RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive375

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 November 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>
, (new)(back)

I was thinking[edit]

Maybe we should do an article on that whole "How will we pay for it" argument that gets brought up when you suggest any left wing ideas. I have a few ideas for why that argument's bullshit and I'm fairly sure all of ye do too. It's generally on mission too since this wiki's purpose is to refute bad faith and fallacious arguments, and this is usually one of these. What do ye think anyway?Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your comments in talk pages with "~~~~" CoryUsar (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
As for argument itself, depends on the topic.
With regards to universal healthcare in the US, businesses and individuals already pay through the nose for healthcare, so you could argue for simply replacing health insurance premiums with taxes that are equivalent to the current system so there's effectively no difference, but there are some problems with that. First, the goal of universal healthcare is the "universal" portion, which means more healthcare will be provided to those currently uncovered, which means taxes will have to rise to more than the current insurance premium rates. Second, universal healthcare is theoretically cheaper, but the government already has three huge programs to provide healthcare (VA system, Medicare, Medicaid), to say nothing of the tiny ones running around, and they are all boondoggles. There's no guarantee that adding a fourth system to cover everyone not covered by those three won't also be a boondoggle, even if it replaces the other three as well, and so you can't assume lower overhead costs to reduce the tax burden.CoryUsar (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I was gonna address the argument used about the main ideas the left has in general but I've heard those arguments before and I'll address them in the draft. I'm wondering if I have the go ahead to actually make the draft. Like I'm not saying that everybody who asks this is asking in bad faith.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If it's about helping people in any way, then it is in bad faith.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by that? I'm not understanding. Twodots (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Probably an ironic case of editing one's comment before saving and getting it all messed up due to dyslexia or something. Happens to me all the time.
I'm guessing RipCityLiberal meant to say "if it's not about helping people" up there.
Thanks. :p Twodots (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, Evilatheistheathen tends to be a bit confusing from what I've seen. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah ngl I reread my reply to him and Jesus my daily routine has more structure than that(big up da zoom lectures mandem). But yeah if you or anyone needs me to clarify anything feel free to let me know.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Evilatheistheathen Your suggestion sounds like a good idea for an essay, or if you'd like to toss around ideas and get community feedback, a debate. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks man I appreciate it. I'm more familiar with essays than debates so I'll probably just write an essay on it.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You know where we could get the money needed to pay for healthcare and other things people need? Rich fucks. Also, what Cory fails to consider is that an improved standard of living will make people more productive, which would then boost economic growth overall. Or you could assume one program in a bubble and pretend it won't work... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, a system (public and private) that can't provide for the citizenry should probably be scrapped. Like capitalism perhaps... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just spitballing here but the jist of the article should be giving brown people your stuff or you're a racist. Midwit Nerd 3.142 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Troll Evilatheistheathen (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
"Your stuff" because black and brown people don't pay taxes, yes of course.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, racism is probably one of the biggest reasons the US safety net is so weak. It's kind of a self-owning poor financial policy if you are impoverished (or even middle class) and white, but so it goes. (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
IMO, universal healthcare simply isn't necessary in the U.S. A far more effective plan of action would be to beef up the ACA, and give it powers that other programs have (negotiating drug prices, enforcing care standards, etc.) and giving it powers of its own. That way, much of the spending for other programs (Social Security, Medicaid, even some of Medicare) could be reduced or made available to only the truly needy by imposing a means test. From a financial security perspective, actions like this would be positive in their own right, by seriously reducing the national debt. A surprising amount of people think the ACA is the mother of all debt, but programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare contribute far more to the national debt than the ACA. As for the "how to pay for it" argument, I think a great article would be talking about how some Congressmen become extreme debt hawks when it suits them. For example, they'll rant about the national debt when it comes to healthcare, but they're happy to pay for 50 more nuclear warheads. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Tbh that solution sounds unnecessarily complicated when you can just expand medicare to everyone. — Unsigned, by: Evilatheistheathen / talk / contribs
Howdy. I just wanted to tell ya that if you add four "~"s after your posts, it'll automatically add your username and time of posting. It's required. Twodots (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
But there are no simple solutions, especially when you're dealing with anything involving markets and economics. Since expanding the ACA and cutting back on the other programs is more economically efficient, and doesn't require a complete overhaul of the system like universal healthcare, it's the preferable solution in my mind. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank That's another area where we could get funding from, nukes and the military. Though I'd like to point out (again) that the economic growth as a result of better living standards would offset the cost of social safety programs. Of course, implementing these policies would require the Dems growing up and steamrolling the GOP, so they're unlikely to happen. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie While I agree that gaining better living standards would lead to higher taxation rates that would offset the cost of social programs, I doubt they will be high enough to appropriately pay for universal healthcare. If you want everyone to improve in standard of living, a lot of work needs to be done regarding the corporate sphere, both domestically and abroad. Measures that compel companies not to offshore their jobs, or help boost struggling workers, will be the backbone of these living increases. Universal healthcare just costs too much, and other programs can do what everyone likes about universal healthcare cheaper and more efficiently. And on the subject of the Dems, it really surprises me why they continue to drop the ball. It seems like with the coming of Trump, they've leaned further into the elitist, id-pol category of liberals that prospective voters really dislike. At the risk of sounding socialist, I think a hard pivot to class, anti-corruption, and "American strength and unity" rhetoric would let the Dems win every election. What we need is a Dem with the personality of Trump, the politics I described, and reasonable intelligence. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank I mean, you're talking to a left-wing anti-capitalist (albeit an unorthodox and unconventional one) so... No real risk involved. Personally, I'd favor something similar to selective free trade between certain neighboring nations, with evenhanded terms so all parties benefit (and thus there's less problems to deal with, cough US-Mexico relationship cough), increasing Union rights (Biden actually proposed a labor platform I'd actually endorse), seizing the assets of companies that violate international law. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WTF? Universal health care costs too much??? It works out cheaper for just about everyon except millionaires. Every single developed democracy in the world does it, including countries with GDPs and standards of living at a fraction of the United States and they easily cover the costs. The savings are astronomical in the long run. Just about everybody who isn't a millionaire in just about every democratic western country are utterly flabbergasted that you don't have it yet and groan at the endless falsehoods spouted in the name of avoiding what should be a total no-brainer. The rest of the world sees your inaction and excuses as extreme cruelty and indifference. Just fucking do it already, save some money and keep people from pointlessly dying of shit cause they cant afford care. Aren't you tired of being the laughing stock of the world? ShabiDOO 21:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ditto @Shabidoo. But Americans hate poor people so.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You can't compare the American system to how the rest of the world's doing, as it's a completely different animal. Transitioning to universal healthcare involves completely and totally upending that system, in a way leaves the actual users of the system paying more for widely differing qualities of care. And many of the other countries that do have universal health care have had it for a century or more, making it as stable a government institution as the FDA or child labor laws. The fact is, transitioning to universal healthcare isn't feasible, especially now. Taking steps that at least acknowledge the current climate will be more successful. After decades of these policies, then universal healthcare becomes a workable policy. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow IveBeenFrank. Only five excuses? I was expecting a dozen. ShabiDOO 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
All liberals have are excuses. Oxyaena Harass 16:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


Mike Huckabee looks like a cross between Richard Nixon and Mark Zuckerberg. Twodots (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the likeness. What makes you think he does? --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 21:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
After a bit of googling, I've discovered that he normally doesn't resemble them. He does resemble them in this image: Huckabee-SF-CC-024.jpg. In this particular image, his ears and eyes look like Zuck's, and his jaw and jowls look like Nixon's. Twodots (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
That image looks like it was generated from one of those face creator bots a la [1]. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's why they look like Zuck! They have the same cold-eyed lizard stare! Twodots (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
*X-files music* --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 00:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmmm... Twodots (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Trucker Strike in the USA[edit]

How is Idealism not Solipsism?[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning: Solipsism conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Man photographing himself in cornered mirror to generate illusion cropped.jpg

Because in my mind it just looks like it's a hop, skip and a jump away from it based on the arguments I've read. https://geoffpynn.weebly.com/uploads/4/1/6/2/41626837/322_h21.pdf https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781119116257.ch13?saml_referrer

Sorry about the last one, but it's like 40 bucks to read one chapter which sounds like highway robbery.Machina (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not reading anymore links but as per idealism=solipsism it depends on which mode. Only objective idealism deals with reality as the perception of an individual, but very few such philosophers would then claim that means reality is limited to the perception of only one individual. In other words most are indifferent to whether objects/people exist rather than making any claims about their existence or not. I cannot think of any notable objective idealist philosopher who promoted solipsism and I've never read anything by a philosopher of objective idealism who gave any reason or evidence to take solipsism seriously. It's one thing to explain reality through the perception of the individual, it is COMPLETELY another thing to then conclude that reality is purely the perception of an individual. ShabiDOO 03:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The first link is Berkeley's reasoning behind idealism, which just looks like solipsism with extra steps. As for your last remark it doesn't sound that different from solipsism to be honest. One posits that reality is the perception of the person, it's not that much of a stretch for it to follow into solipsism after that. I mean yeah, I could concede that idealists don't intentionally lead to solipsism but how can you not from their reasoning?Machina (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

They are two different things which could potentially overlap though virtually no philosophers take both positions. Again, not the same thing. I don't know how else to explain it. Berkley was certainly not a solipsist. ShabiDOO 06:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
There are lots of unfalsifiable theories in philosophy. If you get anything out of your studies it should be at least this: solipsism is just one of an infinite number of beliefs for which there is no empirical evidence, and therefore it can make no special claim to your allegiance. Ask yourself, "why is solipsism any more emotionally compelling than any form of theism?" My answer is "it is not." What is your answer and why? It is not the same as Berkeley's theory, but it is similar enough to call God a solipsist. The difference is, you have to believe in God. Ariel31459 (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Machina Are you familiar with Epistemology? Also, I dealt with the off topic discussion, you're all welcome. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Guys, start your own thread if you want to talk politics. This is not the place for it. As for solipsism I still don’t fully understand what they mean by solipsism being unfalsifiable. I mean isn’t every metaphysical theory unfalsifiable? As for the why, it’s argued that solipsism is supported by Occam’s razor, strict logic, and our own immediate perception. Machina (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of metaphysical statements that are falsifiable or logically sound. Solipsism is certainly not one of them. There are also many nonsense metaphysical statements and highly speculative ones that are not falsifiable. Solipsism (when someone says they know this is the case) is a nonsense unfalsifiable statment. How do they know that? I am yet to hear you say in your own words how you know that other people don't exist. Perhaps it's time to make your case or even give one little slice of evidence? Please do us all a favour and don't post links but use your own words, I doubt anyone is reading any of the links any more by this point. ShabiDOO 15:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I just did though:

As for the why, it’s argued that solipsism is supported by Occam’s razor, strict logic, and our own immediate perception.

Machina (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Berkeley can be reasonably read as a pragmatist. Roughly:

  1. I definitely have a mind.
  2. That mind has ideas. (inc. sense perception info in general)
  3. These (sense perception) ideas all have a very powerful feeling of being caused by an external world and the material objects in it.
  4. I can't prove this feeling is true.
  5. Does (4) really fucking matter? Artistic license on the swearing, but not an absurd paraphrase.
  6. I'm going to behave exactly the same anyway.
  7. Yeah, (4) doesn't matter.
  8. My ideas of the external world definitely include it being inhabited by other minds with their own ideas.
  9. I'm totally cool with assuming these other minds are every bit as real as my own.
  10. If they can all get on board with (7), and return the favour of (9), then we can all get on with our lives and stop banging our heads against the philosophical brick wall of proving the existence of an external world.

It's important to note that (4) is mostly a function of believing "mind" and "matter" are irreconcilably different kinds of thing, and that therefore it's impossible to account for any epistemic transfer between the two. Berkeley's pragmatism has been rendered pretty much redundant by the modern understanding that minds are just weird products of sufficiently complex arrangements of matter. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Mechina, you keep referring to Occam's razor as if it were a reliable argument. It is not. Not every explanation can be accounted for in this way. For one thing, "the simplest explanation" only works if it is falsifiable. For example, "God must exist because the universe operating under God's direction requires only one assumption. Only the deist assumption is necessary to explain why the Universe exists." Where does Occam's Razor go wrong here? Answer: you assume the existence of a god. That may solve your personal problems, but it doesn't prove any metaphysical claim. Logic is only useful to manipulate sound assumptions. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say for Occam's Razor that it has to be falsifiable? That doesn't seem to be a qualifier for it. Though it is true that all metaphysical hypothesis are unfalsifiable: https://askaphilosopher.org/2019/10/20/the-two-truths-of-solipsism/comment-page-1/?unapproved=25306&moderation-hash=d9bf08d5c930beab7a94930f7bb94ca2#comment-25306 Machina (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina Two points. please indent. Two, what you said is nonsense, and I can prove it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
My post exists. Done. That is falsifiable. If you want I can upload pictures of my chair and you can try to disprove its existence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to why Occam's Razor has to be with statements that are falsifiable.Machina (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Occam's razor is a tool. Quoting the razor is not providing evidence for something. Saying something is "logical" is not making a case. You haven't made any case yet...you just keep claiming you have while not explaining anything. Machina, clearly and unambiguously make your case. That means making a claim, giving your arguments and providing evidence. No links, no "claiming I've already done it". No just saying: "occams razor and logic and stuff". If you already did it then copy and paste your case again. You claim to understand how arguments work better than I do...so demonstrate this by making a clear and well formed argument...or stop wasting everybody's time. ShabiDOO 09:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have, you just don't want to address the points or the links that lead to it, like the askaphilosopher one. You are the only one who has a problem here while others seem to have read an addressed the points, especially about Occam's Razor. I'm merely relaying the points I heard from some others who argue about it to you to see if there is something in error with them that I cannot see. Personally I don't (or don't want to) believe in solipsism but I don't want to be wrong either.Machina (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Occams razor is a fucking tool it is not evidence, you do not understand how arguments work if you cannot get that through your skull. Saying something is "logical" is not making a claim or giving evidence. Posting links to stupid bullshit sites where people speculate about something is not making a case. I'm beginning to believe you are a intellectual idiot counter-savant. Type out your case below in your own words with actual arguments and evidence or just fucking admit you aren't capable of doing it. It's okay to admit you cannot do that. It is far more respectable than repeating empty statements yet claiming they are of substance. ShabiDOO 20:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

They aren’t empty statements, everyone but you seems to see that. The problem with solipsism is that you can’t refute it because it’s logically perfect (https://askaphilosopher.org/2014/05/22/solipsism-as-a-practical-possibility/). Some might argue that it’s the default position since nothing else can be known and the burden of proof rests ok the realist to show an external reality (don’t really agree with that point but then again folks disagree on what Occam’s razor does for it). The point being is that an external reality will always be a belief, calling solipsism useless or stupid doesn’t make it less true.

All evidence you will ever encounter is evidence of your own perception and nothing else. There is no evidence available, not of the type you seek. Neither will logic nor reasoning, nor anything similar help you; they are perceived as well, and not only that, they all rest—down on the very deepest level—on assumptions. This is true for any theory, without fail. These assumptions are for you to discard (or cling to) as you see fit, since there is no evidence for them either.

The very idea of "proof" is just an instance of the longing of mankind. This longing for stability and security is born out of our fear. "What if there is nobody else?" "What if I'm imagining it all?" "What if..." But such questions will not suffice. "Someone else" is clearly in the realm of ideas and hope. At least, you have no means to conclude anything else; nobody does! People will scream and shout; they will do anything to deny this fact. Remember this, and you will probably start noticing it yourself.

So in the end, one doesn't know whether everything is as it seems. That's all there is to it. You may very well keep believing in the "stuff out there," that's fine, but remember that it will always remain a belief. You could argue that solipsism is completely useless (it is, under most definitions of "use"), but know that it is not less true just because of that.

The rest is up to you. Embrace or deny; each option will bring both joy and sorrow. Good luck.

Machina (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The difference between idealism and solipsism is pretty much based around only what you think must be true. Idealism would be what you want must be true but may not exist, solipsism is believing what you think is both true and extant. Are you really back on this? If you are thinking solipsism is the same as the way the world works, you're not doing it right. If your ideal is to never share the same ideal as anyone else, that's pretty much humanity, and your claim is going to have to get more specific. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
OK. Let's imagine a mind (you) suddenly pops into existence, and that this mind is the sum total of the universe. This mind, being freshly born within a void, necessarily has no knowledge, no experience, no language skills, no frame of reference to anything at all because it's the first & only thing that's ever fucking existed. How could such a mind develop in the complete and necessary absence of any external stimuli? How the fuck could it acquire language enough to get to the cogito, never mind start fabricating its illusion of an external world? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
No Machina. Everyone else here has been critiquing virtually everything you've said and only the tiniest minuscule of philosophers take solipsism seriously. You still haven't presented a case. You've just posted another link that UNDERMINES your case, said it's "irrefutable" and that it is "logically perfect" and yet haven't explained how it's logically perfect. Claiming just because you cannot prove something is wrong isn't proving that it is right. That is no different than saying "you can't prove there is no God therefore that is proof there is a God" which is total bloody nonsense. Now you are also starting to question even the value of evidence while at the same time trying to make a convincing case about something which basically means trying to use reason to demonstrate what is wrong with reason which is fucking ridiculous. The strongest argument you have is "we cannot be sure anything is real" which is nothing controversial nor insightful. This however is a far cry from your claim that you know that objects and people aren't real which you cannot possible know. How you jump from "there is a fleeting chance objects and people aren't real" to "I know this is the case" requires a whole lot more than saying "but you cannot prove me wrong" or "but the claim sounds just so logicmical and occama razor and stuff and these internet links I read". Zheesh. Have you started looking into the cognitive behavioural therapy? ShabiDOO 10:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said I knew they weren’t real. The problem is that as everyone says it’s logically perfect and irrefutable (https://askaphilosopher.org/2012/08/22/can-there-be-certainty-outside-my-currently-observed-world/). I’ve tried to CBT but as I have said before it doesn’t work. The truth is that there is no certainty any of this is real or that I’m not the only one. All I have is my immediate senses and it’s likely that everything else could be a lie. Solipsism is a logically consistent position and that scares me because I can’t refute it. But does that make it true? I don’t know of any other logically consistent positions that are not true. The uncertainty of it is the problem for me. That something important as whether others exist and have minds is something I can’t prove really shakes me and even in my day to day it sometimes feels like I’m pretending they’re real and it hurts. I started well in dealing with this, but it’s not like god. As a previous user mentioned “when strict logic and ones own immediate perception suggest something it moves out of the realm of argument from ignorance). Thing with solipsism is that I can’t prove otherwise and each day I’m starting to think that the burden of proof rests on me to say others are real and exist and not the solipsist. I don’t think you understand what a problem solipsism really is and how much we take on faith. I don’t know if I’ll ever be the same again.Machina (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina I'll keep posting this until you address it:
Let's imagine a mind (you) suddenly pops into existence, and that this mind is the sum total of the universe. This mind, being freshly born within a void, necessarily has no knowledge, no experience, no language skills, no frame of reference to anything at all because it's the first & only thing that's ever fucking existed. How could such a mind develop in the complete and necessary absence of any external stimuli? How the fuck could it acquire language enough to get to the cogito, never mind start fabricating its illusion of an external world?
@Shabidoo Take a break for a few rounds, eh? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed I don't think there is anymore more I can say. Good luck and Machina if you'd like help finding a CBT where you live send me a private message. ShabiDOO 03:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I get the argument. Nothing is perfect, having an idea of what's perfect is some kind of illusion. And that's true. Machina, you are allowed to have an idea of what's good, you are allowed to chase an ideal. You are allowed to be wrong and you're still good. You've been wrong for how long, and we still fucking love you? If it's so nasty as anybody else is in just in your way, I would remind you that solipsism and idealism are, in this exact moment a contradiction that you cannot explain. Would you like to play MK11 tomorrow? Or even just watch us play?
It's my first time playing a Mortal Kombat since, like II, but I extended a request to a friend.  Like, Machina, I think you'd have fun.

I don't have a channel or anything. I quit facebook in 2008 or 2009 I don't remember. I am honestly going to get my ass kicked in the newest Mortal Kombat game with a buddy, I don't go on discord because, no offense, you are not the people I rely on. These people are way better than me at maintaining relationships. I just see them as golden. Machina, this is a challenge. I don't know how to zoom or anything, but I'll do it if you accept this challenge. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

After a quick reevaluation, I'm supposed to have a discord. Eh, ung, and fuh, ok I'm working on it, get off my back. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
you playin this game with me or no? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Shabi has not said anything of substance besides the usual close-minded comebacks so it's no surprise they can't offer anything else. Also Helena the issue is not HOW all this came to be the way it is, the point is that there is no way to verify the opposite or that I have no basis to posit an external reality or other people/minds (granted the same can be said for solipsism as well which makes the whole thing troubling). Especially since it looks like QM might posit solipsism (https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/why-is-jed-mckenna-anti-science/)Machina (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina Listen, you silly bastard. Your position is that solipsism is a) irrefutable, and b) blessed with a kind of logical perfection by way of Occam's razor because it posits the fewest possible number of entities, namely your own mind and nothing else.
My point is that, if you're willing to consider the logical implications of a one mind universe, solipsism quickly collapses into absurd nonsense because it's contradicted by simple facts about your own mind that you know to be true.
Take language, for example. You know that you have one, and that it structures your thoughts and inner voice. A single mind born into a void couldn't possibly acquire language, because there would be literally nothing there to provide any kind of stimulus. No objects to name or describe, no other entities to learn a language from ... just complete, silent darkness forever and ever and ever.
To put it another way, a single mind born into a void can not possibly learn or know anything, ever, because there is nothing in the void for it to learn or know. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit that was my thought when I heard solipsism. It doesn't say how I made all this (though not every branch of solipsism posits that). But isn't calling solipsism foolish just appealing to consequences though (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences#Epistemological_nihilism)? Yeah it did come to me though. I mean unless the solipsist wants to say that they made all of this from nothing, which is doubtful. I mean everything I know now I learned from somewhere else so I have severe doubts about it. Even if I did have a private language, which I doubt I could make up, I couldn't use it to describe anything. I could only refer to "this" whatever "this" is. But what is this? What is mind or consciousness and how could I define such things with a private language. The more I think about solipsism the less sense it makes but I know the response I'll get back is how can I be sure? Or in a previous, link I showed I presuppose I am experiencing a thing. In short the chain of doubt erodes any sort of confidence or logic that I have.Machina (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina There's no room for doubt here, man. A one mind universe is a self-refuting idea. You disprove it by being able to think about it with the intelligible inner voice that such a universe would have denied you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not self refuting though, there is nothing about solipsism that says you made this all up but there are some that suggest that. Even then it's not self refuting because your counter-point is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that it's not currently happening. Literally nothing your saying actually refutes it because solipsism says nothing about an author, just that your mind is the only thing you can know for sure exists and everything else is either in doubt or does not exist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). I cannot prove anything beyond my immediate perception. Even QM has some theories that are similar to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics).Machina (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  1. You know you have a mind.
  2. You know that mind has an intelligible inner voice.
  3. An intelligible inner voice requires language.
  4. Language acquisition is impossible in a one mind universe.
  5. Therefore, you know that the universe must consist of more than just your mind.
What's so difficult about this? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I just showed a link where Quantum mechanics proves it, in a way.Machina (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina So what? If you were able to read & understand what was written there, then - surprise! - you have language, and if you have language, you can't be existing in a one mind universe.
If you're determined to cling to your solipsistic paranoia, then it's (4) you need to be attacking. Best of luck showing how a freshly-minted mind can learn anything in a void, though. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not determined to cling to it, it just seems like the arguments for it are better than those that are against it. It's not like I want to believe this stuff. Who's to say the english language was not already fully formed in my mind?Machina (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Machina Not from where I'm sitting they aren't. Seriously. The conversation thus far has been completely one sided in HBC's favor. And all arguements in favor have simply been "nuh uh, you don't understand!", in which case, you might want to explain. If that isn't working, then you ought to explain in a different way. And if that doesn't work, you might try re-reading the opposing camps arguments in case you misunderstood something. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, man. @Machina: OK. So, your attack on (4) is to suggest your mind could have been born into the void preloaded with language? Let's look at that idea. The void, remember, is empty. Infinite, empty, timeless nothingness until the sudden arrival of your mind. A mind which now, apparently, comes stocked with a complete vocabulary and grammar to describe, consider and analyse an entirely imaginary bunch of stuff which has never existed previously, and indeed will never exist because the sum total of the universe is just your fucking mind.
Tell me again about the supposed logical coherence of this latest version of your solipsism. I'm all ears. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's still within the realm of possibility just because you don't understand it. Like the wiki said there is no necessary connection between physical and mental. You are also falsely attributing to solipsism the idea of an author when it doesn't say that. To repeat:

"I don't think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.

but solipsism does not deny that what we are experiencing is caused by external ripples.. this is still within possibility. It can simply never be determined true or not.

solipsism is logically flawless.. but it is also uninformative in the strictest sense of the word."

Machina (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Not only is that not logically flawless, it's intellectually unsound. I'd propose something which might in fact be novel, that we should seek justification for the distrust of others, and not the other way around. With this in mind, I have no reason to buy into your core premise and every reason to not bang my head on the brick wall of whether the external world is "real". For if indeed the external world is a simulacra so complex and detailed as to be indistinguishable from reality, is it not functionally the same as reality? Also you did that thing where you just doubled down and insisted that your opponent didn't understand you. Which is kind of disingenuous to be honest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Machina No. Spontaneous emergence of language in a void is not "within the realm of possibility". It's next-level magical thinking, and makes zero sense unless you're willing to further postulate the existence of some deity-tier entity to underwrite it all. In which case, congratulations, you've just nuked the supposed logical purity of a one mind universe.
If you're not willing to postulate such an entity, and if language is a thing (which it obviously fucking is), then the strongest form of hyperbolic doubt that actually flies is the good old brain-in-a-vat argument. Note, though, that brain-in-a-vat requires acknowledging the existence of an external world capable of generating the simulation. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand all that, yet despite that the language argument is still not the strongest one because it can still be said that language arrived fully formed in your head. Granted I find that to be kind of stupid to be honest and just complicates things further and doesn't match our lived experience. Yet still there are those who say the language argument is not that strong. And grammar commie, as the quote said we can't truly know whether anything exists apart from us, so what reason is there to believe other people have minds or that the external world's contents will continue when I'm not experiencing them?Machina (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina FFS, man. All manner of shite "can still be said", even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And if we're arguing in good faith here, is it not incumbent on you to move away from stuff I've shown (and you agree!) to be "kind of stupid"? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I know that arguments for solipsism are stupid but that doesn't stop new ones from different angles popping up (https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/why-is-jed-mckenna-anti-science/). Plus it's not a HARD no either, I guess that's still a tough one to accept.Machina (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina The language argument is a hard No against a one mind universe. As for everything else re. the various shades of solipsism, what's the best descriptor for someone who knowingly indulges "stupid" arguments in favour of an idea which causes them some measure of psychological distress? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not really "stupid" it's that it can't really really be known if there are others or not. I will admit that the language argument does help against this, but one could still argue that the language arrived fully formed (not convincing at all but it can still be argued). Plus I saw a post some months ago about someone who proved solipsism was true.Machina (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina That request for a suitable descriptor wasn't rhetorical. Let's have it, man. You can substitute "tenuous" for "stupid" if that helps you navigate any feelings of personal embarrassment. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not embarassed, I just don't have any arguments that are hard proof against it. And like I said, I read something a several months ago that proved solipsism. I don't remember what they said, but I definitely remember how it made me feel. So what do you have to say about that?Machina (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I presume you meant to say that you read something that falsely claimed to prove the truth of solipsism. If you are a solipsist you can't be surprised that there are no other solipsists to share your enthusiasm. You're it baby.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Haha. @Machina I'd say that works about as well as telling me about this joke you can't remember, but which definitely made you laugh. And now, obviously, I'm going to ask you (again) to answer the damn question. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I was pretty sure it proved solipsism to be true and I can't forget the feeling of despair it made me feel. I think it was on quora or some place else.Machina (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina With that feeling of despair in mind, then, what's the best descriptor for someone who knowingly indulges stupid / tenuous / random Quora arguments in favour of an idea which causes them some measure of psychological distress? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess the proper term would just be insanity to be honest. I just want to be done with this idea and I'd rather not return. But the principle behind it is harsh. Too many threads with people talking about it. https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4553714/fpart/1/vc/1 https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/17145957#17145957 https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/9034360/fpart/1/vc/1

"The distinction between the realist universe and the unconscious universe collapses when one notes that external and unconscious are simply two different words used to describe the same events occurring outside of conscious control. This leads to the conclusion that the unconscious is, for all practical purposes, someone else."

I thought this was one of the most interesting ideas in the whole article.

The unconscious mind is always talked about as being totally separate from our external reality (the ego and the id). Okay, but if I take a moment and totally stop acknowledging myself and my ego, I've broken free and entered the unconscious, but I'm still there, "I" as in the body that I normally inhabit and do stuff with. This is very hard for me to try and explain what I am trying to say with words, but the above quote explains it pretty well.

If my personal experience is the totality of all of my mental processes, where is my unconscious mind functioning at? Or am I someone else completely?

The only thing you can ever know is Yourself, the rest is navigation. This is simultaneously knowing that there is Nothing.

Solipsism is just a bad understanding of godhood.


"The origins of Solipsism in Western Philosophy comes from the Greek Pre-Socratic Sophist Gorgias who claimed that:

Nothing exists. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others."

Solipsism is interesting in many ways, and I too find it annoying when people blow things off because they "sound like solipsism".

The main interesting point of solipsism is that there's no way to know if it's true; in fact, were you to strictly (and I mean very strictly) follow Occam's razor, I believe solipsism would be your final result. All your perception and reality exists within your subjective reality; outside of this subjective reality, there is no possible way to verify existence, because you can only verify the existence within your reality.

However, the main problem with solipsism is that, in my experience with it, it will get you nowhere. All solipsism does is fill you with doubt, but it doesn't really contribute anything, so in the interest of progress, solipsism is usually abandoned and adopted again only as "uncertainty", which means, for all relevant purposes, that it's a major problem but people don't want to deal with it.

Of course, how do I know these people exist at all? How do I know I'm not just talking to myself? :shiftyeyes:

Realistically, assuming external reality does exist during our waking life, the best example of solipsism comes from dreams. We see these people in dreams as separate, having their own words and personalities and mannerisms; then we wake up and find they were in our minds all along. How do we know it's not the same right now?

Machina (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina Thanks for a straightforward answer. As far as "insanity" goes, I suppose that depends on how much it impairs your day-to-day function. That's the usual gauge for whether unhelpful / unwelcome thoughts & feelings have tipped over into mental illness. If you reckon you've crossed that bridge, go get help.
For the record, my starting point would be "foolish", and I'd compare it to something like punching walls in anger. You know it's going to hurt, you know it won't make you feel any better, and you know there's a risk of injury if you persist / go too hard. Given all the above, the only sensible response is to stop fucking doing it. Again, if you don't feel able to stop indulging these thoughts, and that's impairing your day-to-day function, go get help.
Finally, whatever you do, stay the fuck away from sites like shroomery unless you actually want to learn about recreational use of psychedelics. It's clearly fuck all use for learning about philosophy, and the wreckhead / psychonaut scene definitely attracts an unfortunate minority of navel-gazing eejits whose opinions on just about everything can be very safely ignored. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Second, but be careful about those metaphors. The absolute worry that you are binary, either the dreamer or the part of the dream, is tough, and if you can't figure it out well fuck me. I know you don't want to dip out from that conversation entirely, so the next question is what weight can you carry? How much of yourself is expressed through others, I mean, why are you asking us about your experience. Rather than searching for yourself by your own limitations, there is a self that you've got, and hey, I don't know what to tell you. Look for psychology schooled in hypnosis, because asking this crowd isn't wrong, exactly, but if you're going to spend the money, go one up from a palm reader or a bunch of people telling you your ideas ain't shit. I have some friends who hit the hypnosis crowd and they are not zombies or nothin, but they are good solid guys. They just found a comfortable place to talk about themselves in a hyper-spiritual way that they couldn't do anywhere else. I'm sorry I can't meet you there.
For me, if you need to punch the walls down, you should know how to build the walls yourself, or you don't know one wall from the other. Steelman your own existence as you question it. You'll find the empty spots faster if you spend the time to punch down your own house. Rich advice, coming from me. It still hurts to worry about anything, but that's what humans do. Punch wildly at the heavens and suffer in the mean time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

Why should you know things that don't exist until they are observed? Solipsism states that nothing exists beyond one's own perception. I have not yet experienced telekinesis within my own perception, I don't know why. I don't claim to have any control over it.

I could also argue that absurdity is the true nature of existence.

And I can't forget to requote this part about there being no distinction between a realist universe and an unconscious universe:

"The distinction between the realist universe and the unconscious universe collapses when one notes that external and unconscious are simply two different words used to describe the same events occurring outside of conscious control. This leads to the conclusion that the unconscious is, for all practical purposes, someone else."

I thought this was one of the most interesting ideas in the whole article.

The unconscious mind is always talked about as being totally separate from our external reality (the ego and the id). Okay, but if I take a moment and totally stop acknowledging myself and my ego, I've broken free and entered the unconscious, but I'm still there, "I" as in the body that I normally inhabit and do stuff with. This is very hard for me to try and explain what I am trying to say with words, but the above quote explains it pretty well.

If my personal experience is the totality of all of my mental processes, where is my unconscious mind functioning at? Or am I someone else completely?

Still from the same forum but yes it is hard to ignore. What about that we presuppose a "thing" or that to assume anything else exists requires faith? What about that argument?Machina (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Machina To be clear: I'm done here, man. The language argument is all you need to establish the ongoing, mind-independent existence of an external world of some description. Go get help if you need, and stay the fuck away from sites like shroomery. Best of luck n' all. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


But if language was a good enough argument then why do people keep suggesting that it might be or is true? There is also the fact that neuroscience has confirmed that our brains "hallucinate" conscious reality in that it constructs a model of it based on the sensory data that we receive, that sounds similar to solipsism. I mean, is language the nail in the coffin for this?

I could thoroughly describe to you the evolution of written language, but it still doesn't rule out the possibility that its all formulated in my mind. I have only experienced English language in its current state, through my own perception. I have no knowledge of the steps taken to develop it other than what I have read in textbooks.

How can you seperate the inner and outer region? EVERYTHING is sensation, no exceptions.

Machina (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump: You lost, shut the Hell up[edit]

Whether the mango messiah likes it or not, he lost. The electoral college will certify results even though he would not like it. Trump needs to shut up and accept reality. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The cinnamon cunt has no capability for conceding, gracefully or otherwise. He'll bitch and whine and refuse to leave the office. The secret service will need to drag him out from his ear.
You know, just me prophesying stuff and shizzles. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
"Reality can be whatever I want it to be." - Donald Trump (2020). Oxyaena Harass 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I like using the mental picture from the arrest of Assange if it comes to forcibly evicting POTUS from the White House. Having him getting carried on his hands and feet by two people is very humiliating (and given Trumps status as a certified fatass, he'll probably need a third just for his belly). It's fairly amusing. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's not fat shame people here. Plenty of other reasons to hate Trump than him being a lardass.
I say this as a 184cm/72kg or 6'½"/159lbs person. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother trying to grab him by his hands; after all, they're tiny. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Gasp! Circular did you just tiny-hands-shame the president of the Republic of the United States of America? I am so flustered I doubt I will sleep tonight! ShabiDOO 23:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Che Gelida Manina anyone? Anna Livia (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Use a large net to do the job. Lure him into a Fox News interview room and drop the net. See- easy. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This (when it reopens) might be better. Anna Livia (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Could it be hes dragging his so he doesnt have to go to court? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or has Trump been doing his own make up since the election? Been a tad over zealous with the tanning moisturiser and a bit too long on the sun bed with googles resulting in an even more orange complexion with pale eyes. He looks like a fanatical panda at a Netherlands football game. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, I kinda hope that when he leaves the white house (although it does currently look like he's planning a coup see )it'll be just like when Julian Assange left the Columbian embassy. "You can not do this to me. This is not what democracy looks like!!!!" Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think he's going through the stages of dealing with loss: Denial, anger, confusion, and then acceptance. Methinks he's just moved to the "anger" stage, as he now admits he lost but still points to baseless conspiracy theories about "mUh pOlL-wAtChErZ not being allowed to watch!!!1" as an "explanation" for why for once in his long, cushy, pampered life, he's finally lost at something. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 00:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thats not true. he's always losing lawsuits. and money it seems. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Kropotkin on cooperation[edit]

Does anyone here have any opinions on Kropotkin's ideas regarding cooperation in Evolutionary Theory?Leucippus (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Err, sorry, I don't know who he is. Could you summarize his ideas for me or give me a link? I'm interested. Twodots (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with Kropotkin as I should be, But if this is the "humans are cooperative creatures" then the answer is "yes, but also it's complicated". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Twodots-He's a major figure in anarcho-communism. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with his work to give you a good summary and my knowledge of his work is based upon a cursory reading of his wikipedia page and our page at Ratwiki. @GrammarCommie- Yes that was what I was referring to, I am curious as to whether his emphasis on cooperation is considered scientifically respectable. I mean personally, I find his idea to be supplementary to the canonical idea of competition. Leucippus (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Well regarded person for a late 19th century "anarchist, socialist, revolutionary, economist, sociologist, historian, zoologist, political scientist, human geographer and philosopher." His book is available free on line, and has a wikipedia review. "Stephen Jay Gould admired his observations." Ariel31459 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. Twodots (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 didn't know his book was available for free thanks for the info. Yes, what I find interesting about him, among other things, was his non-dogmatic character and apparently his criticism of the Leninist communism that was all-the-rage then. Also, that was what was of interest to me, either the views of users here or academics in general on Kropotkin. Leucippus (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, anarchist here. If you want an anarchist worth reading try Malatesta. Kropotkin's work is out-dated and boring. Oxyaena Harass 23:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Hiya. Thanks for the suggestions. Again, I'm not that familiar with Kropotkin's so I will take your word for it, be that as it may, I am happy to receive advice from a fellow rationalist. I was not familiar with Malatesta nor Anarcho-Communism for that matter, but it always seemed to me to be the most promising of the "flavours" of anarchism, superior to Collectivist-Anarchism. Leucippus (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Most users on this site know jackshit about anarchism or serious philosophy, and they brag about it too. I am happy to oblige. A work of Kropotkin's that you may be interested in reading is Mutual Aid, which is much better than The Conquest of Bread, but Malatesta has much more interesting things to say as a whole. Oxyaena Harass 13:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Most users know enough to know that it wouldn't work in practice. We don't need a BA in Fashion to know the Emperor is naked. CoryUsar (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser You, specifically, don't know that. And the "most users" as a proxy for yourself isn't very convincing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright, added a quick poll about Anarchy. CoryUsar (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Did we not just have a discussion about how easy it is to tamper with those?-Flandres (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Cory is now a political expert. Why does everyone and their mother think that they can now be experts after reading a fucking Wikipedia article on a subject? You're a fucking joke. Oxyaena Harass 00:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
80 votes for authoritarian right. I stand corrected I'm betting you didn't see that coming, though to be fair neither did I. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Wrong poll, apologies. However, now I get to be snide about the loaded language Cory used. @CorruptUser Define anarchism for me. What does it advocate? Why does it advocate that? What is mutual aide? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
It's the idea that hierarchies are inherently oppressive, and that we should reform society such that there are no more hierarchies (or involuntary hierarchies, anyway), whether those hierarchies are based on race, gender, religious affiliation, wealth, or the size of your poops. It's flawed for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it's virtually impossible to organize hundreds of people without some form of hierarchy, let alone the millions of people in a major city or billions on the planet.
Most of the rest of us agree that unearned hierarchies should be dismantled, such as racialism and sexism and whatnot, to say nothing of aristocracy or plutocracy, but would rather work towards hierarchies based on merit or ability rather than no hierarchy at all. CoryUsar (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser When I ask you to define terms, really, when anyone does, it's best to avoid editorializing. I didn't ask you what you thought the problems with anarchism are. I asked you very specific questions concerning the basic defining of terms. You've failed that request, and demonstrated quite definitively that people shouldn't take you seriously on this subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump has followed in the footsteps of such great leaders[edit]

These include:

  • Pol Pot
  • Saddam Hussein
  • Adolf Hitler
  • Josef Stalin
  • Hideki Tojo
  • Benito Mussolini --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget his bigly nice buddies who are alive today:
  • Putin
  • Erdogan
  • Bolsonaro
  • The Saudis
Actually, Jinping is not Xi Jinping's family name; it is Xi. (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
They're not gone yet. Dogeatsdog (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
trump is a prick, but lets have some perspective here. this is all nonsense. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
afraid not a massive gay, according to grammar nazi, Orange Man is literally Hitler (and a few other baddies) — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:F9C1:314C:ECEE:5553 / talk
Vro just let these guys hate trump, or you'll get blocked for no reason Mandnoloser (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Well you are a sysop though hahaha Mandnoloser (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The difference between Trump and other authoritarian leaders is that Trump has (thus far) failed. Mostly because he's a moron who can't go through the motions needed to make allies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You forgot the politician Trump is most similar to, Silvio Burlesconi. A corrupt rat fucking egoist who destroy a country's reputation to assuage his fevered and fetid self image. Although Trump obviously never met Dr Fuckatini or had his front teeth smashed in on live tv by his underage lover, Karima el-Mahroug. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You mean egotist, do not conflate egoism with egotism. There's a big difference. Oxyaena Harass 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean self serving, lunatic with delusions of grandeur. If that's egotist, then egotist it is. Would still love to see him removed from the white house just like Julian Assange was evicted from that embassy in London Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump isn't a genocidal maniac. Twodots (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the argument is that Trump could approach those figures, not that he is literally Hitler. But if things went bad to the point that a genocide or armed conflict of some sort could become possible, I'd believe that he'd do it, if only for political and personal gain. He doesn't have an active desire to kill Jews, for example, but if he believed doing so would give him power and wealth, he'd absolutely do it. To me, that's equally dangerous as someone like Hitler. Say what you want about the man, but he was explicit and consistent about what he was going to do. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
He isn't currently in a position where it'd benefit him, and he's unlikely to find himself in one. I'd say he's more of a potential bomb than a ticking one. At least regarding his likelihood to commit genocide. Twodots (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd go so far as to say killing someone because you don't care is more evil than killing someone because you hate them. You can "deprogram" a Neo-Nazi by getting them to interact with Black people, actually come face to face with their own bigotries and ask themselves just why the Neo-Nazis believe what they do. You will have a much tougher time fixing a complete lack of empathy. CoryUsar (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
What is "evil" and why is life so sacred? You rationalists all speak like religious people without even realizing it. Oxyaena Harass 20:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Why wouldn't life be sacred? I'm assuming you don't believe in an afterlife, which would only make it more precious. If you are to only live once, than life is the greatest gift and most precious thing in the universe. The act of taking it without justified cause is therefore one of the most immoral actions in the world. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Ox, would you mind eating some shards of glass for me? I mean, unless you value your own life or something. Twodots (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Strawman. She thinks words like sacred have a purely religious meaning, and when used in the context of life, try to imply life has religious meaning too. I'm sure she thinks there some none mystical value to life though. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok kids. I've just acted as a board member and blocked @Twodots for that comment. That wasn't acceptable and was completely out of line, and none of you will repeat that stunt. Ok? Ok! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I endorse this block and that bolded sentiment. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I said "blocked", not "banned". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You know, it's funny-people might want to stop comparing Trump to Berlusconi when they remember the latter had...several nonconsecutive terms. Let's not jinx ourselves, eh?-Flandres (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For reference, Oxy thinks she's an anarcho-nihilist now. You should probably all brace for more of this guff. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Anarcho-Nihilism" sounds like some obscure pseudo-philosophy espoused by someone who lacks the introspection to realize that all of their problems are internal, and so jumps from one idea to the next in order to continue to blame the outside world for their own failings. You know, like conspiracy theorists, your crazy Uncle who thinks Obama was born in the lower bowels of Hell, Incels, obnoxious college kids, etc. CoryUsar (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm mostly struggling with the <political ideology>-nihilism construction. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@FlandresShite, yeah that's probably not something you want out in the universe. Trump is also likely more in line with Maduro in the sense that he clings to absolute power, but fails to wield it in any significant way. While many people are acutely aware of what he is trying to do, and are rightfully fearful if he was just a little sharper, large parts of the population see instead nothing remotely unique.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean, could you imagine a world where Trump wasn't starting shit with John McCain for absolutely no good reason? That alone cost him Arizona, and probably didn't help in other states. Now add in all his stupid with Twitter. If he had just done what every other celebrity does and hire a couple of college kids to both write his tweets and make sure nothing too stupid is written, well, in that world, Trump would've won... CoryUsar (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflcit)Well, to continue the Maduro comparison he also corrodes small d democratic norms simply by being in power, without accomplishing anything beyond perpetuating his own dominance. The real danger is that someone savvier exploits these troubled circumstances to concentrate more power in their hands. This election proves such a scenario may be delayed but it is still very possible.Flandres (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUserPart of what makes Trump Trump is his general assholery. If he behaved more cooly or was more calculated in his decisions, it's questionable that he ever would have ascended to the Republican 2016 nomination, let alone won the next two elections. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Sirius Can you tell these assholes to back off from me. Fuck you, Cory, and fuck you, HBC, you politically and philosophically illiterate sacks of shit. To say that life is "sacred" is religious in nature, nothing is sacred, by making something sacred, you give it power over yourself, the unique. It's the same thing as when religious folk say that their holy book is sacred, same reasoning, same form. Oxyaena Harass 00:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not the same as when religious people use the word "sacred" in regards to their favorite storybook in the context it was here used in. Words can have different meanings, you know. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 01:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxy "Fuck you, Cory"
I don't think you could afford me. CoryUsar (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
You cost pennies on the dollar. I don't think anyone wants you. Oxyaena Harass 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
And yet you still couldn't afford me. CoryUsar (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Not a mod, nor your lapdog. That aside, I don't see much issue with this convo. Be prepared to argue your own statements, I know you can do it. Twodots acted out of line and got adequately punished for it. HBC admits to not understanding the term/the construction of the term, Cory does the same although with some inflammatory remarks about it. Assume good faith, even if that can be difficult sometimes. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
In my defense, I'm an idiot Twodots (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No More Presidents[edit]

Oxyaena Harass 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is like ThoughtSlime's video response I'm unsubbing to RC. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mike Pence[edit]

As one of the pop-up news stories said - where is he?

And given that Dubya supports Biden have we reached the last Trump? Anna Livia (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been wondering that too. --RZ94forMod2020 (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
In the back, waiting for Trump to do the sane thing and abdicate followed with a Pence pardon. Artificius (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Pardoning doesn't do tRump much good. There are state charges waiting in the wings and there's also the massive debt. Bongolian (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Also, if Pence pardons tRump for anything that he himself was involved it, it would not be enforceable (if the Supreme Court followed the rule of law). Bongolian (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe Pence is hiding somewhere and getting drunk. --RZ94forMod2020 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
He's considering his options, since he wants to run in '24. If he contradicts Trump, he'll lose those supporters. If he full throat endorses Trump's bullshit, he'll look like a dumbass.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Waiting for the penny to drop? Anna Livia (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Or waiting for people to take him seriously again after the fly disrupted his and Kamala's VP debate. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Pence was a token, nobody who is mad about Trump, as much as they leaned on Pence, is upset about Pence. They are not upset about Betsy Devos, Andrew Wheeler, or Eugene Scalia. Because their job was to do JACK SHIT besides be grateful to Trump for having their positions. And Trump loyalists never gave a second glance at them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Toilet Paper Apocalypse: Round 2[edit]

I was in Wal-Mart today and what do I see? The aisle with toilet paper were nearly emptied. I honestly doubt it is panic buying from COVID but rather panic buying knowing Trump lost and people believe that Biden will destroy the country. I live in an area with mountains of Trump fanatics. Hell there is even a small store with ten Trump flags in the grass! --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

QAnon perps preppers are preparing to shit themselves. Bongolian (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 Ah, but do you have improvised stands selling Trump merch? And also possibly selling Qanon merch? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
No on the improvised stands, although I could make cash on it. Now here is something funny- https://www.pmnewsnigeria.com/2020/11/08/it-is-not-over-stella-immanuel-reacts-to-defeat-of-trump-in-u-s-election/ --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
My sweetie was smart and bought a bunch of TP after the first shortage in March, and now we have a stockpile. When the pandemic hit and the local stores were all empty, she acquired some TP from Amazon, and it arrived very gradually over the next several weeks and months. The Amazon TP was this hilarious three-ply Chinese made stuff with a very small roll and an uncharacteristically robust hard core. Even more hilarious, the Chinese TP rolls were individually wrapped in plastic and each roll had a silly inspirational quote printed on it. This is one of the memories I will always have from the pandemic. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 05:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Newspapers can be so recycled (possibly the best use for some of them). Anna Livia (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris I guess it shows you how much they think of those quotes putting them there lol.Leucippus (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, just like last time, a legion of Karens bullied the store's manager into letting them kill trees by taking home entire cartfuls each. And yes, Karens do tend to believe that with their orange messiah and fly-attracting gray vice-messiah (whose wife is named Karen) gone, Biden will somehow destroy America... by forgetting it into communism and mask-wearing? --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 17:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Polish Spinning Toilet[edit]

- (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Polish spinning toilet (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Polish Spinning Toilet, you mean? (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Tylko jedno glowie mam, koksu piec gram. Twodots (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A dairy cow definitively comes to mind with that. (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian Naming Dispute: Greece really needs to grow up[edit]

Recently I read about the naming dispute between Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia. Greece really wants to throw a fit about a country that names itself after the region it is in. Greece does not own all of the Macedonia region. The main complaints are from Far-Right Greek nationalists.

If you go to YouTube videos simply talking about the history of the dispute and not taking sides, the comment section is overflown with Greek nationalists throwing around insults and ethnic/racial slurs. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nationalism: It's patriotism, but stupid! Twodots (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
They're the same thing. Read Tolstoy. Oxyaena Harass 20:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no. Nationalism is patriotism, but more extreme and arrogant. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 00:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Literally all hard-nationalists do is bitch about perceived insults. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
And commit genocide. Twodots (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Some background. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The fear is that nationalists in Macedonia will try to claim ALL of Macedonia, including the Greek parts. By having it adopt a different name, the Macedonians are in a sense giving up any claims to "great Macedonia" or whatever.
And as for "Patriotism vs Nationalism", Zach Wienersmith sums it up. For those that don't want to click an external link...
Patriotism is...
  • Working on your country to make it better
  • Looking to other countries on how to make your country better
  • Letting others in, to see if they can help
Nationalism is
  • Declaring your country best because it's yours
  • Looking to other countries only as a source of new territories or resources to exploit
  • Keeping all others out CoryUsar (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't always agree with Cory, but I'm with him (and this Zach Wienersmith guy) in the Patriotism/Nationalism thing. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 21:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Patriotism v Nationalism is a critically important distinction, really seems like the nationalists in both camps are just sucking up most of the oxygen in public opinion.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's some Tolstoy for you all, there is functionally no difference between patriotism and nationalism. It's splitting hairs to distinguish the two. They still embolden some artificial construct that rules over you as superior to you, the individual. Patriotism and nationalism are two sides of the same coin, and the distinction is really academic. It's "patriotic" to support "your" country's wrongdoings, it's "patriotic" to sign up in the global war machine to preserve American imperial hegemony. Trump realizes this, you liberals don't. Liberalism is a joke. Oxyaena Harass 00:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
bullshit. patriotism is supporting your team in the world cup. nationalism is having a tear up with your opponents fans after the match. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not exactly as good of a counterexample as you think it is. These "nationalists" could very well be drunken fools who are rowdy after drinking too much during an international sporting event. They think of themselves as patriots, no doubt. Are they wrong? Oxyaena Harass 00:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(EC - the template is at AMassiveGay's post) Good post! I've been defending you up there few sections above Oxy, but you're wrong here. Even if I might have a primitive desire to punch some fucking Welsh bastard today[2], I wouldn't. They were just better than us. Good for them, and maybe we can do better next time. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I think what you are getting at is a sort of "your right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins" scenario-patriotism is just liking your country, nationalism is using that to justify hurting other people.-Flandres (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
It ends where anyone's nose begins really. As long as you're swinging your fist in general direction of no-one, I've no problem with it. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
indeed. and americans do not understand football hooliganism. it is not merely drunken fans, it is organised violence. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I’ve always thought of the distinction between patriotism and nationalism as being fundamentally like the difference between love and adoration or worship. Love can admit flaws and embrace them even as some prove immutable, but worship cannot allow for the admission of any error whatsoever – its object can never fail, only be failed (and is usually part myth). Should we call them the same simply because my love of family and my worship of Starship Troopers both admit something greater than myself, which would both under certain circumstances claim to be better than me, the individual? I say the distinction persists, even if I become pathologically hostile to both for political reasons. Artificius (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay As an American who is a fan of Chelsea Football Club, I was particularly horrified reading about the Chelsea Pensioners.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Think you mean the Headhunters, man. The Pensioners are old veterans who live at Royal Hospital Chelsea. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
dont underestimate pensioners
. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha. Class. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone heard the term "build back better"[edit]

Coop voting rules[edit]

I've started a discussion on modifying the voting rules for coop cases (RationalWiki talk:Community Standards#Voting for or against oneself in the coop) Bongolian (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should. Your logic there is sound. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

On Human Nature[edit]

The analytical discourse deployed for the above description is a mere physiological one. Even that has a huge problem, as it leaves out the flexibility, plasticity and constant transformations of human physiology produced by cultural insiders/agents. Heterotrophy is debated in cultures where cannibalism used to be or still is (ritually) a norm. The analogy between physiology, which is nothing more than that, with sociocultural factors that reflect back to the physical structures the results of agency, is completely flawed. Also, "spoken language" is not a universal condition, given that there are humans who cannot speak. Also, positive/negative stimuli are not something given, but something always in the making of of active cultural agents. The description is so generic that fails to recognize all the grey zones that make up the subjective human experience what it is, therefore it says so little about anything that could be described as "human nature". I personally do not buy any singular, grand scheme. I can compromise with "human natures" though, on the basis of Margaret Lock's concept of "local biologies."

This was written in response to this trite by a certain BoN here:

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.

I rest my case. Oxyaena Harass 10:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

And philosophically, one should always be cautious of investing too much certainty into the term "typical" because "types" of all kinds are inherently a result of our own subjective analysis, and lack any metaphysical realness. I guess there's some extreme edge cases that could be argued like types of fundamental particles, and types of elements and so on. But if you follow core the logic hard enough "What's human nature?" gets answered by "Characteristics of a human" and "What's a human" gets answered with "thing with human characteristics", naturally begging the question. I blame Aristotle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena As best as I can tell, you're choosing to take a stand on the following two propositions:

  1. Human nature is determined by society, not the other way around.
  2. There are certain commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space, but ... these aren't (caused by) anything innate (in humans themselves).

Is this a fair characterisation, or do you wish to clarify further?

As ikanreed points out, human nature is not well defined. Do you have a working definition you're happy to stick with, for the purposes of argument? If so, let's have it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure this is just a round-the-houses exercise to get to something like:

  1. "Human nature" is a mere product of societal structures and influences, and not an innate aspect of humans themselves.
  2. Therefore, "human nature" can not be regarded as an impediment to the establishment of my ideal (insert utopian adjectives here) society.

Apologies if your reasoning is less motivated, and you're actually tilting at this particular windmill in good faith. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That "human nature" is not well defined should surprise no one. Many words describing human behaviors are generic and lack specificity. Asking for specifics about a category that is not expected to be exact, i.e., scientific, is no better than an intellectual exercise. I'm not complaining, we all need to exercise. What should be part or a subspecies of human nature? Love perhaps? Not all people seem capable of it, certainly. But can we say love is an occasional behavior sometimes expressed by humans? Every so-called race, or as I prefer it, people from everywhere in the world are able to express love for others, regardless of culture or social traditions. We are not taught to be fond of family members, animal companions, friends who have been helpful comrades through our lives. We grieve when they are lost to us. No one teaches us to sorrow in the anguish of personal loss. I regret the hardships of others, unknown to me, but I don't feel them as if they were my own. Part of human nature? Perhaps. It's difficult to say.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I'm just loath for the goalposts to suddenly become a basketball hoop mid-discussion. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Much of this boils down to a disagreement about what “nature” is without actually addressing the definition I gave above. The nature of a particular species is not the set of traits that all members of that species possess without exception, it’s the set of traits that are typical of that species. Cats typically have four legs, fur, and a tail about two-thirds the length of the rest of the body, though not every single individual cat does. But apart from e.g. breeds bred for lack of fur, a lack of fur, legs, or tail represents an atypical condition, as due to injury, developmental abnormality, or some such. When speaking of the nature of cats, such conditions are typically set aside apart from a statistical description of various abnormalities. Domestic cats live in much the same societies that humans do (young children, at least), yet they don’t acquire human language, pass the mirror test, or gain opposable thumbs. Because their nature is different from that of humans.
I’m focusing most of the attention and details on physiological nature because that’s easy to see by just looking at things. Acknowledging that such a thing as the nature of a species exists, and that humans have one, is best grounded in such unambiguous topics as physiology. We can discuss psychology after coming to terms with there being actual facts in this matter.
As for the more detailed content there, the physical nature of humans includes various responses to environmental conditions. Childhood nutrition is a strong influence on various developmental processes, for example. What did you mean by “Heterotrophy is debated in cultures where cannibalism used to be or still is (ritually) a norm.”? All humans without exception are heterotrophs.
As for “human nature” often being described with generic terms, that comes with the territory of the people making the descriptions being humans themselves. It’s kind of a “how do fish talk about the ocean” situation. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t clear, empirical information to be had. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure physiology is going to shed much useful light on the clear line that can be traced from, say, the Sulawesi cave paintings to Rothko's Seagram Murals. If you're in a more lowbrow mood, we can talk about the line we can draw from any amount of Roman bathhouse graffiti to the TITCH LVS BOGRAT '04 I once saw scrawled on the back of a bus seat. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The things you mentioned were all done by anatomically and behaviorally modern humans. Obviously it’s possible to draw parallels between different societies composed of the same sort of being. As I mentioned, I’ve been mostly focusing on physiology because of how obvious the existence of a physiological human nature is. Psychological human nature is subtle enough that there are serious blank slate advocates. It’s not reasonable, but they exist, and dealing with that unreasonableness is better done once the existence of some sort of human nature is admitted. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, you pursue your strategy and I'll pursue mine. Both may be moot anyway as it looks like @Oxyaena is just waiting for this thread to disappear into the archives. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The very notion of a "singular human nature" is an artificial construct, one that has no bearing on actual, flesh and blood, living beings. Oxyaena Harass 16:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena OK. Then explain how such radically different societies can produce the identical artistic urges we see expressed by the Sulawesi cave paintings, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling, and Rothko's Seagram Murals. Good luck! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

“The very notion of a "singular human nature" is an artificial construct” Every notion without exception is an artificial construct. That’s what notions are. That doesn’t prevent them from corresponding to things in the real world. There is a lump of atoms in front of me, and while the fundamental physics are rather simple, it's useful to consider that those atoms are a "cat" that is sitting on my "lap".
“one that has no bearing on actual, flesh and blood, living beings” Every human without exception is a heterotroph. Food is rather important to humans. Needing food is a part of human nature. You can define human nature out of existence if you want, but that has no bearing on what others actually use the term for, which refers to a real thing. We can play taboo if you want. What is it that you’re arguing against humans having? Keep in mind that you just implied above that human nature includes flesh and blood. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter The content depicted by the paintings are completely separate, the reasons for the paintings of Sulawesi are not known, we cannot know key cultural factors. The fact that people draw is an overgeneralization, people draw for reasons, and often the content of a painting is determined by cultural factors. A hunter gatherer is gonna draw things relevant to them, as is Michelangelo. Those relevant things happen to be very different from each other, the notion of a singular human nature is too reductionist and ignores cultural plasticity and fluidity. Oxyaena Harass 05:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena Who gives a fuck about the content of the paintings? It's the striking commonality of the behaviour that's significant, stretching from the dawn of civilisation right through to the modern period. We both know there's an almost inexhaustible supply of data points to add to the line I'm drawing here. You want some Turner? Some Rublev? Some Aboriginal rock art?

Now, I say there's something inherent in humans that leads some of us to make visual representations of the world around us, and causes most of the rest of us to feel some kind of response to those representations. I don't need to explain the mechanisms behind it all, because I can point to the weight of evidence and reasonably infer that something human-related must be going on here, whatever you want to call it.

You, on the other hand, have explicitly denied that such "commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space" have anything to do with "innate" qualities of humans themselves, and have further stipulated that it's "society" that has all the relevant explanatory power. In which case, start fucking explaining, man.

Out of sympathy for the obvious handicap of your batshit ideological motivations here, I'll point out that you don't need to explain exactly how a given society produces a given piece of art, but you do need to explain how such radically different societies can produce such strikingly similar art making / appreciation behaviours if you are eliminating humans themselves as the determinant common factor. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The cultural factors are very relevant here, did you read anything I said? What commonality is there besides a very basic and overgeneralizing "people draw things?" What specifically is that inherent something I want specific details. What specific neurological substrate causes one to "draw things?" How can you just arbitrarily ignore key cultural factors here and pretend they have no relevance? You're assuming there's something essential to humanity, this reads to me like bullshit vitalism, of the same substance as that "humans have souls." Essentialism is no different than vitalism, they both claim there is a nonapparent "essence" to humanity that one cannot immediately see, something extra to us, ie something that is extranatural, or supernatural. Oxyaena Harass 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Drawing requires symbolic thought, to quote a friend:
Drawing is not a skill on its own, it's an abstract, an "assemblage". You need representations that signify something, ergo you need symbolic thought which has no other codifications beyond sociocultural settings. — My friend.

Symbolic thought is demonstrably not just limited to Homo sapiens, Homo erectus and Neanderthals too have been found to possess symbolic thought. And the neurological substrates for symbolic thought are found deeper within the animal kingdom. Drawing encodes complex symbolic representation, reducing all of this to some vaguely defined notion of a "human essence" denies reality, and is too overly reductionist. Oxyaena Harass 18:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Symbolic thought refers to pre-linguistic thought. The difference between humans and other species is not only that humans and their near relatives can represent their own thoughts to others. They also have the cognitive ability to recognize the representations. There is a gap in natural abilities between a chimpanzee and a modern human. Many of the differences are in degree. Many animals are like humans, or become attractive to humans because of the emotions they evoke, and they are collected as pets in human society. In certain ways they are like us. In other ways we are able to make them more like us, especially dogs and sometimes cats. But I don't see any alternative to the explanation that it is human nature to which a dog becomes habituated, most likely through breeding.
Now art is an entirely different matter. Aesthetic representations are for their own sake. This last summer, while collecting field stone in my back yard I noticed that some of them appeared to be painted with black and red pigments unnatural to the rocks in the area. The native American Red Paint People were supposed to have been located in an area very close to my state. But they had disappeared from New England at least three thousand years ago. I collected a number of surface artifacts that astonished me. Many stones had figural carvings and were not at all primitive art with regard to technique. One stone had the head of an American cave lion carved into it. Another stone was an effigy of a shark. Yet another was a scene depicting a large bear carved into a schist with mica reflectively representing bees, with one paw covering its nose and the other reaching for honey comb. The quality of the representation reminded me of 20th century juvenile book illustration. I was amazed at the variety of style and quality in these carvings. I thought, "how like me, the mind of this artist had been. Soon it was like I felt I was talking to myself. I knew what The People were doing there, living in that place now called "Great Hill" in Algonquin. Soon I felt I could feel their presence, as I assembled the grave goods scattered by the brook on my rural property. Sometimes I find myself trembling a bit looking at what they have shown me about themselves, even though they had vanished forever so very long ago. Now that's what I call art! Ariel31459 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Dang. This'll be the first time I've ever typed "cool story" and meant it sincerely. Cool story, man. I feel a bit guilty now about lowering the tone back down to internet slapfight, but anyway...
@Oxyaena So, to be clear, your considered opinion on the subject is now:
  1. Human nature is determined by society, not the other way around.
  2. I have nothing substantive to say on how this works, and fuck you for asking.
Shit, man, that's me convinced. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
If you have a society that encourages selfishness and competition, people are more inclined to be selfish and competitive. If you have a society that encourages selflessness and cooperation, people are more likely to be selfless and cooperative rather than selfish and competitive. Case in point: [3] Also, Ariel, I don't think you understand what the term "symbolic thought" means, and that shit about the "North American cave lion" more likely reflects a mountain lion than an animal that's been extinct since long before the Red Paint people existed. Oxyaena Harass 06:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena You are not wrong about "symbolic thought" and language. I should have written "primitive or a priori symbolic thought". Ones personal understanding is a metaphysical assumption. Also, the period of the Red Paint People not overlapping with the supposed extinction date of the cave lion was known to me and suggested that the RPP culture preserved memories of those creatures through their art. Whoever their ancestors were, they certainly encountered such creatures. In addition, I have found images of a mastodon and even a tiger. Not enough is known of the RPP for any authoritative judgement such as you have offered, add the fact that you have not seen the images. The speculation is that they are in fact the RPP, not that the images tell a different story than the one I have told.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Are you for real? It's like you can barely be arsed to hand wave anymore. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
It's okay, stick to your religious dogma about human nature for now, I don't care. You can be spooked all you want. Oxyaena Harass 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena I'm more than happy for this discussion to enter the permanent record as is. It follows a depressingly familiar pattern for you:

Oxyaena: <extended riff on dumb shit>

Interlocutor: rly?

Oxyaena: <bald assertion of dumb shit>

Interlocutor: <relevant counterexample>

Oxyaena: <spurious dismissal of counterexample>

Interlocutor: <detailed explanation of counterexample & how it conflicts with dumb shit>

Oxyaena: <furious hand-waving>

Interlocutor: That was just hand-waving.

Oxyaena: <more hand-waving>

Interlocutor: Please stop hand-waving.

Oxyaena: You're not the boss of me. I retire undefeated!

At some point soon, you'll burn right through whatever little credibility you have left round here. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Read this. Oxyaena Harass 20:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Read this (again) and develop your own fucking arguments, you clown. I know it's difficult - that's the whole fucking point of the art counterexample. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
When I google "John Danaher" I keep coming up with a martial artist. Apparently very famous. The John Danaher you refer to is also a philosopher. I don't want to assume he's been hit in the head more than usual. Identifying what might be meant by Human Nature is not a philosophical question that can be teased apart from empirical science. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
As much as I'd love that to be true, this is the Danaher you're looking for. Writes extensively on AI and sexbots, so obviously a go-to source for questions re. human nature. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh. A discussion on human behavior and psychology? Without me? Disappointing. So, to address this premise "If you have a society that encourages selfishness and competition, people are more inclined to be selfish and competitive. If you have a society that encourages selflessness and cooperation, people are more likely to be selfless and cooperative rather than selfish and competitive.", this is, tragically, too abstract and simplistic. People are driven by material needs, personal values, environmental stimuli, and personality traits. This means they grow up with a sort of half formed personality, such as a need for food or water, as well as certain behavioral inclinations such as an interest in books, building, or physical exercise, that slowly accumulates input from outside the mind, such as language, gestures, customs, and their meanings. What this means is that while we have a "self", it is never truly fully formed, and will shift to various extents (on a case by case basis) throughout life based on what it encounters and "ingests" for lack of a better term. We'll consciously or subconsciously seek to emulate certain behaviors we associate with different things. Now. I know, I know. That's all very interesting, but what's that have to do with "human nature"? Well, that is human nature. Even in an ideal world, people will still act selfish and competitive, because they'll perceive reasons for doing so. Now, clearly I think we can do better, but I also think we should be realistic. People will behave as they always have, the only difference is to what degree, and in what manner. After all, even the worst capitalist doesn't want to live in a hellish wasteland. There's no altruism in that desire, simply self interest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This is good and all, but it ignores and/or downplays the effect culture has on the individual. We do not grow up in a vacuum. People who grow up in hunter-gatherer societies are much more cooperative with their fellows than someone who grows up in a complex society such as the US. Hoarding is viewed as a crime by many band level societies, sometimes even on par with or worse than murder. I am not denying the role self interest plays in all this, hell, I`m a fucking Stirnerite. My point throughout all of this has been that humanity is much more complex and nuanced than saying "communism fails because of human nature" or insert thought-terminating cliche about "human nature" here would allow for. Oxyaena Harass 10:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No one here has argued that culture doesn't have effects on individuals. The point has been that humans have a particular nature rather than a blank slate, which means that cultures do not have free rein to shape their societies, but must work within the constraints of human nature. Attempting something that doesn’t work with human nature (like the labor theory of value) leads to problems when people don’t behave as they need to to make it work.
“humanity is much more complex and nuanced than saying "communism fails because of human nature"” The line that prompted this series of discussions was “And yes, the Soviet Union fell largely due to a catastrophic misunderstanding of human nature.” To approach this from a different angle, why do YOU think the Soviet Union fell? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Disregarding the LTOV, which I'll discuss another time (Adam Smith preferred it btw), the Soviet Union fell due to a variety of reasons. To attribute it to solely one factor is reductionist as fuck, and very fallacious. In short, you're committing the naturalist fallacy when you say that the USSR fell due to "human nature." Oxyaena Harass 11:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
“the Soviet Union fell due to a variety of reasons” Name one that you think was important.
“To attribute it to solely one factor” “when you say that the USSR fell due to "human nature."” You’re doing it again, when I just quoted and linked what I actually said right there. The Soviet misunderstanding of human nature led to various ineffective policies that led to various problems. It’s an underlying methodological deficiency, not a proximal cause. Respond to what I’ve actually said.
“In short, you're committing the naturalist fallacy” The naturalistic fallacy involves an argument of the form, “X is natural, therefore X is good.” I’ve been arguing in the form, “X naturally has traits A, B, and C, therefore basing a policy on the idea that X lacks trait A leads to problems.” You might want to re-read my posts and/or that article if you think that fallacy applies. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 That's actually inaccurate. While yes, the USSR had foundational and structural problems, we can't ignore the fact that they were in a cold war with the US et al. While the effects of tariffs, espionage, embargoes, and spying was lessened due to both of the major players being superpowers, they were still in effect. Also there was that really stupid invasion of Afghanistan which was their equivalent of the Vietnam war. So, yes there were other factors in play beyond foundational and structural problems. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
“So, yes there were other factors in play” I never said there weren’t. But consider this: The US also had to deal with those things, yet it came out of the Cold war more prosperous and powerful than it had ever been. Why the difference? Why the sudden and profound differences between East/West Germany and North/South Korea? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a bit of a stretch. The US during this same period had to grapple with a lot of internal social problems, which it never actually solved but instead kicked down the road, so to speak. So, peaceful no. Prosperous? By what metric? By the metric of the stock market? Job growth? Economic stability? What metric are you using here? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I said "powerful", not "peaceful". And by the metrics of GDP, national wealth, and military capabilities. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 Apologies, I apparently misread your comment. GDP and national wealth are good metrics for prosperity, I'll admit. I don't think military capacity is though. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Define prosperity, also I ask you this, BoN. When people are cold and poor, living on the streets, despite working three jobs, does that "national prosperity" matter to them? Are they "prospering;" living the American Dream? My friends had to stay in this fucking "bando," abandoned house, with bugs all over the place, in the dead of summer, where the only bedding they had was a fucking styrofoam box. Were they living the American Dream? Oxyaena Harass 22:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Look at yourself, man. This is the (depressingly familiar) point in the discussion where you abandon your batshit assertions (good) and pivot to a claim that you were arguing for something else entirely (bad, and chickenshit to boot). For extra wtf?, these pivots nearly always involve some appeal to your superior appreciation of nuance and / or complexity, which is especially galling given your customary refusal to engage with any of the nuance or complexity raised in objection to your original batshit claims.

Serious question: why should anyone take you the least bit seriously if this is how you choose to conduct yourself? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How is it batshit? Furthermore, appeals to "human nature" as if humanity is some kind of pre-programmed machine denies individuality. We are all unique, with our own life histories, our own experiences. Artificial constructs mean nothing to me, they have no bearing on actual, flesh and blood beings. You claim there is an essence to humanity, I object to your essentialism. It's quite frankly an updated vitalism. You claim to be "rational" yet you retain these artificial constructs, these "spooks," without examining them critically. Why is that? Oxyaena Harass 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena If you could read worth a damn, you'd be aware I haven't made any specific claims about human nature. I have, however, consistently objected to your batshit claim that there's no such thing, and that any effects that might be attributed to it can be explained entirely by "society".
I've pointed to consistent art making / appreciation behaviours throughout history as evidence of something that could be reasonably attributed to human nature, and challenged you to explain that consistency in terms of radically different societies, as your batshit claim requires. Still waiting for any kind of substantive response. Get cracking or retract or shut the fuck up. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I've already gave one, that given that we cannot possibly know what went through the heads of those creating said artworks unless they told us specifically, given the innumerable different factors involved that lead to the form, content, and even genesis of those artworks, that the human tendency to "draw stuff" isn't as good of an example as you think. Oxyaena Harass 19:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena Jesus tap dancing Christ. Are you actually capable of following any of your brainfarts through to their logical conclusion? Because you've just nuked most of our understanding of the historical record in your latest feeble attempt to avoid engaging with this counterexample.

This might come as news to you, but it is in fact vanishingly rare that historical evidence comes conveniently packaged with further information that "t[ells] us specifically" what to make of it. Are you proposing that all ancient artefacts should henceforth be relabelled as Damned if I know in the absence of such information? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty much the point. Oxyaena Harass 01:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That's a dumb position. Clearly we can study context, read journals, seek out interviews or biographies. People don't exist in a bubble, they're interconnected. To say we can't know or that we should just put a question mark on all of it is mind blowingly absurd. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That's only available for some of the artifacts in the archaeological record, I cannot possibly know the mindset of the people who created the Lascaux cave paintings for instance. This is actually a pretty common opinion in the field of anthropology. Is all of postmodernism a brainfart to you? And HBC, keep throwing ad homs my way, it's really cute when you do so. Oxyaena Harass 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hell, HBC's argument that humans have a tendency to "draw things" is an indicator of human nature is about as good as the claim that it is human nature to construct pyramids, or to engage in farming. It's a shitty argument, and a large leap of logic to assume common factor x is proof of human nature. Not all societies engage in farming, is it human nature to farm? Oh, and go ahead, throw another ad hom at me while you're at it. Oxyaena Harass 01:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I also didn't say that we "can't know anything or must put a giant question mark on it all." I was giving a specific critique of HBC's counterexample. He's putting words into my mouth I did not say. I expect more ad homs to ensue, oh, and HBC, please at least try to address my criticism above. Oxyaena Harass 01:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Address your critique? You've literally just invented hyperbolic historical doubt to avoid engaging with something ideologically inconvenient. My work here is done, kid. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I literally just pointed out that your argument that since art is a common factor amongst humans that it must be human nature is tantamount to declaring that farming must be human nature as well given how most societies today farm. For most of human history we didn't farm, and up until about 50kya we didn't really produce that much artwork either, but we were still human. See where I`m going with this? Oxyaena Harass 07:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena tfw you want to appeal to the historical record you just blew up a few posts back. Fucking logic, how does that work?! Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Another ad hom. Not surprised. Oxyaena Harass 19:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter
Wolf's head
I am uploading an item or two from the collection of artifacts I mentioned earlier, just so you know they exist. File: Wolf-head.jpg is up now if you are curious. I am using a ten dollar camera I bought on eBay, so it's really tough to get a good image. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Thanks, man. Helluva find. I've tweaked your post to display the thumbnail - hope that's OK. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
And here you are running away again. Typical. Oxyaena Harass 08:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena OK then, dickhead. If you insist on one last kamikaze run at your credibility, I'm more than happy to guide you in to target. So, with that in mind, is history a thing again or not? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Artwork and human nature[edit]

To say that because artwork is a common feature of different cultures and therefore it must be proof of human nature is like saying because farming is a common feature of many different cultures it too must be proof of human nature, when we can prove that not all cultures engaged in farming, and for most of human history, up until circa 50kya, artwork wasn't very common either. Are we innately farmers, or artists? To deny that people prior to 10kya were humans is batshit. But what about people prior to the behavioral revolution? Weren't they human too?

Common factor x only proves that x is common, not that x is proof of something innate, essential, to human beings. Note that this isn't a critique of human nature as a whole, it's a critique of a specific argument brought up in favor of human nature. Whether or not human nature definitively exists is irrelevant to this entry, which is merely to highlight the logical problems of said argument.

Also, to address Ariel's fluff about the Red Paint people, I think, to use Occam's Razor, it requires fewer assumptions to assume your "cave lion" is really a panther than an animal that had been extinct for millennia beforehand. You should always be careful about making vast conclusions from half-vast data. No actual archaeologist would identify it as something so specific as the American lion, it's better to just describe it as a depiction of a "wild cat" and leave it at that.

This goes into my other argument, that given the innumerable factors involved in the form, content, and genesis of artworks, that is impossible to say for certainty what drove these ancient artists to create these artifacts in the first place. Your arguments that it must be "human nature" seem very religious to me in scope, with no justification other than "I can feel it."

Cue the ad homs. Oxyaena Harass 15:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No ad homs here, but it might be better to say creativity if not artwork or agriculture is a human quality for the reasons you said, or that since we hit some threshold in the past that making art is human. Artificius (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena This sounds awfully like history's a thing again. Would you care to confirm and explicitly retract your previous guff on the subject? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I never said that history is invalid, I said that it's near impossible to know for certain the motivations of artists when creating artwork back in prehistory and antiquity. At best we can only guess. That being said, you still haven't addressed my argument. Oxyaena Harass 18:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
And I'm not going to touch it until we're clear about the possibility of valid inferences from ancient artefacts. You want to duck the art counterexample using hyperbolic doubt? Knock yourself out, but that shit has consequences, and you do not get to appeal to a historical record that your logic negates. Pick your poison, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing good to add.gif𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, mission accomplished, man. Thanks for popping in. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Your "gotcha" argument is based off of a pointless bad faith misinterpretation of my original argument to begin with. Oxyaena Harass 16:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Oxyaena "Bad faith" isn't an incantation that magically fixes your shitty logic. You attempted to deny any significant commonality of art making behaviour because we lack access to the artists' inner motivations. Well, guess what, man: we also lack that access for every ancient artefact that's ever been dug up, and yet we somehow still manage to draw all manner of reasonable inferences re. culture and patterns of behaviour from them. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You really haven't read the anthropological and archaeological literature, have you? Oxyaena Harass 00:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Kid, you're an autodidact with poor higher reasoning skills, and whose ability to synthesize complex information has never even been tested in the very modest crucible of an undergraduate essay. There is literally nothing in the current anthropological / archaeological consensus opinion on methodology to save you here, but if you want to humiliate yourself further with some ultracrepidarian hot takes, then I'm certainly not going to stop you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I know a certain Greek anthropologist who would beg to differ with you. Oxyaena Harass 14:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Your riposte to the consensus opinion across an entire field is to invoke "a certain Greek anthropologist"?! You remember Project Steve, right? Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read Against Method? As for artwork, you've still yet to respond to my argument, and @Ariel31459 has yet to acknowledge his faulty and amateurish "identification" of artifacts. Hell, that "wolf pendant" appears to me to be a fucking rock vaguely in the shape of a wolf's head. Pareidolia is a valid concern here. Oxyaena Harass 09:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
a cloudy American

Acknowledge what now? Ariel31459 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations you uploaded another rock, conclusively identified without being vetted by an actual expert on North American archaeology. Bravo. Oxyaena Harass 19:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 She must've seen something she liked in Rudy's poop-flinging monkey act last night. It doesn't deserve further response, to be honest, but I've got plenty of popcorn if you decide to sally forth.

@Oxyaena We've been through this already. You don't have an argument until you admit the possibility of valid inferences from ancient artefacts in the absence of access to their creators' inner motivations. Almost everything you now want to say about hunting and farming over the course of ancient human history is dependent on the conclusions of people who had no access whatsoever to the inner motivations of the creators of the relevant artefacts. And, obviously, if their inferences and conclusions re. those artefacts are still valid without that access, then that chops the legs out from under your batshit attempts at hyperbolic doubt re. ancient artwork. Like I said six fucking days ago, pick your poison, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Helena Bonham Carter If you haven't noticed yet I have posted six images on my user page, with interpretive texts. I could post more than one hundred from our current site. I have a cheap camera and no real skill at photography. I think I'll keep at it as soon as I can make better photos.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Twodots (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome? @Ariel31459 Cheers, man. I don't know how well it would work at this scale, but I've had decent results with holiday landscape shots by running them through imaging software. I had similar issues re. a cheap digi camera and no real photography skills, but playing around with the brightness, contrast and colour saturation really did wonders for photos which looked pretty flat & lifeless at first. It might help bring out some of the detail in your current set of pictures, and I'd also be tempted to experiment with reshooting your samples with the lighting from a variety of angles. Certain subtle features might benefit greatly from having the shadows falling in a particular direction for emphasis. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


Republicans won Alaska (Yeah, and Hillary won Washington State, but still lost.)[edit]


I've noticed that the overwhelming majority of people who participated in the "political opinion" pointless poll I recently created (about 70 of them) chose "Authoritarian Right". This is UNREALISTIC! "LIBERTARIAN LEFT" WON THAT POLL, BY A LOT! #StopTheSteal --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 20:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Putins troll army has certainly shown in numbers. That said, my political opinions are actually libertarian left or green but I voted Goat anyway, cause it's a pointless poll. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My view points are considered Libertarian Left. In the past few weeks there has been a growing number of trolls. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I chose "Centrist", because I'm a centrist liberal. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 00:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Cringe as fuck. Oxyaena Harass 13:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
AnComs & Communists still top centrists by far, given their history and the denialism from the shit that they've done. Centrists never build working camps like Mao & Stalin, for example. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:3DBD:3CAC:791C:981E (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yet centrists do and have done some pretty shitty things of their own. The concentration camps at the border were built under Obama's orders. And who is "we?" We're not Marxist-Leninists, read a fucking book and you'll soon be able to make that basic distinction. Oxyaena Harass 21:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Guilt by association aside, I thought those camps were used for separatism under Trump's orders- as much as Obama does have some features I don't really like, such as his controversial drone-strike orders (which were given by our past 3 presidents: Bush, him, and Trump) and supporting Saudi Arabia knowing full well that they're killing Yemeni civilians for no reason, like Trump currently does. Also, it's worth noting that the even more centrist President-elect Biden supports ending ICE's cruel treatment of Mexican refugees. Saying all centrists are bad because of the mistakes some of them made is like saying that atheists are evil because "You know who else was an atheist? STALIN, MAO, POL POT, AND XI!!!!!!111!!!SHIFT1!!SHIFToneeleventyone11!!!1!"--Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 18:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Cory's poll right here shows a huge misunderstanding of anarchism[edit]

New Danish Study Finds Masks Don’t Protect Wearers From COVID Infection[edit]


I recently noticed and read a short essay by Oxy. It seemed fine until I happened upon this pair of sentences:

Assassination: The only morally sound way of getting rid of unwanted vermin who tend to infest the upper echelons of society.
Assassin: A variant term for "hero".
I found this disturbing. Oxy, could you explain what you mean by this? It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Twodots (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you link to it? CoryUsar (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't this post be better on Oxyaena's talk page, if it needs to exist at all? Also let's bear in mind her age. She's 19 now, I'm sure we can forgive her for something she may have written at 16 or 17-Hastur! (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
If she reads this, she should at the very least delete it. Normally I would also ask for a apology statement, but I don't know if she offended anyone in particular by saying this.-Flandres (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It was a spoof of the Devil's Dictionary written way back two three years ago now. Give it a break. Oxyaena Harass 22:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's an implied threat/endorsement of murder. Old or not, it is not unreasonable for Twodots to be concerned.CoryUsar (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh jeez, it’s a joke, not a big deal. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
My bad, I hadn't realized it was written so long ago. Also, guys, she just removed it from the page. I partially retract my concerns. Twodots (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and here's the link to the edited version: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_Rational_Dictionary.Twodots (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Anarchy is a pipedream"[edit]

Tell the homeless beggar on the street corner from your privileged, liberal point of view that the system of capitalism works for him. Go ahead, do it. After all, it's not like the system failed him, right? All he has to do is pull himself "up by his bootstraps." The opinion that marginalization is solely due to internal rather than external factors is disgusting, and shame on you, Cory, for saying that. Oxyaena Harass 09:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool Story, Sis. Revolverman (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll admit I don't know Cory well, but he never advocated for rugged-individualist, completely deregulated capitalism. His disagreement lies with solutions outside the (very large and diverse) realm of capitalism. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Except that he himself has argued that marginalization is due to internal rather than external factors, in a typically ableist and classist fashion. Capitalism is only diverse in how it placates the masses enough not to revolt, the means of production are still privately owned, regardless of which party is in charge. Apples and oranges are both fruits after all. Oxyaena Harass 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
My point being that capitalism itself is the problem. Regardless of the reforms you put in place at home, you're still exploiting the third world for raw resources and cheap labor. Oxyaena Harass 12:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
So capitalism "placates" the people? Then why has it singlehandedly lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in China alone? And how would public ownership of the means of production stop the "exploitation" of the third world? I assume people will still want cars and plastic. And why won't regulations on capitalism stop this supposed exploitation? If Nestle could lose their licence to sell goods, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't pull stunts like Ghana again. More fundamentally, why are you sacrificing all the good capitalism has done, just because this very specific laissez-faire version is terrible? IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What "good" has it done outside of pragmatic public relations stunts? It's all self-serving, and you're really using China as an argument? Those people live in a dystopian nightmare, it's like the Chinese Gilded Age. Poverty doesn't stand for shit if you're stuck in a consumerist hellhole with no actual freedom to operate outside of the system, much like in the West but much more obvious. The only reason "people" still want "cars and plastic" is because they have been conditioned to want such items, cars are specifically associated with luxury. What about the Semang in Malaysia? They don't want your pots and pans and plastic shit, they want to be left alone. Capitalism itself is fundamentally exploitative, the boss-worker hierarchy still exists, with the company profiting off of the labor value created by the workers while said workers only get a fraction of the value they make in return. I recommend you actually read literature on the subject rather than accepting at face value what CNN and CNBC tell you, m'kay? Oxyaena Harass 12:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. I find it somewhat funny that you accuse other users of being privileged for glossing over the suffering of others, but are perfectly fine to handwave away poverty and act like it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure if you asked an 80-year-old Chinese person, they'd say they're much happier today, living in an actual house, with actual equipment, running water, and Internet, earning a wage where they can afford to feed themselves and their children and still buy other commodities, working at a job that isn't physically damaging like growing your own crops entirely by hand. Is it perfect, or even good, in China? No. But it's better than it was without capitalism.
  2. I'm pretty sure a good deal of people want cars because they're good at getting to places. Or are you telling me that in your socialist paradise, everything everyone could ever want will be in walking distance? Secondly, yes, luxury items have become a special commodity all on their own, inflated by the ideas of our culture. But notice it is the culture, not the nature of capitalism itself, that causes those prices to be inflated. From a pure capitalistic approach, those prices wouldn't be so high, as those cars cost far more than the price it takes to produce them. People want things that are functional, that improve their quality of life. Many of these things can be made elsewhere around the globe. People want computers, and need ventilators. Those are more efficiently made elsewhere, allowing them to be made faster and be more available to those who need them.
  3. Again, what will your solution to this be? That the workers own everything? Well firstly, the workers can't own everything in a company; by necessity, certain workers will rise to higher positions in the company. And what's to stop natural corruption and exploitation by workers to workers? Worker-"owned" co-ops could be equally corrupt as companies, with the higher-ups manipulating their employees to the point that the workers cannot be said to truly own any part of the company. Secondly, these co-ops would still be driven by the profit margin, so that the workers can have a better standard of living.
  4. Oh, I have read the literature. Marx, Hegel, Kropotkin, Lenin, hell, even Mao. And I still haven't found a better, or even workable, solution. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not trying to start a fight, I'm just asking a question. @IveBeenFrank Have you Read Smith and/or Rawls? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
If you mean Adam Smith, then yes. I've read about Rawls, but haven't read any of his works. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank Have you read A Theory of Moral Sentiments? It's supposed to be a companion to An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. I also highly recommend A Theory of Justice. It's has some similar attitudes as moral sentiments. Both have heavily influenced my views on how society ought to be organized. (Yes, I am aware that both are capitalists.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I've read excerpts of A Theory. Looking at a PDF of it now, I think I've read most of Part 1. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever considered that the reason most people disagree with you is that you are just wrong? And way to strawman, I never said marginalization is due solely to internal factors, but that's the cause in many cases. For instance, I feel confident in saying that Incels are "denied" sex not because of an external system of oppression, but because they are almost all thoroughly disgusting people who people have good reason to want to avoid, or have overinflated egos regarding how attractive they are and regarding the beauty of the girls they "deserve". White Supremacists tend to get ostracized by neighbors and such, and that feeds into their oppression complex, but they wouldn't be so oppressed if they didn't go around harassing others. Drug addiction is often a symptom of other problems, but not always, and regardless of the reasons, eventually everyone else in the addicts' lives will simply wash their hands of the addicts at some point and the addicts will be out on the street.
Being an asshole to everyone around you is not how you make friends. CoryUsar (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That's kind of a false equivalency. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oxy is claiming that, and I quote, "[Cory's] opinion that marginalization is solely due to internal rather than external factors". That's not true, but there are plenty of times where marginalization most definitely is the result of internal factors such as "being a dick". CoryUsar (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Those examples aren't really marginalization. They're ostracization. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Huh, you're technically right. Guess I got a bit confused since I suggested that ostracization often came from internal reasons, but I don't think I've ever suggested anything regarding that about marginalization. CoryUsar (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to some of the more radical arguments, but accepting Capitalism in its current form as the best option for society seems to be wrong. Considering that two once in a lifetime financial calamities happened 12 years apart, and that the systems is failing to adjust accordingly to a new set of circumstances (i.e. a global pandemic), it is time to reevaluate everything. Not to mention that most of the people that built up much of the infrastructure and support the system are excluded from it, especially most of the black and brown people.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal To be technical and nuanced, the US is operating under one of the dumb versions of capitalism (Chicago School Neo-Liberalism). To be realistic however, as with it's predecessor Mercantilism, Capitalism will have to end one day. That's just how these sort of systems work. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal I actually oppose the system As Is. I'm in favor of some variety of Social Democracy, but utterly despise Democratic Socialism. Bernie's rhetoric resonates with me, though I am somewhat disgusted with the man himself because... reasons.
The big issue coming now is Automation. It's not a new thing, but it's accelerating. This does not mean there will be nothing left for people to do, but we have to actually be willing to tax and spend to get people to do the work the market itself won't pay for. Currently, we have far, far too many "make-work" type jobs, where government creates absurdly complicated ever-changing rules specifically to keep otherwise unemployed people employed, and sadly, a lot of these people actually are somewhat intelligent. Attorneys and Accountants complain that everything they know changes every year, but the dirty little secret is that "learning a new ruleset" is their actual job. It's inefficient, and a waste of education and talent that could be put to better use. We have schools that lack teachers, a shortage of nursing care for the elderly, children being neglected, crimes going unsolved. Rather than create fake work for people, we should be hiring people directly. More tutors, more nurses, more social workers, more detectives, more defense attorneys. If that means "big government", so be it. CoryUsar (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you mean by government-made "make-work" jobs. Whenever I think of that level of stupid-complexity, I think of the corporate world. HR, marketing, consulting; hell, half of an MBA is jargon. Sure, the government has an influence on how accountants and attourneys work, but a large part of what they do is the market developing wacky stuff, some people exploiting loopholes in it, and the government stepping in to say "No, we're going to make sure there aren't any loopholes." IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To be clear here, the way we currently allow for the collection and distribution of capital is flawed. And either you accept that reality, and discuss what we need to do in the future. Or you disagree, in which case I would politely ask that you examine whether your ideology actually is ok with dead people over $1 in profit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank Take a look at the tax code some time. Were you aware that in Europe, your government does your taxes for you? They have all the paperwork submitted to them by your employer and financial institutions already, you know. Not in the US, because that would mean thousands of tax accountants out of work. The legal system is again incredibly convoluted, because that means more jobs for attorneys. In the US, every 5 minutes of patient care generates 10 minutes of paperwork. Yes, there's twice as much paperwork as actual patient care. In the 80's, a small clinic of 3 doctors would have 3 file clerks/secretaries/receptionists, but now, that same clinic would have 9. Nine. And who do you think pays the salaries of the 6 extra support staff? You. You pay for them. And that is the biggest single reason for the obscenely high cost of medical care in the US.
Simplify the rules, and stop changing them constantly, and a quarter of the workforce could be sacked overnight. That doesn't mean they should be left homeless, but rather, hire them to actually do things we need. With all the attorneys out of work, surely we could give every defendant a decent defense attorney, maybe stop extorting people into pleading guilty to crimes just because it'd be inconvenient to actually have a trial. Tax accountants could easily be retrained as math teachers in schools, or better yet, train them as forensic accountants and go after all the tax fraud and evasion going on.
Really, we don't have any shortage of work for people to do, only an unwillingness to actually do it.
@RipCityLiberal I've... never really disagreed that the collection and distribution of capital and wealth is flawed, only as to what the flaws are, and I suspect we agree more than we disagree. I believe that anyone who does a job that the rest of society depends on to function, should be paid enough to support themselves and a small family regardless of any compensation in terms of "feel-goodies". For example, EMTs are critical, and they should be paid more than $12/hr for their work regardless of how "fulfilling" their job of saving everyone else's life is. Non-critical work, I'm not so sure about. But if you are going to argue that the worker is "essential" enough that your business should remain open during the pandemic, well, you are literally making the claim that the worker is essential to society, ergo, they should be paid a living wage. CoryUsar (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, Oxy, I'd recommend thinking this over a bit. You're angered... by an option someone included in a pointless poll, of all things. And besides, I actually chose the very option you didn't like for being unflattering towards your favorite topic. I guess that makes me another member of the "spoiled, privileged borgeoisie", and just as bad as this person... --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Heck, for the record, my actual vote was for "it can work in certain circumstances". I put that poll up there in the first place because GC was claiming I didn't speak for everyone when I said that most people don't support anarchism, heck, wasn't even being all that serious and I'm actually surprised at the number of "pipe dream" votes. CoryUsar (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
" But if you are going to argue that the worker is "essential" enough that your business should remain open during the pandemic, well, you are literally making the claim that the worker is essential to society, ergo, they should be paid a living wage."@CorruptUser Critical point here. Two things though are actually happening; businesses (especially food and alcohol sellers) have lobbyists that push governments to limit restrictions, putting their own profits over their employees lives, because they have no protections (i.e. a union). As well calls to increase wages get responses from employers that because sales are decreasing they can't afford to pay their employees more, while still receiving aid from governments. This isn't necessarily a crime (it should be), but it must be corrected with something urgently. I'm not certain anarchism would be the answer, but that's because there is no singular answer other than what we're doing now isn't working.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal And other than whether or not Anarchism is a solution, what are we disagreeing on? CoryUsar (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh I'm not arguing, I'm attempting illustrate that most of us discussing this topic agree more than we disagree, but I think we are presently playing up our differences and attacking our ways of presenting arguments in a fashion that isn't constructive.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Everyone's least favorite BoN chimes in with an opinion no one cares about[edit]

I had to do my first firing today[edit]

I work as manager for a very small business, the warehouse and offices are the same building. I have been manager for ~ 2 years. I started working at the business ~10 years ago part time, and I scrapped and worked to gain skills to make myself valuable. I had to fire a guy today because our revenues are down. He has been an absolute workhorse for the business, but his work wasn't pristine and he didn't take criticism well. Also, we have a couple guys who have knowledge on gear but won't step up to teach, and they have some kinda garbage protection of their expertise. I had a sit-down meeting with the CEO and gave up another employee to cut based on over this guy, similar costs, worse utility. The man up's main failing was dealing with the sales team. And I know this guy now, he doesn't put up with shit, and that's FINE, it was never his job to put up with shit, he's literally supposed to ship shit that isn't good. Any time he asked me to I would cover that ground, I would either tell him to do it, or I would tell the salesperson it couldn't be done. That's part of my job. His work was good, but any time he missed, it was sniped out by the very old guard that put me in charge. I didn't give one about the complaints because his work was better than a lot of people in his position I'd seen. The decision was made before I had the meeting, I guess. I have worked for the company for 11 years, and the CEO did not trust my judgement on this one. We had a meeting, I told him who to cut, he disagreed, made calls to the sales team, and at the second meeting he told me it wasn't my decision to make anymore. And I fired the guy. I made sure he would be eligible for unemployment, it was officially a layoff. He oversaw 30% of the orders this year, maintained under a 1.5% RMA rate, which is nutso bonkers good when you see a guy do 2% of orders and get a 2% RMA rate. Specialization is one thing, but I've got a warehouse to run,. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Garbage, stupid, FU&CK ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO STAFF YOUR BUSINESS IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO DO ITGol Sarnitt (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Please tell me you wrote him a glowing recommendation. CoryUsar (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that'll help ease the blow. He might even find a better job as a result-Hastur! (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I like how they decide who gets fired and they pass along the firing duty to you. Reminds me of those American companies that hire a "lay off" expert to make dozens (or hundreds) of people redundant, you know, to save costs, while they pay them a hefty cheque for the service. It's normal to feel shitty afterwards Gol. Bummer you had to do that. Nice that you did what you could to make it as least vicious as possible! ShabiDOO 11:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Give me work.[edit]

I want to be helpful, but I'm bad at writing articles. Any advice? Twodots (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Read some existing articles and if you find typos or miscalculations or something, fix them. It think my first mainspace edit was fixing a miscalculation in WW1 article. It's a good way to get familiar with editing process while also maybe getting an idea of what RationalWiki article should be like. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to fix typos, but I'm bad at finding them... Do you know of any specific articles that have lots of spelling errors? Twodots (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If I'd know, I'd fix them myself. But I do come at them occasionally by chance. Look around.
Other than that, don't really know how to help here. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that actually gives me an idea. I know how to make myself useful. :D Twodots (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My idea was garbage! Back to the drawing board. Twodots (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Anybody looking for something to do here can help me separate notes from references. That's what most of my mainspace edits on RationalWiki for the last five years have been. Ask me if you'd like more details. Spud (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Twodots Now that you're a sysop, you could try to de-escalate edit wars with a BoN/new user by protecting the page for a couple of hours and then telling the other party involved to take it to the talkpage. I've done that a few times. And remember: Assume good faith.Wikipedia --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 20:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

fairy tale of new york censorship controversy[edit]

the Pogues respond to the charming laurence fox AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Laurence Fox can pogue mahone. Good for them for telling him to fuck off. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I like the song and was a bit miffed about a "different" version being used. I'm not even sure why it annoyed me, to be honest. I don't care enough to try and take any kind of action about it though. It's not like that one line is the linchpin of the experience. X Stickman (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
BBC radio listeners will have a choice. BBC Radio 1 will only be playing the censored version. BBC Radio 2 will only be playing the original uncensored version. And BBC Radio 6 Music will be playing both versions. And it's not as if the original version is hard to find online. Spud (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
this whole controversy thing has always been a lot of arse. as far as i am aware radio 1 also remove the words fuck and nigga from songs too and ive never seen any 'outrage' over that. remove faggot though and its suddenly its political correctness gone mad. im not sure if this homophobic or racist. fuck and nigga generally more common in hip hop - 'black' music. go ahead and censor that stuff. touch my music though and its like nazi germany. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
One's a recognised swear, the other's That One Word that even the real crazies are nervous about saying in any way that can be traced back to them, your typical 2020 reactionary type isn't going to get all hot and bothered by children not being able to hear them on daytime radio. "Faggot" was thrown around freely by everyone when I was at school (I'm 32), and it's still fairly common on t'internet in online games and such. I guess for whatever reason it just hasn't crossed that line from "naughty insult" to "unacceptable term" in a lot of people's minds, which means any kind of "censorship" of it is seen as nanny state over reach. I didn't actually know about the Radio 1 / 2 / 6 thing, that's pretty interesting actually. X Stickman (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It became less acceptable when homosexuality became more widely accepted in the society. The homophobes still use it obviously, much like the racists still use the n-word (which again would have been more socially acceptable in say Jim Crow Era South...it just turns out that it was "socially acceptable" to openly hate gays longer than it was to hate blacks).
Shane McGowan himself said that he didn't mean to insert the word into the song as a positive thing. Rather, the character is supposed to be spiteful and hateful in that verse. At the same time, he has absolutely no problem personally if someone wants to bleep the word.Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The word "faggot" also has been somewhat completely defanged in certain circles (not necessarily homophobic ones even) due to 4chan using the short version of it ("fag") as a suffix to suggest the person being talked about is a friend (to the point that when they're talking about a gay dude, the term "gayfag" gets used which is uh... curious), which is a development before /pol/ happened and turned the place into an alt-right cesspool (so it permeates through basically the entire site). I don't personally really know what to think of that, but I do find that an interesting development. That isn't to say I'm okay with people using that term in conversations though, I get why people don't like that. It's just interesting that the term has basically lost all of it's meaning in certain groups. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
i dont care where on the internet people like to frequent, if i hear someone use the word in any context in my vicinity that doesnt involve meatballs or public school fagging, they will get a glass pushed into their face. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
fag/faggot just wasnt used when i was at school as a slur on gay people. probably is now but its usage is an import. thanks america. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I must say that when the song first came out, in those pre-internet days of 1987 when I was a 14-year-old in Britain, I had no idea what the word "faggot" as an insult meant. It was a word that cool kids tossed around in American movies but it wasn't a word us Limeys used. Maybe it was just me that was ignorant. But I think quite a lot of listeners in the UK and Ireland wouldn't really have understood what the word meant back then either. Not that we Brits didn't have our own homophobic slurs, of course. And one thing, the word won't be bleeped on BBC Radio 1. Instead, the words "you cheap lousy faggot" will be replaced by "you're cheap and you're haggard", which Kirsty MacColl recorded for a performance of the song on Top of the PopsWikipedia. The line, "You're an old slut on junk", however, will become, "You're an old ... on junk", with the word just removed and nothing put in its place. Spud (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @AMassiveGay Yeah fair enough. I'm merely observing it, not encouraging people to start adopting it as a suffix. There's still a lot of communities and cases where that word gets used in a very homophobic way. That said, I would not encourage shoving glass into anyone's face cuz I think that's kind of an overreaction. Best to tell them to fuck off I'd say. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Join RationalWiki today! We have tacos, cookies and hard liquor[edit]

It is the perfect way to recruit new users! Change my mind. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I could certainly could do with some hard liquor. But I overslept this morning and didn't have time to go to liquor store before work. So all I have is beer. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Imagine drinking alcoholic beverages. Can't relate. Twodots (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You can always have the tacos and cookies until you get old enough to drink. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Nom-nom-nom, cookies. Twodots (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's Turkey Day coming soon. If you want a Turkey Day Taco, mash a potato until it's flat, then fry/bake it into a potato-tortilla. Now load it up with turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, sweet potatoes... CoryUsar (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Turkey taco sounds unironically delicious. JusticeTheFoxGirl (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In general, Turkey is a much more delicious bird than Chicken. If you ever go on a diet, turkey breast is almost pure protein with virtually no fat content, compared to chicken where literally half the calories are from fat. Plus, it's larger than a chicken so you need to kill fewer to get the same amount of meat, so it's much more ethical. CoryUsar (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
'Turkey is a much more delicious bird than Chicken' thats a bare faced lie. turkey is chicken that tastes of arse. its sooooo tasty it only gets eaten at one time of the year. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed. Turkey is dry and flavorless. Absolute garbage. Chicken, on the other hand, is moist, yummy, and chicken-y.Twodots (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind tasting a "heritage turkeyWikipedia" or "heirloom turkey" at some point; these are turkeys that a few farmers have specifically maintained separate from the industrial farming modern turkey monstrosity (eg the "broad breasted white" breed) and are more like turkey used to be. Reports from the web indicate heritage turkeys are more flavorful, particularly if you are more a dark bird meat fan (I am one of those types). They are super pricey, though, and as usual with anything outside industrial farming, you have to research and avoid rip-offs. Wild turkey also would be interesting for the hunting crowd (reportedly you do have to cook wild turkey *way* differently, like most game, but if you cook it right it's pretty tasty). America does over-focus on breast meat for some reason, even chicken breast needs help in my opinion. (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Woot woot, sysop time[edit]

I'm a sysop now. Yay! I can do stuff! I'm excited to be able to help more often and more efficiently. Twodots (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome; it was I who demoted you. Use it well. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 17:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, sure thing, dude. I appreciate being trusted, it's a nice feeling. Oh, by the way, I have a quick question: Why is it called demoting if we get more privileges? Isn't it more of a promotion? Twodots (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Another quick question: I accidentally pressed "Mark as patrolled" on an edit by someone else. Wtf did I just do? Twodots (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
1. It's called "demotion" because everyone's a sysop who isn't an obvious bad-faith editor and who has been around for at least 2 months. Read more here.
2. You just approved an edit made by either a BoN or a new user, that's all. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 17:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Phew. Glad I didn't screw anything up on my first six minutes on the job. Twodots (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Twodots Well, you might have, if you patrolled trolling or harassment. The reason it's called demoting is because there are no privileges, only more responsibilities. We are also called janitors. Please read the sysop guide. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry, it was a beneficial post. Also, thanks. I read the guide a little while ago. Twodots (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In Other News[edit]

Anybody following all the drama in Peru? They just went through three presidents in less than a month. And you thought the USA was bad, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Good for them. In other news, Cusqueña is a fine brew, and all your variations on hmhmhm are still an intensely weird and irritating sign-off. Try vocalising it and hopefully you'll see what I mean. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I do vocalize it-my friends consider that a sort of "signature trait" of mine. Why should I care what you think of it? Oh, and maybe you should not post in a thread about international issues unless you have something a little more...substantial than whining about my sign-off.,hmhmhmhmhmmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhm....-Flandres (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You should care about it because it adds nothing and makes you sound like a dick. Your friends really won't miss it, I promise. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
And you care about this because...actually, please answer that on my talkpage. Find something better to do because you should not derail honest attempts at saloon discussion with things that, let's be honest, only you view as a priority. My god, the sheer sadness of somebody who sees my fucking sign off as this pressing issue, hmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
It's poor form to piss & moan when someone answers a question you asked them. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, take it to my talkpage-I will try and give more serious replies there. Of course doing so will be embarrassing because it implies you think THIS is a major issue, hmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Take what to your talk page? If you're determined to ignore good (and sincere) advice, then more fool you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I've had Cristal. I'm fond of pisco, too. Gonna have to try cusqueña-Hastur! (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Highly recommended. I've had pisco sours - never tried it straight. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Politicians are like diapers; you need to change them often, for the same reasons. CoryUsar (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I just hope they have better luck in their upcoming presidential election-that is April next year by the way.-Flandres (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Intereseting demonyms from English speaking countries[edit]

Halagonian (Halifax) Glasswegian (Glassgow) Mancunian (Manchester) Oxonian (Oxford) Liverpudian (Liverpool) Sydneysider/Shannonsider (Sydney/Shannon) Joburger (Johannesburg) Limerickman (Limerick) Cantabrian (Christchurch) Ottawatonian/Corkonian (Ottawa/Cork) Vancouverite/Brisbanite (Vancouver/Brisbane)

I'm not including -er (Dubliner/Londoner/Bostoner/New Yorker) or slight variations on the -an such as -ian/-nian But I cannot find any strange ones in the United States. Anyone know of any? ShabiDOO 21:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see Cork mentioned on here...Evilatheistheathen (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Michigander, Hoosier (indiana), Utahn (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Nutmegger (Connecticut; yeah, there really isn't any other demonym I know of). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This might not qualify as a demonym since it also includes ethnic information, but "Minnewegian" for Norwegian Americans living in Minnesota. Artificius (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Skook (Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania), Yinzer (Pittsburgh) (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Jaffa - Aucklander Aloysius the Gaul 02:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

im surprised brummies from birmingham didnt get a mention. or vermin for people from essex. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

do people from birmingham, alabama get called brummies? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Floridian. 'Nuff said. CoryUsar (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Chipmunk (VT). CoryUsar (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently people from Arkansas are known as Arkensawyers? Is this true? ShabiDOO 16:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I just call them rednecks-Hastur! (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Had to look it up. Scots-Irish make up 2% of Arkansas. That means California is more Redneck... CoryUsar (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Given it's a state most famous for a guy too stupid to fix his own roof, are you surprised they can't even redneck right? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, let's all be classist assholes and mock some white trash for being less privileged than us down South. YEEHAH!!! Oxyaena Harass 20:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I take it you've never heard Arkansas Traveler. I leave it to you to discern how serious it's meant to be taken. And if you want to shake it up a bit, here's a version on the shamisen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This might be late, but...[edit]

...where do Dems go from here?

Joe won, but the rest of the election was, at best, a mixed bag. What do they do about it? What strategy do they take in 2022? There's a subset of people within the party who think they've shifted too far to the left and others who think it isn't liberal enough. NervousWreck96 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The next presidential election is in 2024, not 2022. Twodots (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I was talking about the mid-terms. NervousWreck96 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly? The Biden administration should try, at least in the next two years, to get some large legislative packages through. That gives people a reason to vote beyond "I hate the other nominee," which is never a solid foundation for victory by itself.-Flandres (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
They might not be able to get anything done except with Executive Orders. If Mitch McConnel has sworn to block each and every cabinet nominee by Biden, what chance is there to get any legislature through. I guess the slim chance that Democratic candidates will win both of Georgia runoffs for senate and even then it's 50/50 with Harris breaking ties. Not much chance for sweeping progressive legislation there. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Or if one of the Democratic candidates from Georgia wins, but the more maverick Republicans Romney and Collins vote for any court-packing/cabinet nominees. I mean, they did vote against Trump's last-minute nomination of that idiot who thinks the gold standard still works- though Collins did decline to comment on whether or not she'll support Biden. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 04:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess Biden might get around the cabinet and other nominations through recess appointments, but Republicans have demonstrated before that they're willing to just not go into recess to stop that kind of stuff. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I was just providing a optimistic scenario...I made no claims that it that it was a likely scenario, hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@NervousWreck96 Well, sorry to nitpick but firstly it isn't "liberal enough" but "far enough left". These aren't really the same thing. As for what happens next well... The Dems have an internal power struggle, as does the GOP. While 2020 has seen the Dems move left the the GOP move right, this all exists in state of flux that could shift again depending on who gains and holds power within each party. From what I've seen, the Blue Dog faction (that the Dem faction Biden is a part of) is going to try to move the party right to appear more unifying, a la Bill Clinton. Personally and professionally I think such a move would be an unmitigated disaster, and likely lead to someone like Trump, if not Trump himself, beating the Dems in the next POTUS election, or potentially further down the road. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Dems should try to pass policy when they can, it'll be hard even if they pick off the two seats in Georgia. But they need to make clear with every single statement, the GOP won't help you because they don't care. Maybe we can eliminate this stupid two-party system if Collins, Romney and Murkowski decide that Mitch overstepped by quite literally grinding the gov't to a complete halt.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I think they will; Romney and Collins voted against at least one of Trump's stupid last-minute nomination attempts to try and punish America for not reelecting him. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 20:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Be careful not to put to much faith in so-called "moderate" Republicans. They tend to abuse their more "respectable" reputations to get away with similar far right douchebaggery scott-free. They also dangle the discredited idea of bi-partisanship to force Democratic presidents to the right on critical issues, which helps sets the stage for 2016 style fiascos where the base feels too demoralized to show up on election day(watching a Democratic president pass what is essentially center-right policy when he promised more progressive governance on the campaign trail is soul crunching).-Flandres (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Adopt a Stub (Week 1)[edit]

Adopt meow? Please. (Adopt the stub and I will come and mow your f@cking lawn!)

Happy Saturday my dear nose pickers!

Many have asked me stop the senseless War on Stubs, telling me that it was a huge waste of resources with no tangible results! These "hippies", if you will, stood outside my house with placards, calling me a war criminal! Imagine that. Of course I can assure you that I am NOT a war criminal and that all my intentions were honest. To quiet the anti-war crowd I have ended the War on Stubs.

Our stub problem still remains, however, so I have started an adoption agency to try and resolve it. Each Saturday I will bring an old, forgotten stub to the attention of the fine people of this bar and urge them to take it under their wings. If after 4 weeks of waiting nobody steps forward to help fix the stub, I will seek to either move it to Draft space or nominate it for deletion (depending on what people think is more appropriate.)

This week's Stub of the Week is Anselm. Created in 2008, it's a three sentence stub with no references. I have never heard of the subject matter (unsurprising, seeing as how I am an utter peasant :D) and I have no idea as to why we should have an article on him. But if YOU do, my dear stranger, don't be stingy with your knowledge. Use you understanding of obscure medieval philosophers to improve our stub!

You have until the 19/12/20 (which is four Saturdays from now) to adopt. Hit me up on my talkpage or under this post if you'd like me to deliver the stub to you talkpage.

May your internet connection always be of high quality. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a lawn. But I approve of this more positive approach to dealing with stubs. That said, who the fuck is this Anselm fellow? 'Fraid I can't expand on the article, though I'd happily adopt the kitten. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 12:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That's the way to do it. Adopt a Stub has the Spud seal of approval.
I also appreciate the Pick of the PopsWikipedia reference.
The man in question was Anselm of CanterburyWikipedia. In fact, I've just gone ahead and moved our page to Anselm of Canterbury too. Spud (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I plagiarised added a new section to the article (instead of mowing my lawn), but the cat did not come to mow my lawn. Can I get a goat emoji instead?𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 04:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And I'd say that the first Adopt a Stub has been a great success. What was a worthless stub has been turned into a, still short, but perfectly decent little article. Thank you very much @Sqrt-1. And @Rairyu75, give yourself a pat on the back for getting the ball rolling. Spud (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sqrt-1 But of course. Here you go: 🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐. (Also, did you ACTUALLY plagiarise that passage or are you joking? Bro...). @Spud Well, I wanted to nuke all these things, but changed tack when people told me to stop... But whatever, I WILL take all the credit! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Scots language Wikipedia[edit]

I actually didn't hear about this until this morning. Maybe it's more widely known in Scotland/UK at this point.

The 'Scots' that wis uised in this airticle wis written bi a body that’s mither tongue isna Scots. Please impruive this airticle gin ye can.

A 12-year through 19-year old native-English speaker from North Carolina (User:AmaryllisGardener) wrote about half the articles on the Wiki, causing a shitstorm after being caught.[5][6] Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The linguist in me finds this kerfluffle rather intriguing. Scots lies somewhere on the border between 'English dialect' and 'separate language'; as the old saw goes, a language is a dialect with an army and a navy, and Scotland has had neither of its own since 1707 at the most recent. There really isn't a prescribed, canonical version of Scots that gives anyone a platform to criticize another's usage. The most famous exponent of Scots is probably Robt. Burns, and he wrote standard English grammar and swapped in Scots dialect forms as desired. This is what the kid from NC did too. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the Scots language Wikipedia as S.P.McKay. Ah didnae do nae harm. I also didn't claim to be Scottish (although I didn't say I wasn't).Spud (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I've watched every episode of Burnistoun at least three times, maybe I should join up-Hastur! (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön This was a mildly interesting discussion on the wiki that should help demonstrate the issue.-Hastur! (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A far right micronation[edit]


Empire of New Europe, perfect for aspiring white nationalists! I honestly find it to be completely disturbing. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What in the fuck am I reading? Is this just some weird Nazi wish fulfillment thing? Revolverman (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Either that, or it's a satire of neo-Nazis and WNs in America. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 04:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Poe's Law has been firmly in effect in America for quite some time now. Artificius (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
On the way to the dentist this morning (which by the way- it fucking sucked) and I mentioned it to my brother and mom. They gave me weird, confused expressions. This micronation is a very weird one, maybe even worth an article about. Its policies are within the mission scope. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Most Internet oriented micronations seem to basically be a kind of role-playing fantasy thing that people online do. (As you might guess, they have a convention called MicroCon, natch. And there are a lot of motivations for why micronations micronation.) There are hardcore racists in any sort of fandom, unfortunately, but usually they are a small minority. Most things on this Wiki seem more silly than anything else, such as a Micronation version of the "Eurovision" contest. (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bernardo Kastrup[edit]


I was wondering if anyone here has heard of him or any of his topics in the past. I saw a few things he wrote in Scientific American but they seemed an awful lot like woo, much like his link in the above where he tries to break down all these concepts. In the scientific American article he tried to state how idealism is supported by recent advancements in Quantum mechanics which I am not convinced by and has a whole website dedicated to taking down materialism.Machina (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with his work. HairlessCat (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course you are.Machina (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

But muh secular values[edit]

Macron's going full fascist right now. Hope y'all are happy. Oxyaena Harass 18:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I very much doubt most of the site regulars here are "happy" with this. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In a twisted way, I pity Macron. He's trying to play all sides here, and the last thing I want is someone far more extreme (such anti-Muslim positions are fairly popular in France) coming to power. If Le Pen was PM, you can bet things would be much worse. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Remember, in the 80's, Holland had Hans Janmaat, who called for Holland to prioritize the Dutch themselves and to limit immigration. He was called a racist and excluded, and as a result, Pym Fortuyn and later Geert Wilders took his place, and they called for much, much worse, and Janmaat's ideas are now basically the mainstream.
The rabid xenophobic parties in Europe often get double digit percentages of the vote, and that's with people sometimes believing, for instance, Environmentalism and the Green parties are a more pressing concern than keeping Slovakia inbred, or Workers Rights being more important than Gay Rights, or whatever. Golden Dawn, AfD and NPD, BNP and UKIP, Jobbik, etc. The other parties do need to do something to placate the public's inherent Xenophobia or have much better outreach, make a public show of enforcing the rule of law when problems arise (seriously, the Rotherham Sex Gang, where a group of Pakistani men were targeting hundreds of underage poor white girls to be gangraped into sex-slavery, while the local police knew about it and covered it up is literally the narrative that Neo-Nazis have been pushing for decades). That, or accept that the Xenophobes will gain power and start writing the new rules. CoryUsar (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Just because some of us don't like Islam as an ideology does not mean we hate Muslims and are therefore "happy" about this. People need to stop assuming that, as it's harmful to public discourse and is killing nuance- and it is for this reason that I've been trying to convince people to use the term "Muslimophobia" to describe things like what Macron, Trump, and Xi are doing to Muslims, instead of... well, the alternative.
I don't care about your stupid thing with HBC and Cory, this toxicity is not good for you. I understand that you've been through a lot, but you've got to stop alienating people who've known you for a long time on here. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 19:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll remember that term(or try at least). It brings nuance to a debate that has extreme trouble with nuance since 2001.-Flandres (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Good. Looks like my promoting of the more-accurate term "Muslimophobia" finally stuck with someone- instead of them just ignoring it and continuing to pretend there's no alternative to the other version of it to the persuasion of no one. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Extremism is the problem, always has been, always will be. It doesn't matter what monotheism is peddling it, it must be identified, refuted then discarded. This isn't an Islam problem, it is an extremism problem.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
True-Islamic violence is hyper-focused on but it is hardly unique to that faith. I suppose the debate becomes "what conditions create extremism" and then influence policy from there. That is why I personally oppose things like burkha bans as cosmetic security theater at best.-Flandres (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I never said "outlaw Islam", nor did I ever suggest that violence is "unique" to it. I doubt people would accuse me of such if I talked about, say, Christianity- which I also shit on a lot, as shown in my contribs. This whole "how dare you single out Islam!" thing is exactly what I was talking about. I oppose burqa bans as much as the next person, even though I disapprove of the idea that women should cover themselves "to avoid tempting men". --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me, so long as you don't go too far and become an Iraq war apologist like a certain great disappointment, or for that matter the fallen four horsemen. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That's good, unless by "going too far" you mean agreeing with an uncompromising but innocuous statement like "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas". As I've said before, I'm not at all happy about what Macron's doing and have only ever spoken out against the armed conflicts in the middle east- and to suggest that I am "happy" simply because I question Islam's alleged "peacefulness" is unfair and insulting. That's the point I was trying to make in replying to the OP. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of marginalised groups in Europe who suffer from prejudice, poverty and discrimination. The only one that sets off dirty bombs and drives trucks into crowds are radical Islamists. While you can say that the conditions that inflame anger can be explained by Islamophobia and discrimination it doesn't explain why it is almost always radical Muslims who murder people because of ideological criticism and ridicule (comics of the prophet for example) or kill innocent bystanders for questionable government policy. Dealing with the causes of the anger in Europe is not enough (it is essential but don't pretend radical islam will just go away). The number of Muslims in Spain is super tiny and yet I live next to a train station that was blown up. There are lots of groups of marginalised people who have just as much of, if not even more reason to be ragingly angry and yet they don't indiscriminately murder (especially over an "insult"). Radicalised Muslims do. Extraordinary measures have to be taken to tackle radical Islam (not islam in general...radical Islam). I don't agree with all of the measures that Macron has taken (asking Muslim leaders to agree to a set of principles is ridiculous for example or expecting muslims to parrot a list of values is super over the top). But closing down the most radical clerics and their madrassas, limiting the entry of radical clerics into the country, making laws criminalising non reporting of imminent terrorist actions are all entirely sensible. As is reiterating that the right to lampoon the shit out of religion is non-negotiable nor ever will be, including the right to discuss these things in any public space including schools, regardless of how someone who cares about that ideology (remember religion is an ideology that can be changed) feels. Macron went over the top with some of his measures and yes WAY MORE should be done to end Islamophobia as much as possible, limit discrimination and inequality in Muslim communities in France (it should be on the top of any politicians list) and the boastful sweeping comments by Macron are not helpful. But cracking down on extremism and reiterating the importance of secularism is not at all unreasonable. Secularism is as important to them as the constitution is to Americans and I don't see anything wrong with caring deeply for and tolerating no threat to either secularism nor a constitution. And the overwhelming majority of French people (progressives included) would entirely stand by this. I have no sympathy for people who think religious sensibilities trump the right to ridicule the shit out of religion or any other ideology, including their precious little prophet. ShabiDOO 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Good post! Evilatheistheathen (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Good post! Wow. Took the words right out of my mouth. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 20:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but... my impression here is that Macron seems to be using Islamic extremism and civil unrest to tilt towards illiberalism (sounds familiar...). Bear in mind in this particular case that while a lot of what Macron says is pretty nasty, this is just words Macron is floating around. It is subject to likely change in my mind, as the French CFCM (Council of Muslim Worship) is the ones creating this initial draft on a "charter of republican values" from what I can tell. However, the current uproar in France is over "Article 24" of a recent security law passed by Macron's party, which actually heavily criminalizes "l’usage « malveillant » d’images des forces de l’ordre (eg: the "malicious" use of police images). And we thought the various cop camera bullshit in the US was bad. So it seems like Macron is tilting in an illiberal direction of late, which will do nothing to solve the problem of Islamic extremism from my point of view. (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was not implying Muslims should be given special treatment, was I Shabidoo? I simply think the debate is handled wrong sometimes and focuses on non-issues to the detriment of deeper discussion.-Flandres (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Extremism is indirectly the result of exclusion. We don't have more terrorism than a century or two ago (remember when numerous world leaders, include a President or two, were murdered by Anarchists?). What we have is different terrorism. The supply of terrorists has typically been disaffected young males, people cast out by society and vulnerable to whatever radical 'ism attracts them. Doesn't really matter what, it just has to explain to them how it's not their fault they've been cast out, but the fault of Heathens (Christian weirdos), Jews (NeoNazis and, well, virtually all the 'isms), infidels (Islamism), bourgeoisie (Communism), capitalists (Anarchism and others), or really, whatever.
The question shouldn't be "does Islam create more Extremism than other systems?", but rather, "does Islam create more disaffected young men, who are then more vulnerable to extremist ideologies?". For now, the answer yes, but it's not intrinsic to Islam itself that can never be rectified. But it would require some changes within the Islamic community to be more inclusive of LGBT issues and whatnot CoryUsar (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The Boston Tea Party were terrorists. That being said, you misunderstand anarchism (yet again) as well as many other things you have covered. GC put it best: you're not worth taking seriously on this subject. Oxyaena Harass 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I think Oxy is framing this wrong. AFAIK the identification numbers are more of a restriction on homeschooling than anything else. Forcing Imams to register makes me uncomfortable in terms of religious freedom, though. We have to bear in mind that Islamist extremism IS a problem in France. Doing nothing isn't really an option. With that said, I think a better, more effective solution would be to promote integration naturally instead of making Muslims feel like they're under attack. As I've said before, I know a great deal of Muslims and they're really not that different from the average population. Helping them to live in diverse neighborhoods and attending schools with diverse classrooms (you could say that the new homeschooling rules achieve this) would go a long way. As would affirmative action programs making sure Muslims get to be a part of French society, and not second class citizens. I haven't been back to France in over a decade and thus haven't been following the news that closely, maybe Macron's plan addresses that, I don't know.-Hastur! (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
1) Boston Tea Party were thieves/vandals, not terrorists. No one was seriously injured. Considering that they were protesting against international business interests and wearing masks, they were basically the guys in the Guy Fawkes masks during the Occupy protests, so...
2) I understand enough. I don't need to read all the works of Thomas Aquinus to know Christianity is probably bunk. I've met and dealt with enough anarchists themselves, read enough about it, to write most of it off as a bunch of college kids going through a pseudo-intellectual phase. Given that YOU are the biggest supporter of Anarchism here, you are only confirming my preconceived biases about Anarchists being a bunch of fools that can be written off.
3) Even if I'm wrong about Anarchism and I don't actually understand it, Anarchism is still a fringe idea with little acceptance in political discourse. Me opposing it is more YOUR problem than mine. CoryUsar (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I might be speaking from ignorance, but I haven’t heard of any active anarchist terror threats. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
An idea being fringe or mainstream isn't really a good metric for whether it's realistic or reasonable. After all, Trump was/is mainstream, as is Le Penn in France. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Le Penn was thankfully wrecked pretty hard in the 2017 election. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
She's still pretty mainstream in France, and my point on the problems with using radical/mainstream as a metric to try to assess an idea still stands. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini President William McKinkley was murdered by an anarchist, as was Tsar Alexander II, there were a couple of high profile assassinations of other nobles including Empress Sisi (who was Franz Ferdinand's stepmom; that family just can't catch a break).
@GrammarCommie Not the argument I'm making at all. I'm saying it's irrelevant how good anarchism would be for you, because if me and mine "don't understand it", you ain't getting it either. CoryUsar (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just ODing, don't mind me. Twodots (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I know anarchist assassins were a big thing historically. But I don’t think there are anarchist threats active anymore. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Cory, that's also a bad argument. I don't understand the technical details of nuclear fusion, but I don't doubt someone who reads up and studies the topic knows the subject. Likewise, someone who studies political theory would know more about Anarchism than someone who doesn't study political theory. Cough, cough. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Except nuclear fusion can be demonstrated, or it can't. There's been plenty written about cold fusion, and it looks like a bunch of pseudo-science. If someone wants to actually demonstrate cold fusion as actually feasible, hooray. If someone wants to insist that cold fusion is awesome but I don't get it because I haven't read enough about it, but I should give them money for it, piss off. Likewise, show me Anarchism in practice. I've read a bit about it, and everything I've read and seen appears to demonstrate a lack of understanding about Humans in general. So stop writing about how wrong I am and show me the Anarchist societies I would be happy to join. Anyone with enough time on their hands can write a book about how awesome Anarchism is, but the proof is in the pudding, so stop giving me recipes and give me the pudding. CoryUsar (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No, seriously, a metric fuckton more has been written about how awesome organized religion is. Does that mean we have to trust a Priest when he says he knows more about God than we do? Stop with the teleological arguments, stop with all the sophistry and parlor tricks. Without going to the books, show me that your religion has the Truth. CoryUsar (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
One, I'm not only non-religious, I'm an anti-theist. Two, and I really get fucking tired of telling you this only for you to ignore me I am not an Anarchist. Three, comparing political philosophy to religion is asinine and disingenuous. Have I ever made such a comparison for Liberalism or Conservatism? No, of course not, because I fucking know my subject matter. Ok? Ok. So jus stop. You made some bad arguments, it happens. Own up to it and move on for fuck's sake. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
But that's just it, Conservatism and Liberalism have been put to practice, we can compare and contrast them. Conservatives can bleat on all day about how great Conservatism is, but we don't have to contradict them with sophistry, we can actually show with real world data. We don't have to argue about how a theoretical Social Democracy would be oh so much better, we can actually show real world results from Social Democratic countries. The same can't be said of Anarchism. CoryUsar (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Stop making shit arguments! "Democratic Republicanism can never work. Monarchism has been put into practice for years, Democratic Republicanism is just a religion!" These are your arguments, but used to support monarchism. If I can do that, your arguments are shit. You can, at most, say Anarchism is as yet unconvincing to you personally, and that you feel it ought to show more tangible results before you can feel confident in it, but that's it. It's not like any country on Earth is just going to hand over a plot of land to let a potential rival ideology prove itself, that's not how these things work. Gods fucking damnit!!! And, even were Anarchism to prove itself without merit, THAT STILL WOULDN'T MAKE IT A RELIGION. The dichotomy you set up is rife with hidden assumptions and shaky reasoning, and I want you to fucking stop. Stop with assuming you know this subject, stop assuming you know my views or motives, stop with the groundless assumptions!! Oh, and fucking apologize for fucking falsely accusing me of being an anarchist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you ok? Twodots (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Many people DID think Democratic Republicanism wouldn't work. Heck, the first attempt in the US didn't work. And the second nearly collapsed as well a few decades later. And it wasn't particularly Democratic by today's standards, considering that only Wealth White Males were allowed to vote (ignored New Jersey). And that's with numerous small-scale examples of Democracy in action; US Democracy wasn't made up out of nothing, after all.
I could say "Anarchism is unconvincing as yet, and I'd like to see tangible results first". But I won't say that. What I will say is "I'm convinced that Anarchism won't and can't work on anything but in small special cases, in various other cases it has failed miserably and in general it seems to go against my understand of Human Nature, and I'd like to see tangible results before I seriously consider anything you have to say".
I view it as more of a Dogma of sorts, like Objectivism or Marxism or Neo-Conservatism. Sure, there's no supernatural involved, but there's a blind faith the the source material and a prophet or prophets who is/are beyond reproach, and anyone who does not adhere to the Dogma is either a potential convert or a subversive individual who is living a life'o'sin/false consciousness/liberal (apparently?)/spawn of Satan. It's not a religion the way Christianity is, but it's not unlike one.
As for accusing you of being an Anarchist, fine, I apologize, the SWAT team has been called off. I just hope they get the message in time; if not, just scream out "I'M ON THE JOB!" and hope for the best. CoryUsar (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────ODing again... Twodots (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't OD just to OD. Do it when you are responding, or let the others in the convo do it. CoryUsar (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I said as much on his talk page. I'm starting to regret giving this noob advice on wiki editing. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry. Twodots (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I swear to mother-loving Cthulhu Cory, Do not make me hurt you in person. Democratic Republicanism predates The US, with early attempts occurring during the English Civil war. Those would be some of the people Cromwell had executed by the way, with the idea going as far back as Ancient Athens, where it was chucked aside in favor of monarchist dictatorship. And again, it is very easy for you to project your current position backwards through history, but speaking from a historiographic perspective, that's not how ideas like this work. The proponents clash until they seize enough power and then try to implement their ideas, often failing due to a multitude of factors, including problems with the base ideas, hostile external and internal actors, internal unrest, and just straight up bad luck. And yes, Marxism, Objectivism, and Neo-conservatism are political philosophies. Like it or not, that's the category they fall under. And here's a fun fact, I don't advocate for any of them. At all. An incomplete list of things I don't advocate for: Anarchism, Fascism, Liberalism, Monarchism, Theocracy, Plutocracy, Communism, Marxism, Conservatism, Liberalism (it's complicated). Ok? You don't know my views, you just assume because I'm not automatically dismissive of ideas you personally don't like or agree with that I'm a proponent of those ideas. Stop doing that. It's annoying that I keep having to tell you to stop. Just because I steelman a position and say that your shitty criticism of it is shit, doesn't mean that I advocate for that position. I have fucking had it up to here with this crap. With all the pseudo-intellectual, anti-philosophical, anti-intellectual, circle jerking. I'm not fucking screaming "I'M ON THE JOB!", I'm telling you when you make a bad argument in the (apparently vain, since you never fucking listen) hope that you'll improve and grow, like a fucking skeptic and rationalist. You know, the ideas this site is supposed to be founded on? Fucking hell. Your reply indicates you don't fucking listen to me at all, nor do you fucking understand or care to understand why I'm arguing with you. It's intellectually shallow, vapid childish nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think at some point, you and I ought to just hug this one out... CoryUsar (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
At this rate, I'm more likely to try to punch your teeth out than hug you. I'm not irritated or frustrated with you disagreeing with me on politics, that's hopw shit works. But your repeated demonstrations of ignorance and assumptions of Bad Faith from me when I weigh in on a political and/or philosophical topic (have you actually read the thread on human nature where I disagree with Oxy and call some of her positions stupid? Sheesh.) and just sort assuming my positions are the same as Oxy's, (An assumption I seriously resent, we very clearly differ on a number of key issues and base assumption) are driving me up a wall. Typing out my frustration with you, trying to work with you and correct bad arguments is seriously spiking my blood pressure. And it sometimes seems like I'm the only one who cares or notices. Take for example, just recently when you assumed I was promoting anarchism. How would you feel if I just up and assumed you were a reactionary conservative if you were to point out a problem with the idea of someone claiming "Bernie lost because the DNC Deep State ran a pysop!" Like, would that make any effing sense? Of course not! You might not even like the Dem leadership, but you'd want the criticisms of them to be well founded, because poor criticism helps mask legitimate problems.
Or let's use the previous fiasco involving the discussion of how Anarchism claims it would handle nuclear weapons and military matters. I lay out their positions to be argued with, and you first ask me "And when a group of non-Anarchists in Madagascar disagree, and create an army of their own with a nuclear arsenal?" in response to "To answer youyr questions, in order, there wouldn't be any, they'd be decommissioned for being stupid and pointless, and with a(non-standing) military." and then you pivoted to "I don't think you get it. If any group is not anarchist, or doesn't believe in nuclear disarmament or whatever, then they can simply conquer the anarchist societies and take their shit." when I pointed out that your first question didn't make any godsdamned sense. Like, what did you expect my response to be? You literally pivoted from "Well how will they defend territory from nuclear annihilation" to "Well how will they defend from invasion?" with seemly no understanding of how disconnected those scenarios are, or the fact that I stated that anarchists have answers for those kinds of questions.
So, firstly, nuclear weapons are a form of hard political capital. Basically, they're bigass sticks (or penises if you prefer). Most countries never intend to follow through on threats of using them, because that would be insane. Anyone who did launch a nuclear missile might as well yell "shoot me, I'm a dangerous moron" in front of the UN assembly. So, they aren't for use. they're for international posturing and intimidation. Anarchist literature is either mute on this subject, or hostile towards the idea of using death sticks to play chicken with other people's lives, as it is viewed by them as an unjust use of force. Now, could I have phrased that better so as to remove my own anti-nuclear weapon bias? Probably. But the fact that I communicated the base sentiment so bluntly makes your followup even more ignorant. People don't use nukes to invade, too destructive, and radioactive real estate plummets in value. So that's the nuke issue dealt with. Secondly, the Anarchist would have a military (or they probably wouldn't exist as a nation/nation-like concept for very long, since militaries are kind of important) They just wouldn't have a standing military. Most either advocate a return to a militia system, or scaling down the military (if not disbanding it) during peacetime. Now, those solutions right there have demonstrable problems we could easily discuss, but you went off into scenarios that were either ill thought out or just not realistic. That is what frustrates me. Would you like to discuss the problems with a militia system, especially in terms of larger areas such as the US? That' an interesting discussion. (shrug emote here). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, why not. The militia problem, aside from how a military would be structured without a clear hierarchy, is that no private individual is going to have an aircraft carrier. A militia can quickly supply a standing army with large numbers of well trained soldiers and probably quite a few of the highly skilled specialists that a modern military depends upon, but virtually none of the material. CoryUsar (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. Technically, Switzerland still uses the Militia system, though if I remember correctly they have a standing military as well. Militias can't engage in conventional warfare that well, true, meaning they don't work very well in a traditional defensive scenario. However, they are somewhat better able to engage in guerrilla warfare than a conventional force. Now, that being said, most militia systems don't really have dedicated military infrastructure (logistics corp) and tend to heavily rely on local sources for supplies, which in turn makes them open to attack from that angle. Another thing to remember is that Militias fell out of favor as trends in warfare and tactics changed, which in the late 17000-early 1800s meant a shift towards large scale ground battles where forces were concentrated to try to hit with maximum effect, rather than complex (somewhat) coordinated skirmishes. This trend has (sort of) reversed of late, with large scale battles falling away in favor of hit and run tactics and surgical strike operations, since changes in strategy, technology, and enemy behavior mean those are now more resource efficient. So, in the future similar ideas to militias might see a renascence, or the trends might shift again. For now however, we can say that Militias aren't very good defensively, and we can say that with some certainty based on historical precedent. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Asymmetric Warfare relies upon being able to hide amongst civilians. There's two ways to defeat such tactics. The first is to treat it as a policing action, not a military one. Local authorities track and detect "criminal" organizations, hunt them down, and so forth. This relies upon locals who know the lay of the land, who know these people, and are willing to betray their own neighbors. You can always find collaborators, and in response, the guerrillas may murder anyone and their families who sides with the occupiers, and that pisses off more people while others side with the guerrillas and claim it's necessary. Basically, you end up with a civil war caused by the invasion *cough*Iraq*cough*, and it's a mess. It depends on just how popular the guerrillas are or how hated the invaders are. Propaganda is key, hearts and minds and all that, but it could go either way.
The other option? Total War, which really isn't much different from genocide. Asymmetric Warfare relies on constantly being able to attack without getting struck back, but is completely unable to defend anything. No civilians left means no civilians left to hide behind, to send supplies, to coordinate, nothing. Considering that until fairly recently, half the point of joining the army was to murder some foreigners, steal their livestock, enslave their children and rape their women, well, Asymmetric Warfare in opposition to invasion was of limited use.
So against a "civilized" army, your militia and guerrillas may have a chance, and Anarchists may be able to punch above their weight given the stakes involved. If the army is extremely civilized, and enough of your own people become disillusioned with the Anarchist society (which could never happen, because it's a utopia), and suddenly you are now conquered. But against an army who doesn't give a shit about basic decency? Who doesn't even view you as human? Well, the only thing your militia are good for is to slightly fertilize the battlefield. CoryUsar (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser "the Anarchist society (which could never happen, because it's a utopia)" Why do you do this? We were having a nice discussion about the limits of a militia system, and you went and disrupted in with snide commentary which seems aimed at positions I have explicitly stated that I do not hold. Are you trying to call me a liar? If so, just do so and be done with it so I know not to waste my time trying to engage with you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't suggesting you were holding that position. Was snarking about it. When I'm attacking a position, I'm not necessarily attacking your position nor attacking you. CoryUsar (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The more that I think about it, is that the disconnect here? Are you always assuming that when I'm attacking a position you're defending as devil's advocate, that you think I'm attacking you or that you believe that I believe that it's your position? CoryUsar (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Well I was under the impression that we were going to talk about militias vs conventional military ,and the pros and cons thereof, in microcosm so as to understand foundational assumptions in adopting such a position. Not, "anarchism bad, lol". I happen to want to engage in intellectualism for the purpose of mutual enrichment, not heckling from the peanut gallery. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Because one, I wasn't defending anarchism, I was arguing that your critique of it is bad (it is) and two, at this moment, I was under the impression that we were talking about a specific subject, not how it relates to anarchism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My snark was because the goto response from any Utopian type of thinking is going to be that no one would ever disagree with the Utopia. It doesn't matter if it's an Anarchist society, an Islamic society, or a society of Furries, there will always be those disillusioned with the whole thing for whatever reason, and thus willing to work with the invaders. The weird thing about all societies is that there really can't be a perfect society because we don't all value the same things, and what may be Heaven for you could be Hell for me. We could create a least awful society, but even then that depends a lot on what the people in that society value and how much weight we give to each unhappy person. It's entirely possible that for a given group of people, they really would be happiest under some sort of anarcho-primitivist commune, whereas the society a town over would be happiest under a military junta, and two towns further down the society is happiest under the strict control of a priesthood. That's part of why you do need to allow freedom of association and movement, to allow people who want to create their own pocket of weirdness some extent to do so. But anyway, if you want to limit this to only military tactics, sure, why not. CoryUsar (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's just ignore all your baseless assertions for a second and focus on the last part of your spiel. You do realize that's what anarchists advocate for, yes? Complete freedom of association and movement. We believe in total autonomy and voluntary association, but we don't have that in modern statist societies, where if you try to go off on your own you're still forcibly subjected to the state's will. Look at what Philaldelphia did to MOVE, or what the feds did to the Branch Davidians in Waco. Liberalism is not intellectually consistent, it argues for "freedom of association" and yet simultaneously argues for government, which is inherently contradictory to voluntary association. Oxyaena Harass 15:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
What an inane argument. Do you understand what total autonomy would be like? What the abolition of the state would cause? Two words: Anarcho-capitalism. It doesn't sound like you're a big fan of mega-corporations, so your fervent arguments for anarchism surprise me. You know who can best keep corporations in check? It's the state. People have tried boycotts, pleas, protests, and they have never done a single thing until a law is passed. And guess what: the only way to dissolve these corporations is to make use of the state.
Second, the state steps in when things get crazy. Do you think a gaggle of regular citizens could bring a serial child-molesting cult with several hundred illegal firearms lodged in a compound to justice? Or would you prefer child molesters, murderes, rapists, and all manner of criminal scum to "freely associate?" Justice must be done, and sometimes that means the government must use lethal force.
If anything, anarchism is intellectually inconsistent. Yo wail against giant corporations, but desire to create a society that would dramatically increase their power. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Capitalism depends on an enforcement of property rights. Who do you think enforces property rights? Capitalism depends on the state for its very existence, your argument is the inane one, lol. Talk about projection. You wanna know why we have things like vacations, paid overtime, and the 8 hour work week? It's because of anarcho-syndicalists, not because of the state. The state didn't "give" us those things, they were granted as concessions during the early 20th century because of angry anarchist workers organizing and striking, utilizing their collective power for their own advantage. Learn history and read political theory. Oxyaena Harass 15:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The state is vital in keeping capitalism functioning, since capitalism is so self destructive that a state is needed to go against individual companies from time to time to keep the system itself functioning. You also used examples of people trying to get things done without any organizational or institutional power while ignoring times were people got organized and did things the state couldn't. Right now we have a police force, so of course you cant expect people to organize a body that can deal with crime instead, the state is forcing a monopoly on us so we cant deal with these problems ourselves. In the Old West people elected sherrifs who would then appoint others to help deal with crime and disturbance, people can organize to fight crime without relying on a state body to do it for them. States are defined as entities that maintain a monopoly on violence within a given area, as per Webster. Also, the rapists and murderers are themselves the powers that be right now, but people always focus on the ones who are the rejects of society, not the rich white males in a boardroom. Oxyaena Harass 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. If the United States government ceased to exist, and the federal reserve became appropriated by corporations, do you think capitalism would fall? Hell no. Those corporations would only become more powerful, as they would be both the only provider of goods and services and the ultimate authority on production, consumption, and everything in between.
  2. So you're advocating for the abolition of property rights too? Great, nice to know in your anarchist hellhole that I can't own anything.
  3. There certainly were many anarchist workers groups, but there were socialist and capitalist workers groups. In fact, labor unions were majority-capitalist. So I don't think you can say that all protests were because of "anarchist workers."
  4. Protesting leads to government action. The protesters knew this: they depended on the government to get off its ass and pass regulatory measures. Otherwise, they'd be a bunch of starving, homeless buggers without jobs that could easily be dismissed by their respective industries.
  5. What is with you and the "oh you need to get informed" argument? I've read Marx, Hegel, Lenin, and Kropotkin, and I found good ideas in each. But I also found disastrous systems and policies that would impoverish all. Stop assuming that anyone who criticizes your ideology just hasn't read it enough, you sound like Jordan Peterson.
  6. How did crime in the Old West go? Oh that's right, you were presumed guilty, killed usually on sight, and if you were black, you were lynched. Not proving your point there.
  7. What makes you think I only go after rapists outside of society? I despise Jeffery Epstein as much as the Branch Dividians.
  8. Finally, I'll leave you with Hobbes: "Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Our founding fathers agreed. All successful countries agree. The burden of proof is on you to justify anarchism.IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank To point two. So, most forms of leftist thought don't really want to abolish property tight per se. They want to abolish Private Property and replace it with public property (factories, office buildings, etc), and personal property (your house, toothbrush, clothes, etc.). To point five, most of the US still elects sheriffs. Literally all of Texas works off an expanded version of that system. Have I conveyed these positions better than Oxy or would you like further elaboration? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie My point with the Old West was that community-based law, with no outside control, guidance, and set standards provided by the state, have a tendency to devolve into a brutal reflection of a population's psychological flaws (cruelty, suspicion, presumption of guilt, racism, etc.) On the private property point, do large houses (not mansions per se, but them too) that employ workers (maids, butlers, cleaners, and the like) classify as personal or public property? People who don't own the house still work in it for an income. And yes, you did a much better job of conveying these positions - I appreciate your levelheadedness. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
True, Community based law has historically trended isolationist and bigoted. Most anarchists I've encountered believe we should work to change social norms so as to avoid that outcome, though personally I'm unsure how well things would turn out even then. As for property, could you be more specific? Are we talking large houses like a loft apartment, or something along the lines of a multi-bedroom multibath townhouse? As for mansions specifically, most anarchists that I've talked to tend to view them negatively, and believe we ought to turn them into something similar to apartment buildings. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I'll separate it into a couple categories.
  1. Apartment complexes where there are employees making their primary income from working there (janitors, security guards, cleaners). Do these people automatically earn the right to a room? If there are no available rooms, does the building become public property?
  2. Same as above, but instead for loft apartments.
  3. Now for townhouses. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Mutualists believe in a usufructuary conception of property, namely possession and usage. I also don't give a fuck if you've read Lenin, Marx, Kropotkin or whoever. I`m not a Marxist nor am I a Kropotkinite. All of your "objections" to me showcase someone who is seriously misinformed about not only anarchism but political and economic theory in general. Oxyaena Harass 20:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank The first one seems like it'd be messy in implementation from what I know of Anarchist thought, so I'm going to mark that as "I don't know", the second example would probably be personal property, and the third would likely also be personal property. Oxy just refereed to Usufruct, a concept I confess to not knowing much about. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena How? I'm able to challenge you on political and economic points. The only area where I seem weak is not knowing every fringe movement of anarchism there is. And second, is this your way of saying you're a mutualist? If so, then it would appear many of your complaints of capitalism would be contradictory. Corporations could still own massive factories manned solely by robots, employing no humans, and entirely own every one of their properties. Second, who determines what is private and personal property, and what happens when someone breaks the rules? Though to be fair, no school of anarchist thought can answer that question; it just devolves into dumb and vague handwaves like "the people will solve it." IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The state doesn't "keep corporations in check" it is quite obviously the root of their power. Corporations are literally speaking legal fiction created and empowered with a certain set of privileges and rights by the state. Their property is enforced by the state. Their wealth is quantified in state fiat.

Ending the state involves ending the legal entities known as corporations. Their wealth and ownership of vast amounts of property does not simply persist when the state disappears, considering state fiat is what their wealth is quantified in in the first place. These are not disconnected events that happen in a vacuum.

Free association includes freedom from association. The capacity to use lethal force doesn't somehow disappear in anarchic conditions. If anything, the state enables rape and murder to a greater degree than any institution in history, because it's ultimately free of any accountability due to its monopoly over violence.

I have no doubt there would be greater disincentive to such acts in anarchic conditions than in the present ones. Oxyaena Harass 16:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll make this simple. Say the United States government ceases to exist tomorrow. I'll wake up and access my internet. Who controls the internet? Some corporation. I still pay them. I have to go to the store to get groceries. I pay money to get those groceries. The grocery store pays money to transporters who pay money to supply-chain corps to get those groceries. That entire process happens without the government's intervention and support. Even if you assume that the government protects legal entities on an abstract level, that's not what happens in reality. And if somehow a corporation's wealth and authority were to fracture after the end of the government, we'd have the economic equivalent of China's warring states period: warlords and factions powerful enough to gain loyalty from supporters and resist collapsing, waging war against other entities of similar size, all the while restricting access and increasing suffering on the people of this country. And why would there be less of an incentive to steal and murder in anarchic conditions? The state doesn't and can't assure that you will continue to be in possession of property, or access goods that you desire. People will become desperate and scared, and turn to crime in the resulting anarchy. People will either lose everything, or will be afraid of losing. This fear has motivated the most barbarous actions in human history; it is your philosophy that contradicts human nature. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
"Corporations are literally speaking legal fiction created and empowered with a certain set of privileges and rights by the state. Their property is enforced by the state. Their wealth is quantified in state fiat." That's simply not true. We can see proof of the opposite by looking at criminal syndicates, who behave in an almost identical manner to corporations, sans the state. A drug cartel, for example, operates off of the same profit incentive structure as a legal corporation, it just lacks the blessing of the state to exist. That's the only difference. As a result, the cartel can't rely on the state's monopoly on force and violence within said state's administrative domain, as they are opposed each other. As a result of that opposition, the cartel must create its own enforcement mechanisms/agencies, which it does. Your premise is extremely unsound. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The wealth of cartels are still quantified in state fiat. The cartel becomes its own state. Oxyaena Harass 05:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
And, Frank, almost every post you make is a full on gish gallop. I`m not gonna waste my time debating you. Oxyaena Harass 10:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a personal attack, @Sirius. Punish oxy. You can't let this stand, or you would be a hypocrite. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 11:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Man, you're really grasping at straws. As much as I dislike Oxy's hostility, calling someone a gish galloper doesn't equate with even the trolling and assholery you've exhibited in the below thread. Stop trying to start conflicts for entertainment or some misguided sense of "justice." IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena Late but I'm replying. You missed my point. I illustrated that both the nation state and corporations are separate group entities, albeit somewhat aligned, and that corporations could exist independent of an existing nation state. They are not, as you put it, "Corporations are literally speaking legal fiction created and empowered with a certain set of privileges and rights by the state." Furthermore, it is one of the ultimate dreams of a corporation to have Company scripWikipedia (company money only valid in company stores, for company products, in company towns, worked by company staff.) regardless of whether the external nationstate exists or not. Again, your premise is unsound. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Oxyaena is right on that point. A corporation (which is not the same thing as a company or other organization) is specifically a legal construct that is regarded as having some of the legal rights and other attributes of a person, such as the ability to make contracts and to be held liable for wrongdoing. A company can exist without a government, but without a legal framework in which to conduct business as a person accorded various legal mechanisms, it can't be a corporation. Drug cartels are not corporations unless they operate one as a front. Functionally, a drug cartel would probably be a sole proprietorship, with company property being owned by the boss rather than a legal construct. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)