my bedroom and this little island in the river. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I don't rush to join. For one thing, I don't know anything about the island, the river, or the surrounding countryside. For another thing, I have no desire whatsoever to visit your bedroom.Kencolt (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that I might also make claim to the spot where the Liberland supporters want to settle; both to be funny and to be a smartass. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, only if it's a commune. OH there must be free weed! Judge Dredd (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I am also considering the name "Principality of Ratilndonia". Pronounced Rash-al-do-nia. I will also legalize weed. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Election Night Shenanigans[edit]

For those of us biting our nails, Florida’s the state to watch on election night according to FiveThirtyEight’s model. If it goes Biden, there’s less than a 1 in 100 chance Trump wins (his path to victory is basically all the other swing states, and Florida having been even weirder than usual), but if it goes Trump then it’s sadly going to be a toss-up and we’ll have to wait for a bunch of the other swing-states to finish their counts. Florida apparently hated being the center of attention in 2000 and gets their count done fast now. Artificius (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't a Trump win a moonshot at the moment? It's more a question of the senate right? McUrist (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump's most likely path to victory is litigating his way from defeat. But I wouldn't put it past Trump to start a war or two before election day, stage his own assassination, or put "Biden is a Pedo" on every billboard in the USA. --Annanoon (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Senate is gonna be interesting. Here in Kansas we have an actually competitive race, so we have the chance to send a Dem to the Senate for the first time in like 90 years. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 13:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, in every single competitive Senate race this year, Democrats have out-raised their Republican opponents, sometimes by multiple times. It's the opposite of past years when Republicans routinely out-raised Democrats.[8] Trump's retreat from advertising in some states[9] has made it exceptionally difficult for down-ballot Republicans. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC) The fundraising analysis is here:[10] Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You guys will have to forgive me for this, but I'm fully anticipating a Trump victory again. I was in the Orlando area this past July and I saw nothing but Trump supporters: everywhere. Doesn't exactly look good for Biden TBH. Miami alone won't turn Florida blue. Could be wrong, maybe Orange County goes blue but I'd be surprised if it did. But I agree, Florida is a key state, whoever wins Florida is likely going to win the election. Can't IMAGINE Biden will win Florida and lose, same with Trump. On a side note, my favorite conspiracy theorist is saying Biden is rigged by the free-masons to win (https://gematriaeffect.news/35-boston-scott-makes-the-winning-touchdown-reception-tnf-october-22-2020-the-presidential-election-parallel/). So IF Trump does in fact win, at least we can laugh at him shooting himself in the foot yet again (He will be 0-3 in election predictions btw). Aaronmichael5 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC).
{ec}Fifteen Democratic candidates have outraised their Republican counterparts, an astounding number. Trump could still win, and anyone telling you it's a remote possibility is full of shit. In 2016, Trump voters on election day gave him a 2-1 advantage. A similar turnout would erase the current early voting totals from Democrats. Bongolian pointed out that Trump is retreating from ad buys in some markets, primarily Ohio and Florida. Though this could be a sign he's in trouble, it's just as likely the numbers in OH, FL are good enough he can redirect them elsewhere. Winning FL is required for him to have any chance of EC victory, and no Republican has ever won the Presidency without OH. I really want to stress, and I think it's something a lot of people are struggling with, we will not know who won the Presidency on November 3rd/4th. Though some state begin tabulating before polls close, many do not. And with the amount of mailed ballots being returned, either via USPS or dropped in boxes, will create a massive counting effort that will likely take days. The legal challenges likely push counting efforts to weeks. I would be stunned if we definitely know the election winner before Nov 16th.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that Obama and Hillary easily won Orange County, I highly doubt that.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not terrified of Biden not winning. What I am terrified of, is the "blue shift". Basically, the scenario where mail in ballots are predominantly Dem, and the election day votes are predominantly Rep. Under such a scenario, Trump will initially be ahead, but weeks later, he loses. In such a scenario, he could scream "rigging!" and he'd seem somewhat credible. In which case, things will get... ugly. CoryUsar (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Ugh... I'm not looking forward to the endless recounts we're going to have to do. TheTallMass (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you make a draft enter main space?[edit]

Basically, I want to work on the draft and write it up and just was wondering how to convert a draft to a mainspace article. Thank you. --WMS (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You just use the "move" option. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, didn't notice that option before, thank you for the help!--WMS (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

More on the failure of philosophy (or "why they can't seem to get past solipsism")[edit]


Just an answer from Quora that got me thinking about how we cannot know that others are conscious or have thoughts and experiences:https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-believe-that-the-humans-around-me-actually-possess-consciousness-and-its-not-just-me-who-is-conscious-What-if-the-people-around-me-are-merely-programmed-to-act-that-way

I’ve been asking myself that question from when i was a kid – I can see how i have always WANTED to BELIEVE that other people think and feel and experience stuff inside their head/themselves, just like me — yet, i could never get over the FACT that when i am looking at them with my eyes, i see none of that going on – i am just seeing a picture. Yet the picture looked so much like my picture that I didn’t want to accept that maybe what i think about what other people think and feel and experience ‘within themselves’ isn’t actually real and really only exist in my own head/’consciousness’ and i truly am ‘alone’ in my ‘consciousness’/’inner experiences’ as ‘thoughts, feelings and emotions’.

Because, that would then imply that i am ALONE here, ALONE in existence, AS existence – and even though common sense deduction of the FACTS would indicate that to be reality, i see how i started to, throughout my life, deliberately convince myself that what exist inside of myself as my ‘mind’, exist within others as well through ‘interpretative perception’, even though i could not and cannot possibly see this for real – as i cannot actually open up the head of another human and see the thoughts and feelings – just so that i would not feel so alone or have to realize that i am alone.

Because, what would it imply to be/exist ALONE here? It would imply that i am responsible for all that exist here as this world/reality that i am seeing with my eyes, as it all IS me, just me, alone, here. It would imply that i am ‘God’ and all that exist here is my creation — it would also imply that i would have to face the fact that i have never been aware of being ‘God’ and of when, how or why I created this existence in the first place — which scared the living shit out of me. So, i took the road of self-deception and pretended that i am ‘not alone’ because ‘other people feel what i feel, they think what i think – and i am my thoughts and feelings, so that means that i am not alone responsible for what is here’. Though what i have had to come to terms with is the deliberate self-deception in convincing myself that i am this ‘system’ of ‘thought, feeling and emotion’, while deeeep down within myself I kind of know that that is not really who i am – i simply brainwashed myself deliberately into losing myself within that system to just not have to face the FACT that i am ALONE here.

This is the sad reality of it because it is the FACTS – as i can see that ‘consciousness’ as what i believe about what ‘other people’ think, believe, feel and experience, still only exist within MY MIND — so, it’s a matter of making that decision: will i stop fooling myself and face the FACTS that ‘consciousness’ is my own self-made illusion or will i continue hiding within myself to not face the ‘God’ that is me and the enormous responsibility that comes with it?

Machina (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You know, I have a simple solution for you. If you act like (rather than just imagine secretly) other people aren't actually human long enough, and eventually someone will punch you in your smug, miserable face for it. Appeal to consequences, sure, but it's consequences you're just begging everyone around you for. I'd say we, collectively, don't like being discounted. Call it Talos' razor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Alas according to Occam's Razor philosophy ends up digging it's own hole that it can't get out of. Oddly enough the razor was used to argue in favor of God when it was first developed.Machina (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Occam's razor is a rule of thumb that has no great significance with respect to the progress of philosophy. ikanreed's advice is quite pertinent: try treating others as though they had not minds like your own. Why? Because proving solipsism is false is not the work of philosophy. It is a scientific question. The nature of consciousness cannot be rationally deduced from a finite list of propositions. Bertrand Russell once wrote: “As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.” Ariel31459 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a pretty good own by Sagan. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This again? This is such an easy problem to solve: It doesn't matter. There, done. Can we talk about something interesting like philosophy of language now? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel like the philosophy of language bores me(mostly because it's mostly metaphysical stuff). The number of questions that aren't better answered through science are few. "when you speak words how does that transfer knowledge into my head" comes down to neurology and psychology. I guess Chomsky style grammars are philosophical and not reducible to measurement. But I don't know what interests you about the field. Maybe it's just ignorance. What is an interesting question in philosophy of language? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed I mean, most of the questions are answered, it's mainly just interesting to talk about the subjective concept of language. Basically, I just want to nerd out on this subject a bit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. That wasn't a rhetorical question. I literally mean it when I say "What's an interesting question in the philosophy of language?" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Not much knowledge of Philosophy of Language as such but I wasn't aware that people working in that field were actively looking at questions that have been or are being currently answered by science. In fact, I find this highly implausible as empirical questions tend to (for the obvious reason of being best answered by scientific investigation) not be of much interest to philosophers, and where interests overlap there tends to be the usual academic co-operation.
Perhaps you are more familiar with this topic than I am but this "lol, silly philosophers thinking about questions when they could just doo dah science" sounds suspiciously naïve of how philosophers and the scientific community actually interact (outside of pop-culture bitchiness). Get ready, it's... (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Tikitime

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/14562023/fpart/2/vc/1#14562023 As I have said before the burden of proof is on the realist to claim an external reality and other people, not the solipsist. It's argued on here that it is the default position to take. Also "it doesn't matter" isn't a solution as it very much matters because it affects how one behaves from that point on and their emotional state as well. To say it doesn't matter is just flat out wrong.Machina (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The claim that all that exists is naught but illusions is quite the extraordinary claim @Machina, one I think you ought to try to demonstrate. Secondly, screw your obscure forums, read Descartes instead. At least he bothers to make his case. Finally, again, my position is that it doesn't matter which is true, since either way the mechanical functions of reality remain, even if reality itself isn't real. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"What properties do these illusions have such that they're different from a material reality?" you might ask machina, and get only stomping feet and red eyes in reply. "I say my unnecessary elaboration on a predictable damn-near provably deterministic universe must be the default because I say so"
You don't actually think about this problem like you say you do. You might get anxious and hung up on it, because you refuse to apply any sort of specific rigorous intellectual methodology, allowing you to retreat into any "You can't prove my conjecture wrong" territory that would make ID proponents blush. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It does matter because if no one else exists then one is all alone and everything you do is meaningless because there is no one to interact with. That's why I say is matters whether it's true or not. Also the argument is literally on the page I linked to so it costs nothing to at least look at what they are saying about solipsism being the default point of view because it makes the fewest assumptions according to Occam's Razor. I do think about it but I can't tell which is the "Simpler" or default explanation. That solipsism is the default or realism is and which one does Occam's Razor favor here. But I'll quote the response if you don't feel like reading it.

I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that 'maybe you only think you exist' but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)


IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.

Mind might encompass experience plus action If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.

Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its 'body'. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still defualt, because quite simply, the things you experience, the 'people' you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.

To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have consicous minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.

If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.

So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:

All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you percieve as 'other'.


All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.

A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:

All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself. This is not true because we simply dont have control over everything.

Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other 'peope' who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.

Machina (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Machina How do you know any of that for sure? How do you even know that you exist, perhaps you don't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I mean there how else would I be posting on here or writing this if I wasn't real. IF I didn't exist then this wouldn't be happening. It sounds similar to a Quora post on the subject: https://www.quora.com/What-is-solipsism-Is-there-any-reason-to-believe-it-is-true-Is-there-any-reason-to-believe-it-is-false

Solipsism is the belief that only the self can be known to exist as a certainty.

What if I’m just an illusion? What if all this is simply an image to entertain you for a certain period of time, before you cease to exist?

All we know as individuals for certain is that we ourselves are real. We know we are, why wouldn’t we?

But what about everyone else? What about them? Do they actually exist or is this just my imagination or some force I’m thinking of. What if everything is fake like the Matrix except there is no Matrix?

Solipsism in my opinion isn’t a false statement. Rather, it is a half truth.

With our limited senses, anything can be made to feel anything, and as such, we might be the only things that truly exist because we willed ourselves into it, such as an omnipotent creator might do if you believe in that sort of thing.

But in the end, I feel as though something has to exist aside from ourselves. Sure our bodies are limited, but our souls are beyond our human capacity to feel, or souls can sense.

To people who are logical to a fault it is truth

To those who are emotional see it as falsehood.

Normal people see it as not necessary.

I see it as an idea to be balanced with others to make a true world view as it is created.

Machina (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Machina First off, I don't give a fuck what Quora says. You are terminally unable to actually answer questions posed to you, and honestly, it's kind of annoying. So, again, how do you know any of this is real? How do you know that you're real, and not just an elaborate simulation deluding itself? Answer that and you disprove Sophilism, and your dumb ass watered down Nihilism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't disprove solipsism. The thing is I can't know if any of this is real. As for me being real the answer is that there is a thinker and something around which all these thoughts are being organized and processed.

Solipsism requires nothing other than sensation/perception. Why does this "mind" have to exist anywhere? Why does it "require a brain?" You don't even know that you have a brain, other than from what you've gathered from other dissected creatures that appear similar to yourself and science textbooks. This sounds absolutely absurd to the conditioned mind but logically it does add up when looked at from a different perspective.

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

It's not like I want to believe it but my faith in an external reality is severely shaken by all this.Machina (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't even consider at first that I was presupposing the existence of some "thing" I was experiencing. I suggest you take a look at the thread I am linking as the discussion brings up points to it that most don't look at: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/3/vc/1#4846074Machina (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I did find it weird however that one of the guys in the thread said that his observations support the conclusion of solipsism or how solipsism is the final product of Occam's RAzor. If I never heard of solipsism my observations wouldn't support such a claim.Machina (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


Oxyaena Harass 02:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Lame. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:CD0A:4151:8444:534 (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Logic is not Transcendental[edit]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and I want some feedback. I’ve reached the conclusion that the laws of logic aren’t transcendental. The laws of logic seem to me to be laws of nature. That is to say they are descriptions of how nature behaves. They describe how the mind accepts and rejects propositions. To be logical is to be consistent in how one accepts or reject propositions and to be illogical is to be inconsistent with how one accepts and rejects propositions. Am I on to something here or am I just denying G-d so I can sin Bonesquad11 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a bit of a difficult question. Take "All X are Y, All Y are Z, thus all X are Z". It's a statement grounded in the abstraction of physical objects, but it's impossible for me to envision a universe where it's possible that the first two are true and the last is false. It might be my lack of imagination and being a meat sack that's trained by our own universe to think that way, certainly if there were nothing at all instead of something, "all" becomes meaningless.
Transcendentality always bothered me as a silly thing to desire, anyway. "I'm an immensely complex machine that incorporates all the things about who I am, what I believe, my emotions, feelings, physical sensation, senses, memories, ideas, ability to predict the future, ability to actively gather information, and learning, all beyond the ability of any other person to predict or fully understand, but can I call the decisions I make with all that 'free' will if it doesn't bypass the laws of physics" is the weirdest sentiment to me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That’s my point. Logic seems to be a description of how your mind behaves. I guess this argument presupposes the mind is natural, but I see no reason why it isn’t. Bonesquad11 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing about logic is a hard physical rule, stop thinking in terms of Western metanarratives, logic is simply a tool used by people to help with reasoning. It's a social construct that has no actual bearing on reality, just like "morality" or "mathematics," these are simply tools constructed by people to help engage in a task, they may be useful, but they're not actual. Oxyaena Harass 16:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The things that are socially constructed are, prima facie, parts of reality. The idea that they can be viewed as separable is a work of pure imagination.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean transcendental in a Kantian sense? ShabiDOO 18:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That's sorta the same thing, but I'd guess they probably more in the sense of term Transcendentalism: there is some fundamental and innate value in something beyond its material makeup. I.e. logic exists in some form beyond the physical, by virtue of the fact that its rules are not bound to or require any physical thing(besides your mind, as Oxy notes). You would hypothetically understand that to be true if you could wipe out everything about our universe(the matter, the energy, the very laws of physics) go to an arbitrarily different universe, and logic would still have meaning. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I tend to think of logic (and mathematics) as something more akin to chess. It's about the manipulation of symbols according to rules that define what they can do. Tokens like 'all' are not natural phenomena, nor is a 'right triangle' or 'three'; even if someone drank 'all' the whiskey, you can probably at least tell what was in the bottle, and the world furnishes no object that corresponds other than roughly to a point, line, or circle. Rather, they're as I said, tokens attached to human abstractions; once we agree on what they mean, we can elaborate more and more complex plays using these abstractions. In the real world any can divide an angle into three good-enough to be equal sections; it's only the rules that prevent it from being done in 'geometry'. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, but that's not the question they're asking. What they're asking is whether those mental constructs: deduction, implication, syllogism, induction, mathematics, and the rest are somehow fundamentally constructed based on our material reality, and it's simply a lack of imagination that doesn't allow me to envision a universe where they don't hold. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"it's only the rules that prevent it from being done in geometry." Yeah. That's like saying "When I jump off the cliff it's only that sudden stop that keeps me from flying."Ariel31459 (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Not at all: again, it's easy to trisect an angle if you are allowed to use your straightedge or compasses as measuring tools, and that's exactly what you would do IRL. It is impossible only because the solutions break the rules. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Given any constructible angle y, an angle of measure 3y can be trivially trisected by directly constructing an angle of measure y. Its not the rules that lead to the fact that not all angles y are constructible. It's kind of a reality thing. The cosine of 20 degrees is, for example, not constructible, though it is approximable.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bonesquad11-In my opinion, your statement “Logic is not Transcendental” is incoherent: “Transcendental” doesn’t make any sense outside of our conceptual system. @Oxyaena- In my opinion, your statements about Logic result in a kind of conventionalism, wherein the truths of Logic are somehow made true by humans. This results in absurdity. Humans can only ever write down finitely-many Logical Truths, however there are demonstratively infinitely many logical truths, so at some point humans will have to go beyond that which can be stipulated by convention; inevitably, humans will rely on an understanding of Logic that is independent of convention. Leucippus (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Denlinger vs vaccines[edit]

https://youtu.be/JEVuDXUhgV8?t=3717 "Hey people you wanna line up and get the vaccine? Huh? You wanna get our flu shot? You wanna get whatever you want? Fine! DIE in your sins and go to hell and burn! PERIOD!"

That has got to be one of the most unintentionally funny things I've heard in weeks. The fact that this dude is actually serious and says that straight to the camera with a straight look on his face makes it even funner. I wasn't aware of this windbag before I read his article but WOW, what a dummy. That's right, for anyone here who didn't get the memo, Bryan Denlinger hates vaccines. Gotta add this to his article. Aaronmichael5 22:30 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Got to love the pseudoscience crowd. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That is one seriously squeaky voice. It makes Shapiro's sound low.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia article on Japanese people is sexist as hell[edit]

I took a look at the Japanese wiki article on Japanese people. I notice that the infobox contains portraits of Japanese people, almost all of them being men. Of the 27 portraits, only two of them are women. That means 2/27 = 7.4% of the pictures are of Japanese women. This is sexist as fuck and reflects the extremely conservative culture that exists in Japan. Can a courageous person please fix this fucking problem? (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia, we aren't the help desk for them. Secondly, really? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I know this isn't Wikipedia. I don't know where else to report this shit. I don't speak Japanese, so I can't bring this up on the talk page. (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so there is a place you can raise concerns on the Japanese Wikipedia, in the event you do not speak Japanese, that is the Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers (The page is in English), I'd take the concern there. Follow directions, and I'd go look at the related English page (Wikipedia:Help deskWikipedia), for guidance on how to ask for help if you've never done it before. You'll want to have a link to the article. The basic wiki format rules should be the same regardless of project. Think to keep in mind, there are not a ton of foreign language speakers on that project, so be patient. Pro tip: If you don't have an account on Wikipedia or any related WikiMedia projectWikipedia, go create one (I'd do it on your native language's project, so you can read and understand the sign up screens). It'll make it easier for the other editor to communicate with you (such as leave replies and ask questions, know they're talking to the same person if you switch between computer and phone, etc).
(If you have no luck with that (and remember, you might have to wait for a reply), come back I have one more plan, but it's a bit more involved/time consuming.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 03:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help. I will keep in touch with you on your talk page if I need any more help from you. (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"This is sexist as fuck" Those people in the infobox are significant historical figures. Are you claiming that an accurate portrayal of history is sexist if a selection of significant individuals does not approximate a 50/50 breakdown (e.g. a list of the signers of the Declaration of Independence)? Or are you claiming that Japanese society was sexist in the past, which produced this imbalance in significant figures, which should be fixed with a time machine or something? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Good post! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Strawman argument. This is about gender bias in an article about "Japanese people", not "List of Japanese people". A single picture of a Japanese man and woman together (similar to the English wiki article on "Human" [11]) OR omitting the gallery entirely (as in the English wiki article on "Japanese people" [12]) are both good solutions. Thus, even if I were to concede that "history has been sexist, so it is OK for articles to be sexist as well" (which I do not), that still does not excuse the gender bias of the article on "Japanese people" as it is about Japanese people in general and not about notable Japanese people specifically. Secondly, gender bias is a real problem on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is a reflection of the gender bias that existed in history and still exists now, but that does not excuse Wikipedia from solving the bias. The WikiProject Women in Red [13], which addresses the underrepresentation of women, has helped significantly. In October 2014, 15.53% of articles were about women, and as of September 29, 2020, 18.59% of articles were about women, showing that not only are there more articles about women, but that the proportion of articles that are about women has increased. [14] Thus the gallery is not suitable even if it is for an article named "List of Japanese people". Even with historical gender bias, there is much we can do to give women better representation on Wikipedia. (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
“Strawman argument.” I wasn’t making an argument. I was asking for clarification on what the supposed sexism is and what would constitute fixing it. Can you supply the definition of sexism you’re using there to make those claims? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe it. You have found something you feel is wrong on the internet?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, Bob Scream!! (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson is back home[edit]

-TheOldMan (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Who cares, ignore the charlatan and his hyper twitchy circle-jerk of cretins Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't be so ableist. Oxyaena Harass 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
We don't even know if he walks funny. Kencolt (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Not seeing how that’s ableist. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 16:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"Cretin" is an ableist slur, and "hyper twitchy" is also ableist. Oxyaena Harass 16:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Cretin, french for idiot. Twitchy referring to a drug addict, specifically a speed addict or pcp addict, twitching with withdrawals. Circle jerk, mutual masturbatory club of half wits (a broad but accurate desciption of Jordan and his enabling fucktards) Get off your high horse. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Oxy here. The man's an idiot but mocking him for suffering from an addiction is fucked up. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You're throwing drug addicts under the bus here too, drug addiction is an illness, hence it's ableism. "Cretin" is used in English as an ableist slur, as is "'tard". Stop being so casually ableist. Oxyaena Harass 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Remind me again of what Jordan was using and how he decided to treat it? I'm well aware of what addiction is, I'm a recovering one myself. Tard again a french word. Maybe I should have used a word from my own native tongue, mallintinneach . You seem to be a tad overly sensitive Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
jordan peterson may well be a prick but his medical situation sounded hellish. he developed (according to his daughter, and ive no reason to doubt her account) a physical dependence through using clonazepam as prescribed, withdrawal symptoms include seizures, while at the same time suffering a paradoxical reaction to the clonazepam - it was having the opposite effect to what it was prescribed to do. so in effect taking a drug that he could not not tolerate, but coming of the drug was equally intolerable, and could not do so quick enough. its small wonder he took the drastic action he took. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hellish, yeah. But, so what. The man is a fascist apologist and crank. I've no sympathy for the man. Or indeed for any fascist apologist or enablers. He's best left ignored or ridiculed. And not put upon any plinth for sympathy to be showered upon his suffering. Give him some broccoli and a bit of soy sauce, Mikhaila will love that Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I take umbrage with "ableism". We have been trained to reject Racism and Sexism are wrong because we've been told that having dark skin or a vagina is not a flaw. A disability? Is. It's not the only thing, a person can still be disabled and a productive member of society, and we shouldn't for instance insist that an amputee be banned from stand-up comedy because legs are a prerequisite for comedy, but let's not pretend that a disability is something we shouldn't care about at all. -CU (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
And is equating a pack of assholes to people with a nervous disorder the former or the latter? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that we basically cured Cretinism a century ago, I'm not sure who would be offended. -CU (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off, ableist, and why should I care about productivity? That's a spook. Oxyaena Harass 20:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Cardinal Chang You ignore that words can have specific connotations unrelated to their etymology. Oxyaena Harass 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Do I? That's shocking, so it is. Fandabidozi Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cardinal Chang Jordan Peterson is no fascist apologist.-TheOldMan (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The propagation of the idiotic, and moronic "Cultural Marxism is killing our society" is fascist apologia. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching As I said, I've no sympathy for the prick. Here's hoping it's a long and painful recovery that lays ahead of himCardinal Chang (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
i cannot talk of cultural marxism killing society, nor facist apologia, but i can say that the polarisation that stops one giving pause at the grave misfortune of others is killing society. it goes beyond schadenfreude, and i care not if they do the same or do worse. be better. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am hoping he recovers, and gets better. Not sure where you think otherwise. And it's a step away from my usual stance on fascists, involving a wall and artillery. Soooo. there's a socially acceptable response I suppose Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oxy You should care about productivity because as someone incapable of providing for yourself under any economic system, communist or capitalist, your existence depends entirely on what others are capable and willing to provide you. The less productive people are, the less they are able to give. If they become too unproductive and there isn't enough food to go around, you are going to have a tougher time than most. CoryUsar (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
jesus christ man, can you not let up on such personal attacks? for fucks sake knock it offAMassiveGay (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I could introduce Corruptuser/CoryUser to the wall and artillery option. I've even asked nicely. Pleeese? Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have thick skin, you can insult and swear at me all you like, but don't complain when I insult back.CoryUsar (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Context, lad. I got given out to for wishing the pain upon Jordan Peterson. Was wondering if they felt the same if it included you. Anyway, the nib is on fire lately, https://thenib.com/an-interview-with-professor-jordan-peterson/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"The propagation of the idiotic, and moronic "Cultural Marxism is killing our society" is fascist apologia."
@Cardinal Chang Nope. Arguing in defense of Fascism is fascist apologia. JP never did that.-TheOldMan (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to interpret your words. "If you mindlessly regurgitate a (literal 1930s nazi party) nazi conspiracy theory to a mass audience, that doesn't count as fascism apologia, because you didn't run back and forth through the streets with a big banner that says 'I'm the bad guy'" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, Cultural Marxism is essentially a updated version of one of the most famous Nazi talking points(Jews plotted the October revolution and the intellectual spread of communism more generally)...-Flandres (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Guys, you don't listen. Did JP ever argued in defense of Fascism? If not, then he's not a fascist apologist. Don't tell me about cultural Marxism, because fearmongering about communists is not fascist apologia (although some fascists and fascists apologists do it).-TheOldMan (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
What the fuck do you think "Cultural Marxism" is? Did you even read the Southern Poverty Law Center article posted above about the topic, before ole squeaky voice, shat upon social media his tale of woe at being repressed. The man enabled a horde of idiots to commit dreadful things in his name, and while he didn't do so in the name of fascism, and since there is no fascist manifesto, it's a slippery ideology that aims to instil hatred and violence against what it views as lesser, sub-human groups of society. So yes, the prick was a fascist apologist, get over it. THere's a lovely wall over here btw. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You haven't provided any example of JP arguing in defense of fascism. You can't because he is not a fascist apologist. Probably the problem is that you don't know what fascism is. In fact you talk about "a slippery ideology that aims to instil hatred and violence against what it views as lesser, sub-human groups of society" but that's not a special characteristic of fascism. Indeed it's a tactic common to almost every authoritarian ideology.-TheOldMan (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
In broader terms, many of his speeches are about how stupid people are completely useless for society, to the point where it's almost an obsession. That's generally a "milk before meat" type of argument for Eugenicists. CoryUsar (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Jordan Peterson is a racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, intellectually deranged, intellectually dishonest, immoral, manipulative pseudo-intellectual who would do the whole world a great favour by fucking off...but he isn't a fascist. If you can point to a single video or article where its clear to everyone that he supports fascism...then could you link it please? ShabiDOO 20:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm also not sure he's racist. As far as I'm aware, the worst I've heard him talk about WRT race is his insistence that Racism is actually some form of "majoritism", e.g., societies favor the majority rather than any particular race. Which is basically a Diet Coke argument; all flavor and no substance. It doesn't really add or subtract anything from the debate, or suggest anything radical in terms of a goal of making a world where race has virtually no impact on your opportunities in life. CoryUsar (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Both Nazis and fascists tend to believe there is an entity trying to undermine and overthrow the prevailing hegemony, and that a certain culture/heritage must be preserved at all costs by any means necessary. Nazi is a more specific term for the people who think it's the Jews who are doing the undermining and overthrowing. Jordan Peterson does not seem to believe the culprit is the Jews. He instead cribs the rhetoric Nazis used about "Cultural Bolshevism" that vilified Jews and changes it to "Cultural Marxism" and "Postmodern Neo-Marxists" and vilifies the Left instead. Nazis say "We need to do something about the Jews before they dilute our bloodlines and ruin this nation." Jordan Peterson says "We need to do something about the Left before they indoctrinate our children and tear down Western Civilization." So Jordan Peterson appears not to be a Nazi, but his rhetoric concerning the Left can lead down a paranoid rabbit hole that ends in the conviction that Marxism will lead to the downfall of the white race in the same way a Nazi would have a similar conviction about the Jews. Once you're there, it doesn't take much more of a push to conclude that outright fascism is the rational solution to the problem of the 'Modern Left'. So while Jordan Peterson's surface-level critique seems more akin to "the Left has gone too far with pronouns and talking about white privilege," once you get deeper into the details of it you get to the stuff about 'Postmodern Neo-Marxists' and I believe it's fair to say that this is cryptofascist rhetoric. Because once you accept the narrative that we evil Lefties want to tear everything down, where else can you turn but to the part of the right-wing that takes this threat seriously and has ideas about how you should go about preserving The West? If that is not fascist apologia I don't know what the fuck is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The term Cultural Marxism, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center : 'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, being pushed by much of the American right. 'Fascism' is not even used in the cited article, probably because it is beside the point. I don't generally agree with slippery slope arguments. The Nazis are not coming. At least, not yet.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with the OldMan, I don't think you have a strong sense of what facism is. Criticizing modern progressive or post-modern views by strawmanning it as "neo-marxist post-modernism" (and labeling it something that cannot actually exist) is not explicitly nor indirectly fascist at all. It's just straw-manning something. Just because one form of critique "might" lead to something doesn't mean something who critiques that way is fascist. That's like saying people who straw-man conservative talking points by calling them all "capitalist-domestic-terrorists" means you are a communist because it doesn't take much for someone who irrationally strawmans conservatives to become communist. Unless you can link a video or article where he supports fascism in a way that clear to most readers, then you've overstated your claim and might not want to be so generous in how you label people fascist. ShabiDOO 22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
He may not be fascist, but he almost certainly is a fascist enabler. Oxyaena Harass
@Oxyaena Enabler, that's the word. Not apologist. You know when I originally wrote apologist I had debated with myself if it was enabler or apologist, and somehow decided apologist was the less damning of the two. Although I then describe an enabler and not an apologist for the rest of my whatever it was. Anyway. Apologist, enabler whatever, the man and is followers are scumbag shitdogs. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena "Fascist enabler"? Let's make up terms just to include the word "fascist" in them...-TheOldMan (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan My understanding of Fascism comes primarily from two sources, firstly my maternal grandmother who would proudly tell all and sundry how she kicked Mussolini in the head as he crawled through the streets at the end of the war, and secondly from Umberto Eco's Essay on Ur-fascism I couldn't care less if you disagree, but as far as I'm concerned the only good fascist is a dead one. They left one part of my family in ruins. Another part was left in ruins by the Brits during the troubles. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cardinal Chang One of my ancestors was tortured by Nazis. Of course that has nothing to do with JP being or not being a fascist apologist. Likewise, your grandmother kicks couldn't be less relevant. All you have to do to prove your claim that JP is a fascist apologist is providing an example of JP arguing in defense of fascism. Everything else is irrelevant to this matter.-TheOldMan (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Read above a few lines. I confused enabler with apologist. English isn't my first language. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Enabler makes a little more sense, but I still think that it is an overstatement. If you want to take an example of fascist enablers then you need look no further than Nigel Farage or Santiago Abascal Ortega or any number of conservative pundits. They don't clearly endorse fascism but certainly and knowingly say false shit to arouse their base and gaine supporters they wouldn't otherwise gain. In other words they are aware that their words enable fascists but don't care even though they may not support fascism themselves. I don't believe this is the case with Peterson. He actually believes in the sexist, homophobic, anti-atheist and highly traditional values he espouses and I don't believe he says shit just to arouse nutcases or gain supporters. He is a pseudo-intellectual-douche-bag beyond any doubt. A knowingly enabler of facism I think you'd have to demonstrate that better than "some people take what he says and goes nuts with it". I mean again, you can apply that to most ridiculous human beings. For example Richard Dawkins supports atheism and programs that help support the vulnerable. That doesn't make him a communist enabler even though those are two talking points that communists use, nor would that make him an enabler of radical-left-wing-terrorism even though, again, he supports and talks at length at several points that they may use to justify their over the top ideas and methods. I think we should be responsible with the kinds of labels we throw out at people. ShabiDOO 13:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
An "enabler" is a person or thing that makes something possible. X enables Y if, without X, Y cannot exist or occur. What precisely are the claims being made here? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"I confused enabler with apologist. English isn't my first language."
@Cardinal Chang All right. So do you agree that JP is not a fascist apologist?
Regarding "fascist enablers"... I find the term quite meaningless. History has shown that, under the right circumstances, the majority of people do not oppose fascism. Because they don't care, they are too scared of retaliation against themselves or their family, they are "just following orders"... etc. All good people, when thinking about being a WW2 citizen of Germany or Italy, fantasize about themselves being heroes fighting fascists and Nazis, but - statistically speaking - they almost surely would had not. So if you are talking about "fascist enablers," then you are talking about the majority of people...-TheOldMan (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan There is a world of difference between being someone who hypothetically in the 1930's and 40's would have idly stood by or collaborated with fascists; and being someone who essentially reproduces fascist or fascist-adjacent propaganda. Most modern far right movements propagandise through dog-whistles like "Cultural Marxism" or "the defence of 'western values'" to ensure a steady supply of people who have bought into key-points of the fascist world-view long before they've ever thought of joining an explicitly far-right group. They start of selling "western values" so they can later swap it for "European Culture"... and then chuck in a little bogus-but-convincing science around IQ and ethnicity... to turn 'I love European culture' into 'I must help preserve the white race'.
Whether Peterson likes it or not, people like him play an important role in fascist recruitment priming otherwise disaffected and mainstream people to respond to fascist themes around civilizational struggle, the benefits and naturalness of social hierarchy, distrust of intellectuals etc. I doubt he knows that that's his job for the far right but hey.. the shoe seems to fit unfortunately.
IMHO The fact that there are liberals who still think that fascist recruitment works by a man with a shaved head, wearing a t-shirt saying "Hello, I'm a fascist propaganda man" straight up telling new people how great fascism is. Goes a long way to explaining the failure of a lot of liberal anti-racist initiatives to curb the rise of the alt-right. Fascists have had three quarters of a century to adjust their sales pitch and they've learnt the importance of branding and concealing their actual beliefs until they have suitably warmed up their audience.Get ready, it's... (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"They start of selling "western values" so they can later swap it for "European Culture"... and then chuck in a little bogus-but-convincing science around IQ and ethnicity... to turn 'I love European culture' into 'I must help preserve the white race'."
@Tikitime This is pure speculation, and there's no way you can prove that JP has such intentions. Ironically, it's very similar to speculations and fearmongering that see left-wing politicians / intellectuals as communists recruiters, ready to switch their ideals to pure Communism when the times are ready.-TheOldMan (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan It's not speculation, it's well documented strategy. The example I gave of western values being later turned into 'white race' is paraphrased from a speech Nick Griffin gave at an American white supremacist conference on the BNPs use of 'saleable' terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ_Nql0p8UA <- At the one minute mark a clip of this speech is introduced and played.

Likewise interviews with ex-members of the far-right often feature a period of ideological radicalisation that begins with pop-right philosophers and media figures whose work intentionally or not ends up prepping them for the more extreme ideas and beliefs they encounter further down the line. And when it comes to the alt-right especially, there are plenty of old /pol/ posts where crypto-fascists talk about the importance of 'hiding your power level'; the art of spreading fascist propaganda without outing oneself as a bona-fide fascist has been the hallmark of numerous populist far-right movements since the dawn of the French National Front, perhaps even earlier.
What Peterson personally believes or wants to achieve is kind of irrelevant as far as I see it. I don't think Peterson thinks of himself as a fascist or that it is necessary correct to describe his work as fascist, however... people like him either through malice, chance, or gullibility play a role in giving intellectual legitimacy to the themes of fascist philosophy.
Also... speaking as a (bit of a) communist the real irony is that conservatives are often somewhat correct in their paranoia, even if they are a little over-dramatic. Starting a campaign around something of material importance to people that the left can help with (LGBTQ+ rights, civil liberties, working conditions, animal welfare) and then using that space as a recruitment ground has certainly proved more effective than just wandering the streets yelling about how much you love (INSERT MARXIST FETISH) and hoping people magically fall in love with communism. So it's not fearmongering it's just an accurate description of political strategy as it applies to movements outside the Overton window! Get ready, it's... (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"It's not speculation, it's well documented strategy."
@Tikitime I'm not saying that such strategy does not exist and nobody ever used it. I'm saying that it is pure speculation that JP's is engaging in such a strategy. Then you said that what Peterson believes or wants to achieve it's irrelevant. But how can you accuse somebody of engaging in a strategy, which requires precise intentions, and at the same time saying his intentions do not matter?
With these "It's a fascist!" (fascist apologist, enabler, whatever...) accusations it's always the same story: The more the conversation goes on the more the term "fascist" becomes meaningless, based on supposing other people motives, and unfalsifiable...-TheOldMan (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan That's simply not the case. When people are being described as fascist enablers what is being commented on is often well documented links between figures in a particular political media-sphere and the identification of common ideological themes and dog-whistles that operate as fascist propaganda, regardless of intent.
Fighting fascism is not about just identifying 'the baddies' (tm) and condemning them in contrast to 'the good people who just did an accidental oopsie that happened to look like fascism but really wasn't because they had good intentions really!'. It's about identifying and countering the political/economic/social forces, that intentionally or otherwise contribute to fascist movements and violence.
Whether Peterson recognises it or not, many of his talking points are used to support fascist aesthetics and ideology. In particular, the conspiracy theory around Cultural Marxism that he rose to prominence on is a direct descendant, if not carbon copy, of Nazi conspiracies around 'Cultural Bolshevism' that were invented and are currently being used to justify excluding and purging left-wing opposition from public life: see Orban in Hungary and Bolsanaro in Brazil.
Much of fascist strategy is designed to hoodwink the politically naive into thinking fascist groups are just a bunch of unfairly maligned conservatives/liberals not worth opposing. Getting bogged down in debates about 'who intends what' is a losing game. It's one that has been manipulated by fascists, arguably since the 1920's, to leave you scratching your head and shrugging your shoulders saying "oh well.. they didn't explicitly **say** that they are fascists so... I dunno? Guess they ain't fascists then. If they were fascists they'd say so right?!?!!!'.
And even that is discounting the complexity one arrives at when you factor in dupes and regular conservatives (IMO like JP) who are unthinkingly parroting their memes!
Instead look at what is verifiable and provable about his work and where it fits in to history and the current political moment, whether Peterson actually *is* a fascist is really a moot point and anyone who seriously spends their time arguing it one way or another is pissing in the wind. Get ready, it's... (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Water on the Moon[edit]

Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet today. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-sofia-discovers-water-on-sunlit-surface-of-moon/ Aaronmichael5 21:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The real reason NASA hasn't returned to the moon: vicious alien maulings. HairlessCat (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
No, the real reason is the LEM, as the design stands, is not seaworthy. Kencolt (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait, is it really any surprise there's ice on the moon? I mean, there's a crapton of ice near Jupiter and Saturn, to say nothing of the moons themselves which have more ice individually than all of Earth. Granted, radiation, blah blah, but there's craters on the lunar poles which are permanently in shadow, to say nothing of subsurface ice CoryUsar (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Come on folks. The real reason NASA hasn't gone to the moon is because it has spent the last 25 years devising a way to attack and control the invisible pink unicorn. She lives in a near impenetrable bunker and her magic powers can be greatly exploited by the American hegemony. It's just a case of cracking through her fantastical moon-beam shield and resisting her Vulcan mind control techniques. Once captured then American empire can put the invisible pink unicorn inside a fusion plant and get unlimited and constant nearly infinite stream of energy which it can use to fight the evils of climate change conspiracies and the infection of atheism and wokeness. It's all really obvious if you know who to talk to and are educated about the IPU and the history of American exploitation of supernatural resources. ShabiDOO 05:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Get real guys. You think we went to the Moon? Come on! If Neal Armstrong went to the Moon why did he only go once? Answer that sheeple!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
He made it the first time, but after they checked the records they found Neal had his named misspelled on the sheet and wouldn't let him in on the second trip. CoryUsar (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Illuminati has been trying to tell us all this for 50 years now. They've been putting it right before our eyes. The only reason we don't really know is because they've killed everyone before they had the chance the get the word out, but they've been trying for 50 years now to warn us. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!! Aaronmichael5 20:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad news from a bad guy[edit]

President Putin now says that Hunter Biden did nothing illegal in Ukraine and Russia.

Ariel31459 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have begun work on my micronation: Kingdom of Ratildonia![edit]

This is the constitution of my micronation:

We the people form a (non-literal) nation with the values of liberty, rationalism and skepticism. Our nation supports equality of all people. Race, gender, religion or lack there of, sexuality (including sexual orientation and identity), income, disability and every other identity are not reason for discrimination. We are all born equal.

We do not accept or reject the concept of divinity. However we must put our faith in science. Religion will not dominate government as we are officially secular and support diversity. The government will not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Education is important to a functioning society. Anti-Intellectualism degrades society and allows hate to grow. Education is for anybody, not just limited to the elite. Education should be given free of charge. Denying education goes against the kingdom.

Our economy will be a mix of capitalism and socialism. People have the right to own private property. However we need social safety nets and guaranteed income. Everyone will have say in government through voting. This is the ideal economic system.

On this day of October 26, 2020 the Kingdom of Ratildonia is established.

The purpose of my micronation is to promote rationalism, skepticism and equality. My country shall be a constitutional monarchy. (EDIT: Fixed a typo) --Possible Goat (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you don't happen to have any mention of a military or other means of defending yourself... hmm... where are you located and if, hypothetically, you were to be kidnapped as a slave, how likely are you to rebel? CoryUsar (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I do plan on making a military. The two standard arms with be an airsoft BB pistol and a hunting knife. Obviously as an unrecognized nation and the main purpose is social activism, --Possible Goat (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
"We do not except or reject the concept of divinity". Should be "accept". Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 19:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel like the entire reason I'd found my own state would be to claim the title of God-Emperor. Artificius (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini I will fix my typo. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Look, if you are going to call yourself "god-emperor", you might as well go a bit further than that. "Theophagus, Devourer of Gods". That's about as blasphemous and haughty as it can get. CoryUsar (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Not really looking for blasphemous or haughty, although it is that. Assuming I had any interest in governing and enough ethanol-soaked will to get anywhere near the upper echelons and go full autocrat, then any variation on Emperor, God-Emperor or even Emprah I crowned myself with (or likely had the Legislature do the honors) would *very* likely be a sci-fi reference. Although that's mostly out of the question, getting a load of boyz together and crumping the Liberlads seasteading in the English channel (or is it the North Sea?) might be an option. Artificius (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)