RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive373
Wasn't someone talking about horror movies a few topics earlier?[edit]
Mutant self-reproducing Crayfish Invade Belgian Cemetery. Wow.[1] Kencolt (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I always forget these are a thing. It's bad, but the Red Queen will probably rear her ugly head before long. Artificius (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Amy Barrett sworn in as new Supreme Court Justice[edit]
I have not gotten tired of winning. Four More Years!. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:51AF:261E:5699:841D (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- The first rule of being an attorney is that, when you're winning, be quiet. Try it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the 2020 scriptwriters are listening, taking out Clarence Thomas with a vicious dose of the 'rona would be all kinds of poetic justice. Thunderball (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm passing this one on to the 2021 team. Thomas and Alito in quick succession after Biden's inauguration, and then the camera pans to linger lovingly on McConnell and his breaking heart. Thunderball (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the 2020 scriptwriters are listening, taking out Clarence Thomas with a vicious dose of the 'rona would be all kinds of poetic justice. Thunderball (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, but guys, Biden and Trump are exactly the same. That's why I'm not voting this year because Bernie didn't get the nomination-Hastur! (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that? After all the shit Trump has done to disparage trans people, you think Biden would do the same thing? You think Biden would keep the ICE camps at the border? At the very least Biden would pick more left leaning supreme court justices than Trump would. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I think we can dislike Amy Coney Barrett but I can't stand those arguing that her nomination is not legit because it's only one week from the elections.-TheOldMan (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- They think that because the republicans lied and said that's why they blocked Obama's nomination in 2016, and that charges of hypocrisy mean a damn thing in 2020, that they're making some kind of point. The only thing to understand is that the legitimacy of the supreme court as a non-partisan, while at the same time lacking any democratic legitimacy, body is long gone. Anyone who's interested in reinforcing that point further should check out 5 to 4: A Podcast About How Much the Supreme Court Suck ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, I liked Sandra Day O'Connor, and she was nominated by Saint Ronnie. But when it comes to SCOTUS, while "Originalism" is mostly a fig leaf for neo-Conservativism the way that "State's Rights" or "Ethics in Video Game Journalism" are also BS, we truly do need a strict interpretation of the Constitution. If there's a problem, amend it; we have a process in place specifically for that purpose. Simply put, if the words in the Constitution mean whatever you want them to mean instead of what they literally say, why even have a Constitution? Otherwise, we could declare that since the 7th Amendment says "In Suits at common law...", the law only applies if you are wearing a suit. CoryUsar (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is the ultimate test if the Democratic party is ready to play to win. I respect that Biden can't out and out say he's going to pack the court, but Democrats cannot afford to play nice. If the court does what the GOP put them there for, to stop progressive agendas, then the Democrats need to eliminate that. SCOTUS should not overrule laws created by a constitutional body (legislature), nor should it actively seek to worsen democracy or democratic values. Also it is totally within the power of the GOP to nominate and push through this nomination quickly, their cries of civility should be ignored with the Dem majority uses it's power ruthlessly.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was against the idea until Barrett. Now I think we need to push it up to 13 seats. Use the justification that it's a long overdue reform to bring the Court into alignment with the number of federal appeals courts. But fuck the GOP and fuck their unworthy puppet justices. They've reduced the Court to a clown show. Expanding the Court is now the only way to save it.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It would be seen as nothing more than packing the court, and will cost the Dems HUGE in 2022. And it opens up the door to, well, if 13, why not 21 justices in 2024? Why not 35 justices in 2028? Why not every single American on SCOTUS in 2032? CoryUsar (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- They aren't going to pack the courts, full stop. The Dems care more about the appearence of doing the right thing than actually doing it. Also, I agree with @CorruptUser, we have an amendment process, yet we're too timid about using it. We're fucking terrified of actually changing the constitution, and honestly, it annoys me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Getting enough(37 or 38, I believe) state legislatures onboard might be difficult-I can at least see why people reject it in favor of other possibilities.-Flandres (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- You can always get each individual state to amend its own constitution first. That's how women got the right to vote; first legalize it state by state, until enough states had legalized it, and then the legislators in those states could expect to lose by a woman-slide if they dared oppose women voting. CoryUsar (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Getting enough(37 or 38, I believe) state legislatures onboard might be difficult-I can at least see why people reject it in favor of other possibilities.-Flandres (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- They aren't going to pack the courts, full stop. The Dems care more about the appearence of doing the right thing than actually doing it. Also, I agree with @CorruptUser, we have an amendment process, yet we're too timid about using it. We're fucking terrified of actually changing the constitution, and honestly, it annoys me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It would be seen as nothing more than packing the court, and will cost the Dems HUGE in 2022. And it opens up the door to, well, if 13, why not 21 justices in 2024? Why not 35 justices in 2028? Why not every single American on SCOTUS in 2032? CoryUsar (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was against the idea until Barrett. Now I think we need to push it up to 13 seats. Use the justification that it's a long overdue reform to bring the Court into alignment with the number of federal appeals courts. But fuck the GOP and fuck their unworthy puppet justices. They've reduced the Court to a clown show. Expanding the Court is now the only way to save it.
- This is the ultimate test if the Democratic party is ready to play to win. I respect that Biden can't out and out say he's going to pack the court, but Democrats cannot afford to play nice. If the court does what the GOP put them there for, to stop progressive agendas, then the Democrats need to eliminate that. SCOTUS should not overrule laws created by a constitutional body (legislature), nor should it actively seek to worsen democracy or democratic values. Also it is totally within the power of the GOP to nominate and push through this nomination quickly, their cries of civility should be ignored with the Dem majority uses it's power ruthlessly.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, I liked Sandra Day O'Connor, and she was nominated by Saint Ronnie. But when it comes to SCOTUS, while "Originalism" is mostly a fig leaf for neo-Conservativism the way that "State's Rights" or "Ethics in Video Game Journalism" are also BS, we truly do need a strict interpretation of the Constitution. If there's a problem, amend it; we have a process in place specifically for that purpose. Simply put, if the words in the Constitution mean whatever you want them to mean instead of what they literally say, why even have a Constitution? Otherwise, we could declare that since the 7th Amendment says "In Suits at common law...", the law only applies if you are wearing a suit. CoryUsar (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Rather than expanding the court, establishing a mandatory retirement age of 70 would open up three seats at a stroke (Thomas, Alito & Breyer), as well as Sotomayor's towards the end of Biden's first term. I reckon a plausible long-term justification could be made in terms of the value of SCOTUS receiving predictable injections of fresh blood, and it would likely play as less obviously norm-busting than 'packing' additional justices on to the bench.
It wouldn't look great given the ages of Biden, Pelosi and Schumer, etc., but it might just provide a better fig leaf for the required raw power hardballin'. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Problem is, that too requires a constitutional amendment. Justices of the Supreme Court "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This has always been interpreted to mean life tenure unless impeached. This is why 'court packing' is the path of least resistance. Congress could if it wished establish a court with 1000 justices, but it holds little power to make existing ones retire. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the US, any system you design for yourself will be used by your opponents. So don't give yourself any powers you wouldn't want your opponents to have too, whether that's the fillibuster, Gerrymandering, packing the court, treaty signing (and revoking!) via executive orders, or anything else. CoryUsar (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Really dude, I can not stress enough just how awful packing the courts will become if it is ever allowed to exist at all. It is one of the hallmarks of Fascism, and you don't get to say "well, it's ok to do this type of thing when we do it, but not ok when someone else does it".
- Hmmm... I don't want to Godwin's, but since you are advocating Fascism, it's warranted. Imagine if the US elected a Nazi and Nazi cronies into a majority in the US. Not a super-majority, but a simple one. Ah, the days when such things actually required an imagination... Now design the system you wish would exist under that scenario. For example, what rules should the Nazis be forced to follow in order to change the court system? What rules should they be forced to follow when deciding who is allowed to vote? When re-writing the constitution? When determining the budget and curriculum for the school systems? When funding and determining eligibility for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance)? Really, any procedural rule at all. Whatever rule that is, from "you need 3/4 of the vote to repeal the 13th amendment, gee sorry, nothing we can do, better luck next year" to "yes, yes, wives should always vote the way their husbands tell them, but the rules are that the ballot booth is private, sorry, nothing I can do bro". All those rules? Those are the rules that should apply all the time, no matter who is in charge. CoryUsar (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CorruptUser "Really dude, I can not stress enough just how awful packing the courts will become if it is ever allowed to exist at all. It is one of the hallmarks of Fascism," No it isn't. Seriously, no it isn't. That is factually incorrect. You are literally invoking Godwin's law here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, name one major dictatorship that took over in an at least semi-legitimate election that did not pack the courts. Hitler? Natch. Chavez? Yep.CoryUsar (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CorruptUser One, you're strawmannng me again. Two, dictatorships and fascism are not the same thing, you fucking moron. Thirdly, Chavez wasn't fucking fascist, he was a fucking shitty ass authoritarian Social Democrat that LARPed as a socialist, not a fascist. I'm not familiar with Natch. Fourthly, you still haven't explained how court packing is "...one of the hallmarks of Fascism...". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Natch" is short for "naturally." I think the effect of court packing depends on the ambitions of the individual court packer. Let's say Joe Biden is the one packing courts, as is being widely brought up right now. That does not make him a fascist, because, well, I don't like him myself but I highly doubt he is plotting to become a Tyrant or something.-Flandres (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- {ec} Currently the Judiciary does not reflect the citizenry, FFS it has 6 Catholics. As @DuceMoosolini rightly noted, expanding the size of the Court to 13 seems to make the most sense, it aligns with precedent. But also, one need only look as far as 1860 to see a legislature bending the rules of government to its will to end minority rule. This Politico piece breaks it down thouroughly[2], and there are a host of things that are necessary to improve democracy in the United States beyond just the courts. A constitutional convention to me personally makes more sense, fucking rewrite the whole damn thing, while focusing on improving the Bill of Rights, 14th, 15th, 24th and 26th Amendments.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Flandres The premise itself is just utterly ignorant and moronic. No political expert I've heard of has suggested that packing courts leads to fascism. None. I don't know where Cory is getting this nonsense from. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I really don't see how being Catholic would be worse in a judge than being Baptist. Evangelical Protestants would be more concerning, and Scientologists would be downright alarming. As for the Amendments and so forth, what we really need are judges that will stop abusing the Commerce Clause. If I'm a resident from Vermont borrowing money from a bank in Vermont to buy a house in Vermont using my Vermont-registered car as collateral, the bank loan should not be registered in South Dakota. But that's off topic.
- Back to court packing. It's a tool, yes, but it's a tool that should not exist. There are people who believe there's valid reasons to Gerrymander, but it's so blatantly misused that we would be better off without it entirely than having it and simply promising it won't be misused. Remember, every tool you have will be in the hands of your opponents. Going back to Lincoln as an example is a terrible idea; one of the criticisms of Lincoln was that he did act in an authoritarian manner and simply had political opponents "disappear", but aside from the fact that we were in a literal civil war and existential crisis, we were extremely lucky it didn't blow up in our face. SCOTUS has been at 9 justices for more than a century and a half, and simply not liking the justices in power is not a good reason to change that. CoryUsar (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- With regard to court packing here is a solution I am considering: the problem is that one president can significantly change the tendencies of the court in as little as one presidential election cycle. The argument that judges should not be added for political reasons is a good one. And yet it is done all the time. The way to correct the problem is to increase the number of justices to prevent adoption of extreme positions, e.g., corporations are people. A commission could be set up to create a list of minimally ideological jurists. Then the court could be expanded to a larger group, say 25 justices. Consequently, an executive would not be able to exert undue ideological influence on the court, even in two terms of office. — Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs
- @Ariel31459 has it right, no one death should literally throw the court ideology wildly. The entire federal bench should rotate being on SCOTUS, with a 15 year term.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- With regard to court packing here is a solution I am considering: the problem is that one president can significantly change the tendencies of the court in as little as one presidential election cycle. The argument that judges should not be added for political reasons is a good one. And yet it is done all the time. The way to correct the problem is to increase the number of justices to prevent adoption of extreme positions, e.g., corporations are people. A commission could be set up to create a list of minimally ideological jurists. Then the court could be expanded to a larger group, say 25 justices. Consequently, an executive would not be able to exert undue ideological influence on the court, even in two terms of office. — Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs
- {ec} Currently the Judiciary does not reflect the citizenry, FFS it has 6 Catholics. As @DuceMoosolini rightly noted, expanding the size of the Court to 13 seems to make the most sense, it aligns with precedent. But also, one need only look as far as 1860 to see a legislature bending the rules of government to its will to end minority rule. This Politico piece breaks it down thouroughly[2], and there are a host of things that are necessary to improve democracy in the United States beyond just the courts. A constitutional convention to me personally makes more sense, fucking rewrite the whole damn thing, while focusing on improving the Bill of Rights, 14th, 15th, 24th and 26th Amendments.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Natch" is short for "naturally." I think the effect of court packing depends on the ambitions of the individual court packer. Let's say Joe Biden is the one packing courts, as is being widely brought up right now. That does not make him a fascist, because, well, I don't like him myself but I highly doubt he is plotting to become a Tyrant or something.-Flandres (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CorruptUser One, you're strawmannng me again. Two, dictatorships and fascism are not the same thing, you fucking moron. Thirdly, Chavez wasn't fucking fascist, he was a fucking shitty ass authoritarian Social Democrat that LARPed as a socialist, not a fascist. I'm not familiar with Natch. Fourthly, you still haven't explained how court packing is "...one of the hallmarks of Fascism...". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, name one major dictatorship that took over in an at least semi-legitimate election that did not pack the courts. Hitler? Natch. Chavez? Yep.CoryUsar (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CorruptUser "Really dude, I can not stress enough just how awful packing the courts will become if it is ever allowed to exist at all. It is one of the hallmarks of Fascism," No it isn't. Seriously, no it isn't. That is factually incorrect. You are literally invoking Godwin's law here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the US, any system you design for yourself will be used by your opponents. So don't give yourself any powers you wouldn't want your opponents to have too, whether that's the fillibuster, Gerrymandering, packing the court, treaty signing (and revoking!) via executive orders, or anything else. CoryUsar (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Mental Illness[edit]
These are a wide range of conditions that affect mood, thinking, and behavior. I may be mental. I can barely pay attention without looking at a screen, and I fluctuate from being happy to being upset. This may be a problem.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 13:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I understand. I was diagnosed with ADD at a fairly young age, and took Ritalin for a very short time in elementary school, until my mother, who was bothered by giving psychiatric medication to children, took me off it. I struggled with incredibly basic organizational skills my whole life, skating by on being kinda clever. Recently it wasn't enough, and I finally tried, as an adult, taking presciption ADD medicines, and my ability to focus on an annoying or dull task is just higher. I can't say it's miraculous level different, I'm still a slacker at heart, but I don't find myself skipping out on an important task after seconds. It's more like minutes now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- You may need to see a psychiatrist. In my opinion your problem could be Bipolar Disorder. Bipolar has those symptoms. Keep in mind that I am not a doctor. Take my opinion with a grain of salt and see a doctor. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Throwback: Josh Feurstein vs Starbucks + page?[edit]
So I know this was 5 years ago now, but I started watching this guy's videos just a few days ago. Unsurprisingly, they're all pretty bad, but this one (https://youtu.be/OD9Fd2wtX20), oh my God. Of all the dumbest, moronic, and most idiotic moments of this guy's history on the internet, this one right here has GOT to take the cake. Oh my GOD this is literally one of the stupidest videos I have ever seen.
Weird question, but you guys think this guy warrants a page? I didn't really think so at first but taking a look at this guy he's actually a lot more popular than I thought. He's been on CNN and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Their might be enough material for a page on him but I'm not really sure. Aaronmichael5 23:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Patriot Churches[edit]
More about American Conservative Christians
A perennial topic round these parts, as l recall. RagingHippie (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- The next evolution of conservative evangelicalism perhaps? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Building a ConLang[edit]
The purpose is a unique language for my micronation. I will call it "Ratildonian". I think that I will design the vocabulary around English and French but with an invented alphabet. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Just use Esperanto. It's a very useful and very widely spoken language that everybody loves-Hastur! (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- This country sounds like a terrible place to visit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am a conlanger with some 45 years experience starting with a high-school acquaintance with Tolkien. Good luck with your project, and if you have any questions feel free to ask away. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Inasmuch as the purported populace of said micronation isn't always known for, nor unilaterally accepting of overly serious and/or complex items (Except for those in which they have a vested interest), might I suggest something more easily and immediately achievable?
- Pig Latin comes to mind. Or perhaps a more elaborate version can be developed here, which we can call Goat Latin. Kencolt (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just use English and claim Ratildonian is a minority and formerly the official language until the natives succumbed to outside cultural pressure and adopted the Lingua Franca. It wouldn't even be a lie, and it will give your Ratildonian (re)construction project some libcred. Artificius (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I might just use an established alphabet instead. Now making a fully functional form of Pig Latin might be interesting. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just use English and claim Ratildonian is a minority and formerly the official language until the natives succumbed to outside cultural pressure and adopted the Lingua Franca. It wouldn't even be a lie, and it will give your Ratildonian (re)construction project some libcred. Artificius (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am a conlanger with some 45 years experience starting with a high-school acquaintance with Tolkien. Good luck with your project, and if you have any questions feel free to ask away. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I warn you against rewriting the calendar. Didn’t really work out for France or Turkmenistan. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 22:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Or you can use the metric time system like we use in Europe. Every year has 100 days (or 100 centiyears). A day is 10 hours (or 10 miliyears). 1000 minutes to the hour (1000 micro years). A millennia is a kiloyear. I think earth is a few gigayears old. It all makes total sense and since the Earth is perfectly round and it's orbit around the sun is a perfect circle it all works out. Makes tracking time so much more logical than the primitive 24 hour American clock. Sheesh guys...adapt to the 21st century. ShabiDOO 22:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The language building begins[edit]
Got a start on the Ratildonian language: Fun:Ratildonian language dictionary. Feel add on and or make suggestions. --Ratildonian King (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
2020: The year the US Gulf Coast cannot catch a break[edit]
Several hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast in a short period of time and with climate change, it will likely get worse. --Ratildonian King (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
It's really telling that these dipshits talk outside of term limits, almost as if they don't believe in democracy or something...[edit]
I am going to miss President Trump after the end of his fifth term. 1.152.110.109 (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, you read the Daily Caller, what a rube. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- As a bellwether for the rabid right, Fox News is preparing to profit from Trump's loss in November.[3] Bongolian (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care how much I like someone as president, I will never wish that they just stayed president forever. Term limits are an absolute in this country (Or any country for that matter). The logic isn't hard, you have a guy in you like, sure, it sounds wonderful for him to be in as long as the Queen of England has been. But then what happens when someone you don't like gets in, or worse, someone who ends up being a complete tyrant. Then you're screwed. All that said, I really hate it when I see people say "I wish [Insert politician here] would stay in office forever!" Yikes, careful what you wish for, you might regret it if it came true. Aaronmichael5 01:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Term limits aren't a given in most Western countries. Some countries with an elected president have them others don't. Just about no countries with prime ministers impose term limits. No Westminster system has it (UK and Canada for example) and they have had Prime Ministers certainly for more than two terms (several more in some cases). Nobody in those countries care about term limits and think term limits are stupid. If you have a bad prime minister you vote them out. If you have a rare good Prime Minister why would you bar them from running? Only countries which deeply distrust and have little faith in their own country's political system would do it. Allowing term limits does not equal staying in power forever. It means staying in power as long as you keep getting reelected (or manage to overthrow the democratic process). Lots of democratic countries have been running without term limits for a long time without the downfall of democracy or tyranny. I think term limits only make sense in unstable countries and only until they become stable. ShabiDOO 03:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Western democratic countries without term limits that have had leaders for more than two terms (sometimes far more than two terms) and are very healthy democracies: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, UK. There are several more countries with only ceremonial presidents with term limits who have little to no power and where the Prime minister (or chancellor) are the country's leaders with no term limits such as Germany. ShabiDOO 03:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, I actually like term limits, but I'm not going to knock the lack of them. My original point was that well... Trump isn't that popular so... you know, tyranny... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Western democratic countries without term limits that have had leaders for more than two terms (sometimes far more than two terms) and are very healthy democracies: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, UK. There are several more countries with only ceremonial presidents with term limits who have little to no power and where the Prime minister (or chancellor) are the country's leaders with no term limits such as Germany. ShabiDOO 03:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Term limits aren't a given in most Western countries. Some countries with an elected president have them others don't. Just about no countries with prime ministers impose term limits. No Westminster system has it (UK and Canada for example) and they have had Prime Ministers certainly for more than two terms (several more in some cases). Nobody in those countries care about term limits and think term limits are stupid. If you have a bad prime minister you vote them out. If you have a rare good Prime Minister why would you bar them from running? Only countries which deeply distrust and have little faith in their own country's political system would do it. Allowing term limits does not equal staying in power forever. It means staying in power as long as you keep getting reelected (or manage to overthrow the democratic process). Lots of democratic countries have been running without term limits for a long time without the downfall of democracy or tyranny. I think term limits only make sense in unstable countries and only until they become stable. ShabiDOO 03:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care how much I like someone as president, I will never wish that they just stayed president forever. Term limits are an absolute in this country (Or any country for that matter). The logic isn't hard, you have a guy in you like, sure, it sounds wonderful for him to be in as long as the Queen of England has been. But then what happens when someone you don't like gets in, or worse, someone who ends up being a complete tyrant. Then you're screwed. All that said, I really hate it when I see people say "I wish [Insert politician here] would stay in office forever!" Yikes, careful what you wish for, you might regret it if it came true. Aaronmichael5 01:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- As a bellwether for the rabid right, Fox News is preparing to profit from Trump's loss in November.[3] Bongolian (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- One thing that's interesting to note is that when you place the expectancy that there's no term limit, the leaders that you'll usually end up electing tend to be more easily able to place themselves "above the squabbling of the parties", which results in more stable leadership up top (even if the ministers change every so many years). Our current president (Mark Rutte) is a good example of that. Nominally, he represents the regular right wing party here, but when they had him fill out one of those tests to see what party your views alings the most with, he was found to align the most with our center-left party. On the other hand, when you instate a term limit, the push to solely represent the interests of your own political party becomes a bigger problem, because you can only be expected to get your platform through for so many years, before you have to pass over the torch over to someone else. (Funnily enough, for as much as progressives malign the Dems for being spineless towards conservatives, I'd argue that they're at least still trying to put their presidents above the squabbling. Trump just outright picks a fight with Democrats while in office and refuses to remotely try to represent the other percentage of the electorate in his policies.) While that's by no means the only problem with US politics (if I had the supreme-ordained power to rewrite your democratic system, I'd toss out everything because frankly it's mostly a load of rubbish), I do think that term limits on the position of president aren't a good thing, in combination with everything else that is shitty about your system, because it promotes a sense of demanding things to be done in short bursts, instead of gaining support for solid long-term plans. (Given that historically, a two-term president hasn't typically kept office to his own party from what I can tell). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
/ 
/ 
) 21:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald is a Trump defender[edit]
I must say, I thought he was a leftist. Lately he says: "the left is in bed with a CIA set on destroying Trump." And why does he care? Sounds like a fun thing to do, for a leftist and other rational people.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Don't look at me. Last I heard most of the leftists I know kept their distance from Greenwald and were very firm in their insistence that he wasn't one of ours. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Glenn Greenwald is a conspiratorial ass that is certainly heading towards the Russian disinformation hellhole that Wikileaks ended up falling into. That being said, Ariel, be careful with your links. You linked to the Daily Mail, tsk tsk. A portion of the transcript is here courtesy of RCP. It's seems to me that it's less an endorsement of Trump and more Greenwald diving completely in the conspiracy hole. If you believe Greenwald, the "liberal left" is now "in a full union with the neocons, the Bush-Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley and Wall Street." That's the biggest piece of horseshit I've seen -- there is a bit of a "oppose Donald Trump" union in this crowd at the moment, but it is a temporary alignment to combat Republican fascism, from all that I see... Westpoint and Goldman Sachs are still very far away from MoveOn. Add in all of of the "authoritarian" and "censorship" projection, coming from the party of Fox News and Donald Trump, and I'm pretty sure it's only a matter of time where he stands next to Julian Assange kissing Vladimir Putin's ass to obtain the next Z-grade who-cares "October Surprise" story, even if the story has more holes then a fabricated Jacob Wohl "sex scandal". 72.184.174.199 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone remember when Greenwald's associate Mona Holland (allegedly) was on this site, promoting all of Greenwald's bullshit? CoryUsar (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alright. I was just wondering what people here think of him. Thanks.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone remember when Greenwald's associate Mona Holland (allegedly) was on this site, promoting all of Greenwald's bullshit? CoryUsar (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Infobox templates?[edit]
So RW is supposed to be better than CP, yet this site doesn't appear to even have any infobox templates to use for pages on biographies and elections? LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 04:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Listen, just go fuck yourself with your formatting issues, LT. We also don't have a wall of heads hanging in effigy like Conservapedia does.[4][5] Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Where is Your Spirit?[edit]
https://www.1029thebuzz.com/2020/10/23/scariest-horror-movies-ranked-by-average-heart-rate/
Parties are done. It's more on us to collectively have a spooky time. I made a true claim that since I've watched the movie Antrum, I've had two empty fortune cookies. I watched Antrum like 2 years ago, I left that out for fun, Halloween and horror movies are supposed to be fun.
- I do not believe in ghosts. A good jump scare is what it is. To all those who disbelieve, there's a Blue Moon tonight. Spooooky. To anyone who doesn't have fun, y'all are assholes. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Counting our chickens[edit]
So apparently Trump has cancelled his DC election night celebration. They speculated on a couple possible legal reasons in the article, but danced around the personal one I think is far more likely: he doesn’t want an audience for his humiliation, and he privately imagines that’s likely. Artificius (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- So something shortsighted occurred to me: if you want to make Trump suffer and his movement as small as possible, dare him to run the DC event somehow. Get him out there on election night in a place and public venue where he can't hide from cameras when he loses. Inasmuch as we can, we should call him out on cancelling the DC event. Make his face cringe, watch him fail in a way that can't be forgotten. Artificius (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- his ego is such that he cannot stand to be wrong and when faced with the facts proving he is wrong, he double downs on the his wrongness, angry at being contradicted. he will go to great lengths just out of spite at the audacity of doubting even the most ridiculous bullshit. he'll probably not even believe it himself, but fuck you, you'll see. if people are concerned he wont accept electoral defeat, and start squatting in the white house, its probably not a good idea to compound the defeat and loss of face with an expensive pomp and glory victory parade that will be just rubbing his face in his arrogance and ridiculousness. he might just turn around and go back in side, while armed fuck nuts in maga hats start shooting. its good hes cancelled such events. he coming to terms with losing, and maybe trying to think of the best way to save face in doing so. its not so much that we should be gracious in victory, though it is the classy thing to do, but in victory should it be ours, its preferable that he and his pals should fuck off as quickly and as painlessly as possible. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's what I'm saying: the worse and more stinging the loss the quicker this gets over with. One family getting massacred is all it takes to board up the haunted house and convince the latest proprietors there's nothing to salvage there, a string of disappearances and institutionalizations stretched across decades if not centuries is apparently always cause to come back and give it another go. Trump on camera grimacing and shortly after jumping on Twitter to claim it was all rigged then flailing about to his justices not rigging the thing for him or for "housewives" betraying him while he gives the Senate to dems would be... glorious. The political equivalent of the unfortunate horror movie residents leaving one babbling orphan to be raised by the state. "They're always there when I dream. They keep saying that we'll make Anselhaus great again, if only I return..."Artificius (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- his ego is such that he cannot stand to be wrong and when faced with the facts proving he is wrong, he double downs on the his wrongness, angry at being contradicted. he will go to great lengths just out of spite at the audacity of doubting even the most ridiculous bullshit. he'll probably not even believe it himself, but fuck you, you'll see. if people are concerned he wont accept electoral defeat, and start squatting in the white house, its probably not a good idea to compound the defeat and loss of face with an expensive pomp and glory victory parade that will be just rubbing his face in his arrogance and ridiculousness. he might just turn around and go back in side, while armed fuck nuts in maga hats start shooting. its good hes cancelled such events. he coming to terms with losing, and maybe trying to think of the best way to save face in doing so. its not so much that we should be gracious in victory, though it is the classy thing to do, but in victory should it be ours, its preferable that he and his pals should fuck off as quickly and as painlessly as possible. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Popper's Analogy[edit]
Is anyone familiar with this Popper quote:“The empirical basis of objective science has thus nothing ‘absolute’ about it. Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or ‘given’ base; and if we stop driving the piles deeper, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop, when we are satisfied that the piles are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being" https://explanantia.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/from-karl-poppers-the-logic-of-scientific-discovery-1934/comment-page-1/. I think that this is one of the best characterisations of science, it certainly melds with my conception of the enterprise. It assimilates Ottto Neurath's similie of the boat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurath%27s_ boat with Quine's web of belief, and at the same time it avoids Sellars's Myth of The Given; highlighting that philosophers such as Quine, Carnap, Neurath, and Popper were keenly aware of the myth of the given and were immune to Sellars's criticisms.Leucippus (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Scariest Halloween costume of all[edit]
A high priced Washington lobbyist peddling influence. That is the scariest costume of all. --Ratildonian King (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, a couple's costume; an IRS agent married to a Child Protective Services agent. CoryUsar (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, that is scarier. Told my brother about your post and he agreed. He told me, "Imagine if they had kids". Yes that is scary. --Ratildonian King (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- a different crowd might have responded with variations of brown people or ladies with opinions. there are likely some who will insist on clowns being the scariest thing ever, but they are liars. 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dressing up like Vladimir Lenin might scare right wing nuts. He will rise from the dead to make us Communist. --Ratildonian King (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dress up as a political analyst reporting on a 269-269 Electoral College tie. That's pretty damn scary. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 21:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DuceMoosolini I did like it, I have a soft spot for 'map guy'. (Can never remember Steve Kornacki's name unless I look it up, so I always call him 'map guy' on election night.)--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 00:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dress up as a political analyst reporting on a 269-269 Electoral College tie. That's pretty damn scary.
- Dressing up like Vladimir Lenin might scare right wing nuts. He will rise from the dead to make us Communist. --Ratildonian King (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- a different crowd might have responded with variations of brown people or ladies with opinions. there are likely some who will insist on clowns being the scariest thing ever, but they are liars. 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, that is scarier. Told my brother about your post and he agreed. He told me, "Imagine if they had kids". Yes that is scary. --Ratildonian King (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
T-72 Hours until (one of) the single biggest election(s) in the history of The United States.[edit]
If you haven't voted yet, get out VOTE on election day (I think early voting technically ended yesterday)! No matter who you support there is too much at stake to not vote: every vote matters! Aaronmichael5 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I love your sentiment, but the biggest election was in 1860. If history proves this one bigger, then Heaven help us. Artificius (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, Honest Abe. I'll concede that I guess. Change it to "One of" the biggest. Aaronmichael5 00:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- By sheer number of voters it will be the biggest. Of course, that’s just population growth, but y’know. Personally, I’m voting on the Third after uni classes. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 06:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- By sheer number of voters it will be the biggest. Of course, that’s just population growth, but y’know. Personally, I’m voting on the Third after uni classes.
- Ah yes, Honest Abe. I'll concede that I guess. Change it to "One of" the biggest. Aaronmichael5 00:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Updated the 2020 U.S. presidential election article to have the canadates[edit]
Finally got around to adding the Dem/GOP candidates to 2020 U.S. presidential election. *Checks calendar* Only 3 days to the election.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 06:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Covid-19 Deaths[edit]
This WaPo post detailing the administration deciding that herd immunity is the strategy for dealing with this virus brought up an intersting statistical correlation:
...For every 1,000 new cases each day, then, we can expect 18 deaths two weeks later. For every 74,000 new cases in the country — the rate at which new infections are adding up at this point — we can expect 1,300 new deaths in two weeks’ time.
That this metric has been so steady, falling in a range of 1.5 percent to 2 percent on 90 percent of days since then, suggests that not much has changed in our ability to combat the virus over the past four months. Yes, the number of deaths as a function of recorded cases is down from the spring. But it’s still steady, a grim shackle from which the country can’t shake free.
Seems like an issue to have this many people die a day, but the GOP is death cult so.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1) Cases are not infections, only infections that are recorded. The death rate is .02 per case, but about .0067 per infection. Something like 35 million people in the US had covid, but the vast majority were asymptomatic or had such minor symptoms as to not be a worry. Of course, when talking millions of infections, every million cases is around 6700 deaths
- 2) COVID is interesting, in that the rich simply can't buy their way to health. While normally, the rich can get better medical care, skip the waiting list for organ transplants, get surgeries that ordinary people could never afford or insurance companies would never approve, get private nurses, etc etc, this is not one of those situations. If you are rich, your chance of survival isn't really different than if you were poor. At least relative to health; the rich tend to be healthier to begin with, seeing as they don't have to breathe coal dust or work double shifts just to afford greasy fast food. So you would think that the GOP would be a little more concerned about COVID.
- 3) I think I said it a while back, but I'll repeat it. If we had infinite money, or at the very least a budget surplus and minimal public debt, the answer would've been simple; close the economy, take on as much debt as necessary, then pay down the debt after the virus passes. But the rich have been avoiding taxes for decades, and as a result the US is broke. It would have been difficult pay down the debt even if COVID hadn't hit. So we don't have the option of "close the economy". Yes, people are going to die from COVID as a result, but a crapton more would die from poverty and crime if we go bankrupt. Everyone is going to suffer from this mess, but for the first time, the rich are going to suffer too, even if they don't suffer as much. And we need to drill it into the tax cheats' heads that this is their fault we can't shut down and had to let hundreds of thousands die, that actions do have consequences and it's not just poor people who will suffer if rich people keep avoiding taxes. CoryUsar (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- "as a result the US is broke." We literally pumped between $4 and $8 Trillion dollars into the economy. We sent it to the wrong people. Still doesn't justify thousands of unnecessary death.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- How many people will die if we cut funding for schools? CoryUsar (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Who is talking cutting funding? Literally no one. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The math works out. Two weeks ago, October 12th - 15th saw 213,141 confirmed or likely cases of Covid. Using the 1.8% multiplier, you would expect about 3,835 deaths between October 26th and October 29th. The actual amount: 3,463, off by only 10%. Based on the reported cases from the 26th to the 29th, it would project 5,507 deaths between November 10th and November 13th. I'd be willing to bet serious money at least 5,000 deaths happen during this period.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- We have to cut funding if there is no money. Remember "Guns Butter"? Every dollar spent on warships is a dollar that can't be spent on medical care. Same with the bailouts and stimulus and whatnot; every dollar spent on this lockdown is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere. That's part of why I utterly despise tax cuts for the wealthy; it's not a matter of "fair", it's a matter of life and death for the country as a whole. The cold, hard truth is that we aren't going to magic ourselves out of debt, we are in a crisis that will only be solved by printing money (wrecking the world economy in the process, killing millions), by defaulting (again, wrecking the world economy, again killing millions), or cutting government spending on critical infrastructure and investment (killing millions). CoryUsar (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- That’s not how it works when the government in question has sovereign control of a fiat currency. There is no constraint (at all) on the number of US Dollars that the US federal government can spend. It could pay off the entire debt at any time. The economic function of federal taxes is not to pay for things, but to remove money from the system and thereby reduce inflation. Generally in combination with other policies to meet a specific target (2% per year lately). The guns/butter tradeoff is a matter of physical resource constraints, not arbitrary numbers in an account or on paper. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is not how inflation works in any surplus economy. Go to the market, the shoe store, the auto dealer, and you find plenty of food, shoes and automobiles. The fundamentals of competition limits raising prices. i.e., capitalism works to counter inflationary pressures when productivity is high. Today all currencies are fiat currencies. Welcome to the 21st century.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- That’s not how it works when the government in question has sovereign control of a fiat currency. There is no constraint (at all) on the number of US Dollars that the US federal government can spend. It could pay off the entire debt at any time. The economic function of federal taxes is not to pay for things, but to remove money from the system and thereby reduce inflation. Generally in combination with other policies to meet a specific target (2% per year lately). The guns/butter tradeoff is a matter of physical resource constraints, not arbitrary numbers in an account or on paper. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- We have to cut funding if there is no money. Remember "Guns Butter"? Every dollar spent on warships is a dollar that can't be spent on medical care. Same with the bailouts and stimulus and whatnot; every dollar spent on this lockdown is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere. That's part of why I utterly despise tax cuts for the wealthy; it's not a matter of "fair", it's a matter of life and death for the country as a whole. The cold, hard truth is that we aren't going to magic ourselves out of debt, we are in a crisis that will only be solved by printing money (wrecking the world economy in the process, killing millions), by defaulting (again, wrecking the world economy, again killing millions), or cutting government spending on critical infrastructure and investment (killing millions). CoryUsar (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- How many people will die if we cut funding for schools? CoryUsar (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- "as a result the US is broke." We literally pumped between $4 and $8 Trillion dollars into the economy. We sent it to the wrong people. Still doesn't justify thousands of unnecessary death.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Terms synonymous with Donald Trump[edit]
- Liar
- Draft Dodger
- Con Artist
- Racist
- Sexist
- Ableist
- Homophobe
- Snake Oil Salesman
- Medical Quack
- Religious Quack
- Fascist
- Negligent
- Bully
- Rapist
- Child Abuser
- Megalomania
- Neo-Nazi
- Glutton
- Anti-Semite
- Islamophobic
This list is incomplete. I probably missed a lot. --Ratildonian King (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Try the Fun:Trump synonym generator. Bongolian (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 Or you could add this userbox I made about a year ago to your userpage. --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularR
asoning🎄See my experiments 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Rationalzombie94 Or you could add this userbox I made about a year ago to your userpage. --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularR
So I think I'm getting over solipsism[edit]
After a long and hard time with it I am getting over solipsism. It still stings every now and then but after spending some time on the subreddit and seeing how bonkers it is I'm slowly moving past being able to defend it as something that actually matters. It might say something about our alleged certainty of knowledge but apart from simple doubt there's not much else. Well that and I saw this link on the reddit:https://yourconstruct3.blogspot.com/
After which I quickly saw how nonsensical it was.Machina (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now, that's a great step. But, while deciding that something you used to believe is wrong is hard, the really important lesson you should take from it is how you realized it was wrong. Having a serious meta-cognitive framework that allows you to question yourself is so important to being a good skeptic. You can probably be a good person without one though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Machina, I have been where you have been. I agree with ikanreed, it is tough to leave behind a worldview. It is better to leave dogmatic views behind. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It's tough, because it challenged "How do I know" and I didn't have an answer for it. It doesn't feel good to have your assumptions challenged like that. But the more I read on it the more it was just the same thing repeated over and over and most of the arguments solipsists had in favor of their view was just casting doubt on realism, and in the end it amounted to "I don't know" but them grounding their belief in "you can't disprove it". They're right, I can't. But Occam's Razor or being unable to disprove something doesn't make it right. I can't say I left this completely unscathed. I am convinced that other people exist and that there is an external reality, but at the same time I know it's not based on anything 100% solid.
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.
Arguments like the above made it hard to let go. Though looking at it again I question his logic. It says the only thing existing is my state of being at that point, but I would argue everything around me does too (it's not faith, I mean if it didn't exist then why is it there?). It was from a thread I posted earlier, but now that I look at it again I notice him changing his stance a few times once holes are found in his reasoning and logic, to the point that he presupposes one is experiencing a thing. At the point it became to absurd to genuinely believe it was the end of Occam's Razor (which favors realism). I'll admit part of me wants a definitive counter to his statement, but I can try and settle for ignoring it since every other point he made in the thread was shot down.Machina (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is excellent reasoning. When you make a position your default and everything else has to overcome a standard it doesn't, it cheapens the belief. (I've got some cheap beliefs myself) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4846074/fpart/1/vc/1 This is the thread for the record. But yes, the more I saw him "Arguing" (since he wasn't really making points just doubting, which to me isn't really an argument though sometimes it is depending on the content) the more absurd his rendition of solipsism because to the point that you couldn't really claim Occam's Razor anymore. I kind of drew the line at "presupposing you're experiencing a thing", because it just leaves me as having an experience. I mean.....duh but so what? Wouldn't the mind and self fall under that experience as well? I mean it seems to me like his point can be turned back on himself as you presuppose there is an experiencer or that you exist. I mean at what point to we draw the line on presuppositions?Machina (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, why do you like this trip report forum so much? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh I don't care about the trip report part of it, I don't think the claims that those substances lead to any realization have merit as it's just a drug. I'm more concerned about this specific sub forum and the arguments made in it which have nothing to do with psychedelics.Machina (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I backslide today though. It doesn't sting like it did before, but it's still tough trying to get over that I can't prove or determine if other people exist.
Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.
The answer is that it's not only possible, a logical case can be made that it's likely.
For example, the Simulation Argument goes like this:
It's pretty clear that computers will eventually be so powerful that even a normal household pc can simulate a whole person's life so well that someone inside the simulation can't tell it's not real. If that happens, and becomes common, there will quickly end up being more simulates people than real people, so the odds will be that any given person is a simulation. And there's no reason to think that hasn't already happened, and you're inside such a simulation.
On the other hand, I have some good news:
You're definitely not the only real person, because I know I (or at least my thoughts and perceptions) exist.
So now you can let me know if you are real, and we'll be set.
Well except that's exactly what a fake person would say. So we're screwed.
Or at least I am.
I mean I know there is no reason to NOT believe that the people around me are real and therefor exist, it just sucks I can't prove it.Machina (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's start simple, define "Real" in a way that they're not real. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I don't even know where to begin with defining real. I mean to know what is real I would have to know what is fake. But when it comes to reality how do you define "fake"? My brain hurts just thinking about it.Machina (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not posing this to Machina but to everyone. If you one day suddenly realised you were embedded on a holodeck simulation that you couldn't get out of and realised nobody else was real...would that change anything for you? Would you still care about the people you've lived your whole life with or see them as empty objects? Considering you are still bound by the laws and consequences of that world and still had the emotional need for caring relationships with people etc...do you imagine it wouldn't take you long to forget about it and continue on as though nothing had changed? ShabiDOO 01:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I think it'd turn into The Truman Show in space. You'd be compelled to try and escape and find out who was fucking with you and why. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay so, 20 years later...no success in escaping. Still going insane and fighting it? ShabiDOO 03:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- So that question is literally the point of The Myth of Sisyphus. The success isn't the point of seeking a higher ideal, the struggle to do so itself is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I mean, in this case the scenario is far less absurd because you actually "know" that you are living in a simulation and there is a far higher chance there is meaning in that simulation even if you cannot figure it out. So yeah, after 20 years you get no new information nor any indication that it is coming nor the slightest hint that you could ever escape I mean, yeah you might think the struggle to insist you can find out something out or escape is noble, it is also problematic to think that if you bash your head against the wall for the 1000th time something other than your head getting hurt will happen. But of course, each to their own. I would say obsessing over solipsism is the equivalent of bashing your head against the wall 1000 times only its even worse cause, in this case we don't even have the slightest clue if people are real or not (let alone any indication there is an answer out there or method to discovering it). It seems a lot more silly when you compare it with say, the struggle to find out if indeed you will reincarnate as an elephant in your next life (and what that means). ShabiDOO 17:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- So that question is literally the point of The Myth of Sisyphus. The success isn't the point of seeking a higher ideal, the struggle to do so itself is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay so, 20 years later...no success in escaping. Still going insane and fighting it? ShabiDOO 03:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I think it'd turn into The Truman Show in space. You'd be compelled to try and escape and find out who was fucking with you and why. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not posing this to Machina but to everyone. If you one day suddenly realised you were embedded on a holodeck simulation that you couldn't get out of and realised nobody else was real...would that change anything for you? Would you still care about the people you've lived your whole life with or see them as empty objects? Considering you are still bound by the laws and consequences of that world and still had the emotional need for caring relationships with people etc...do you imagine it wouldn't take you long to forget about it and continue on as though nothing had changed? ShabiDOO 01:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
In the complete absence of any further corroboration of the initial epiphany, I'll happily concede that most people would eventually chalk it off as a psychotic episode and get on with their lives. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
But he is assuming that you know it is so and therefor what do you do then? This is assuming there is further corroboration. I think most people would commit suicide at that point or try to break out as mentioned before. I mean, it's not real. They aren't real. None of it matters. It's not hard to imagine what most folks would do. But Shabi showcases bad philosophy again after losing the battle to nihilism in the previous threads on it. Solipsism is not the equivalent of bashing your head on the wall of a known simulation. Obsessing over it seems to be a normal response to having the certainty of everything you care about existing being ripped from under you. In the case of the holodeck trying to escape or suicide is the normal response, one can't simply pretend it's real anymore. In the case of solipsism it's troubling because one doesn't know how to really act anymore without that level of certainty. That's why most of the questions one finds on it in the internet are about how to disprove it or how it could be wrong. Calling it "silly" is honestly a callous answer. What IS silly is whether you'll reincarnate or not. I mean we are talking about whether everything in your life has been a lie or not. You honestly can't compare the two. That's why is was (and to be honest still is) hard to get over because you can't prove it wrong or right, and that fact alone is enough to rattle almost anyone. I mean if you can't prove stuff is real, what then?Machina (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No I think people with mental problems would commit suicide. Just as people with a propensity for mental problems obsess over solipsism. As you can see, 99.99% of the world get over the seed of doubt over solipsism and move on. Your stupid criticism of philosophy doesn't impress me Machina. You are the use who by far posts the most philosophical content here and seems singularly consumed by philosophical questions like "what is real" ... and obviously cares deeply about the answer. You still don't even know what philosophy is because I wasn't being in the slightest philosophical. I was pointing out that obsessing over one of the most trivial metaphysical questions is pointless, stupid and very bad for your state of mind. That is not a philosophical observation but a psychological one. For a guy who claims philosophy is so useless and has no practical application, you sure have picked the most useless question with zero practical application to obsess over. Philosophy won't help you here, behavioural cognitive therapy might. ShabiDOO 01:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Again wrong Shabi. Most people who found out that everything they knew was a lie (or solipsism is true) would off themselves. It would be weird if someone didn't. You call it trivial but it is actually one of the biggest metaphysical questions there is, because it can't be solved. The foundation of our knowledge cannot be solved. We cannot prove if there is an external reality or not. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-philosophical-theory-of-solipsism And who said philosophy was about being practical? No one. There are some who eschew comfort for truth or to reckon with such things. If you wanted practicality then philosophy isn't for you, or if you seek comfort. It's a stark reminder of how much we take for granted and how it's based on nothing. It's hard to let go because of that.Machina (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, if someone can have dreams of people they never met who’s to say one can’t be dreaming right now?Machina (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- No Machina...please pay attention. I said that you criticised philosophy for not being practical and for being useless (I haven't made a claim one way or another...you were the only one who made the claim). And yet...of the myriad of philosophical questions to deal with...you are obsessing over arguably the MOST USELESS and LEAST PRACTICAL of all philosophical questions (solipsism). So I mean, honestly what's your deal? It's like someone saying you shouldn't talk about junkfood or consume junk food because it's really fatty and yet that person never stop talking about deep fried butter and actually consumes a lot of it. I am not wrong. You bring up philosophical topics here more than anyone else (this is demonstrably true) and you talk endlessly about a subject in a field you claim is pointless to talk about (also demonstrably true). So what I suggest is: 1) consider making up your mind before making broad claims 2) consider staying far away from metaphysical questions and if you must return only do so when you are mentally equipped to handle it 3) you might need professional help to get over solipsism ShabiDOO 04:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Because as a discipline it has a habit of digging up problems (https://www.quora.com/I-believe-in-Solipsism-what-causes-this/answer/Ferdi-Sannes?ch=10&share=1cfd7cfd&srid=uHpSfZ) (https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-else-scared-of-solipsism-that-everyone-and-everything-around-you-is-just-a-figment-of-your-imagination-and-youre-actually-all-alone)Machina (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest I only encountered the topic once during part (and only part) of only one single class and I had not ever encountered the topic again (reading or talking about it) for years until you brought it up here some time back now. It is a thought experiment used as a stepping stone towards far more interesting questions. So to be honest, in my estimate solipsism represents a miniscule fraction of the field of philosophy and you have talked about it more than all the philosophers I've ever read combined and more than my fellow philosophy students and professors ever talked about it combined (more than both of those combined in fact). So the problem seems to be less to do with the field and more to do with some individuals ability to cope with the question. No? ShabiDOO 04:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Then why do some folks say it’s true? (https://qr.ae/pNbPG2) According to the links the problem is bigger than most philosopher realize.Machina (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- You just posted a quora link, not a link to an academic journal or book or even a lecture. Some random person on the internet said solipsism is true. Well another random person on the internet said that there were aliens at the first thanks giving. You are a university student, you should know by now the value of using sound sources and referring to arguments and debate that are evidence based and of a critical nature. ShabiDOO 00:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. But why is it a problem? According to YouGov, two percent of the people they asked professed to believing that the earth is flat. Flat Earth can be demonstrated to be false inferentially. Greek philosophers did that more than 2300 years ago. Direct proof is done by observing the planet revolve in space. Still, some people don't believe the evidence. Other minds exist. We know this inferentially, by interacting with them. We know it directly using machines that can monitor mental activity. MIT researchers have created a machine that essentially reads minds. What do you say to people for whom no evidence is sufficient to overcome their prejudices?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
As I have said before it doesn’t matter what the journal or the article is because it boils down to the same thing, what someone else said. The point is the argument not where it came from. You keep trying to dodge the questions. Also we cannot infer that other people have minds. All that evidence is sensory evidence and they can’t still be P zombies. An MRI proves nothing, all I see are lights on the screen. Nothing short of literally bridging two people together would prove the existence of other minds. Also if that argument wasn’t enough then try this one: https://www.quora.com/Is-Solipsism-really-considered/answer/Bert-LeysathMachina (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you cannot find a good source (which you should be easily able to do but you won't cause you are intellectually lazy) then sum up the argument IN YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS! Nobody here gives a shit what some joe-blow on the internet has to say about solipsism. I am yet, in all of your ramblings on solipsism, to read a single argument that presents any evidence that we should take the claim of solipsism seriously (beyond the fact that it is "possible"). Any intelligent asshole should recognise that it is theoretically possible that nobody else is real. Just as the existence of an afterlife is theoretically "possible" (or fill in the blank with possible yet completely unproven claims). None of that matters if there isn't a single shred of evidence that this is the case nor a single method by which we could falsify that statement. So Machina: What is your actual question I am apparently dodging? State it in your own words and stop redirecting me to stupid websites. I am not clicking on anymore bloody links. Make your case here, arguments, evidence, questions or claims in your own words. If it takes a few days for you to work it out and paste it here, fine, that is entirely preferable to more god damn quora links. ShabiDOO 03:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Or you could spend the time to read it just like I did. The prevailing attitude is that most philosophers are just afraid of solipsism (at least according to the Reddit page I saw. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/solipsism/comments/9ck74k/why_people_are_afraid_to_believe_in_solipsism/ ) Others think it is glimpsing the truth (https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/21984-fear-of-the-truth-of-solipsism/). Stop being lazy Shabi and actually read the links I’m posting, I mean I did it in like 5 minutes, not even. Then if you still feel that way I’ll concede defeat.Machina (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Would that concession of defeat involve making your own arguments in your own words from now on? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Something like that or admitting that solipsism is not all that an I am overreacting. That being said I’ve been following this advice about it, ERP therapy which sounds like letting the thoughts come and not reacting (https://qr.ae/pNbMWy)Machina (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Think of it this way. Solipsism is just one of a number of pathological philosophies that almost nobody believes because they run counter to human intuition. Another one is the idea that reality as we know it is a construct of superior beings. That is we are sentient programs, interactive A.I., and we are not real as people. Thus instead of you, Machina, being the only real human, there are no real humans at all. Why take such an idea seriously? My view is, even if a pathology governed the universe as I know it, I can't let it affect my view of my own life. That includes my philosophy. "There is a distant God, who lives in a teapot, revolving around a sun in another galaxy. He determines every aspect of my life." No. Just no.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Why take it seriously? Because of the threads I have linked that Shabi is too lazy to read and because of comments like this when they refer to solipsism as the argument from ignorance: "I totally agree with you here. Unfortunately, when strict logic and one's individual, immediate perception suggest something, it moves out of the realm of "ad ignoratiam" as you put it."Machina (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I had previously wasted my free time reading your stupid links (I must have read at least 20 of them by now) and literally nothing was read-worthy. So it's a little rich to call someone else lazy for not reading yet another bunch of links Machina when you won't spend a small amount of time respecting people participating in your conversation by finding a source other than a stupid bloody website where people babble about shit but offer few useful arguments. Okay, fine...I read everything but the first "you are a God" site because that is fucking endless pages and after reading the first I am utterly certain it is a waste of time. Summarise it if you want, it is completely unreasonable to expect people to read things that long. The shroomery site is an extremely painful read of people going: "well yeah solipsism is worth taking seriously", "uhh I beg to differ", "is so", "nuh-uh" and then a few uneloquent but reasonable arguments against it. The first quora link is equally painful read I mean: "We all live as an immortal pure positive energy being we call Soul, vibrating on a very high frequency". How can you not read that and not think "what the fuck"? It gets worse and worse as you read on. It's all wishy washy conjecture, a lot of it doesn't even make sense even if you use the greatest depths of your imagination and it isn't accompanied by any evidence. "Before you were born your soul split into a conscious and unconscious part of the soul"? How the hell does he know this? Everything that follows it are people just defining solipsism and reasonably critiquing it. What about that page do you think is insightful or worthy of asking people to waste their time reading? The second quora link is a reasonable criticism of solipsism. The third one (why so fucking many Machina...seriously?) The third link is just a guy wondering if "maybe it is true" providing no real reason to take it seriously and zero evidence. Why did you link that? The reddit link is just a guy trying to convince people that solipsism is just the same as not believing in God when in reality they are two incomparable things (a negative claim vs rejecting a positive claim and a claim without evidence vs. a claim with evidence). And then a few people laughing at how silly it is (which is it). The actualized link is just about a person suffering from obsession over solipsism and not a single argument on why it should be taken seriously. The final quora link (yes there is yet again another quora link) is just a guy suggesting ERP, which I think is an utterly fantastic idea. The last link is the only one worth taking seriously. I'm really quite worried about you Machina and I fear that your obsession over solipsism is more troubling than you are letting on. As I've said before we have no reason to take solipsism seriously but simply accept that it is a possibility. Worrying about it is entirely pointless because there is no evidence it is the case and we are currently unable (possible never will be) to determine if it is the case (just like the existence of an afterlife). If you are in fact suffering from this then I could not more strongly recommend CBT such as ERP. ShabiDOO 01:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- As for "conceding defeat", reevaluating your ideas should not be considered "defeat". It is only defeat if you refuse to reevaluate your ideas or at least see things from a different perspective or consider that your 100% certainty in something is perhaps unfounded. ShabiDOO 01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I had previously wasted my free time reading your stupid links (I must have read at least 20 of them by now) and literally nothing was read-worthy. So it's a little rich to call someone else lazy for not reading yet another bunch of links Machina when you won't spend a small amount of time respecting people participating in your conversation by finding a source other than a stupid bloody website where people babble about shit but offer few useful arguments. Okay, fine...I read everything but the first "you are a God" site because that is fucking endless pages and after reading the first I am utterly certain it is a waste of time. Summarise it if you want, it is completely unreasonable to expect people to read things that long. The shroomery site is an extremely painful read of people going: "well yeah solipsism is worth taking seriously", "uhh I beg to differ", "is so", "nuh-uh" and then a few uneloquent but reasonable arguments against it. The first quora link is equally painful read I mean: "We all live as an immortal pure positive energy being we call Soul, vibrating on a very high frequency". How can you not read that and not think "what the fuck"? It gets worse and worse as you read on. It's all wishy washy conjecture, a lot of it doesn't even make sense even if you use the greatest depths of your imagination and it isn't accompanied by any evidence. "Before you were born your soul split into a conscious and unconscious part of the soul"? How the hell does he know this? Everything that follows it are people just defining solipsism and reasonably critiquing it. What about that page do you think is insightful or worthy of asking people to waste their time reading? The second quora link is a reasonable criticism of solipsism. The third one (why so fucking many Machina...seriously?) The third link is just a guy wondering if "maybe it is true" providing no real reason to take it seriously and zero evidence. Why did you link that? The reddit link is just a guy trying to convince people that solipsism is just the same as not believing in God when in reality they are two incomparable things (a negative claim vs rejecting a positive claim and a claim without evidence vs. a claim with evidence). And then a few people laughing at how silly it is (which is it). The actualized link is just about a person suffering from obsession over solipsism and not a single argument on why it should be taken seriously. The final quora link (yes there is yet again another quora link) is just a guy suggesting ERP, which I think is an utterly fantastic idea. The last link is the only one worth taking seriously. I'm really quite worried about you Machina and I fear that your obsession over solipsism is more troubling than you are letting on. As I've said before we have no reason to take solipsism seriously but simply accept that it is a possibility. Worrying about it is entirely pointless because there is no evidence it is the case and we are currently unable (possible never will be) to determine if it is the case (just like the existence of an afterlife). If you are in fact suffering from this then I could not more strongly recommend CBT such as ERP. ShabiDOO 01:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the link about the guy who tried to argue that we are all solipsists in superposition? That was honestly the weirdest one personally (https://www.quora.com/Is-Solipsism-really-considered/answer/Bert-Leysath). But when it comes to solipsism there is still the problem of other minds/consciousness, how do I know everyone else isn't just P-Zombies?
”
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?”
Anselm’s Ontological Argument[edit]
Can Christians define their god as “the greatest conceivable being” and still maintain orthodox descriptions of their god. Some orthodox description of the Christian god seem inconceivable. For example, the idea of the Trinity and Jesus being both fully god and fully human.Bonesquad11 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- No. They cannot. In fact even a mediocre God wouldn't have created a place like this. ShabiDOO 20:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- doesnt matter if something is inconceivable. physical impossibilities matter little when god has miracles at their disposal. miracles are by definition impossible to us, they are therefore evidence of the divine. i dont get apologia that tries explaining magic powers with spurious physics or obviously flawed logic. anything that can be explained by science is neither god nor miracle, and any logical flaw in our view of god can be brushed aside by the miraculous and the divine not constrained by our limited understanding of a being that transcends earthly rules of physics and human logic. we are connected to god not via reason but via faith. reducing god to the mundane might mean one faith is lacking and must surely be some sort blasphemy. i cant imagine any convoluted argument would convince an atheist to become a believer, some kind of mental leap will always be required. who are apologists trying to convince? why should we bother arguing with them? all the argument i require is that i am not bound by the rules of their book AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- How do you define a God? How do you prove that a God exists using scientific parameters? If an all knowing and all power being exists, surely there can be a way to make contact using scientific instruments. If a God took the time to create a universe and everything in it then said God can make contact with humanity. Why bother creating life if you ignore it? --Ratildonian King (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- To be the Devil's advocate, possibly for the same reason I set Stellaris to observe or Planetary Annihilation with maxed out AI and leave them to cook overnight. In those cases it's not like God doesn't care, he's just a lazy jerk and wants the highlights, not a fuggin' plan for every individual. Artificius (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- the faithful have to jump through all sorts of hoops to rational all manner of calamities that befalls mankind as being anything other than neglect or accident. even malicious intent is preferred. at least that shows interest or competence. hurricanes and disease are divine punishment for our sins, we bring calamity on ourselves, harsh lessons but needed. tough love. they may as well say we walked into a door and it was our fault for making him angry. he loves us really and he wouldnt hurt us if we hadnt burnt his dinner. its the only way we'll learn and he wouldnt hurt us if he didnt love us so much. the religious are battered wives. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Bible is clear that we cannot fully know God[6], although we can supposedly know some stuff about it/him/her/them. Roman Catholic theology traditionally denies this and says God is knowable, while on the opposite side of theology, Islam is clear that God is unknowable. Neither position makes much sense imo. --Annanoon (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The well-intentioned defense that perpetuates the injustice[edit]
I was thinking that there is a general pattern in which a person with good intentions tries to defend the victim of an injustice, but their defense actually perpetuates (at least partially) the injustice. Some examples:
- The good guy who fights a violent bully by saying: "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" Although he is exposing the cowardice of the bully, he is also perpetuating the idea of a society built on violence, just with the rule that violence should happen between people of the "same sizes."
- The one who makes fun of homophobes by insinuating or even revealing that there are homosexuals. It's using their fears as a weapon, but also perpetuating the idea that being homosexual is despicable.
- Somebody who fights body shaming by noticing aesthetic defects of the bullies. Albeit the intention might be pointing out that nobody is perfect, it is still perpetuating the idea of attacking people by their physical appearance (what if the bullies are actually beautiful?)
I think you got the idea.-TheOldMan (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree.
- First off, I don't believe in complete non-violence; the pacifist is the worst kind of parasite, claiming moral superiority over the violent upon whom they depend. Bullies? The first thing you learn in elementary school is that if you punch a bully once, you'll get your ass kicked, but will never have to deal with the bully again. Bullies are looking for easy prey, and they don't want to beat someone up if it means they get a bloody nose out of the deal. Also, be wary of sticking up for the kid who isn't fighting back; if they won't defend themselves, what makes you think they would ever go out of their way to defend you?
- Second, pointing out that homophobes are often gay isn't about reinforcing "gay = bad". Rather, it's about showing there's no credibility among anti-gay people, and that even if they do believe being gay is wrong, the reason for their crusade against gay people is due to moral arithmetic; if I do wrong thing X, but convince two other people to stop doing wrong thing X, somehow I'm a good person. That's why we let firefighters occasionally commit arson </sarcasm>. It's also the whole "when you point one finger at someone, three are pointing at you" thing, basically making their attacks on others also attacks on themselves.
- Back to bullies. It's another glass houses scenario, and people who body shame are often projecting their own insecurities on others; many people are beautiful because they have so many insecurities that they are constantly working out or going to the spa or whatever. Being body shamed themselves will piss them off, but hopefully through emotional pain, they learn to either not harass others, or that being ugly in itself is not the only thing that defines someone. To misquote Bobby Hill "I'm fat. So what? I'm also funny, have friends, a girlfriend. So I have a few extra pounds. Eh. I'm going to go outside and squirt my girlfriend with this supersoaker. What are you going to do?" CoryUsar (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- "First off, I don't believe in complete non-violence"
- Neither do I. I'm afraid my first example was misunderstood. I'm not against defending themselves or others from bullies, even by violence if necessary. My example was the attitude summarized by the sentence: "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" That's the wrong framing. The problem is bullying no matter who is physically bigger. Let's say the bully and the victim are of similar size, or even the bully is smaller then the victim. Is it OK then? Of course not.
- "if you punch a bully once, you'll get your ass kicked, but will never have to deal with the bully again."
- That's false. Actually, it is a common theme that a bully will seek revenge. Anyway, that was not my point.
- "Second, pointing out that homophobes are often gay isn't about reinforcing "gay = bad". Rather, it's about showing there's no credibility among anti-gay people"
- Note that my example included insinuating that homophobes are gay. How calling gay an homophobe, who is heterosexual, is not homophobic by itself? Also, you claim that homophobes are often gay is unsubstantiated an probably false.
- "people who body shame are often projecting their own insecurities on others"
- Maybe. But what if that is not the case? Surely there are Brad-Pitt-looking men and Charlize-Theron-looking women who body shame other people but cannot be body shamed. That seems like giving them a free pass.
- "To misquote Bobby Hill "I'm fat. So what? I'm also funny, have friends, a girlfriend..."
- That's a much better attitude: Claming of having other good qualities, instead of body shaming the bully. This strategy doesn't suffer from the problem I'm pointing at in this thread.-TheOldMan (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't think Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron are incredibly insecure in their looks? They're aging fast, and every new wrinkle is basically life and death for their careers. As for homophobes, it's not about insisting being gay is wrong, but rather "we don't have respect for your opinion, and your continued harassment is actually costing you social status". That's basically what every insult is; attempting to convince someone they have less social status and are less 'valuable' to society in some form. Emotional pain exists for a very good reason; your life depends less on not being eaten by tigers and more on not pissing off the rest of the tribe so much that they throw you to the tigers. CoryUsar (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- "You don't think Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron are incredibly insecure in their looks?"
- You are taking things too literally. I meant that (obviously) that are people looking much better than others, and the strategy of fighting body shaming with other body shaming is very much uneffective against them.
- "As for homophobes, it's not about insisting being gay is wrong, but rather "we don't have respect for your opinion, and your continued harassment is actually costing you social status".
- Haven't you just implied that being gay lower your social status?
- An (hypothetical but likely) example: Bob is gay. Mike is homophobic and bullies Bob. Frank tries to help Bob by insinuating that Mike is gay.
- Mike: "Bob is a f*ggot!"
- Frank: "You say so only because you are gay too!"
- Bob (thinking): <Frank might try to help me, but it sounds like he is against gays too...>
- How is Frank being of any help? -TheOldMan (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think you're getting it. Doesn't need to be Pitt and Theron. Any beautiful person. If they are body shaming, chances are, they are insecure themselves.
- And no, we didn't imply that being gay lowers status. Rather that the person insulting someone for being gay is lowering their own social status. CoryUsar (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't think Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron are incredibly insecure in their looks? They're aging fast, and every new wrinkle is basically life and death for their careers. As for homophobes, it's not about insisting being gay is wrong, but rather "we don't have respect for your opinion, and your continued harassment is actually costing you social status". That's basically what every insult is; attempting to convince someone they have less social status and are less 'valuable' to society in some form. Emotional pain exists for a very good reason; your life depends less on not being eaten by tigers and more on not pissing off the rest of the tribe so much that they throw you to the tigers. CoryUsar (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Any beautiful person. If they are body shaming, chances are, they are insecure themselves."
- How do you know? Likewise you previous claim that homophobes are often gay, this are just your suppositions.
- "that the person insulting someone for being gay is lowering their own social status."
- Their own moral status, surely. But that's not the point. You did not say how Frank is helping, with his calling gay the homophobe.-TheOldMan (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- This whole thing matters to you because... CoryUsar (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- the old adage of bullies are insecure cowards who will just collapse if one should stand up to them is fantasy mothers tell their kids. its unwise to physically assault bullies if they are physically and mentally better adapted to a fight than you are. often bullies throwing their weight around have considerable weight to throw around, and they knsw it, with a propensity for and experience of violence that leaves decent people at a disadvantage without training and losing a natural inhibition to hurting people that makes many pull their punches, while a punch to your face is more of shock to your system if you are unaccostumed. chances are they may be goading you into a fight they know they can win. being physically imposing yourself will deter most folk, but you get plenty of folk who are gym fit or have a physical jobs and relish a tear up. maybe the do mma, i bet thats super popular with fucknuts. and likely got similar fucknuts to watch their back.
- as for insecurities, sure everyone has something that really stings. but there is no reason to think though that ones bully is more insecure than you or insecure enough to be effected by your own digs. if they socially popular, confident, they need not be beautiful just not unpleasant looking, not socially awkward - thats all armour for self esteem. demeaning comments thrown your way will sting so much more if you are more awkward, feel freakish, have less overall social cache, if you are being bullied this is likely the case to varying degrees. the bully will lose no respect as they'll be playing to the crowd who'll likely just say hear hear to their barbs or at least not care because they'll see as a freak. your comeback of 'well your face is stupid' probably wont land, your opinion does not matter to them. if you hit a nerve, well they can just double down with abuse, further hits to your own well being. you get ground down and any slight victory will be pyrrhic. the confident and well adjusted dont make good bully victims because personal jibes dont land. bor is nothing to do with being fearful of your mental toughness or your quickwits. give no suitable reaction to reward abuse and you'd have to really represent an affront to their sensibilities to make persevering with their bullying actions worth while. if its all a power trip for them, they get their validation from any reaction from you that shows a hold over you.
- as for the whole homophobes are all secretly gay thing its arse. insinuations about their own sexuality can laughed of if they ave little insecurity about it. if they really such confusion was resulting in homophobic abuse, they'll just respond with more and we can only hope it wont be a violent escalation. they wont be lose any social cache either, not with anyone that matters to them. likely all their pals are less than tolerant people.
- often times bullies dont require insecurities to be bullies. they are generally bullies because they are just pricks who target those with less power, dont 'fit' or stand out in some way. encountering a bully on their turf so to speak, and they have home advantage. while the victim is an outsider of some kind to hounded from the land or tolerated as laughing stock. you can quite easily change who is being bullied, by whom and for what, and the bullying is a noble defence of your tribe from a perceived threat.
- when we say 'bully' it kind of implies school yard hijinks that are not at all serious, character building even. perhaps there is some truth there in some cases. other times its the cause of misery and be crippling to ones well being. it can encourage others to join in, it can inspire self harming behaviour, suicides. its often worse when of school age, when you still finding your feet, hormones are raging and everything feels so much more devastating.
- when older, you are not forced to coexist with them. you can generally avoid them and hopefully have enough confidence in yourself, with enough life experience to not respond to the odd snide comment. its also true you have options outside of school. violent bullies can be dealt with via the police. the school yard staple of stealing pocket money is a criminal offense when its adults doing the stealing from other adults. bullying co workers can be dealt with via human resources. you can walk away from a bad situation. not always, but hopefully.
- its hollywood fantasy that has a plucky underdog standing up to a bully, through superior kung fu, a razor sharp wit, or some elaborate plan or extraordinary circumstance that vanquishes our foes and wins over our enemies. in reality, if no police can help or your work place is the kind where bullying thrives, then on our own we are vulnerable and options are limited. as an individual your personal grit only takes you so far, you need allies to back up anything you might be able to do. join a trade union. build support networks. just have some family and friends in your corner can help.
- if a funny line or a quick jab to show you mean business have the desired effect, its unlikely your bully would be capable of being your bully in the first place. you can have the physique of the rock with the skills of bruce lee and the wit of oscar wilde, but what can you say to 'faggot' screamed in your face that do not result in 'faggot' being screamed louder, and when you choke them out with your finest mma grapple, their mates crack your skull open with a brick? a head on approach, fighting fire with fire, is far from a certain is helpful at all. you'll not earn respect when it goes badly. you've escalated things and shown them and yourself that you are not up to the challenge. you have hurt pride, and may be some bruising, if you are lucky. if not you've lost some teeth and as the aggressor you are in the dock. if you are really unlucky, your swift punch knocks them the fuck out and their skull cracks open on the concrete pavement. stories of permanent brain damage or even death are not unheard of, frighteningly more common than our masculine sense of bravado cares to admit. im fortunate that my own experiences resulted only in stitches and no memory of the punch that provided them.
- the best option, though no means easy if it is constantly attacked, is to build self esteem and learn to make friends and network a little. it wont defeat any bullies but it does make one better able to resist and ignore them. live your life and be happy. if they really dont like you, that will really fuck them off AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @AMassiveGay I think we very much agree. Said so, I strongly suggest you to be more concise and to improve your punctuation if you want to be more effective in your writing.-TheOldMan (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- an inability to sleep and a drug habit say brevity and punctuation can do one. i am happy if the sightest gist of what i shit out of my addled brain can be discerned in any way at all - by no means guaranteed. a missing 'and' here and a 'not' there can really produce the opposite of whatever i had intended to say.
- @AMassiveGay I think we very much agree. Said so, I strongly suggest you to be more concise and to improve your punctuation if you want to be more effective in your writing.-TheOldMan (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- the best option, though no means easy if it is constantly attacked, is to build self esteem and learn to make friends and network a little. it wont defeat any bullies but it does make one better able to resist and ignore them. live your life and be happy. if they really dont like you, that will really fuck them off AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- honestly though, i rarely have anything to to say fully formed in my mind to begin with. i feel like if i add to a conversation anything more than my initial ramblings i can have more clarity in subsequent posts as whatever i had imagined i intended to say crystallises into actual reasoned argument. or it becomes clear it was all dross and i back away slowly hoping no one noticed.
- that said, i find overly concise points often lack context or necessary nuance that i personally am not always sure of the intended meaning of some statement or another that may have multiple interpretations requiring differing responses. the internet does so enjoy misconstruing the most innocent of statements, and i doubt my own ability in judging how anyone else will interpret things. of course, reams and reams of rambling word salad is probably not the answer, but i am quite often off my face. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The idea that a bully (school or otherwise) will just go away if you stand up to them is nonsense, often perpetuated by people who have had little to no experience with bullies. Why would they? If you stand up to them you've escalated from victim to potential threat, and it's likely that they'll retaliate. Same mentality as a gang really. So unless you want to shoot their kneecap out (not advised, illegal and they'll probably still retaliate, but much worse than before) your options are probably more limited. Also, Frank in @TheOldMan's example is very clearly not helping. Aside from the obvious message (being gay is still bad) it's not like Frank is actually accomplishing anything. Mike will still act homophobic, and might potentially escalate his behavior due to the perceived insult. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- that said, i find overly concise points often lack context or necessary nuance that i personally am not always sure of the intended meaning of some statement or another that may have multiple interpretations requiring differing responses. the internet does so enjoy misconstruing the most innocent of statements, and i doubt my own ability in judging how anyone else will interpret things. of course, reams and reams of rambling word salad is probably not the answer, but i am quite often off my face. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cory's insult towards pacifism is actually a strawman of pacifism. Try reading what actual pacifists have to say, Dunning-Kruger. — Oxyaena Harass 22:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Dunning: So, do you find people respond well to your activism?
Oxyaena: No, they're all fucking idiots.
Kruger: All of them?
Oxyaena: Yes, all of them. Are you fucking deaf?
Dunning: Have you ever ... tried adapting your approach?
Oxyaena: Why the fuck should I?
Kruger: Maybe it might work better?
Oxyaena: Shut the fuck up, liberal. I don't need you to tell me how to be an activist.
Dunning: Please. No-one's trying to tell you how to be an activist. We're just interested in how you gauge its effectiveness.
Oxyaena: Are you saying it's not? What fucking activism have you ever done? Do you even have a Twitter account?
Kruger: I think we're done here.
With all my love, Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 18:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, how was Cory's post not a strawman? — Oxyaena Harass 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Because there do exist extreme pacifists who believe in complete nonviolence in all things, as well as those who merely hide behind pacifism to disguise their own cowardice. CoryUsar (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Point them out to me. — Oxyaena Harass 13:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- The link is ugly, but here's The Beeb's summary of pacifism. If you want to argue that we should be reluctant to go to war, that trade and diplomacy should always be our preferred course of action, then yes, I agree. Even Sun Tzu was very much anti-war, and half of his book was about explaining why (and how) you should avoid war if you can. If you want to argue that we should never go to war, well, we don't agree. Even Bernie Sanders is willing to vote to go to war if need be. CoryUsar (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's the thing, by what objective criteria do we determine when we should go to war? Why should I fight against people who have not wronged me and are as much victims of the system as myself? War has actual human consequences. — Oxyaena Harass 17:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- "by what objective criteria do we determine when we should go to war?"
- There may not even be an objective answer, because people are complicated. Everything is a case by case basis, and the heuristic is always "when the expected consequences of avoiding the war entirely are far more dire than the war itself." For example, stopping a genocide, ending or preventing slavery, etc. In the case of the American Civil War, Lincoln had many options to end the war early, and he even extended the war in order to force the 13th Amendment through before the South could rejoin the Union and prevent it.
- The caveat "expected" is required because, well, nothing in War is guaranteed. We generally agree that Lincoln did the right thing in fighting the Civil War, but all it would've taken for a Confederate victory was for one of the European powers to get involved on the CSA'a behalf, which is part of why the Emancipation Proclamation was made when it was, as afterwards, Britain and France would've had an extremely difficult time selling the war to their own public. Then there was the whole thing with Russia keeping Britain and France preoccupied. Had the Civil War expanded into the First World War (and it very well could have!), with tens of millions were killed and Europe and the US burned to the ground, some would argue about how pointless it was to try and end slavery.
- "Why should I fight against people who have not wronged me"
- For starters, if you manage to avoid the draft, the cold hard reality is that someone else gets drafted in your place. Furthermore, we are a Democracy with rules in place, and while those rules are imposed on us, you have the option of emigrating to a country with a different set of rules. Even your precious Anarchists have rules, mediation, dispute resolutions and so forth that must be adhered to.CoryUsar (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's the thing, by what objective criteria do we determine when we should go to war? Why should I fight against people who have not wronged me and are as much victims of the system as myself? War has actual human consequences. — Oxyaena Harass 17:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- The link is ugly, but here's The Beeb's summary of pacifism. If you want to argue that we should be reluctant to go to war, that trade and diplomacy should always be our preferred course of action, then yes, I agree. Even Sun Tzu was very much anti-war, and half of his book was about explaining why (and how) you should avoid war if you can. If you want to argue that we should never go to war, well, we don't agree. Even Bernie Sanders is willing to vote to go to war if need be. CoryUsar (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Point them out to me. — Oxyaena Harass 13:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Because there do exist extreme pacifists who believe in complete nonviolence in all things, as well as those who merely hide behind pacifism to disguise their own cowardice. CoryUsar (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, how was Cory's post not a strawman? — Oxyaena Harass 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Reflection on something I saw around my neighborhood[edit]
I was walking around my neighborhood and all of a sudden I encountered two very interesting signs: one saying "God and Country: Trump 2020" and another stating "We are the Storm" with a link to my state's GOP website. I didn't snap pictures, but links are here. I know who this reminds me of.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 01:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- So, the whole GOP leadership in Harris County swallowed the QAnon pill ("the storm"). Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- More likely, the GOP leadership noticed a tendency for local base to follow a Q-esque path, and decided to evoke that. Also, even knowing what the phrase refers to, I'm forced to admit that "We Are the Storm" sounds inherently cool, wouldn't be out of place in most metal rock lyrics, evokes images of heroism and bravery and all that jazz. The fact that it's actually connected to a pack of paranoid whackjobs who are happily willing to believe anything as long as it deifies Mr. Trump is irrelevant when you're playing to emotions rather than braincells. Kencolt (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bongolian Not just in the county, but in the whole state.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 13:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- More likely, the GOP leadership noticed a tendency for local base to follow a Q-esque path, and decided to evoke that. Also, even knowing what the phrase refers to, I'm forced to admit that "We Are the Storm" sounds inherently cool, wouldn't be out of place in most metal rock lyrics, evokes images of heroism and bravery and all that jazz. The fact that it's actually connected to a pack of paranoid whackjobs who are happily willing to believe anything as long as it deifies Mr. Trump is irrelevant when you're playing to emotions rather than braincells. Kencolt (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Equality VS Equity (Kamala's Style)[edit]
"So there's a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests: "Oh everyone should get the same amount." The problem with that, not everybody's starting out from the same place. So if we're all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount but you're still going to be that far back behind me. It's about giving people the resources and the support the need, so that everybody can be on equal footing and then complete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place."
Kamala Harris's tweet 11/01/2020
I find her message extremely bad, both on principle and formulation.
"Equality suggests: "Oh everyone should get the same amount.""
That's not what equality suggests. At least not equality before the law and their variations, which are about equal treatment for every person. "Everyone should get the same amount" sounds like some extreme form of communism.
"The problem with that, not everybody's starting out from the same place. [...] we could get the same amount but you're still going to be that far back behind me."
This is true.
"It's about giving people the resources and the support the need, so that everybody can be on equal footing..."
This is a good idea...
"...and then complete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place."'
and this is a very bad one. If we all end up at the same place, it means that our individual actions do not matter. The former part was like saying that everybody should have the opportunity to study (that's good), the latter that everybody should get A+ and graduate with the maximum (obviously bad).-TheOldMan (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is the problem with loose rationalizations, yours included. Logically you are correct. But, disingenuous old fox that I think you are, you already know that she didn't mean to say that people should be equalized and go from there. She made an unrealistic and idealist claim, not a practical policy statement.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- "you already know that she didn't mean to say that..."
- No, I don't know what she meant to say. Likewise, you don't know that I already know that she didn't meant... etc. Nobody knows what other people think. Because mind reading is not a thing. Please let's not waste time assuming to know other people intentions / mental states.
- "she didn't mean to say that people should be equalized and go from there."
- Then, isn't her message the worst possible what to NOT say that?
- "She made an unrealistic and idealist claim, not a practical policy statement."
- But she aims to be VP of the USA, not a novelist. Her messages are intended as the basis of practical policies.-TheOldMan (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't live in the US, so I will explain: Vice presidents don't make policy for the government. They are expected to do nothing beyond their duties as President of the Senate. Since you don't know what she meant to say, and I am willing to suppose you are a most perspicacious editor, why are you assuming that you do? That there is something very wrong with a statement you profess to not understand? I assume it was just a throw-away comment typical of our politics. Compare to VP Pence who cannot speak without misleading or telling an outright lie.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should take her seriously but not literally.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- "[VPs] are expected to do nothing beyond their duties as President of the Senate."
- @Ariel31459 Yeah, that's surely the case of a Kamala Harris VP and a Joe Biden President (sarcastic).
- "Since you don't know what she meant to say, and I am willing to suppose you are a most perspicacious editor, why are you assuming that you do?"
- I never assumed to know what she meant to say. I replied to what she actually said.
- "That there is something very wrong with a statement you profess to not understand?"
- Admitting that I (as everybody else in the world except Kamala Harris) cannot know what she meant to say is entirely different from professing that I don't understand what she said.
- "I assume it was just a throw-away comment typical of our politics."
- ...and it's typical of our politics not to dismiss throw-away comments.-TheOldMan (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- True in the past, but today it is necessary, in order to deal with the constant flow of Trump lies and prevarications: throw away everything he says. Also, you seem to not take behavioral semantics into account, and instead appear to be applying an outdated Lockean method of interpretation. Also, what's with the bold reiterations of my comments? Ariel31459 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should take her seriously but not literally.
- Perhaps you don't live in the US, so I will explain: Vice presidents don't make policy for the government. They are expected to do nothing beyond their duties as President of the Senate. Since you don't know what she meant to say, and I am willing to suppose you are a most perspicacious editor, why are you assuming that you do? That there is something very wrong with a statement you profess to not understand? I assume it was just a throw-away comment typical of our politics. Compare to VP Pence who cannot speak without misleading or telling an outright lie.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- or you could choose to take a reasonable view - https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity Aloysius the Gaul 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- "in order to deal with the constant flow of Trump"
- @Ariel31459 We are not talking about Trump.
- "Also, you seem to not take behavioral semantics into account, and instead appear to be applying an outdated Lockean method of interpretation."
- You seem throwing technical terms, instead of making an actual argument. In particular you did not answered my question.
- "what's with the bold reiterations of my comments?"
- That's only to make easier (for the eyes of an old man) to distinguish what I quote from what I say.-TheOldMan (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Working backwards: Sorry old man, glasses might help? I used the technical description of what I have already told you: context is everything and Trump, old man, provides enormous context. I am a behaviorist. Vague statements should be set aside or paired with past statements for similar semantic content. What was your question again? I only see one question: "Then, isn't her message the worst possible what to NOT say that?" If I apply my own reasoning, and attempt to disambiguate your peculiar query, my answer is, no, the statement itself is too obscure to cause harm in any sense I can immediately apprehend.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Too relevant now[edit]
- "You fell into our arms
- You fell into our arms
- We tried
- But there was nothing
- We could do
- Nothing we could do"
Rockford the Roe (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Condon committee semantics[edit]
On a Wikipedia article of the Condon committee I found this
Notably in Case 02 in Section IV, Chapter 2 the report said of the 1956 Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident: "In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high."
When in the report is says UFO it means Unidentified Flying Object and not extra terrestrial space craft correct? It's just that when you say UFO people automatically assume aliens when it just means unidentified.
This report is from the Condon Committee which was a government funded analysis of UFOs which concluded that there was no scientific merit in the study of UFOs.
What I'm asking is: in the quote from the report were they referring to an object that is flying and one that cannot be identified as opposed to saying that at least one real alien space craft was involved? Or does it mean that they think an Alien spacecraft possibility is highly likely?
I'm Sorry about this, my obsessive mind is undermining my ability to think rationally, I'm still awaiting a diagnosis for whatever this thing in my head is.--WMS (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, UFO really does mean "Unidentified Flying Object", though as the source notes, anomalous radar propagation is a likely explanation. This was still early on in development of military radar, and blips caused by atmospheric variation were still, well not common, but present. And eye witness testimony a decade after the event isn't super credible in terms of verification. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Does this give credibility to Bob Lazar claims?[edit]
https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/e2wkfi/new_testimony_capt_david_e_fruehauf_sr71/
It’s from an episode of ancient aliens I think, and Capr. David Fruehauf (SR71 pilot) says that the S4 site exists and that people would be taken to it by a different bus and says that he was told by people that they saw Bob Lazar there. Does this give any credibility to lazar’s claims of s4? Is there any way to apply logic to it to refute this?—WMS (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The short answer? No. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- As in this doesn't give credibility to his claims? --WMS (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @WeakMindedSkeptic Correct. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie Just wanted to confirm because my monkey brain sometimes sees stuff like this and I lose all capability of critical thinking. Also what I find odd is that so many people on that thread are using this as some sort of "smoking gun" that Lazar was right all along. Anyone who questions his credibility or provides logical arguments why this is not evidence and Lazar is full of it gets heavily downvoted and it comes as a shock to me as I don't understand why people so many make this out to be some sort of definitive proof when it's not :/.--WMS (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- A longer answer:
- A) Ancient Aliens is pretty much one giant show of [citation needed]
- B) Did you know that there is more than one military facility in "Area 51"? Shock! There is no "Area 51" in fact in military parlance; it is called "Groom Lake" and it is a part of the Nevada Test Site
. It is entirely possible there are other secret military facilities other than Groom Lake, whether it's an "S-4" facility or not. What that means as far as aliens are concerned, I don't know, but my best guess is "nothing". - C) Fruehauf obviously never directly worked with Lazar, so as far as I'm concerned, there's some "telephone game" effects going on, potentially, with his claim.
- D) Bob Lazar appears to be an amateur pyrotechnic hobbyist that appears to have not delved too deep into the nuts and bolts of chemistry. Maybe (as this article speculates) he's read some bits of Scientific America here and there. Maybe he knows mixing a few things together makes things go boom. Whee. The fundamental problem with his prediction of Element 115 being the Magic Of UFO propulsion back in the 1990s is that there are no known really stable isotopes in the "superheavy" category (the most stable, dubnium, has a half life of 1 day or so). What use is a fuel where half of it is radiated away in a day? (For a comparison, uranium's half life is 4.47 billion years.) "Element 115" was actually discovered in 2003. It's half life is 650ms. Some fuel source, indeed, so powerful that it is gone in seconds! (Of course, the conspiracy theorists now claim that "element 115" is not moscovium, moving the goal posts as usual. So what the fuck is it? Bending the general language of chemists now, too?).
- E) It is more likely (as noted) that Bob Lazar made up some shit to get quick bucks in the late 1980s due to some serious financial trouble. If you really know your shit, the United States government (and many private companies) is happy to pay anyone actually good in science and engineering comfortable six figure salaries. For slightly less, there's the "scientific researcher" life, which gives you the benefit of constantly being able to tinker with things. Bob Lazar ran prostitution rings instead.
- Now, I do personally applaud Lazar for running a store to help hobbyists make things go boom etc. (some people who make things go boom as a hobby might later actually be interested in the whys and become scientists or engineers). But fer crissakes, Bob, update your damn site out of the HTML 1.0 era. Sheesh. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's actually at least four parts to the Groom Lake testing range if I remember correctly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie Just wanted to confirm because my monkey brain sometimes sees stuff like this and I lose all capability of critical thinking. Also what I find odd is that so many people on that thread are using this as some sort of "smoking gun" that Lazar was right all along. Anyone who questions his credibility or provides logical arguments why this is not evidence and Lazar is full of it gets heavily downvoted and it comes as a shock to me as I don't understand why people so many make this out to be some sort of definitive proof when it's not :/.--WMS (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @WeakMindedSkeptic Correct. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- As in this doesn't give credibility to his claims? --WMS (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't even look at it. The answer is no. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 21:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I feel obliged to mention that Ancient Aliens type bullshit is fucking racist. It's based on the idiotic white refusal to believe that non-white cultures did great things too. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 22:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DuceMoosolini While true you might want to read or re-read our article on Bob Lazar, since he mostly just says the US is hiding evidence of aliens and space fuel (element 115) in a section of Area 51. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- And Christ, who actually believes the Goa'uld did the pyramids? I believe the native Egyptians did them, and whatever color they were is the modern racial group who gets the credit for the edifices those people built (But no one will be satisfied with the result, except Arabs). Artificius (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you all for contributing, I'm glad to know that it's just BS :).--WMS (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Umm... the Arabs are actually many peoples who had become "Arabized" over the course of centuries. Imagine if Spain conquered all of Europe, and all the Europeans began to view themselves as Spanish. Would the Spanish themselves be able to lay claim to Stonehenge and Notre Dame? Same thing with the Egyptians. Modern Egypt has the strongest claim over the Pyramids, and while they view themselves as mostly Arab now, the people of Yemen have no claim over the Pyramids, just as the Libyans have no real claim over Ancient Babylon. CoryUsar (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you all for contributing, I'm glad to know that it's just BS :).--WMS (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- And Christ, who actually believes the Goa'uld did the pyramids? I believe the native Egyptians did them, and whatever color they were is the modern racial group who gets the credit for the edifices those people built (But no one will be satisfied with the result, except Arabs). Artificius (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DuceMoosolini While true you might want to read or re-read our article on Bob Lazar, since he mostly just says the US is hiding evidence of aliens and space fuel (element 115) in a section of Area 51. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I feel obliged to mention that Ancient Aliens type bullshit is fucking racist. It's based on the idiotic white refusal to believe that non-white cultures did great things too.
Moving back with my shithouse family[edit]
So here’s the thing. I been living by myself for most of the year which has been GREAT but unfortunately bc of the covid I’ll have to move back with my family in March. This is a problem because even though they’re cool with me now, when I live with them they are quite abusive/manipulative/etc. I also don’t really have any other option. Does anyone have any advice on how to survive? Like, I know this is dumb but I genuinely think I’d rather fucking die, but ofc that’s not an option. Help. 🖤 ASELAकुरा 🖤 06:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I can’t get a job. I’m not allowed welfare for 2 years. I have no friends who will let me move in. I’m fucked. 🖤 ASELAकुरा 🖤 06:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Got a local library you can hang out at? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 06:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not really, all the libraries in my town are VERY strict about kicking out people after hours. I couldn’t even really spend much time there either if I did live with my parents, because they live all the way out in the sticks. 🖤 ASELAकुरा 🖤 07:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Many of the businesses around here are short workers. It's a very bizarre economy... What skills do you have? Car repair, SQL/SAS, nursing license, etc?CoryUsar (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Try to spend as much time outside of your family's domain as possible. You can do this in a positive way of self-improvement: 1) get lots of outdoor exercise: walk around the neighborhood every day or find some local parks that you can walk to. 2) Educate yourself: find a topic that you're interested in and read as much as possible about it, make use of the library and on-line resources. If the topic could help you get a job, so much the better. Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Many of the businesses around here are short workers. It's a very bizarre economy... What skills do you have? Car repair, SQL/SAS, nursing license, etc?CoryUsar (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not really, all the libraries in my town are VERY strict about kicking out people after hours. I couldn’t even really spend much time there either if I did live with my parents, because they live all the way out in the sticks. 🖤 ASELAकुरा 🖤 07:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Got a local library you can hang out at?
- Us wikisphere editors are but free workers, knowingly contributing to humanity for nothing much in return. To others we're ants who seems like they are moving randomly, but actually we're building foundations of our internet. Quite frankly you deserve a good place to stay but no such place will be available without asking. America is a tradcon nuclear family state, it's going to be hard to find people who will jump at taking you in without sexual or familial ties. I had to beg my Mom to find someone for me to move in with in the case of an emergency, but it worked. While you live with your parents it may be good to ask someone very firmly to find such a person for you, because you should deserve it. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much everyone. I just wanna day my country isn’t the US, and also has dealt with the covid relatively okay compared to most places — the reason I’m unable to keep living here bc of the effects of the covid on the others in the economy. I have no real significant job skills, and mostly skated by on a combination of 2 things — freelance odd jobs, eg session musician shit/assignment editing/tutoring, and some financial support from my family (I know I said they’re kinda not great, but the situation is complicated, and they agreed to financially support me moving out to help attempt to repair our relationship, bc it was at the point where I was, like, one fight away from cutting them off permanently and becoming homeless rather than staying with them, and for all the bullshit they pulled they also didn’t wanna just drop me completely). As well as that, I also made occasional boosts from selling my own music. However, now, nobody can afford my freelance type services (especially since I did p much all of it for close friends rather than somewhere that would let me put it on a resume or network for jobs or w/e), I’ve been too depressed/stressed/busy to finish writing more music (and again, unlikely that anyone would buy it), my parents have had to take a huge pay cut, and to top it all off, the rent/fees in both my family’s house and mine have started over the past couple of months. Unfortunately, my main problems with getting a job are that 1) I’m so mentally ill/autistic/in chronic pain that most entry-level regular jobs are difficult to the point of being almost unmanageable; and 2) I am a young adult but I didn’t have a job in high school and am now a university student — I don’t know if it’s the same in the US or w/e, but over here, those three factors make you almost unhireable, as employers don’t want to pay adult wages to someone with the experience of a teenager they could pay child wages too, especially when that person has other commitments of the type that your employer can’t really expect you to drop at a moment’s notice and vary throughout the year. Add to that the massive collapse of bars, pubs, live venues and restaurants over the past little while, and now suddenly the places that would accept my high school degree and bar skills course hardly exist at all. Oh, and just to top it all off, my country does absolutely BRUTAL means-testing for any kind of welfare type shit — to the point that, even though I live mostly independently and can get a psychiatrist to verify how harmful it would be for me to live at home, since my parents make just above the maximum income to get welfare and I can technically move back in with them, I can not get ANY benefits at all until I turn 22, or decide to go through a long and probably traumatic process of trying to prove that I can’t live with my family, which would have a good chance of failing, sever any possible chance of us maintaining a relationship at all, and put it in the public record and government servers that I had accused my parents of being Bad Parents. So, the long and short of it is that it’s a complicated, unpleasant situation. That said, I was very stressed when I wrote this original post, and have had more time to calm down so I now realise it’s not completely hopeless — I’ve started trying to establish backup plans for moving in with my friends, attempting to find potential new ways of getting a job, maybe finding somewhere cheaper to live, working with my family to see if there’s any way to continue their financial support, etc. I can’t guarantee things will go okay, and I’m still at a complete loss regarding how to would survive if I did have to move back, but things will work out somehow. In the meantime, if anybody has any more advice or anything like that please feel free to let me know! I really genuinely appreciate your kind words so far, and yeah, I’m more than happy to accept all the help I can get. Thanks!!! 🖤 ASELAकुरा 🖤 14:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
2020 Mod elections[edit]
And you fools thought the Trump V Biden race was the most important election this November? According to the schedule, nominations can start today. --RWRW (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Once an election page is up, I'll start posting some nominations I have in mind. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 15:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- The nominations page.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @RWRW Lmao here's hoping that none of our candidates interrupt each other, unlike Trump and Biden. I don't interrupt, I interject CoryUsar (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) I also hope that the humans in the debate will be everyone's primary focus; not some insect landing on a candidate's head and the mob being too polite to point it out. --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularRasoning🎄See my experiments 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think you have an insect on your head my friend. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 21:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, that joke wasn't as funny as I You are interru- --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularRasoning🎄See my experiments 23:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)thought it was Would you just shut up, man? --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularRasoning🎄See my experiments 23:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC) going to be. Can't all be zingers. Feel free to remove my comment. CoryUsar (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, that joke wasn't as funny as I You are interru- --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularR
- I think you have an insect on your head my friend. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
- @RWRW Lmao here's hoping that none of our candidates interrupt each other, unlike Trump and Biden. I don't interrupt, I interject CoryUsar (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) I also hope that the humans in the debate will be everyone's primary focus; not some insect landing on a candidate's head and the mob being too polite to point it out. --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularR
I am running. I nominated myself as I believe that I am ready. My platform is conflict resolution. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- thats not a platform, thats the mod job description AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Future article?[edit]
https://www.numbersusa.com/?fbclid=IwAR2E2OV1Sns2ETuaJ0NjMVswd-dcXrDyWQrF7vItHOpljnKYlzQCXoCHMJk
NumbersUSA
Every piece of right wing nonsense possible: anti-immigration, racist, Trump supporting and conspiracy bullshit. Basically: day took ur jerbs. --Ratildonian King (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Don't worry, dey didn't, all of deire fears are Tings dey don't understand or want to react to, so deir jahbs are ours unless dey want to update somhow. De Gop's death is just their obituary, published before their time. Artificius (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Is it influential? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- That I do not know. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We have an article on John Tanton, according to the other Wiki, this is one of his webshites. Possibly it could fit there. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We have an article on John Tanton, according to the other Wiki
- That I do not know. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Someone make new Mississipi flag icon[edit]
Mississipi has a new flag so we need to replace the icons for WIGOS.—Tuxer (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's an example on Wikimedia Commons[7] Not sure if we just need to upload it over the existing image here, or if there's more to it than that? --Annanoon (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah. That's all there is to it. Well, almost. I just did it. Old flag available still on File:Flag of Mississippi (old).svg if anyone needs it (might be useful for historic election results or something). I had to modify the SVG slightly to get MediaWiki to accept it (it has an empty dark-mode stylesheet tag in it). Pages might take a second to update, but it should work properly. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 10:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- And I've just replaced the trans pride flag with the real new flag of Mississippi in the map and the table on the United States page. There might be some references here to Mississippi still having the Confederate flag in its state flag that need updating. Spud (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah. That's all there is to it. Well, almost. I just did it. Old flag available still on File:Flag of Mississippi (old).svg if anyone needs it (might be useful for historic election results or something). I had to modify the SVG slightly to get MediaWiki to accept it (it has an empty dark-mode stylesheet tag in it). Pages might take a second to update, but it should work properly. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Mississippi_%22New_Magnolia_Flag%22.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
A documentary about Deep Blue[edit]
This seemed very interesting to me. Thought it'd be worth sharing. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 11:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Come the apocalypse[edit]
So what is going to happen when the US election results are counted? Anna Livia (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- 2 possibilities. First, Biden landslide, no question. Trump whines a lot but is out. Second, "blue shift". Early voters are mostly Biden, but the only people to show up at the polls are Trumpers. At first, Trump has lead, then mail in ballots are counted. Slowly, Trump loses state after state. He and his supporters call shenanigans, massive fight ensues. May go to SCOTUS... which just so happened to be stacked with Trump stooges. Massive riots in country no matter what. Everyone gets corona, and by January, this lockdown has become pointless. CoryUsar (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is 2020, so don't discount a Trump win to end this year with a boatload of shit. ElectrosPardon? 14:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, 2020 has been the kind of year that gets accidentally left in the backseat of the car on a hot summer day. CoryUsar (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Or the 'container of jelly sweets left in the shop window' on the same day (saw this once).
- Given DT's statement about potential electoral fraud 'the possibilities have to be considered.'
- Are there 'obscure party candidates' in the Presidential elections? If so possibility number 3 - people decide upon 'electoral presenteeism' Lord Buckethead/Count Binface and equivalents get in (forming a joint presidency), which might be 'interesting.' Anna Livia (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no third party candidate that will pull considerable vote at the Presidential level@Anna Livia. Both the Green and Libertarian candidate lack the name recognition of 2016. They also missed the ballot deadline in some key swing states.
- I'd add two other likely scenarios, and take issue with the characterization of one @CorruptUser presented. First there is still a possibility Trump wins. It would require the polling data to be off by about 4%, and Trump would still need to hold every single GOP leaning swing state (FL, TX, GA, NC, IA, AZ and OH) and pick up at least one Midwestern swing state (MN, MI, WI or PA). The other is that Biden wins a nail biter, picking off AZ along with MN, MI, WI but PA is up in the air until every single ballot is counted. The second scenario Corrupt mentions I think is possible, however I believe that most responsible media and pundits are well aware that they need to be much more reserved in calling states, and some decision desks might actually limit the presenting of tabulated votes, to avoid this perception. This would also be especially concerning if there is a shift as a result of counting ballots combined with reports of irregularities. Again I think there is a general acceptance that the GOP will be overrepresented in election day voting, and more Democrats have opted to return their mail ballots. But if there are issues at polling sites on November 3rd, that perception maybe construed through a more sinister lens.- RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Option 4 - spoiled papers (None of the Above/Re-open Nominations) - which would require a significant previous campaign to be effective. (There will always be some variously spoilt papers - but what at what point would they have to be taken into consideration: who is the winner in A - 5 votes, B - 4 votes, 'all other ballot cards' - 91 votes?)
- Option 5 - the lawyers, pundits and related persons win.
- There are other options not available with the US electoral systems (eg a different party (or local independent) in each UK constituency). Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that my prediction for the election is panning out almost exactly, except that GA might break for Biden.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, 2020 has been the kind of year that gets accidentally left in the backseat of the car on a hot summer day. CoryUsar (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is 2020, so don't discount a Trump win to end this year with a boatload of shit. ElectrosPardon? 14:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Amidst all of this about Trump and Biden...[edit]
Anybody following the downballot races? You know, senate, house, that sort of thing.-Flandres (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's leaning slightly Dem, or so I heard last. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Senate seems to be staying Republican and House Democratic. Amazingly at least the two most disliked senators in America[8] (at least last year and McConnell has been at or near bottom consistently for years) were re-elected. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ouch. That makes future legislative goals...difficult.-Flandres (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- The prayer right now is that somehow the Dems can get it to 50-50 (it will be 50-49 until the Special Election in GA is settled), then Kamala would be Senate president, and stuff could be hammered through 51-50.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- That requires all of the senate democrats, from Manchin to Bernie, to vote in lockstep on solidly progressive legislative goals. I think you are a little too optimistic. Oh, and the Filibuster is still a problem.-Flandres (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bernie is an independent, not a Democrat. 206.176.133.150 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- He caucuses with the Democrats, votes with them on most issues, and is usually counted as a "unofficial" one of their number. My point still stands-51 democrat aligned senators voting on a big progressive reform agenda does not seem likely.-Flandres (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- With the Blue Dog Democrats to consider, I don't think they could get real progressive agenda hammered through anyhow. I mean they had a supermajority 2009-2010 and still only got Obamacare instead of Public option (or even better, single payer). United States won't pass truly progressive policies unless they get a strong progressive president whose ready to break some moderate balls to force his agenda. That plus majority with strong leaders in senate and house.
- I mean I recognize that Biden is less bad than Trump. And I would have voted for Biden and whichever down-ballot Democrats I could've voted for were I an American. But U.S. progressives will remain fucked as long as the geriatric technocrats remain in charge of the Democratic Party. Republicans are a lost cause. They can't be recovered for decades at least. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The key thing here, is that the US is inherently a right-wing nation. The Conservative party in the UK, is more liberal than the Democrats. So saying a progressive President would get things done is bollocks because we would never elect a progressive President. That isn't what will win. Trump won Florida, primarily by increasing his support among Latino's (Cubans, Venezuelans, Brazilians primarily) to make up for the loss of older white voters. And his message was literally only; Biden is a socialist. Even though it is clearly false, demagoguery worked to the GOP advantage. There won't be any changes in American politics until parties that operate outside reality are completely destroyed. Which is never going to happen. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @RipCityLiberal "The key thing here, is that the US is inherently a right-wing nation." This is untrue. The US is very progressive, so long as you don't call it that. Polls show favorable views for medicare for all, though I suspect that those same people would balk at electing someone calling themselves a socialist. The problem is most people in this country are apathetic and have limited grasp of the nuances of political theory. After all, these are the same people who think Sanders is "far-left" and think what he proposes is socialism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) In Florida, the Latinos are mainly right wing refugees from Communist dictatorships like Cuba and Venezuela. Can't speak of the Brazilians since I know fuck all about them in America. In other states the Latinos have their roots in Mexico and other non Communist Central American states though. They're religious as Hell, which leans them towards conservatism, but they generally seem to realize that voting Democrat is better for them, since Democrats aren't as unapologetically racist as Republicans these days. At least from what I understand as an European.
- It should be pointed that each member of The Squad got re-elected. As well as some other Justice Democrats This gives me hope. But to make it count, true strong (and preferably young) progressives need to be pushed through Democratic primaries in all of the blue states as well as the pink ones. Get the Pelosis and Schumers out of the ticket already. Then you can actually start turning America progressive/left-wing too. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is obviously going to be difficult with the money in politics issue. But an attempt needs to be made. If you have intelligent and driven enough candidates in Democratic primaries, I truly believe it could be done. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to call the US an "inherently right-wing nation" when it seems like a lot of progressive economics gets fucked by the overwhelming success of the Southern Strategy. Florida for instance voted for a $15 minimum wage ballot measure... but then voted for Trump... and actually solidified the Republican majority in the legislature. The Florida legislature certainly will try to find loopholes for this $15 minimum wage ballot measure... they always do. Using some anecdotal experience of a few people I know offhand (*cough*), this will lead to the predictable gnashing of teeth online of how government always fucks them over and something... followed up, of course, by the inevitable identity politics bullshit that really drives their vote. If this lot actually turned on their fucking brain, maybe they would realize that voting for the $15 minimum wage or health care (and my impression is a lot of them do want stuff like this, if you ask) is better than voting for "evil Black athlete" memes or "incoherent QAnon bullshit WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" memes or "Lord, I pray that thy marine beat up an atheist professor" memes. Or bullshit like the BoN above where somehow the actions of what a terrible company (Net "season 2 cancelled" flix) does to Community is the really, really important "left wing" shit over stuff that actually could improve lives. My personal opinion, people using their brains is something that is not going to happen (hard to buck 60 years of Southern Strategy that relies on people not using their brains). Unfortunately, IMHO Trump showed that there is a real danger in the US of someone combining authoritarianism, masochist white identity, and paternalistic state-driven economics here -- a blueprint too similar to fascism, in a nutshell, that seems to be very attractive to at least a quarter to half of this nation, and is not going away anytime soon. We are fortunate that Trump was largely incoherent and incompetent, but we might not be so lucky in the future. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie I agree that those policies may be popular in the abstract, but as soon as you detail how to accomplish these policies, everyone goes back to their corners. GOP insist raising taxes is unacceptable, Dem's insisting they don't want to rock the boat. This election is clearly not a repudiation of Trump or Trumpism, those in the GOP who helped remove Trump (Project Lincoln, RVAT) will go right back to the GOP because they accomplished their goal, Democrats won't have the balls to push their agenda by any means necessary, and in 2024 we'll have Tom Cotton or Ben Sasse pushing Trumpism again, but without the Tweets.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's hard for me to call the US an "inherently right-wing nation" when it seems like a lot of progressive economics gets fucked by the overwhelming success of the Southern Strategy
- This is obviously going to be difficult with the money in politics issue. But an attempt needs to be made. If you have intelligent and driven enough candidates in Democratic primaries, I truly believe it could be done. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The key thing here, is that the US is inherently a right-wing nation. The Conservative party in the UK, is more liberal than the Democrats. So saying a progressive President would get things done is bollocks because we would never elect a progressive President. That isn't what will win. Trump won Florida, primarily by increasing his support among Latino's (Cubans, Venezuelans, Brazilians primarily) to make up for the loss of older white voters. And his message was literally only; Biden is a socialist. Even though it is clearly false, demagoguery worked to the GOP advantage. There won't be any changes in American politics until parties that operate outside reality are completely destroyed. Which is never going to happen. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- He caucuses with the Democrats, votes with them on most issues, and is usually counted as a "unofficial" one of their number. My point still stands-51 democrat aligned senators voting on a big progressive reform agenda does not seem likely.-Flandres (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bernie is an independent, not a Democrat. 206.176.133.150 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- That requires all of the senate democrats, from Manchin to Bernie, to vote in lockstep on solidly progressive legislative goals. I think you are a little too optimistic. Oh, and the Filibuster is still a problem.-Flandres (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- The prayer right now is that somehow the Dems can get it to 50-50 (it will be 50-49 until the Special Election in GA is settled), then Kamala would be Senate president, and stuff could be hammered through 51-50.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ouch. That makes future legislative goals...difficult.-Flandres (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Senate seems to be staying Republican and House Democratic. Amazingly at least the two most disliked senators in America[8] (at least last year and McConnell has been at or near bottom consistently for years) were re-elected. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hypothetical question here. If senate actually ties at 50/50, how does the Majority and Minority get defined when it comes to the senate leadership and the procedural shenanigans? Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Democrats would have a majority because the Vice President acts as a tie breaker. Granted, this majority would not be a particularly solid political bedrock, but it's something.-Flandres (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Lacan doesn't get any less Strange[edit]
So I ended up on the Rationalwiki page for Lacan and saw the first quote about Jouissance. Not really sure how he arrives at the square root of negative 1 (an imaginary number). I tried the wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jouissance
And somehow it made even less sense than before. What exactly is the man trying to say? That any pleasure in excess becomes pain? That's not exactly a novel idea, it's an old story theme.Machina (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also a sticking point in many of the "Hedonistic" philosophies. To reach a state of "ataraxia" in Epicureanism, you must avoid excess and complex pleasures. I don't know much about Buddhism and the monastic traditions of Christianity, but I'm betting you'd find some parallels in their philosophy as well. Artificius (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that is what he's trying to get at here though.Machina (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Nevada[edit]
Nevada has six electoral votes. Biden has 264. If he wins Nevada, he wins the entire election.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 12:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Correction, he has 253. He technically hasn't won Arizona (AP called it, but the votes from this morning closed the gap a little too close for comfort for me). He needs Nevada + literally any state not named Alaska. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 12:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- He needs about 60% of the remaining votes in Pennsylvania, NC or Georgia (all realistic possibilities considering the majority of the remaining votes are coming from Democrat rich areas). He needs 41% of whats left in Arizona and 49% of what's left in Nevada. I don't know where the votes are left from in those states. ShabiDOO 13:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nevada seems to be mostly Clark County and Douglas County. Douglas County seems to be about 2/3 Trump area,but it's tiny compared to 53% Democrat voting (so far) Clark County. People of Vegas aren't going to vote for a guy who bankrupts casinos. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 13:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nate Silver is pretty much calling Nevada for Biden now. Biden's leading by about 11,000, only few thousand rural votes favoring Trump are left unreported and everything else is mail votes from Clark county that leans towards Democrats and mail votes are even more favorable to them. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nevada seems to be mostly Clark County and Douglas County. Douglas County seems to be about 2/3 Trump area,but it's tiny compared to 53% Democrat voting (so far) Clark County. People of Vegas aren't going to vote for a guy who bankrupts casinos. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 13:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- He needs about 60% of the remaining votes in Pennsylvania, NC or Georgia (all realistic possibilities considering the majority of the remaining votes are coming from Democrat rich areas). He needs 41% of whats left in Arizona and 49% of what's left in Nevada. I don't know where the votes are left from in those states. ShabiDOO 13:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Presidential election question[edit]
As a hypothetical scenario:
There is a line of succession if the President and Vice President are 'removed from their positions'.
Possibly if this happened close to the handover date to the President Elect 'some agreement for an early transition' could or would be arranged.
But what would happen if the President and Vice President Elect were 'somehow sidelined'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There wouldn't be an early transition. The Speaker of the House would serve the tiny remainder of the president's term. Speaker of the House is always third in line according to the Constitution. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- ^This is technically correct. But depending on when this were to happen, because a new Congress is actually seated before the inauguration, I think you could technically seat the President elect.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- 'Close to' - as in the last 3-4 days before the normal inauguration date.
- What about the 'no available successors' scenario? Anna Livia (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's always a presidential successor thanks to the 1947 law on succession. After the Speaker of the House comes the Speaker pro tempore of the Senate, and then all of the cabinet secretaries by order of departmental seniority. At least one of the secretaries will be kept away from the rest of the government if they all gather together in an event like the State of the Union; they're called the "designated survivor". A totally successful decapitation strike is so unlikely as to be not worthy of consideration. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- And if there is a change of party and 'come the day before the inauguration' there is no President and Vice President elect (and the new cabinet is still theoretical)? Anna Livia (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's the Speaker of the House, then Senate Pro Tempore. With no cabinet, they would likely be President and VP.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- And if there is a change of party and 'come the day before the inauguration' there is no President and Vice President elect (and the new cabinet is still theoretical)? Anna Livia (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's always a presidential successor thanks to the 1947 law on succession. After the Speaker of the House comes the Speaker pro tempore of the Senate, and then all of the cabinet secretaries by order of departmental seniority. At least one of the secretaries will be kept away from the rest of the government if they all gather together in an event like the State of the Union; they're called the "designated survivor". A totally successful decapitation strike is so unlikely as to be not worthy of consideration.
- ^This is technically correct. But depending on when this were to happen, because a new Congress is actually seated before the inauguration, I think you could technically seat the President elect.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Can the world be called perfect?[edit]
https://www.drlwilson.com/articles/PERFECT.htm
I retreaded this old thing after it popped into my head, but I'm (not) surprised about how wrong a lot of the stuff in here is. I mean I guess there isn't much harm if you personally believe it, but to think that everything is just going to work out in the end sounds, deluded. I mean as far as I see the universe is not loving, but it is "fair" in that it doesn't care about us. All events are neutral in the grand scheme of things yes, but we don't live in the grand scheme of things so I think that is inaccurate. I also think that trying to assign a different meaning to everything that happens to you might mess you up emotionally.Machina (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Perfection" is a nonsensical delusion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It's also opinion. Hence why when I read that link I just thought about how wrong it all was. Especially the part of the Soviet Union falling.Machina (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just read Candide. Voltaire dissected this drivel with more humor than I ever will. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- You can call the world anything you want, but it doesn't make the description accurate. Perfection is a state of utmost optimization, beyond which improvement is impossible even theoretically. In the real world, this is usually reserved for simple things. A perfect game of bowling is rare but attainable. Perfect optics have no flaws at the scale of the wavelength they operate at or larger. Perfection gets tricky when there are multiple variables that need to be balanced, and if thermodynamics is involved it's right out. But for a suitably vague and abstract notion of how the world ought to be, you can indeed make the argument that the world is perfect, though the formulation of that would remove the verification of this putative perfection from the realm of possible empirical investigation (that article touches on this). However, "What if..." does not constitute an argument, and that article shows a remarkable lack of intellectual rigor. There are some good points, though. People are generally as happy or sad as they cultivate their habitual thoughts to be, so that's something to consider if you value happiness or whatever. And yes, the Soviet Union fell largely due to a catastrophic misunderstanding of human nature. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- You could call the world a teacup if you wanted to.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Define "human nature." — Oxyaena Harass 13:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- nature | ˈnāCHər |
- noun
- 2 [in singular] the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it:
- • the innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal
- • inborn or hereditary characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality. Often contrasted with nurture.
- Human nature is the set of traits typical of humans in general. To begin with the cladistic definition, humans are mobile multicellular eukaryotic heterotrophs with a notochord and dorsal nerve cord, a backbone and jaws, endothermy and mammary glands, prehensile hands with opposable thumbs and flattened nails, shoulders with a wide degree of motion and no tail, bipedal locomotion, and a gracile skeleton with a rounded braincase and projecting chin. I went into that detail on the physical nature of humans to make it obvious that humans are a very particular sort of thing. The same applies to human psychology. Humans are very far from blank slates (a blank slate would be like something like a computer with no operating system, BIOS, or other firmware, and would just sit there inert), and come loaded with all sorts of instincts and drives. As with anatomy, there is individual variation, but there are general traits, particularly as expressed in group social interactions. Humans are hardwired to make and use spoken language, to pursue various positive stimuli, and avoid various negative stimuli. The details of these are the subject of fields such as psychology, sociology, political science, and economics. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- And in what way does that preclude communism from "working?" And yes, there may be commonalities, but in order for something to qualify as innate it has to be universal. These are only general trends, not universalities. You have yet to justify your thought terminating cliche regarding communism. As for biology, I direct you to Hull (1986) "On Human Nature". — Oxyaena Harass 10:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- You can call the world anything you want, but it doesn't make the description accurate. Perfection is a state of utmost optimization, beyond which improvement is impossible even theoretically. In the real world, this is usually reserved for simple things. A perfect game of bowling is rare but attainable. Perfect optics have no flaws at the scale of the wavelength they operate at or larger. Perfection gets tricky when there are multiple variables that need to be balanced, and if thermodynamics is involved it's right out. But for a suitably vague and abstract notion of how the world ought to be, you can indeed make the argument that the world is perfect, though the formulation of that would remove the verification of this putative perfection from the realm of possible empirical investigation (that article touches on this). However, "What if..." does not constitute an argument, and that article shows a remarkable lack of intellectual rigor. There are some good points, though. People are generally as happy or sad as they cultivate their habitual thoughts to be, so that's something to consider if you value happiness or whatever. And yes, the Soviet Union fell largely due to a catastrophic misunderstanding of human nature. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just read Candide. Voltaire dissected this drivel with more humor than I ever will. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. I defy you to show me a world with fewer flaws. Artificius (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- “And in what way does that preclude communism from "working?"” You asked for a definition of human nature, not an argument about communism. And why does “working” have quotes there? You’re not quoting anyone in this conversation. But anyway, the Soviet Union fell. Because enough people lost faith in the system. Because the system wasn’t working the way it was supposed to. Because it was organized on an incorrect understanding of various aspects of human psychology, notably economics and human motivation. For example, humans are sensitive to marginal changes as motivating incentives. When considering whether to put forth some effort, the gain produced by that effort is typically a large concern. Economic collectivism decouples marginal productivity and marginal reward, running into the free rider problem. This can work in some areas, where large externalities make private interactions inefficient at optimizing societal benefits, but it’s a poor strategy for running a whole economy past the scale of a small commune where everyone knows everyone and peer pressure can enforce good behavior.
- “in order for something to qualify as innate it has to be universal” No, it doesn’t.
- innate | iˈnāt |
- adjective
- inborn; natural
- universal | ˌyo͞onəˈvərsəl |
- adjective
- of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases
- Birthmarks are innate but not universal. Genetic damage from cosmic radiation is universal but not innate. When speaking of human nature, the concern is typical innate traits, not necessarily universal ones. For example, human reproduction is universally sexual, using an XY determination system, and ~99.8% of the population is XX or XY, making those the typical states. Recurring atypical traits can be described statistically as part of the nature of a population. For example, about 10% of humans are left-handed. While left-handedness is not the typical state, the neurological development processes that sometimes result in left-handedness are a part of human nature.
- “thought terminating cliche” I note that you’re using that bit of jargon to dismiss a conclusion at odds with your ideological positions without grappling with the underlying criticism. And yes, that’s an actual conclusion. It’s been almost thirty years since the Soviet Union disbanded, and the details are not secrets. Much Soviet policy was based on ideology that’s wrong, and so it didn’t produce effective results in the real world. You know how Lysenkoism went, right? Well, the labor theory of value doesn’t work either. Humans don’t actually work the way Soviet leadership thought they did, so the society they built was eventually unable to sustain itself. Why do you think the Soviet Union imported food and industrial equipment from the US?
- “As for biology, I direct you to Hull (1986)” That’s an abstract of a paywalled article. Did you intend for me to respond to the abstract, or to the PDF I dug up elsewhere? At any rate, can you make your case yourself in your own words? Hull is making a mostly semantic argument about conceptual difficulties in basing an ethical system on human biology. He acknowledges that natures can be formulated in the way I’ve been doing in this discussion, while his hangup is the ways in which various philosophers have attempted to use supposed natures (particularly universalities) in order to derive a basis for ethical systems. While I think his argument is rather sloppy, it’s decent for what it does, which is not what we’ve been discussing.
- “These are only general trends, not universalities.” There are some universalities, but that’s largely beside the point. General trends are extremely important for how societies function. Human nature with respect to the functioning of societies was the original point mentioned here, and attempting to redefine it to exclusively universal traits constitutes a straw man. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- And you don't think that doesn't have a cultural component? Capitalism regularly fails to work, whatever work even means of course. Have you ever heard of the boom and bust cycle, friend? — Oxyaena Harass 21:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
You can call it perfect. You'd be wrong, but you can. Freedom of speech and all that. ._. (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- “And you don't think that doesn't have a cultural component?” I mentioned multiple things. Some do, some don’t. Obviously culture and other environmental factors influence humans in various ways. But they are (obviously) not the only influences. The differences between humans and cats are not just cultural.
- “Capitalism regularly fails to work” If you have something better, a Nobel prize in economics is waiting for you.
- “whatever work even means of course” The purpose of an economic system is to direct a society’s means towards its ends. Different systems do this better than others. I’ve mentioned it here before in this sort of context, but this video is relevant. Different ways of organizing society vary greatly in their effects. Cultures are not only different, those differences matter.
- “Have you ever heard of the boom and bust cycle” Of course. They’re a part of all large-scale economies, capitalist or otherwise, and have been written about for millennia. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Long-time reader, first time writer[edit]
Figured here would be as good a place as any to vent.
I've been going back and forth between watching the results (because I hate myself) and watching old Transformers episodes to take my mind off things. It's hard to focus on anything else when this is probably the most important presidential election of our lives (well, until the next one). For me, at least, the worst part of this is the waiting...waiting for randomly specified times for insignificant vote drops from random states to come in, or any concrete announcement on ANYTHING. It's painful every election, but this year is the worst because it's gone on for DAYS and there's no telling when it'll end.
The first night gave me endless PTSD-style flashbacks to watching the 2016 returns and having the sinking feeling of, "wait, we're seriously putting that guy in the White House?".
I especially feel for the people having to count the votes, common people who have been order to function on the level of machines. Please let tomorrow be the end of this, either way.
Who am I kidding? Whoever loses is going to bury the winner in years of litigation and we'll never live this week down.— Unsigned, by: 2601:145:500:a14:68c6:7fff:fe41:db1f / talk / contribs
- The litigation won't go anywhere. Biden's going to win, the lower courts will throw out all Trump protests and the SCOTUS will hold the lower court rulings/throw away the cases. The up to a week ballot count to figure out who won is a matter of fact resulting from a two party system and modern problems. You still get it done faster than we do in Finland with our multiparty elections and run-ups between top two candidates. Well except for the last time, when 62,7% of the people voted for one guy on the first round. I'm still mad about that.
- But it's going to be alrightish. Trump can do fuck all about losing except whinge. You'll be stuck with the geriatric technocrat as a president and a Republican held Senate. So almost nothing will happen for at least two years after Biden steps in. It'll be a boring shitshow. But it's going to be less terrible than the last four years. Maybe. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- the lower courts will throw out all Trump protests and the SCOTUS will hold the lower court rulings/throw away the cases.
- SCOTUS will hold the lower court rulings/throw away the cases? Have you forgotten which side has six justices on the Supreme Court? 2001:8003:59DB:4100:D0C3:3601:8A2:F862 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Roberts is still the Chief, though, and Roberts historically has done everything possible to avoid seriously controversial issues like this. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict)Trump has no case. Roberts will absolutely side with the liberal judges and Gorsuch and Cavanaugh will do so too most likely. And we need only one of the last two. This is not Gore v. Bush. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)To be fair, Dems flipping the senate is still a possibility...they will just do so by a razor thin margin, so they will be reliant on the votes of Blue Dogs(more conservative Democrats) in order to advance progressive policy, and a lot of current progressive goals like filibuster reform, court packing or ending fossil fuel subsides would still be pretty difficult. Still better than a second Trump term, but in the long run one cannot be faulted for feeling pessimistic for the future of the USA.-Flandres (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hell, Alito might side with the Liberals on this one. Thomas will always vote on party line and Barrett will do what her cultist husband tells her to. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)To be fair, Dems flipping the senate is still a possibility...they will just do so by a razor thin margin, so they will be reliant on the votes of Blue Dogs(more conservative Democrats) in order to advance progressive policy, and a lot of current progressive goals like filibuster reform, court packing or ending fossil fuel subsides would still be pretty difficult. Still better than a second Trump term, but in the long run one cannot be faulted for feeling pessimistic for the future of the USA.-Flandres (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Roberts is still the Chief, though, and Roberts historically has done everything possible to avoid seriously controversial issues like this.
- Hey, it's OP. Just made an account here. Just wanted to add on. I know a Biden win is pretty likely now, but I just can't see the finish line until it's official. I've been trained to accept the worst-case scenario in every situation so far. Every time I see a slight increase for Trump by 200 votes or so, I freak out. There's a reason I chose this username. (I hope I signed this right, BTW.) (Edit: no I didn't) NervousWreck96 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- You signed it right. You just put the post in wrong place maybe. I'm not going to tell you not to worry, but breathe. It'll work out. If you have some genuine problems with depression or anxiety, other folks here can help with that. I can promise it's not going to be as terrible as you might think at the moment and you'll get the final result in day or two. It might be contested, but it won't change. It's going to be okay. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 02:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
So far, the Trump campaign hasn't exactly been sending its best into the litigation fight. Most lawsuits have been quickly tossed, or settled with trivial concessions to plaintiffs' demands. They'll have to considerably up their game if any of this fuckery is going to make it all the way up to SCOTUS. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
In fact, given the paucity of evidence presented to date, I'd say this initial round of litigation has been almost entirely performative, either to activate the base or maybe just to placate the orange eejit in the White House. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I....[edit]
My partner committed suicide. I need time to mourn. I.... I don't think I'll be coming back. Goodbye, for what it's worth. — Oxyaena Harass 23:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I can't imagine what you're going through. I'm deeply sorry.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry for your loss Oxy. Take all the time you need. I hope you'll find a way to recover from this and choose to return here one day. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- My condolences, @Oxyaena. May they forever live within your heart. --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularRasoning🎄See my experiments 23:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for your loss 😭--Ratildonian King (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's just awful. I wish you the best. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oxyaena I am so sorry to hear that. I have tears in my eyes right now. Love to you and all those who cared for your partner. Spud (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that, Oxy. My condolences for your loss. Bongolian (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's this guy I know who sort of knew someone else that also committed suicide today. RIP both of them. Aaronmichael5 01:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Suicide hotline for those in the US; 800-273-8255
- Most suicides are impulse decisions. While yes, there's a bit of planning, it's almost always a split-second decision, and disturbingly, it's often one of those decisions where you often change your mind against it only after it's too late. I would recommend reaching out to a therapist or counselor immediately, even if you don't think you need one right now. CoryUsar (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's this guy I know who sort of knew someone else that also committed suicide today. RIP both of them. Aaronmichael5 01:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that, Oxy. My condolences for your loss. Bongolian (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oxyaena I am so sorry to hear that. I have tears in my eyes right now. Love to you and all those who cared for your partner. Spud (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's just awful. I wish you the best.
- Sorry for your loss 😭--Ratildonian King (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- My condolences, @Oxyaena. May they forever live within your heart. --Goatspeed. Watch me🎄CircularR
That's the shittiest thing ever Oxy. If you wanna skype or text chat send me a private message. ShabiDOO 04:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, our suicide page does have links to international suicide hotlines. I read recently that, at least for teens, knowing someone who attempted suicide can put oneself at greater risk for suicide.[9] Bongolian (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- My condoleances. Take your time to grief, and if you ever want to come back, you're always welcome. As others have said before me, if you have suicidical thoughts, please speak to a suicide hotline. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 07:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh Oxy, I'm so sorry for your loss. In one way or another we've all been impacted by suicide; I am in tears for your partner and the thoughts and memories of my friends who've also taken their own lives. I can only recommend what worked for me - please consider speaking with someone, or joining a support group. And please, be kind to yourself, be gentle with yourself, and with others. Semipenultimate (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- My condoleances. Take your time to grief, and if you ever want to come back, you're always welcome. As others have said before me, if you have suicidical thoughts, please speak to a suicide hotline. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
COVID denialists: Believing in every conspiracy to absolve themselves of any responsibility[edit]
When people refuse to wear masks and infect others, all they do is cry about conspiracies to absolve themselves of any responsibility behind their actions.
They do not want to take responsibility in stopping the spread of infection. They want to blame others. The reason the virus is still spreading is because not enough people are wearing masks and they are attending large gatherings.
Science denial for you. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- And these same fuckers are usually the first to bring up the "pErSoNaL rEsPoNsIbIlItY" argument when it comes to giving people healthcare. I wish they'd practise what they preached.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- They want order. The conspiracies give them a nice digestible narrative rather than the truth that everything is uncertain at the moment. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed - same as religion back when it was invented - it gives a story that explains things that you don't (or don't want to) understand.Aloysius the Gaul 02:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Will Trump win?[edit]
Yes— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:eded:5038:506d:48 / talk / contribs
- Doubtful at this point. Also, man, get a life. At least try scripting a bot to troll us. At this point I feel bad for you that this is what you do in your spare time-Hastur! (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- No. He will lose Pennsylvania, probably tomorrow, and Biden will be at 273 EV. Will likely win AZ and NV.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh look, another pathetic shitpost supporting a man who wouldn't piss on his supporters if they were on fire... Yawn... Wake me when this moron does something interesting. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I swear the Trump supporters math is more pathetic that Bernie supporters math in 16. But when your only personality is politics, your candidate losing is challenge to your very being.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh look, another pathetic shitpost supporting a man who wouldn't piss on his supporters if they were on fire... Yawn... Wake me when this moron does something interesting. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The polling was AWFUL[edit]
The polls for the 2020 elections were completely terrible. We were told for months that Susan Collins was going to lose, then she wins with not just a plurality, but a bare majority to avoid vote transferring via the ranked-choice system. We were told that Lindsey Graham was facing a tossup, then he wins by over ten points. We were told that House Democrats would likely gain seats, and they're currently panicking because they suffered unexpected losses in districts we were told were likely to be Democrat holds. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 06:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to what pollsters are learning from these last few elections-Hastur! (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Shy Tory Factor? Had it in the UK forever, it varies so much election to election so it's hard to adjust for. I suspect it's intensity is based on how shit the candidate is, like there's some ghost inhabiting the polling booths that just wants to see the world burn. 08:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Some of it was awful some of it wasn't. With only 90% of the national votes counted it seems Biden's popular vote share will increase. Nate Silver only gave probabilities of winning and no guarantee that it would happen. He has also admitted the deficiencies in polling and calls to improve them. ShabiDOO 12:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I can't recall the last time that either US or GB polls made a solid prediction. (But that could say more about my memory)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @LT Do you know how odds work? It seems like you don't know how odds work. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I can't recall the last time that either US or GB polls made a solid prediction. (But that could say more about my memory)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Some of it was awful some of it wasn't. With only 90% of the national votes counted it seems Biden's popular vote share will increase. Nate Silver only gave probabilities of winning and no guarantee that it would happen. He has also admitted the deficiencies in polling and calls to improve them. ShabiDOO 12:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Shy Tory Factor? Had it in the UK forever, it varies so much election to election so it's hard to adjust for. I suspect it's intensity is based on how shit the candidate is, like there's some ghost inhabiting the polling booths that just wants to see the world burn. 08:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
USHA[edit]
It's short for US Health Advisors. The reviews on glassdoor say it's an MLM and that pay is 100% commission based. There's also talk of you having to pay for training. Does anyone have more info on whether this is really an MLM?Machina (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like an MLM but I wouldn't take any job that's pure commissions. Unless you're really thirsty and outgoing, you're likely to make very little money, burn out quickly, or both.-Hastur! (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- go for an interview. if sounds like more a sales pitch than a job interview, its probably a scam. for genuine jobs, even really shitty ones, you have to do the convincing not the other way round. i went for job a while back for such a place, over dozen candidates there had me thinking ive got no chance here - too much competition. then the actual interview turned out to be a group presentation where whatever product you thought you were going to selling seemed like an after thought as they assured every one there targets are super easy to hit and they'll be fast tracked to recruiting their own teams to make the big money in no time.
- im pretty sure i could have taken a massive shit in the middle of room as everyone watched and still got the job. there was at best a 3 question 'aptitude' test that may as well have been asking what my favourite colour. they didnt even look at it before telling me that i started day after tomorrow. there was a genuine product being sold i think or it might have been just been exploiting a government drive to encourage making homes more heat efficient with incentives of some kind, but this company had nothing to do with the physical product or installing in homes anything that was required. it was awhile ago i cant remember the exact details. they werent a building firm, but selling something that would be provided by builders.
- it was an odd experience but i didnt know about mlm at the time, a bit digging when i got home encouraged me to not take up their offer. i then started noticing similar job ads everywhere for similar sounding companies, all offering the same 'want to earn big money in sales but have no experience' deals all with the same address at where i had just had been. if its too good to be true it probably is. either scam or such a dreadful working experience they cannot retain staff.
- i have heard since that any legitimate sales position will have a basic salary + commission. one that are 100% commission based are not well regarded, and viewed with suspicion. at the very least, if you take such a job but find you not well suited to it, or just have slow week or two, you can potentially earn nothing for your troubles. any other job, even if you fucking appalling at it, you can at least expect to get paid for your time before yo get sacked. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The customer-facing part of the website gives no indication of the costs (while 'a random sample of UK medical insurance does). Anna Livia (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Radio campaign to encourage people with severe developmental/learning disabilities to vote[edit]
This radio campaign encouraging began a few weeks ago giving information on how people with severe developmental/learning disabilities can vote. Would it be possible to develop a unique voting system so people with developmental disabilities can have an easier time voting? People with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities should be given the access they need to vote. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:547F:2B3A:E3BE:1525 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Every single citizen (or permanent resident) should vote. As long as someone else isn't forcing them to vote in a certain way...then why not? — Unsigned, by: Shabidoo / talk / contribs 15:35, 24 October 2020
- Felons? Minors? Illegal aliens? People judged mentally incompetent to care for themselves? In order to keep working, democracies need voters that vote responsibly, or else the system will collapse, which has been known and commented upon for millennia. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- US is one of the few democratic countries to ban people with criminal records from voting. I cannot think of a single reason not to let them vote. In addition a lot of democratic countries (including Canada and much of Europe) allow prisoners to vote. Again...I cannot think of a reason why not to allow them. As for minors I'd have no problem letting people as young as 16 vote. I clearly said "citizens or permanent residents" which would exclude undocumented people (though I'd have no problem with a refugee claimant who has resided in the country for at least a year to vote). I have never heard of a reliable source demonstrating how prisoners unfairly skew election results, nor about undocumented people and certainly not about minors. If you could give us a source on that I would be interested to read that. If you could also explain how exactly allowing people with learning disabilities would lead to an electoral system collapsing? How would that collapse happen exactly? By what mechanism would that harm democratic institutions? ShabiDOO 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Zeal for equality has many slippery slopes to fall down, and this is one of them. I generally don't think that a being born with a human-derived genome has any business voting unless they can at least learn and remember the names of the top of the ballot candidates and articulate a reason for choosing one or the other. Allowing such beings to vote invites their manipulation by the cognitively average. Fortunately, few elections would be swayed by their votes, but it isn't impossible, and I would find it a bit strange if the next President is chosen, in a Bush v. Gore scenario, by a being who can't be potty trained. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- “I cannot think of a single reason not to let them vote.” That doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
- “As for minors I'd have no problem letting people as young as 16 vote.” So you agree that some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, you just disagree on where to draw the line. What criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not?
- “I clearly said "citizens or permanent residents" which would exclude undocumented people” An illegal alien who resides permanently is a permanent resident. And the “illegal” part of “illegal alien” is generally not due to a lack of documentation, but from the violation of some immigration law. People who overstay visas are illegal aliens despite clear documentation. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't seem to know what a "permanent resident status is". It is someone who is given the right to live in a country for an extended period of time or more usually...permanently but doesn't necessarily get citizenship. An undocumented person is almost never officially a permanent resident unless they get special permission.
- Yes I do think there should be an age limit, it doesn't quite make that much sense for a new born baby to vote.
- If you know of a reason why a person with a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to vote...then go ahead and say it. What is it? Please give a valid reason other than "because they broke the law once". Try to explain your reasoning in more than one sentence. ShabiDOO 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Smerdis, would there be a sort of test for people at voting stations to determine whether they are mentally fit for voting? Some people do need assistance (for example those with physical impairments) so it is not as though people don't show up with assistance or give someone power of attorney to vote for them (in some places). I wonder how that would work. Would someone working at a voting booth be on the lookout for people who might have learning challenges? Would they submit to a set of questions they had to properly answer? Or would social workers visit people with known mental challenges and submit them to tests to see whether they could vote? What would the criteria be (there has to be a cut off point)? I'm not saying it is necessarily unreasonable to have a criteria, I'm just curious what it should be and how it would be implemented. ShabiDOO 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Smerdis said: "I would find it a bit strange if the next President is chosen, in a Bush v. Gore scenario, by a being who can't be potty trained." Votes are cast all the time by "Spaghetti stain Joe" types who cannot even explain what a political party is, how their electoral system works, what their candidate stands for or even why in particular they are selecting their candidate. If thousands of such people vote I don't see why a fraction of that number aren't allowed to draw an "X" in whatever box they choose for whatever reason they like. A citizen is a citizen after all and if one shows an interest in voting, wants to hit a button, punch a ballot or draw an X because why not? then they should be allowed to. It is just as much of a slippery slope to deny an of age citizen the right to go into that booth. ShabiDOO 22:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Smerdis, would there be a sort of test for people at voting stations to determine whether they are mentally fit for voting? Some people do need assistance (for example those with physical impairments) so it is not as though people don't show up with assistance or give someone power of attorney to vote for them (in some places). I wonder how that would work. Would someone working at a voting booth be on the lookout for people who might have learning challenges? Would they submit to a set of questions they had to properly answer? Or would social workers visit people with known mental challenges and submit them to tests to see whether they could vote? What would the criteria be (there has to be a cut off point)? I'm not saying it is necessarily unreasonable to have a criteria, I'm just curious what it should be and how it would be implemented. ShabiDOO 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Zeal for equality has many slippery slopes to fall down, and this is one of them. I generally don't think that a being born with a human-derived genome has any business voting unless they can at least learn and remember the names of the top of the ballot candidates and articulate a reason for choosing one or the other. Allowing such beings to vote invites their manipulation by the cognitively average. Fortunately, few elections would be swayed by their votes, but it isn't impossible, and I would find it a bit strange if the next President is chosen, in a Bush v. Gore scenario, by a being who can't be potty trained. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- US is one of the few democratic countries to ban people with criminal records from voting. I cannot think of a single reason not to let them vote. In addition a lot of democratic countries (including Canada and much of Europe) allow prisoners to vote. Again...I cannot think of a reason why not to allow them. As for minors I'd have no problem letting people as young as 16 vote. I clearly said "citizens or permanent residents" which would exclude undocumented people (though I'd have no problem with a refugee claimant who has resided in the country for at least a year to vote). I have never heard of a reliable source demonstrating how prisoners unfairly skew election results, nor about undocumented people and certainly not about minors. If you could give us a source on that I would be interested to read that. If you could also explain how exactly allowing people with learning disabilities would lead to an electoral system collapsing? How would that collapse happen exactly? By what mechanism would that harm democratic institutions? ShabiDOO 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Felons? Minors? Illegal aliens? People judged mentally incompetent to care for themselves? In order to keep working, democracies need voters that vote responsibly, or else the system will collapse, which has been known and commented upon for millennia. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Every single citizen (or permanent resident) should vote. As long as someone else isn't forcing them to vote in a certain way...then why not? — Unsigned, by: Shabidoo / talk / contribs 15:35, 24 October 2020
Denying a person the right to vote due to disability is 100% Ableism. Nobody should be discriminated against. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act were put into place to protect the civil liberties of disabled people. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I didn’t think you (Shabidoo) were using the legal term (there are after all a lot of illegal aliens residing permanently in various places, and voting concerns regarding them has been a topic of interest in recent US politics), but if that’s what you meant, I withdraw that point. I would ask, however, that you respond to actual terms in turn. “Undocumented people” are not the same as “illegal aliens”, and “people with criminal records” are not the same as “felons”.
- That still leaves us with the issue of coming up with a set of criteria by which people should be allowed to vote. Considerations of whether specific people or groups should vote is an issue for after the general criteria get worked out. You think that there should be an age limit for voting. Why? Whether it makes sense for a newborn baby to be eligible to vote depends on the goals to be achieved. It is not a trait that exists independently of any criteria. To repeat, what criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not?
- As for administering selective criteria for voter eligibility, I would expect that any new criteria would be applied the same as current criteria: at registration, with a check at voting time to be sure that the person voting is the person registered to vote.
- “Votes are cast all the time by "Spaghetti stain Joe" types who cannot even explain what a political party is” And that’s not a good thing. It’s an undesirable part of the current system that would be hard to remove under anything like current regulations. That doesn’t by any means imply that it would be a good thing to allow other uninformed people to vote.
- “A citizen is a citizen after all” Not in regards to voting and many other issues. Citizenship grants certain things on its own, but voting is not one of them.
- “Denying a person the right to vote due to disability is 100% Ableism.” If the disability in question is a cognitive disability that prevents making an informed choice (in the manner of why children are not allowed to vote), then it is an appropriate restriction. “Discrimination” is just a recognition of some difference between one thing and another. A synonym is “discernment”. Discrimination has a negative connotation because it’s used in legal contexts specifying protected classes upon which discrimination is prohibited in certain circumstances, but that’s a special use case, not the only one. Discrimination in voting rights based on age is ubiquitous and non-controversial apart from where specifically to draw the line. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- mental incompetency is not a bar to voting in the uk. indeed, the threat to democracy posed by such people voting being manipulated into voting a particular way is so slight when compared to the very threat posed by how various authorities have used legal limitations on who can vote to prevent large numbers of people voting. mental incompetency can be defined a great many ways, effecting people in a similarly great many ways or so specific that it often would not impair their judgement.
- different states have different rules, restrict differing amounts of people arbitrarily, the us has so much in the way of deliberate voter disenfranchisement in its history and its present, and so shamelessly brazen, worrying about the hypothetical and miniscule threat to democracy removal a bar on voting thats implemention has in actual fact not hypothetically in some states arbitrarily and unfairly disenfranchised significant numbers of voters in some states is arse about tit. its not enough taking inconsideration what mental incompetency is, the many definition, the differing ways it is decided, the differing ways it can be contested, the differing amounts of people effected in differing states. its assuming a definition is both universal and applied fairly and correctly and prevents a hypothetical problem both unlikely and not really problem. its not just a legal bar to voting that serves no real purpose if perfectly and uniformly applied, its a bar that serves no purpose is haphazardly and arbitrarily applied from state to state that it has disenfranchised voters needlessly, and is in a real sense harmed democracy not protected it.
- its not as if being legally declared competent by whatever standard is being use in your locale prevent anyone from being manipulated into voting against their interests, against voting irresponsibly, or voting by going eeny meeny miny mo in the election booth.
- sure some limits on voting are required. a minimum age. 18 or 16? i dont think it makes a whole lot of difference. any injustice is pretty minor, and temporary. im not going contest attempts to prevent 16 yos from voting or aid them. there is little i can see that inherently hinders or aid a particular party, nor are 16 year olds unable to grasp what is required or nor unable understand the issues involved with sufficient depth to vote or at risk of undue pressure to vote a particular way. theres no reason why they shouldnt vote, and real reason why its an injustice that they cant. why not 17? or 15? 14 even? its ultimately an arbitrary cutoff. 18 was a good enough choice when it was reduced form whatever it was before, and i cant see lowering to sixteen rights any significant injustice requiring giving much time and attention to address. i suspect parties that push for lowering to sixteen feel they will be rewarded with 16 year olds votes rather than a heartfelt conviction. ::convicted criminals voting? a loss of participation in society, such as voting, is part of the penalty that a prison sentence entails. a short sentence for a misdemeanour say 6 months though? maybe should still be able to vote. someone else can argue the toss for the cutoff.
- the specifics for these limitations could be argued for one thing over another without greatly effecting the substance of the limitation, and mostly have nationwide implementation and cant easily be used to disenfranchise large groups of voters by design or effect of their implementation. mental incapacity test however, has great potential, if not already has, to disenfranchise many people unfairly, sometimes its automatically applied, often its ambiguously an inconsistently applied, while processes to contest a judgement can be daunting and costly.
- its an unnecessary and inconsistantly applied. its only there so people can say they are tough on a more hypothetical than real threat of voting fraud at the expense of marginalised and vulnerable people. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I work with people who are full blown paranoid schizophrenics and have IQs in the 40s, as well as many people who are entirely unable to speak and almost incapable of understanding any form of communication (think Angelman Syndrome or Rett Syndrome level disability). Though I generally agree with the idea of extending the right to vote to as many adults as possible, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to even consider legally allowing them to vote; I don't think I really have to explain all the ways that inevitably would go horrifically wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- So we would actually implement a cognitive test before people vote? ShabiDOO 02:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blade, in many democratic countries literally every single citizen of age is allowed to vote. So it isn't even a question of whether they should be allowed to vote or not. The question is, should provisions be made to make it easier to facilitate people with learning difficulties to vote? If there are provisions to help the blind, people with physical disabilities...and people with learning difficulties are going to show up to the polling station anyways and attempt to vote, should effort be put in to facilitating it? I haven't the slightest clue how that would work but, again, if they have the right to vote I don't see why we would make provisions for some but not for them. ShabiDOO 02:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still curious what the rationale is behind not allowing convicted felons to vote. Does anyone actually support that law? If so...could you explain why? The same goes with prisoners. Whats the deal with not letting them vote? ShabiDOO 02:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- As with age, the disagreement is not so much that there should be a line as precisely where it should be and how to practically implement it. And that really does need to be nailed down for a policy to be put into effect. As I mentioned above, eligibility criteria in general are checked at voter registration. The institutionalized people mentioned above typically have some legal declaration of incompetence made, which has various effects on rights and privileges depending on the jurisdiction and details of the case. As for felons, it goes something like, “In order for a democracy to work, voters must be interested in the wellbeing of society. Felons have demonstrated that they are not interested in the wellbeing of society, and conviction of a serious crime involves various restrictions on normal rights. As such, one of those restrictions is a revocation of voting rights.”
- “if they have the right to vote” That is a point under contention. Rights are normative statements indicating that something ought to be the case, and people disagree about how things should be.
- “The question is, should” In all questions of this form, the answer depends on the goals to be achieved. What are the criteria by which disabilities are qualified for accommodation in government services? And to repeat a related question, what criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo The reasoning behind felony disenfranchisement is many-fold. In no particular order (nor all the reasons (nor necessarily substantiated reasons!)), felons are considered lesser citizens with fewer rights, felons have demonstrated poor judgement and thus shouldn't have the right to vote, felons would vote for things that "honest" citizens might abhor ranging from legalized rape to decriminalized weed, and the punishment for crime is not just the years in prison but the loss of the right to vote and many other indignities that forever keep ex-cons as a permanent underclass. Not all the arguments have merit, but those are the common arguments.
- As for the OT, I strongly believe in two things:
- 1) Those who don't contribute to society don't deserve the same say in how society is run
- 2) Due to human nature, any system that excludes the "unworthy" will always result in more problems than the systems that simply lets everyone vote CoryUsar (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- For voting. The only qualifications in my opinion should be being a citizen who is of age and wants to go into a voting booth and write an x in a box (or communicate to someone else which x to cross). That's it and that's how it works in a lot of civilised democratic countries. I don't care why anyone wants to mark their x how they do (obviously it would be praiseworthy if they put thought into it but that's their prerogative). I don't care if you have any criminal convictions, are completely uneducated, want to vote for the person you find prettiest, have physical or mental limitations, want to spoil your ballot by drawing a happy face on it or write in the name of your dog as a candidate. All of age citizens should be allowed in that booth. I don't buy any of the arguments limiting anyone and find it completely exaggerated the claim that doing so would lead to democracy's collapse (most especially in countries with proportionally elected governments or without a directly elected executive. ShabiDOO 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I still haven't heard anyone suggesting if there should be a cognitive test for people at the voting stations or how a state could reasonably (and within a reasonable economic budget) determine who can or cannot vote without making voting a more tedious process. ShabiDOO 18:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo As I basically said before, no, there shouldn't be a cognitive test, because any attempt to limit the vote to those who "deserve" to vote will inevitably be abused in some fashion that would result in far more serious problems than would occur if we just let idiots and felons vote. CoryUsar (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fuck off you ableist pieces of shit. You know, I keep asking what human nature is, but all I get is meaningless drivel by fools pretending to speak for something they cannot even know, for an entire species of over 7 billion individuals. What is human nature? That held in common by all human societies? Well, guess what, for every so-called "rule" you can come up with about the human condition, there almost always is an exception. You're all a bunch of fucking idiots, bigots, scoundrels, the lot of you. A bunch of Dunning-Kruger jackoffs who know nothing about what you proclaim to be scientific fact. "Felons shouldn't vote" why not, haven't they already served their time? "Minors shouldn't vote" again, why not? A 16 year old is certainly capable of grasping complex societal issues "Illegal aliens shouldn't vote" why the fuck not? The notion of an "illegal alien" is an illegitimate one anyways, this country was founded by illegal aliens, so fuck off with your xenophobic bullshit. — Oxyaena Harass 18:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo As I basically said before, no, there shouldn't be a cognitive test, because any attempt to limit the vote to those who "deserve" to vote will inevitably be abused in some fashion that would result in far more serious problems than would occur if we just let idiots and felons vote. CoryUsar (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I still haven't heard anyone suggesting if there should be a cognitive test for people at the voting stations or how a state could reasonably (and within a reasonable economic budget) determine who can or cannot vote without making voting a more tedious process. ShabiDOO 18:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- For voting. The only qualifications in my opinion should be being a citizen who is of age and wants to go into a voting booth and write an x in a box (or communicate to someone else which x to cross). That's it and that's how it works in a lot of civilised democratic countries. I don't care why anyone wants to mark their x how they do (obviously it would be praiseworthy if they put thought into it but that's their prerogative). I don't care if you have any criminal convictions, are completely uneducated, want to vote for the person you find prettiest, have physical or mental limitations, want to spoil your ballot by drawing a happy face on it or write in the name of your dog as a candidate. All of age citizens should be allowed in that booth. I don't buy any of the arguments limiting anyone and find it completely exaggerated the claim that doing so would lead to democracy's collapse (most especially in countries with proportionally elected governments or without a directly elected executive. ShabiDOO 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still curious what the rationale is behind not allowing convicted felons to vote. Does anyone actually support that law? If so...could you explain why? The same goes with prisoners. Whats the deal with not letting them vote? ShabiDOO 02:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blade, in many democratic countries literally every single citizen of age is allowed to vote. So it isn't even a question of whether they should be allowed to vote or not. The question is, should provisions be made to make it easier to facilitate people with learning difficulties to vote? If there are provisions to help the blind, people with physical disabilities...and people with learning difficulties are going to show up to the polling station anyways and attempt to vote, should effort be put in to facilitating it? I haven't the slightest clue how that would work but, again, if they have the right to vote I don't see why we would make provisions for some but not for them. ShabiDOO 02:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- So we would actually implement a cognitive test before people vote? ShabiDOO 02:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I work with people who are full blown paranoid schizophrenics and have IQs in the 40s, as well as many people who are entirely unable to speak and almost incapable of understanding any form of communication (think Angelman Syndrome or Rett Syndrome level disability). Though I generally agree with the idea of extending the right to vote to as many adults as possible, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to even consider legally allowing them to vote; I don't think I really have to explain all the ways that inevitably would go horrifically wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If the RW user base is comprised of such irredeemable scum, you should probably fuck off back to Twitter and try your best to survive on the pitiful amount of attention and ass pats you get from your fellow gimps and loons. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see Oxy has hit the "fuck everybody but me" stage again. I sigh. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oxy please, when you have the urge to insult the entire community, take a break and come back before aiming your attack on more than just the members of the conversation. ShabiDOO 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Allowing undocumented people to vote without somehow documenting them would be open too much realistic abuse (unlike say, allowing people with learning challenges to vote which would have a trivial effect). Allowing anyone without documents to show up anywhere and vote (which they could potentially do multiple times in multiple constituencies) could effectively seriously challenge democratic principles (unlike say, just allowing a small group of marginalised people like those with learning difficulties). I could imagine if an extremely liberal government somehow registered undocumented migrants who have lived permanently at an address for a certain amount of time without the risk of them later being visited by ICE (an extremely unrealistic scenario but let's pretend it's somehow possible) then they would, at least for voting purposes, no longer be undocumented. I would prefer that anyone residing in a place for a certain number of years for whatever reason, be allowed to vote. But I only think allowing undocumented people to vote should be done through some form of legal registration which some countries, such as the US are unlikely to tolerate any time soon. ShabiDOO 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- The sad thing is that she is too delusional to even be capable of seeing that she is the common denominator in every failed relationship in her life, whether those relationships are family, friends, employment, romance, whatever. It's part of why, a while back, I was trying to get her to answer why she thought communism would somehow be better for her. CoryUsar (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I have a loving family, many friends, and two loving partners. I was also talking about the people in this thread, who think it's okay to deny a vote to someone for something they cannot control. It reeks of ableism, but none of y'all take it seriously so, lol. Also, HBC, do you really have to be so toxic? — Oxyaena Harass 20:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's all chill on the personal attacks please. That goes doubly so for Helena Bonham Carter, remember that you've been dragged to the coop for being an excessively toxic ass and escalating conflicts. The same goes for Cory, please don't make insinuations or drag Oxy's personal affairs into this. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 20:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- "You're all a bunch of fucking idiots, bigots, scoundrels, the lot of you. A bunch of Dunning-Kruger jackoffs who know nothing about what you proclaim to be scientific fact." Go clutch your pearls somewhere else. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Let's ALL chill on the personal attacks please." (Emphasis added by me because you seem to be having some trouble reading.)-Flandres (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be proper Oxy-going-apeshit without you emerging like a fart in a lift. Thanks for upholding the tradition, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- HBC, I said all for a reason. Oxy made an inappropriate comment as well, it's just that you pointlessly escalated the personal attacks, hence why I pointed it out. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- HBC, please step back. At least Oxy is trying to say points that can be affirmed or rebutted in all of her needless invective. What have you actually contributed to this conversation other than useless personal attacks? Furthermore, I was not defending Oxy when I quoted Sirius-I was clarifying something he said that you did not get. Please read that post again.-Flandres (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, your enabling fug is so thick you could cut a slice and take it home with you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- No response to any of the points I made? I know it is difficult for you to talk in anything other than (rather incompetently made) personal attacks, but please try. Or are you tacitly admitting I am right, and attempting to derail the conversation we are having to avoid admitting it? So predictable, Hmhmhmhmhm....-Flandres (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, we could quarry the lift for a decent building material. In other news, "Hmhmhmhmhm" as a sign-off: No. Just no. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- No response to any of the points I made? I know it is difficult for you to talk in anything other than (rather incompetently made) personal attacks, but please try. Or are you tacitly admitting I am right, and attempting to derail the conversation we are having to avoid admitting it? So predictable, Hmhmhmhmhm....-Flandres (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, your enabling fug is so thick you could cut a slice and take it home with you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- HBC, please step back. At least Oxy is trying to say points that can be affirmed or rebutted in all of her needless invective. What have you actually contributed to this conversation other than useless personal attacks? Furthermore, I was not defending Oxy when I quoted Sirius-I was clarifying something he said that you did not get. Please read that post again.-Flandres (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- HBC, I said all for a reason. Oxy made an inappropriate comment as well, it's just that you pointlessly escalated the personal attacks, hence why I pointed it out. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
- It wouldn't be proper Oxy-going-apeshit without you emerging like a fart in a lift. Thanks for upholding the tradition, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Let's ALL chill on the personal attacks please." (Emphasis added by me because you seem to be having some trouble reading.)-Flandres (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- "You're all a bunch of fucking idiots, bigots, scoundrels, the lot of you. A bunch of Dunning-Kruger jackoffs who know nothing about what you proclaim to be scientific fact." Go clutch your pearls somewhere else. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, no one has yet responded to my comments on human nature. As for convicted felons not being allowed to vote, haven't they already served their time? Why punish them even further after they have completed their sentence? I also don't think someone's worth should be defined by how much they can produce for capital. This hallowing of work as something sacred has got to stop. — Oxyaena Harass 20:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Personal insults and criticisms only derail a discussion. How about we all chill and stay on topic. --Possible Goat (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- This might come off as sarcastic, but I mean it seriously. Since you obviously enjoy reading, have you ever considered at least sampling How To Win Friends And Influence People? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Let's all chill on the personal attacks please. That goes doubly so for Helena Bonham Carter, remember that you've been dragged to the coop for being an excessively toxic ass and escalating conflicts. The same goes for Cory, please don't make insinuations or drag Oxy's personal affairs into this. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
- Actually, I have a loving family, many friends, and two loving partners. I was also talking about the people in this thread, who think it's okay to deny a vote to someone for something they cannot control. It reeks of ableism, but none of y'all take it seriously so, lol. Also, HBC, do you really have to be so toxic? — Oxyaena Harass 20:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oxy please, when you have the urge to insult the entire community, take a break and come back before aiming your attack on more than just the members of the conversation. ShabiDOO 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- TIL that "fug" is a word-Hastur! (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Huh, so it is. Had to look it up, but it's a great word for an extra point in Boggle. CoryUsar (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- CoryUsar, I don't understand why you have to be that cruel to Oxy. You can communicate your frustration without the acidic speculation about her personal life. ShabiDOO 00:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Back on topic[edit]
“All of age citizens should be allowed in that booth.” But WHY? Why do you think age-based restrictions are appropriate while others are not? Do you have a rationale behind your position? For the fourth time now, what criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not? This is an important question here because it addresses the underlying reasoning for why some people should or should not be allowed to vote rather than just repeating unsupported conclusions. That is, it would permit an actual discussion of the issues.
“I don't buy any of the arguments limiting anyone and find it completely exaggerated the claim that doing so would lead to democracy's collapse” As with other forms of government, democracy has a number of failure modes, and plenty of democracies through history have failed. This has been known for millennia. The point of democracy is to ensure that the government looks out for the interests of the general population, and that power is transferred peacefully if the current government isn’t doing that. In general, giving person or group X authority means that X can misuse that authority, and democracies are no different. Much of the theoretical work on the topic of democratic governments has been aimed at how to avoid socially-dysfunctional incentives like people voting themselves benefits at the cost of a minority group in a manner that harms society overall, and this has taken the form of various representative systems, rules on what is and what is not and under what circumstances things are subject to democratic review, and restrictions on who can vote. And these are real problems that societies ignore at their own risk. For example, if a minority of the voter base pays for a welfare system and a majority uses it, there is an incentive to make the system overly generous, resulting in things like unfunded liabilities that can result in the overall collapse of the system. For another example, democracies reward propaganda, tribalism, and sensationalism over a sober discussion of actual issues, which can distract the corrective mechanisms of democracy from what they need to focus on in order to keep society functional. This can result in the replacement of a democracy with a tyranny as voters delegate authority to a central authority to deal with perceived problems. All these problems can, of course, be avoided if the voters are responsible, but history has shown that this is not a reliable assumption to make of the general population, so there have been various attempts to restrict voting rights to groups that are perceived to be less likely to destroy society when given their way.
“I still haven't heard anyone suggesting if there should be a cognitive test for people at the voting stations” That’s because, as mentioned previously, such tests (or claims of dependency/incompetence) are generally done elsewhere beforehand, and the results are used as part of eligibility criteria when considering a person’s attempt to register to vote.
“You know, I keep asking what human nature is” You’ve asked it once on this page, and I answered it above before you wrote that there.
“Well, guess what, for every so-called "rule" you can come up with about the human condition, there almost always is an exception.” There are no humans that are not eukaryotes. Want more?
“"Felons shouldn't vote" why not, haven't they already served their time?” Conviction of a serious crime often entails punishments beyond jail time. Felons are also prohibited in many jurisdictions from owning firearms, or from living in certain areas depending on the nature of the crime. The idea is generally an attempt to avoid future trouble from people who have demonstrated an intent to cause trouble in the past. This is, of course, arguable as a matter of costs and benefits, but dismissing it out of hand doesn’t address the actual concerns.
“this country was founded by illegal aliens” No, it wasn’t. The founders of the US were mostly born in the colonies that eventually became the US. And those colonies were formed by colonists building their own societies rather than immigrants (legal or otherwise) moving to a pre-existing society and joining it.
“deny a vote to someone for something they cannot control” A two-year-old can’t control that state. Do you think that such a person should be able to vote? If not, denying the ability to vote to someone for something they cannot control is not a problem per se.
“I also don't think someone's worth should be defined by how much they can produce for capital.” A person’s worth to society has, pretty much always and everywhere, depended largely on what that person can produce for society (which is not necessarily material, but it must be valuable). The nicer societies take care of their less fortunate, but their ability to do so is dependent on the surplus production of the productive members of society. Production is not just important, it is of foundational importance since it is required for the attainment of nearly all other goals. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- And I'm still waiting for some evidence that allowing people with learning difficulties would lead to the collapse of democracy. Babies wouldn't be able to draw an x in a box nor tell anyone what x they wanted to draw. I honestly wouldn't have problem with any young person entering a voting booth and voting if they weren't being coerced into doing it nor coerced into voting for someone. However, considering how extremely unlikely it is a country will ever allow 8 year olds in a voting booth my criteria comes down to three things (which I've already stated twice now): Citizen (or if it were up to me permanent residents), of age (whatever age the country decides...it's not such a big deal), they want to do it.
- The greatest value of democracy is having a reliable mechanism to remove a really really bad government, something which is extremely difficult if you do not live in a democracy. Even if 5% of the population was voting in an absurd way you still have the ability to remove a truly dangerous and sinister government. The benefit of a democratic government representing a cross section of the populations interest (which America does extremely badly by the way with your electoral college and gerrymandering by the way) is secondary. It is a great benefit but hardly as valuable as the first.
- As for representing people's interests, well I would say that the more people who vote, the more chance they have to voice their interest however it is up to them if they choose to voice it or just mark whatever x they want or even spoil their ballot or piss on it. I don't care what they do in the booth, it would be praiseworthy if they made a reasoned choice but we can hardly force them to. I don't see how limiting citizens of legal age from going into that booth makes representing a proper cross section of the population any better. Right: let's improve how government represents a proper cross section of the population by banning some of them from entering (including prisoners or people with learning difficulties). Yeah...that makes sense.
- If you could please explain how allowing people with learning disabilities would lead to the collapse of democracy or any example of allowing small marginalised groups to vote has disrupted an election, I would love to read about it. ShabiDOO 01:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be the end of democracy, but if you've ever actually met someone with (for instance) Rett syndrome you'd pretty quickly understand why they're not given the right to vote. They have no capacity to even understand the concept of voting, or very much of anything for that matter, and little to no ability to communicate; how on earth is someone like that supposed to vote? If done right, yes, I'm fine with declaring someone incompetent to vote based on mental status; states do this all the time for other rights such as marriage, ability to consent, and deciding whether someone can be his/her own guardian. Why would voting be any different? I'm not a psychologist, just someone who works with disabled adults and witnesses (among other things) the fallout of people overestimating some of our clients capacities (working with an industrial shredder while trying to pet imaginary cats and dogs, anyone?), so I won't pretend to know where the line is, but again you (generic you) can't honestly meet someone with Rett syndrome and conclude that said person voting is anything other than a cruel joke or an outright theater of the absurd. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights - you say 'if done right'. there in lies the problem. 'if.' it seems not to be done right in too many places, while there are so many places where it isnt done at all and there have been no problems at all. for the kinds of people with conditions such as you describe, just what kind of threat to democracy or electoral integrity would they pose if allowed to vote? how many of those people are even able to express a desire to vote in the first place for it to become an issue? AMassiveGay (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- (ec)i note we are relying on hypotheticals way too much here. it doesnt begin to get to the root of the problem of the arbitrary nature in the application of actual existing legislation surrounding mental incapacity and voter disenfranchisement. some more concrete arguments [10][11][12][13]
- It wouldn't be the end of democracy, but if you've ever actually met someone with (for instance) Rett syndrome you'd pretty quickly understand why they're not given the right to vote. They have no capacity to even understand the concept of voting, or very much of anything for that matter, and little to no ability to communicate; how on earth is someone like that supposed to vote? If done right, yes, I'm fine with declaring someone incompetent to vote based on mental status; states do this all the time for other rights such as marriage, ability to consent, and deciding whether someone can be his/her own guardian. Why would voting be any different? I'm not a psychologist, just someone who works with disabled adults and witnesses (among other things) the fallout of people overestimating some of our clients capacities (working with an industrial shredder while trying to pet imaginary cats and dogs, anyone?), so I won't pretend to know where the line is, but again you (generic you) can't honestly meet someone with Rett syndrome and conclude that said person voting is anything other than a cruel joke or an outright theater of the absurd. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- it simply is not true that there is no cognitive test when it comes to voting rights, its just that it is not required of most americans. the rules differ from state to state. terms like 'mental incapacity' 'mental incompetence' and variations of, are not uniformly defined across states. in some those put in a guardianship are automatically deemed mentally incapable, even when they are not, even when their disability is purely physical in nature. voting rights here can be removed automatically, not through a court judgement and often their voting rights can only be restored by application to the courts. a test no required of most folk. mental incapacity is a vague and broadly defined term in a lot of cases. it is arbitrarily applied and can have implications lasting long after it was even relevant, often harking back to a less enlightened era's views on mental health. legislation is often based on stereotypes and outdated medical thinking that favoured asylums over care in community.
- it seems most states legislature is far more enlightened, requiring court orders to strip voter rights, if at all, but for dozen or so states it is a disgrace.
- a few minutes googling can provide many articles like those above detailing specific cases to what ive broadly summarised. no hypotheticals needed. thats not quite the case when we talk of the threat to democracy that not having such poor and discriminatory legislation poses. i struggle to find anything at significant. there are just as many states which do not discriminate along the lines of an ambiguously defined mental incapacity that the dangers would be evident if there are any dangers. the dangers to the democratic process in the us lies elsewhere, and are far more pressing.
- the land of the free has such a troubling history and an even more troubling present of voter suppression, disenfranchisement, fraud and gerrymandering that we really do require a hell of a lot more concrete and significant evidence in support of disenfranchising anyone than some of the hypothetical pedantry on display here in their defence. it is also worth remembering that many comparable western democracies do not disenfranchise so many of their citizens for the reasons that have been debated here with none of the hypothesised dangers appearing nor any of the actual issues surrounding voting rights and electoral shenanigans in the us being of issue at all. not all states do either. we see the different approaches might have on electoral integrity. what does that tell us? AMassiveGay (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
just a comment on why preventing people with a criminal record is fucked up. you've done your bird and you are back in society a changed man. you are determined to go straight and be a productive member of society, but fuck you says society with a whole load of collateral consequences of criminal convictions of which being not being able to vote is just one, you are not part of society, you are not to engage with society in any meaningful way, you are out of prison but you havent served your sentence until you've paid your legal fees and fines and what not, and good luck with that because your employment options are severely limited. you cant even get food stamps and oh, you are already back inside, recidivism rates of up to 65% in some states, up to 77% for some crimes.
ok, thats not all the result of voter disenfranchisement alone, but is a result of all of that. and lets not forget the racial inequality in the land of the free and how it it is particularly apparent within the us justice system. no prizes for which group is fucked the most by felony disenfranchisement. this is why racism is so pernicious. its entrenched. you look at one specific thing, felony disenfranchisement for example, and you end up with a whole raft of differing but interconnected things that compound all problems and make piecemeal attempts at reform ineffective.
it also strikes me, limiting myself to just voting rights specifically now but also with voting rules and regs generally, as pretty fucking ridiculous that no two states have the same set up. it seems to me this is an area were legislation should be applied nationwide. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ask someone what human nature was in the 10th century and they probably would've given you a very different answer. Human nature is determined by society, not the other way around. If you have a society that incentivizes selfishness, people are more likely to be selfish, if you have a society that incentivizes selflessness, people are more likely to be selfless. — Oxyaena Harass 05:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Man, if only people in the olden days had thought to write extensively about themselves and the people around them, then we'd have some way to explore these questions of human nature. Damn shame there's no such way to find out whether older / ancient literary characters are recognisably human to a modern audience, or whether they'd come across as complete fucking aliens because of their radically different societies. Damn shame indeed. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I`m not denying there are certain commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space, but that these aren't anything innate. For instance, the concept of a personal name. There exists at least one society, a tribe of indigenous peoples in Ecuador, who lack personal names. At most using only nicknames to identify each other. Would you say that personal names are part of "human nature," even with this counterexample to prove that they are not innate? To say that "x is impossible because of human nature" is a bullshit thought terminator. Also, @BoN and @CoryUsar, read this. — Oxyaena Harass 10:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with Rett syndrome, just the little I could read about it. Would someone with Rett syndrome express interest in voting and insist someone help them go to a voting station and vote? ShabiDOO 13:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- My problem with cognitive tests is that they could be used to enforce further racial discrimination. What would stop a jurisdiction from using a cognitive test to say an African-American or Mexican-American could not vote? --Possible Goat (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Highly unlikely, but it would only take an unscrupulous caretaker to claim otherwise (since few people are familiar with the condition) and double vote. Not the end of the world, to be sure, but a rather easy problem to avoid. I think we're actually closer on this than we think, since it's an extreme case and I'd want to put a hard limit on keeping it to only the extreme cases; if I knew how to design it I'd say so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Don't tell me to read 500 page long ramblings from Anarchist pseudo-intellectuals. There's a reason why Anarchism is a fringe idea in Academia. CoryUsar (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, because David Graeber was an accredited anthropologist, hardly a "pseudo-intellectual." I'd like for you to stop spewing your pseudo-intellectual liberal garbage, but that's too much to ask apparently. — Oxyaena Harass 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- He was expelled from Yale, and no other American university was willing to take him on. Not even Berkeley. So he's either too much of a loon for even Berkeley, or such a complete trainwreck of a person that no one else can get along with him. CoryUsar (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anthropologists tend to be more radical than you, a clueless liberal suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, are aware of. He also taught at the London School of Economics. Graeber's expulsion from Yale was also not without controversy, and many of his fellow anthropologists supported him in getting reinstated. Stay mad, lib. — Oxyaena Harass 19:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- He was expelled from Yale, and no other American university was willing to take him on. Not even Berkeley. So he's either too much of a loon for even Berkeley, or such a complete trainwreck of a person that no one else can get along with him. CoryUsar (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, because David Graeber was an accredited anthropologist, hardly a "pseudo-intellectual." I'd like for you to stop spewing your pseudo-intellectual liberal garbage, but that's too much to ask apparently. — Oxyaena Harass 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Don't tell me to read 500 page long ramblings from Anarchist pseudo-intellectuals. There's a reason why Anarchism is a fringe idea in Academia. CoryUsar (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with Rett syndrome, just the little I could read about it. Would someone with Rett syndrome express interest in voting and insist someone help them go to a voting station and vote? ShabiDOO 13:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I`m not denying there are certain commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space, but that these aren't anything innate. For instance, the concept of a personal name. There exists at least one society, a tribe of indigenous peoples in Ecuador, who lack personal names. At most using only nicknames to identify each other. Would you say that personal names are part of "human nature," even with this counterexample to prove that they are not innate? To say that "x is impossible because of human nature" is a bullshit thought terminator. Also, @BoN and @CoryUsar, read this. — Oxyaena Harass 10:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Man, if only people in the olden days had thought to write extensively about themselves and the people around them, then we'd have some way to explore these questions of human nature. Damn shame there's no such way to find out whether older / ancient literary characters are recognisably human to a modern audience, or whether they'd come across as complete fucking aliens because of their radically different societies. Damn shame indeed. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Would someone so impaired that they can't think coherently even be interested in voting at all? I really wouldn't see any need to block anyone from voting on any basis like that. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- “There exists at least one society, a tribe of indigenous peoples in Ecuador, who lack personal names. At most using only nicknames to identify each other.” Nicknames are a form of personal name. You’ve just reinforced the universality of names, a proposition you were the only person here to have brought up. But at any rate, maybe names aren’t innate. Written language isn’t innate, despite it being easily imaginable for every society in the world to be literate by way of cultural diffusion. Spoken language is innate to humans, though. Twins often invent one to use between themselves, even when immersed in a culture that uses a different language. The human larynx has been substantially modified from that of other mammals in order to enable speech.
- “Also, @BoN and @CoryUsar, read this” Why? What’s that got to do with the price of fish? This is something that people should read, but I’m not linking to it in place of making an argument myself. David Graeber’s credentials are quite irrelevant to the question of whether or not that publication has anything of merit to say vis a vis this conversation.
- “I really wouldn't see any need to block anyone from voting on any basis like that.” It’s not that someone with such a profound disability would have to be prevented from voting, it’s that procedurally making them ineligible would close off a route for abuse, e.g. by someone filling out an absentee ballot on their behalf. And while that specific route is unlikely to matter much, it’s more the principle that a voting system should be made resistant to fraud of all kinds. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
And yet infants raised without being socialized often show huge deficits in terms of speech and language. Human language itself has no broadset nature to it, this ignores the plasticity of human language and culture. — Oxyaena Harass 13:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- “raised without being socialized” As in, with no one to talk to. Language is a social adaptation. Twins make their languages through interaction with each other, and if there is no interaction with another person, there is no engagement of the language center of the brain, no mapping of symbols to meanings, and no reinforcement of neural paths. If this developmental step is missed, it can’t be made up later, since neural plasticity is limited, and it can’t overcome that deficit. Much like with muscles, if they are never used, they never develop to usefulness. But like with muscles, humans come loaded with complicated systems that bootstrap themselves when used.
- “Human language itself has no broadset nature to it” Human language universally involves a mapping of concepts to a symbolic representation, the communication of that representation to another human, and the interpretation of that symbol to extract the concept. Humans are wired to do this specifically, more so than spoken language per se. Children that are deaf from birth but raised normally invent sign language with their families, and learning a sufficiently complex sign language gives deaf children normal linguistic and cognitive development.
- “this ignores the plasticity of human language and culture.” All cultures use language. Children everywhere learn it by exposure using the same neurophysiological development processes. Humans have unique physical adaptations to use spoken language (this was so valuable evolutionarily speaking that gaining a substantially increased risk of choking on food was worth it), and normal cognitive development requires linguistic interaction with other people. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I worked daycare with a kid that was barely verbal. He was a good kid minus the credits of a movie, the fuck is going on? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Anyone here taking part in No Nut November?[edit]
Separates the ewes from the rams. 1.152.110.124 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, when you really boil away the woo-woo of groups like NoFap or the Proud Boys, this isn't really anything that interesting. So saying it participating does anything other than reult in you not jacking off for a month is kind of stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- It will make you hornier. HairlessCat (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I snack on peanuts all the time, so I'll have to sit this one out, fellas. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have regular sex so, miss me with that weird fascist shit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tired: No Nut November
- Wired: Destroy Dick December.
- Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 21:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I will do SRS or sumfin'.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 08:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- This whole concept seems wrong to me. If you need a wank or rub, it's basically a biological function. Devoting a whole month to abstinence might make you more focused, but I defy you to show me someone accomplished who's fine with their accomplishments. It's always more shit, more property, more fights with anti-trust lawyers. Artificius (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can we just call a truce on months devoted to abstinence from this or that? These things worry me. After all, nobody ever went broke selling abstinence-based pseudovirtues to Americans. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- At least in the communities where I hang out, NNN usually translates more to "oh god why are you posting this stuff that makes me reconsider doing NNN" or "welp, I broke NNN". I think it's by a lot more people seen as more of a joke than a serious thing to uphold to (like how "speak like a pirate day" is mostly funny for entertainers to do bits about, even though it technically represents a warped image of what we think of as golden age piracy). In so far as things like NNN (as well as Nofap) work, it probably just works on the notion that if you're not flobbing the knob 7 times a day on all your free hours, you well... guess what, get more free hours (as well as probably just a healthier life in general cuz you're actually taking care of your other needs instead of polishing the bishop all the time). So ultimately, doing the devils handshake once a day probably isn't harmful for you (and is indicated to be healthy), it's when you spend your waking hours shaking the devils hand all the time that you have a problem. It's rather dissapointing then that the fairly real problem that is in this case addiction to masturbating then gets warped into manospherian bullshit about how pornography seeks to corrupt your brain or gets co-opted into some stupid purity message from idiots like the Proud Boys, but such is the nature of the internet I suppose. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 11:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- At least in the communities where I hang out, NNN usually translates more to "oh god why are you posting this stuff that makes me reconsider doing NNN" or "welp, I broke NNN". I think it's by a lot more people seen as more of a joke than a serious thing to uphold to (like how "speak like a pirate day" is mostly funny for entertainers to do bits about, even though it technically represents a warped image of what we think of as golden age piracy). In so far as things like NNN (as well as Nofap) work, it probably just works on the notion that if you're not flobbing the knob 7 times a day on all your free hours, you well... guess what, get more free hours (as well as probably just a healthier life in general cuz you're actually taking care of your other needs instead of polishing the bishop all the time). So ultimately, doing the devils handshake once a day probably isn't harmful for you (and is indicated to be healthy), it's when you spend your waking hours shaking the devils hand all the time that you have a problem. It's rather dissapointing then that the fairly real problem that is in this case addiction to masturbating then gets warped into manospherian bullshit about how pornography seeks to corrupt your brain or gets co-opted into some stupid purity message from idiots like the Proud Boys, but such is the nature of the internet I suppose. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! /
Ariel31459 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I love that movie so much. What makes comedy comedy is something that is both absurd and true, which the movie does spectacularly. Nearly everyone is basically insane and focused on absolutely the wrong things, the only sane person in each situation is played by the same actor and he's completely helpless to stop anything because everyone around him is an idiot. Everything is sexual in spite of no nudity being present, heck the movie opens with two planes basically having sex. Ripper's actions are clearly the result of his own impotence. While the world is ending, the leaders are discussing how to design their own personal orgy pits. The names of the people might as well be from the porn parody, e.g., "Buck Turgidson", "Merkin Muffly", "Lionel Mandrake".
- It basically rips apart the entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction; MAD can only work as a deterrent when every player is both rational and infallible. That is, it can't work indefinitely because of Humans. It's not just the whole "what if a formerly sane man becomes insane due to a lack of viagra", it's the whole "what if due to human stupidity, a single bomb is dropped; why should that be enough to end the world?". Really, we need to have some system in place so that some accident or miscommunication does not lead to nuclear annihilation, because accidents will and have happened. The US accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb on North Carolina (it didn't have the core, so it was just a really big conventional bomb, but still), and then there's Vasily Arkhipov. Long story short, Cuban Missile Crisis, in a sub, radio silence. The US drops dummy depth charges to try to convince the sub to surface, the sub thinks that nuclear war has already begun. The sub has a vote whether or not to launch a nuclear torpedo, needs to be unanimous. Captain and Political Officer vote to nuke, Vasily votes not to, instead to surface (and as far as they are aware, be killed). If that vote were to happen again, would the outcome be the same? If that vote happened not just again, but repeatedly? Would that lead to instant launch of all other nukes? What if only most generals and admirals refused to launch nukes in retaliation, but just one or two did, would that be the end of it or would there be counter-retaliation and counter-counter-retaliation until everyone had decided to launch their nukes regardless of their initial "no" vote? CoryUsar (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, decided to add that spiel to our MAD article. CoryUsar (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- that kind of thing has happened more times than is comfortable. computer glitches warning of all out nuclear attacks, but each time soeone just didnt believe it was happening. the last time itt happened it was in 1995 and yeltsin was being uged by his generals launch their nukes immediately. he dint believe clinton would nuke russia. he was right, a norwegian weather rocket had set of russian early warning systems. they were told about before hand but they forgot. or the message didnt reach the right people and yelstin had the nuclear football in is hands with his generals saying launch now. i reckon you could have nuked russia for real at one point and get away with it, thinking it just another false alarm preventing retaliation. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the event in 1985, but not under Yeltsin, always fun to learn. Good thing he was a fun drunk. I wonder why Putin hasn't accidentally ended the world though, he's basically the lovechild of Stalin and a social media influencer. CoryUsar (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- russia and the us arent exactly existential enemies any more. putin isnt scanning the horizon for a nuclear armageddon. it would probably be over kill for hacking some servers AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the event in 1985, but not under Yeltsin, always fun to learn. Good thing he was a fun drunk. I wonder why Putin hasn't accidentally ended the world though, he's basically the lovechild of Stalin and a social media influencer. CoryUsar (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- that kind of thing has happened more times than is comfortable. computer glitches warning of all out nuclear attacks, but each time soeone just didnt believe it was happening. the last time itt happened it was in 1995 and yeltsin was being uged by his generals launch their nukes immediately. he dint believe clinton would nuke russia. he was right, a norwegian weather rocket had set of russian early warning systems. they were told about before hand but they forgot. or the message didnt reach the right people and yelstin had the nuclear football in is hands with his generals saying launch now. i reckon you could have nuked russia for real at one point and get away with it, thinking it just another false alarm preventing retaliation. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, decided to add that spiel to our MAD article. CoryUsar (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll admit that I'm not the most reliable in terms of self-control, So I'm doing it. I'm not gonna be looking at the memes and shit because reddit is so unfunny about it. Rockford the Roe (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear OP, I appreciate your commitment to pseudoscience when branded as "manly". Carry on with your extremely dumb tough act. I feel like if you're going to obsess over the concept of self-denial as a method of self-improvement, Ramadan or Lent are more respectable traditions with less bullshit tied in, religious though they may be. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- When ur a trans woman on hormones like me, “no nut November” is more accurately called “no viagra or speed November” 🖤 ASELAकुरा 🖤 01:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Sean Connery has died at the age of 90[edit]
R.I.P — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59db:4100:dd4f:cb4d:1db1:db8 / talk / contribs
- I didn't post the above, but I'm definitely going to watch one of his films and knock back a Vesper tonight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unironically. And League was cringeworthy, but he carried it. Artificius (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Connery made comments supportive of domestic violence, and was likely an abuser himself. Hope he's rotting in Hell. — Oxyaena Harass 23:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hell is fictional. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- If Sean Connery is in Hell, it's because that's where the loose women are. CoryUsar (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Will he be hitting them? https://www.wired.com/2007/03/the-day-sean-co/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, they are in Hell, so probably. CoryUsar (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- That may be their hell, but it clearly wouldn't be his, now would it? Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm more of the belief that if life and afterlife truly was fair, well, this is what it would be CoryUsar (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- He's giving an open hand to the angels now. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- James Randi is debunking the angels straight to their faces now, you guys need to get your shit together. Who the fuck respects Connery and can't make a joke about Randi? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- That may be their hell, but it clearly wouldn't be his, now would it? Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, they are in Hell, so probably. CoryUsar (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Will he be hitting them? https://www.wired.com/2007/03/the-day-sean-co/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- If Sean Connery is in Hell, it's because that's where the loose women are. CoryUsar (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hell is fictional. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Connery made comments supportive of domestic violence, and was likely an abuser himself. Hope he's rotting in Hell. — Oxyaena Harass 23:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Will be honest here: I am highly paranoid about those damn "Poll Watchers"[edit]
With so many damn Trump supporters in my area I would not be shocked if those idiots showed up at the polling place I go to. They actively target and harass ethnic minorities, the poor and the disabled. That does not help my paranoia. --Ratildonian King (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, I was paranoid about them when I voted, and I live in a red county in a red state so... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- they do not "target and harass ethnic minorities, the poor and the disabled", retard. — Unsigned, by: 1.152.109.86 / talk / contribs
- True. They harass anyone they think is going to vote against Trump. Which is mostly, ethnic minorities, the poor, women and the disabled... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- they do not "target and harass ethnic minorities, the poor and the disabled", retard. — Unsigned, by: 1.152.109.86 / talk / contribs
Update[edit]
No Poll Watchers at the polls. Although I saw a kookmobile. --Ratildonian King (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was taken aback by that "watch the polls" statement as well, it's nice to see that Trump supporters aren't quite so cuckoo bonkers that they would do things to actively disrupt the voting process. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
How good are government jobs?[edit]
I heard it said that working for the post office is good or any government job because of pensions and the benefits. Is this still true or is there something I don't know?Machina (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Trump wants to slash the post office if he gets re-elected so... that's something. I don't know if it's good or not to work there, but funding-wise they're in heavy trouble due to a dumb as fuck GOP-backed law that demands them to keep funding for the entirety of someone's retirement plan (so if they kept working there until retirement age) for every single employee, instead of only having to pay that out when the employee in question retires. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / / / ) 23:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm both an actuary, and I work for the government, so I actually have two huge reasons to be upset with what you just said. For years, governors, mayors, and so forth across the country kept government wages suppressed by offering greater benefits. They did this, because those benefits would be paid out long after the current administration was gone, and then it was the next administration's problem. In the meantime, they could use the lower expenses to fund their own pet projects. A few decades later, well, now you had government budgets where the benefits were a bigger expense than wages. Note that this was not unique to government; Big Auto notoriously did the same thing in order to give their executives larger bonuses for being more ostensibly profitable, and when it actually came time to pay out the pensions, well, those "legacy costs" are the next CEO's problem. What needed to be done was to force governments to fully fund the pension plans, so that any promise made was paid for by that administration and not simply kicked down the road. CoryUsar (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Yikes, so if there is a second Trump then the Post Office won't be a secure position anymore. I don't know I think my mom is operating based on old ideas of job security and thinks a government job is safe. I'm not sure though.Machina (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you are a scientist in a government job- your job would not be secure due to Trump's attacks on science and the funding of research. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I talked to a buddy of mine in the National Guard today whose biggest fear now is that he won't get his college paid for anymore. The problem is definitely where the government chooses to cut spending. I was trying to explain the right/left horseshoe and how I was the nutso-bonkers left most of the people he talks to are scared of, and how the democrats are just a little left, but I don't like them either. I told him I don't think democrats are going to end that, but I couldn't confidently tell him that, because I don't know where they plan to cut military spending, and I honestly don't believe they'll start with the oldest war machine contracts they have. I don't think they're going to downsize building fighter jets that never get flown.
- I also don't think they're going to stop paying tuition, but I don't know. Are they going to stop funding military research? I know somebody is going to get dicked. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The Reptilians[edit]
When they are needed most to 'sort things out' they are not there. Anna Livia (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- At least with Reptilians and the NWO, they have better social policies than the GOP. --RZ94forMod202 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- When your fictional boogyman is more appealing than you... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bongolian - have you come across the (otherwise applied) comment 'It is not talking to yourself that is the issue, it is when you start losing the argument'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- When your fictional boogyman is more appealing than you... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reptilians are like God. We cannot possibly understand their plans with our puny humanoid minds. --Annanoon (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's about as much evidence for their existences too. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Biden's win and Trump setting America on fire[edit]
It seems 99% likely Biden will win and highly likely he will take 4 of the last 5 states. In any case, it seems even more that Trump would be willing to set the country on fire if it means saving face (or what he thinks is saving face). My question is: do you think Trump would knowingly start up a full scale civil war if it meant disingenuously holding onto the presidency? ShabiDOO 12:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Abso-fucking-lutely. I'm pretty sure Trump would kill every last American, his children included, if it meant more power or status. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Second question: would he start a civil war just to try to save face? ShabiDOO 12:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is very little I would put past Trump. The question is how many of his mad Republican/QAnon flowers would follow his lead.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone waved Trump's recent 'mental agility text' (or whatever it is precisely called) above the parapets? Anna Livia (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just hope Trump now acts completely out of character, admits he was wrong and concedes graciously. Since lying comes so easily to him, perhaps he could deny that he ever said the Democrats were stealing the election, that there had been widespread voter fraud or that there was any kind of problem with mail-in ballots. Maybe he could even deny ever having declared victory. He could always say he was joking or being sarcastic. If he doesn't concede soon, I'm afraid there is going to be bloodshed before January. And all because of one man's massive ego. Spud (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone waved Trump's recent 'mental agility text' (or whatever it is precisely called) above the parapets? Anna Livia (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is very little I would put past Trump. The question is how many of his mad Republican/QAnon flowers would follow his lead.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Second question: would he start a civil war just to try to save face? ShabiDOO 12:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
No-one in charge of any serious ordnance is going to rally to Trump's Lost Cause. At best, he might be able to muster some militiamen and a few rube sheriffs' departments. Whilst that's easily (and tragically) enough for some blood to be spilled, it's not remotely sufficient to get a civil war going.
Trump is also a creature of exceptionally limited imagination. His frame of reference here is all about bullying his way to victory through litigation, and by the time he comes up empty, the institutions and permanent bureaucracy will have already geared up for the peaceful transition of power. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- At this point, a full blown civil war is unlikely. What's more likely, should Trump try to hold to power, is terrorist attacks by his followers. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying there will be civil war. I'm asking if he could stoke a civil war (where literally thousands of people gun each other in the street) would he do it...even just to attempt to save face? ShabiDOO 14:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo Yes. Without a doubt. The man is a narcissist with zero regard for anyone who isn't himself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. He's also a coward, and in the battle between his narcissistic self-regard and his fear of immediate personal risk, there's no fucking way he's going roll the dice on potentially adding a stone cold treason case to his already extensive list of criminal liabilities. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Helena Bonham Carter He's also impulsive at times. It's entirely within his character (in my view at least) that he'd start a civil war to save face. He'd probably flee the country if he did though, since yes he is a coward. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Still don't see it, man. For all his impulsivity, there's plenty of evidence he has an awareness of risk and can moderate his behaviour when needed to avoid disaster-level scenarios. Currently he's looking at financial ruin and possibly some light jail time when he emerges on the other side of the presidency. What's his percentage on punting for a civil war that he likely realises he couldn't win? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, you think that he thinks he wouldn't win. In that case the odds in favor drop to zero. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The word is in some sources that a very possible post-election "next step" for Trump is a "Trump TV" or some other conservative-derp news aligned project. Makes sense. He's clearly got fanbois and reality TV mojo, hell that probably is why he ran in 2016 in the first place, to get into the conservative media grifting game. Hence I doubt Trump will ever concede, and he'll throw as many ceremonial lawsuits as he can to "act tough", but this means nothing politically in the end, it's just talking points for him to tweet and ramble about later. Is he going to start a civil war? No, he really doesn't have *that* kind of mojo -- he's more media mogul than rebel leader. (And say what you will about Trump, but he does have that "evangelical preacher" mojo and knows how to grift.) A civil war is not profitable for him. A TV network, complete with merchandising, is. It's the one thing he's been good at (The Apprentice is one of the few Trump things that made lots of money for him in recent years). As an aside, I think there's a nice chance that, if Trump TV happens, such most likely will make Fox News look like NPR in their viewpoint of reality, and thus will make for excellent fodder for future Rationalwiki editors. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, you think that he thinks he wouldn't win. In that case the odds in favor drop to zero. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Still don't see it, man. For all his impulsivity, there's plenty of evidence he has an awareness of risk and can moderate his behaviour when needed to avoid disaster-level scenarios. Currently he's looking at financial ruin and possibly some light jail time when he emerges on the other side of the presidency. What's his percentage on punting for a civil war that he likely realises he couldn't win? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Helena Bonham Carter He's also impulsive at times. It's entirely within his character (in my view at least) that he'd start a civil war to save face. He'd probably flee the country if he did though, since yes he is a coward. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. He's also a coward, and in the battle between his narcissistic self-regard and his fear of immediate personal risk, there's no fucking way he's going roll the dice on potentially adding a stone cold treason case to his already extensive list of criminal liabilities. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Shabidoo Yes. Without a doubt. The man is a narcissist with zero regard for anyone who isn't himself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying there will be civil war. I'm asking if he could stoke a civil war (where literally thousands of people gun each other in the street) would he do it...even just to attempt to save face? ShabiDOO 14:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fox news just called PA for Biden. Biden has 273 now, they project. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Huge relief, ngl. Been waiting for this moment for 4 years. Granted the country still needs a lot of work and I doubt Biden and a Republican senate are going to do any of it but at least we no longer have an executive actively destroying America and its institutions-Hastur! (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- And that's a good thing? America needs to die. — Oxyaena Harass 18:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another zinger! Keep 'em coming. You ought to write for SNL-Hastur! (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Would look great on a baseball cap. Tiki torches for extra mood. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another zinger! Keep 'em coming. You ought to write for SNL-Hastur! (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- And that's a good thing? America needs to die. — Oxyaena Harass 18:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Huge relief, ngl. Been waiting for this moment for 4 years. Granted the country still needs a lot of work and I doubt Biden and a Republican senate are going to do any of it but at least we no longer have an executive actively destroying America and its institutions-Hastur! (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)