RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive377

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 December 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>, <375>, <376>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, (new)(back)


Contents

Mindless generic rabid troll[edit]

Go play in interstate/international highway traffic! DIE! All of you! — Unsigned, by: Jkf jofy / talk / contribs

I'm sensing a lot of negativity here. Why don't you calm down? Go outside, read a book, pick up a hobby. God knows you need it to release some of this pent-up anger. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I need stronger meds lol — Unsigned, by: Jkf jofy / talk / contribs
lol, somebody's grumpy. Twodots (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
What is it with whacked out trolls invading the wiki? --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jkf jofy I don't know if you will read this in full, but I'll write it here nonetheless, since I have a day off work... Are you feeling fine? No no, don't roll your eyes at your screen, I'm not being snarky. It's rare that a day goes by when you don't come along to post something here to troll us. Why? Out of all the things you could be doing, like reading a book, playing a game, watching a movie/cat video or going for a run, why in the name of Goat do you feel the need to sit down, find some random link and post it here? It just seems... boring to me. The act is not visually engaging. It doesn't make a pleasant sound when you hit that "save" button. Nobody here actually cares. True, some of my mates will look and roll their eyes, but of the dozens of people who will see your material 99.9% won't even stop for a second to glance at your stuff.Now you are thinking to yourself: "But, but I made you guys ANGRY! Isn't that fun?!" Well, nobody is angry. We just feel mildly sad... "AHA! So I did trigger you snowflakes1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!!" No my friend, we don't feel sad because we were "destroyed" in a Ben Shapiro-esque manner by your logic and irrefutable, high-quality, trusworthy sources. We feel sad because every time you post here, we are reminded that there is someone out there in this world who is feeling alone and angry and that there is nothing we can do to help them. EVERY TIME I see one of your posts I feel like I have let you down stranger, because maybe there was something that I could have done to help you. Something to cheer you up in your boredom or your sadness; something to alleviate the crushing sense of loneliness and despair you are feeling every time you sit down in front of your computer to troll others. I look out my window and see the people right now, chatting with their friends, kissing their girlfriends, walking their dogs, taking their kids to school, and I know that you aren't one of those people Jkf jofy, I just know you aren't. Because if you did have friends who wanted to be near you, a certain someone who loved you, children you needed to care for, or just someplace fun to be, then the idea of trolling others on a wiki nobody reads wouldn't have been anywhere near the top of your to-do list. I am genuinely sorry I couldn't help you. Sincerely. The end. And I know you probably hate me right now; but I don't hate you back. Maybe at some other time I would, but I just can't find it in me right now. Goatspeed, Jkf jofy. - --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
cut 'n paste response to a troll?? how..... um.... dunno..... how something.... but not anything worthwhile.Aloysius the Gaul 23:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Aloysius the Gaul It's not copy-paste; it's a template I recently created based on an actual post made by @Rairyu75. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Duplicate articles[edit]

Why are there so many pages there? Since I first cheched it had 33 pages tagged, now 30. It looks a little forgotten--Ms. OliviaUse Chatter here 09:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Must be because nowadays most stubs that could be merged are now of so low quality, that they're more likely to be nominated for AFD. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Are outside forces responsible for our fate?[edit]

Because this post (first one) seems to say no, but isn't the point to accept that there are things you can't change or that are beyond your control?

https://www.quora.com/If-our-life-is-an-illusion-how-could-we-get-out-of-it Machina (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the fellow claiming the illusion is that life is an illusion because of your own bad ideas?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Machina you may want to reevaluate your relationship with Quora. ShabiDOO 01:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I... can't... even[edit]

Haven't talked about this guy in a long while (I've been trying to talk about other shit so people don't get tired of me droning about this guy over and over) but Oh my God, This new video from this guy made my fucking face melt. If this isn't a PRIME example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, then the fallacy truly has no meaning. This guy clearly uploads videos like this only at times he gets something right (i.e like drawing a target on the side of a barn). But holy shit the worst part of it all is reading these stupid comments and watching these people eat this shit up like BRAN flakes. It truly scares me: if this is the future of humanity we are doomed.

The comments bring to mind a quote from Christopher Hitchens: "You strike me as someone who has never heard a single argument against your position". Aaronmichael5 04:28 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to fill up the empty white space of the bartop with this...[edit]

Brain watermark.pngThe 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 11:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems good. ElectrosPardon? 13:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks great! IMO it would make the bartop more consistent with our similar templates. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone else do it? I don’t know how to.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No I think this is someone else.Machina (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This shit fucking happened[edit]

https://youtu.be/lmcdu6B_YUU

Bar Sam going on about teh eevil left and his questionable motives for denouncing the IDW this is actually fairly good analysis of the literal fuckening that has been the Trump administration and it's attempt to steal the election while claiming Biden's stealing the election. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump is the rightful emperor of the United States having been divinely appointed. Any talk of him losing the election is treason and heresy punishable by 25 to life. Oxyaena Harass 11:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Silly libtard!one!1!! He's the god-emperor of the USA, not just the emperor! He was divinely appointed by himself!
Commie idiot destructed by Facts and Logic! Twodots (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ himself. Oxyaena Harass 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Irony can be funny, sometimes. This time? Really?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Bold of you to assume anything me and Oxy said was a joke. Maybe we're deep-cover conservatives. Twodots (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Inception. Oxyaena Harass 23:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
SLEEPY JOE IS NOT A CENTRIST, HE'S A RADICAL SOCIALIST BLM MEDIA DEEP-STATE ANTIFA!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!SHIFT1!!SHIFToneeleventyone11!!!1! THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A "CENTRIST", YOU'RE EITHER CONSERVATIVE OR A SOCIALIST!!!!!!111!!!SHIFT1!!SHIFToneeleventyone11!!!1! HE'S GONNA DEXTRUOY AMERICA UNLESS TRUMP REMAINS OUR PRESIE-DENT UNTIL HE'S A BRAIN IN A VAT!!!!1! /s --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 23:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


Ariel31459 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

More on Parler fuckupery[edit]

Looks like the floodgates of porn have opened up on Parler, which will likely sink its chances of getting its hoped-for paid advertising.[1] Bongolian (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I imagine the fundies are freaking out. Twodots (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Parler had a chance at ad money? Since when? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank goat it's dead. Twodots (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hope ≠ Chance. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This was gonna happen eventually. It's what happens when you let anyone post whatever they want in the name of "freeze peach" on your platform, even if it means nobody can ever safely use said platform at work or school again. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 00:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean outside the Bible Belt it’s actually acceptable to use ‘’any’’ form of social media at work or school, and seeing otherwise well behaved students get put in ISS/employees sent home early for trying to bypass the webfilter to access Facebook isn’t the norm? I always thought Wikipedia editing was the only work/school safe interactive activity. 🤣 (And even that got me a scolding at to different workplaces). 71.215.100.2 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Cogs in the Machine (rant)[edit]

We are all cogs in the great Machine of society.

All of us.

If you think you can't be replaced, you're wrong. Even the world leaders are cogs, they may be the cogs with the most power to redirect the grease, but whenever a Presidential cog was murdered or died, another cog replaced them that very same day.

Some of us are cheaper, low quality cogs, so they might get used harder while simultaneously getting less grease, while others happen to be fancier cogs that aren't worn as harshly and are given more generous helpings of grease. Personally, I learned to become an expensive cog in the Machine (though not as expensive as I'd like just yet).

I would argue that all cogs that are essential for the Machine to function, regardless of how easily they can be replaced or how "lower quality" they are, if they are essential they should receive enough grease to function, should not be worn down too quickly, and should be given some modicum of respect.

Some cogs may produce more in the given configuration of the Machine, and they would argue they should get more grease, and they aren't wrong. However, if the Machine were to be shaken up, it's possible that previously valuable and rarer cogs are no longer as valuable, whereas previously less valuable cogs are now more in demand. On the flip side, some cogs, no matter how the Machine is configured, aren't going to produce much or anything essential. It's unclear what we should do with these cogs, but it's important to understand that this Machine is decided by Us, and that these cogs are People. /rant CoryUsar (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, people are not cogs within a machine. A cog exists to make a machine function. An ideal society exists to serve people, not the other way around. This is not true of "machines and cogs". MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There's no strength in flesh, become a machine. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 16:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste. CoryUsar (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
But back on rant, Society does not give one single fuck about you or anyone else in particular. We are all interchangeable pieces and the Machine doesn't give a crap. Society only cares about what you can do for Society, not what Society can do for you. To quote one of IMHO the more overrated Presidents, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". CoryUsar (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You are right there: society doesn't give a damn about you (generic you). But you don't know anyone who is society, you only know people. Some of them love you, some like you, most think you are unimportant or don't know you. Hopefully you have no true enemies. Think of the flower sermon. It should be enough not to consider yourself a cog. Why care what others think, about this, anyway?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
All of these are spooks anyways. Reject the machine, or "society," and embrace yourself as the unique instead. Oxyaena Harass 10:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Not really. So long as society exists, we are all part of the machinery. That's pretty much what society is. The machine can't be rejected outright. We could rearrange the machinery, find places for cogs that in other configurations would be less valuable. If you have a bad place in the current machine, it's possible that a different configuration of the machinery would give you a better place or more grease. But if you have no place in the current configuration, chances are that there are no configurations of the machine that would ever have a place for you. So we all need to ask ourselves, "of what use am I to the machine?", and it's not a simple question with a simple answer. CoryUsar (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
You really need to stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aide. Oxyaena Harass 20:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is everyone you disagree with a "liberal"? CoryUsar (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For the same reason our resident whako from the opposite side of the political spectrum calls everyone who disagrees with him a commie. Good old horseshoe theory strikes again. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, hi there TweedleDee, come to help out your friend TweedleDumb? You misunderstand horseshoe theory as well, again. Horseshoe theory is concerned with power structures, not with ideologies. Oxyaena Harass 09:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
How unfortunate that your anger and arrogance blinds you to reality. This wiki's article on it, Wikiepdia's article, and every article from every journal and magazine include convergences of political ideologies and beliefs, rather than exclusively referencing the theory for power structures. Perhaps you desire to escape being lumped with nobs, or maybe there's an "anarchist" horseshoe theory. From talking to you, there seems to be an anarchist version of everything, defined by being ill-thought-out, divorced from reality, and incredibly aggressive. Or perhaps that's just because I "haven't read enough about it!" IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, you should read what people have to say before spouting out ridiculous bullshit like this? You're a fucking joke. Tell me again how there were capitalist labor groups fighting capitalists (the owners of industry) during the early 20th century? To quote the Wikipedia article on horseshoe theory:

Simon Choat, a senior lecturer in political theory at Kingston University, criticizes horseshoe theory from a leftist perspective. He argues that far-left and far-right ideologies only share similarities in the vaguest sense in that they both oppose the liberal democratic status quo; however, the two sides both have very different reasons and very different aims for doing so.

The Courtier's Reply is a stupid argument anyways, you're comparing religion to complex political philosophy. It reflects the willful ignorance of the idiot liberal using that as an argument rather than the subject they're "critiquing" in the first place. Here's a better source than Wikipedia: [2] Cope harder, liberal. Oxyaena Harass 13:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You're a defender of the status quo, lib. Just remember that working within the confines of the current system is not "reality," and working outside of it is not "irrational." That's a shitty argument and you should be ashamed of yourself. Oxyaena Harass 13:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Cory here is defending neoliberalism, people are not cogs in a machine, that kind of thinking is problematic in and of itself, it dehumanizes the individual, atomizes them from the community. It justifies ruthless economic exploitation and subjugation. Oxyaena Harass 13:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ah, the unceasing rage of a lost leftist fueled by the knowledge that her arguments are hollow. This may surprise you, but the majority of labor unions now and before were capitalist! This is supported by your own logic: by associating with capitalism, they become involved in capitalism. People want to eat, and recognize that complete abolition of private ownership of production is a) very hard to do and b) may result in the "temporary" suffering of the very people which they seek to "liberate."

Why do you even bring up what some tired old Marxist has to say on horseshoe theory? Even he recognizes that the theory is defined by ideologies, not power structures, like you erroneously claimed. Perhaps you are the one that needs to "read." At the risk of "triggering" you again, you you once more validate the horseshoe theory. Here, you claim that your philosophy is complex, and therefore requires close study, not unlike a certain group of people...

And finally, me, a "defender of the status quo?" Oh, if only you knew how ridiculous that statement is, you might not have said it. In my family, I'm the raging, wild leftist, the person that wants "progressive income taxes" and supports "expanding Obamacare," while "reducing the military and foreign involvement." I do not love the current system, and seek to improve it and change it in whatever way possible, no matter how extreme it may be. But I recognize that some of the more extreme plans would only leave our country and our people worse than where they started. So, if being a "lib" means having common sense, then I suppose I shall wear it as a badge of honor. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You have a shitty definition of "capitalist" then. People are forced to engage themselves with the system, otherwise they'd starve and be cast out on the streets. And notice that I never argued for complete abolition of private property, I argue for a usufructuary conception of it. Occupation and usage. It prevents parasitism like absentee landlordism. Theory does not exist in a vacuum, you moron, it is put into practice by its practitioners. Your arguments read like a defense of feudalism against the radical and untested ideas of then revolutionary liberal theory. "Oh it's never been tried before, it'll result in increased suffering" yada yada yada. It is a simple fact that capitalism won't last forever, looking back at history no socioeconomic system lasts forever, to argue otherwise is special pleading. Let's at least try to make what comes after better, and not worse, than what we have now, m'kay? Oxyaena Harass 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, I'll remind you that the transition from feudalism and mercantilism to capitalism and liberalism was a gradual one, not a "revolution." Excluding the French, that is. And even then, countries that transitioned gradually (Britain, Germany, Sweden, Denmark-Norway) were more successful and citizens there led better lives.
My goal is not to defend capitalism, but to protect the people. Revolutionary change, especially on the scale you refer to, has NEVER worked, and ALWAYS results in the needless suffering of the weak and the downtrodden, with the rise of a new class of oppressors. I know capitalism won't last forever, but that doesn't justify calling for radical change by any means necessary.
By the way, why do you so confidently trot out whatever economic theory fits your whimsy? I call it a theory to humor you; it's so outdated that it seems ready to join the company of Adam Smith. Furthermore, "occupation" and "usage" are so wide terms to the point of being unintelligible. IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, you don't know what I advocate, secondly, I recommend you read the works of Kevin Carson, mutualism is not as out-dated as you might suspect. I don't advocate for violent revolution, I advocate for dual power and an interstitial revolution, creating and developing organizations that at first compete with the state or exist alongside the state and then gradually subvert the power of the state itself, whether it be through mutual aid funds, credit unions, or voluntary self defense networks, I don't care, it doesn't matter to me, all tactics are valid. Oxyaena Harass 15:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I also question what metric you are using by referring to a "better life," there was a marked reduction in the quality of life for many workers due to the Industrial Revolution, and the state itself engenders chaos, because it forments a monopoly on violence. The MOVE bombing, police brutality, police riots, the state-enforced subjugation and exploitation of minority communities, all of them are pretty chaotic, and due to the state possessing a monopoly on violence, there is no meaningful recourse to be had when the state itself decides whether or not you can seek redress. These are systemic issues that arise due to the nature of the state system itself. Oxyaena Harass 15:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I also question what metric you are using by referring to a "better life," there was a marked reduction in the quality of life for many workers due to the Industrial Revolution, and the state itself engenders chaos, because it forments a monopoly on violence. The MOVE bombing, police brutality, police riots, the state-enforced subjugation and exploitation of minority communities, all of them are pretty chaotic, and due to the state possessing a monopoly on violence, there is no meaningful recourse to be had when the state itself decides whether or not you can seek redress. These are systemic issues that arise due to the nature of the state system itself. Oxyaena Harass 15:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
"I don't advocate for violent revolution"
"I don't care, it doesn't matter to me, all tactics are valid."
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
"There is no meaningful recourse to be had when the state itself decides whether or not you can seek redress." Absolutely, if you refuse to consider yourself part of the state and participate in its legal mechanisms.
An age-old question: Why do you think anarchism will succeed? What gives you trust that individuals left to their own devices, fueled by hunger and desperation, will be better than a fully-functioning democracy?
Finally, mutualism can be easily dismissed for its incredibly vague definitions and its incredibly narrow and outdated focus. And once again, there's that "jUsT rEED mOAr!!!oneone" argument from you. While reading is a source of enlightenment, no amount of it can ever bring light to that philosophy's clouded vision. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
By what metric are using to justify your statement that capitalism and industrialization lead to a better life in Britain and those other countries? By all accounts the transition was a chaotic one, violent, with lots of worker resistance, but these all got crushed by the state. There was a massive reduction in the quality of living, as many peasants were enclosed off their lands and deprived of an independent livelihood. Oxyaena Harass 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Common sense. These countries became, and continued to be, industrial powerhouses. Britain never embraced anarchism or socialism: it was capitalism that led to the country's success and the current high standard of living of the British people. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Muh common sense. You have no actual answer. "Common sense" is not a meaningful answer, and I recommend you both read more theory and history. It was leftist organizing that gave us these higher standards of living, it wasn't capitalism that did so. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of labor history would know that. Oxyaena Harass 16:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Muh reading. You have no actual answer. "Reading theory" is not a meaningful answer, and I recommend you focus more on current political situations. It was political developments within capitalism, along with capitalism itself, that gave us these higher standards of living, not anarchist intellectuals and fringe groups. Anyone with even a cursory grasp of reality would know that. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding to Oxy's argument, living conditions only improved with social policies were adopted later on. The Industrial Revolution led to a capitalistic hellhole if you weren't rich enough. You had to work at the factories for pennies on the hour, or get fired and die. If not in Britain, at least in my home country, which oversaw similar industrial development. Back in Britain, the Whigs advocated for every social net to be cut, and it was a disaster. When you cut back all aid to the poor, they will revolt. Ever heard of rotten boroughs, by the way? Those are bits of land that could get two people you chose in Parliament if you owned them, while cities like Manchester, for example, had no MPs representing them.. Those only got abolished after the very real threat of violent revolution, like in places like, as mentioned before, Manchester, where protests got broken up violently by cavalry.Wikipedia Maybe I've been rambling on for too long, so let me cut to the chase: people with power don't want to give up that power. Not only politicians, but wealthy folks like landowners, who benefit from the broken system that they fight to keep. And the only thing that can make them accept change is violent revolution, or at the very least the threat of it. ElectrosPardon? 16:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Frank, you keep blubbering about reality, but you have yet to demonstrate anything you say is rooted in reality and not ignorance. Hell, the best you could come up with is "bUt CoMMoN sENse." Keep bullshitting about reality, that's all you've got. Oxyaena Harass 16:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hell, the Wobblies back in their heyday were anything but fringe, having over 150k members, and the socialist Eugene V Debs received over a million votes for the presidency, whilst still being in prison. Google exists, you know. Here's an article for you on the socialist influence on the labor movement. Oxyaena Harass 16:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry, your request for a reality wakeup will soon be granted. Let's talk about Eugene Debs. First of all, he received ~900,000 votes for president in the 1912 election (his highest count ever), not a million. And do you know who else was on the ballot, and received more than quadruple the votes: Teddy Roosevelt of the Progressive party, the same guy who had won a landslide victory in the 1904 election, with an 18.8% popular vote margin. What does this mean? That a) popular support was with capitalist progressive movements, b) people support reform through already existing measures rather than your poorly-conceived concept of "revolution," and c) progressive movements can massively improve the standing of the people through capitalism. In fact, the other Roosevelt president is a perfect example of this. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You're dismissing 900k votes as if that's something to sneeze at? Also, most of the reforms of FDR were repealed over the years, not having a strong labor movement will do that. You still haven't woken me up, since you are still a willfully blind fool. Those capitalist progressive movements co-opted socialist movements because of the dangers (to them) of revolution. A big part of the reason why FDR ran in the first place was to prevent violent revolution, and please, do address Electros' points. Oxyaena Harass 17:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a Debs fan myself, but the fact is, in 1912 (108 years ago), he got 6% of the popular vote, carried 0 states, got 0 electoral votes. If you want to compare a couple of other 3rd-party candidates: (1) In 1968, George Wallace got 10,000,000 votes, carried 5 states, and netted 46 electoral votes. (2) In 1992, Ross Perot got nearly 20 million votes, carried 0 states, and received 0 electoral votes. So, yes, 900K votes is pretty sneezeworthy IMO. Zontar (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If only petty insults were a substitute for good arguments, you might have made a competent point. Once again you sidestep my arguments. Instead of addressing why the vast majority supported capitalist progressives, and why capitalist progressive reforms were both popular and successful, you turn to the non-sequitur of how they were all eventually repealed, as if that provides some justification for immediate rebellion. Why should I address Electros' points? I am not, nor ever claimed to be, a defender of sweatshops or rotten boroughs. But I do take issue with their fundamental claim: that the only way for change to happen is through violent rebellion, holding the elites at gunpoint and forcing them to act. This is a flawed and simple-minded approach. Why not insure that the people are the ones holding government office? Oh, that's right: your entire conception of capitalism relies on elites having overwhelming control of every facet of democracy - it's what allows you to cast it aside so very quickly. It's why you automatically assume that any capitalist progressives are in the pocket of the elites, and only endorse progressivism as a forced adaptation to ensure their own survival. So instead of spurring people to vote, to campaign, to put themselves in public office, we must turn to thugs and mobs to ensure good governance. As you can see, this is folly, sure to result in failure and pain. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of dodging questions when you have yet to give a good metric by which to measure how capitalism made the quality of living "better" for the average person in the UK. Oxyaena Harass 17:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
This from an online economics encyclopedia sums up the facts pretty well. Of particular note is this: "No economist today seriously disputes the fact that the industrial revolution began the transformation that has led to extraordinarily high (compared with the rest of human history) living standards for ordinary people throughout the market industrial economies. The standard-of-living debate today is not about whether the industrial revolution made people better off, but about when." IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Cool, we're arguing about the factors that brought this about, not whether or not it did occur. Industrialization did not in and of itself make things better, it actually made things worse. It took concerted effort by the working class to win basic things we now take for granted such as paid overtime and an eight hour work week, it wasn't given out of the benevolent will of the ruling class. Oxyaena Harass 18:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, but they all occurred within capitalism. As the article specifically says, it was capitalism, and later globalism, that increased economic output and wages. The intricate processes by which they occurred should not be overlooked; I am by no means arguing that capitalists were responsible for the increase in standard of living. Nonetheless, it was the system of capitalism and industrialization that made these increases in standard of living possible in the first place. If not for them, the people would still be laboring under feudalism and mercantilism. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
This is true. As the succeeding system, Capitalism has improved the world in comparison to mercantilism, which improved the world in comparison to the system before it, and so forth and so on. Capitalism must ultimately be succeeded though. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You're all wrong about horseshoe theory[edit]

It's dumb and inaccurate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what I was arguing to begin with. Oxyaena Harass 16:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank I think you should look at this. Still oversimplified but much more accurate than the left/right system. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Alan Watt says throw out your TV[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g2y6Qhs4TQ&t=236s

Oh FUCK SHIT that's it guys I'm throwing out my TV. That God-awful slideshow is indisputable to me. Aaronmichael5 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

What are you going on about? HairlessCat (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden is the official President-elect[edit]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-officially-secures-enough-electors-become-president-n1250085?fbclid=IwAR3EVwYmXtyGeB9AefBsMu3xb08HRvw4uAo-YYiemF1yUE5FPL6tyNfUhz0

Take that Orange Turd! Doubt he will shut up at all. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Will you shut up, man? (Not you, Rationalzombie, you're OK.) --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 20:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
So now it's like the fifteenth time he's been confirmed as having won this election. Are we tired of winning? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 21:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
"Trump has now re-lost the election every day for the last thirty days. It's like an Advent calendar of schadenfreude." --Gulik (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
For the first time in a long while, I am very much not tired of 'winning.' :) 104.159.112.162 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Adopt a Stub (Week 3)[edit]

I'm afraid you can't adopt a baby panda dear reader. Sorry. But you CAN have this stub I nominated. That's just as good! Right...?

Good morning chickens!

I've been looking at our stubbys, yes indeed. I even resisted the urge to vaporize them on the spot (mustn't... kill...) and found a topic that some people here might have something to say about, since it's missional! Or, at least I certainly feel it could possibly be missional, since the issue is politicised and a lot of pseudoscience surrounds it. The stub in question is Sexual identity (which is not to be confused with sexual orientation). Right now it's just an unsourced definition with what appears to be a joke(?) thrown in about certain right wing politicians. I'm no expert on these matters, but I have a hunch that the topic of sexual identity is more deep and complicated than what this article would make you think.

Or maybe this two sentence stub with no references is, in fact, as good as we can do. Maybe it's just completely redundant and needs to be booted. I'll let the mob be the judge of that.

As always, you have 28 days to spice this thing up and prove it doesn't belong in the dustbin. If you feel it does belong in the dustbin, simply ignore it. Then on the 02/01/2021 I will nominate it for deletion/draft space. (Or not, if people don't want me to. I'm easy either way)

Stay classy RationalWiki. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 12:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rairyu75 You will be proud to know that I have immensely contributed to this new article, waging an all-out war on its broken English, lack of citations, and weasel words. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I got started merging Dog whistle politics into Code word in late November, but must have gotten distracted by the election. I'll try and finish it up soon. Some of those discussions about merging are quite old by the way. Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I am adopting some of the cutest stubbys. Lately I've been feeding this one if anybody wants to have a look before I release it into the wild! Jno.skinner (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Difference between paranormal and supernatural?[edit]

The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 13:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

They are both terms used by rationalist tools. HairlessCat (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
What the Cat here said. Oxyaena Harass 16:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
What they actually are is two ways of referring to similar superstitious, unevidenced beliefs; although "paranormal" is more specific, referring to ghosts and "disembodied spirits". Also, I wasn't aware that rationalism is now apparently a bad thing. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, they apparently believe that rationality is exclusive to Western culture, and is therefore horrible and bad. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It's an enlightenment metanarrative used to justify power structures. Oxyaena Harass 18:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
lmao, cool Twodots (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop butchering postmodernist critique... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Rationalism can be where empiricism leaves off. For the religious types, it involves the belief that their personal hypothesis is sufficient to deal with all matters at hand. It can become a kind of intellectual narcissism. But I do like being rational.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Lmao. Oxyaena Harass 19:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't joking. The same critique can (and in its own logic should) be applied to leftist theory. Because that's how it works. Also Postmodernist critique of power structures is arguably an evolution of rationalist thought, itself a philosophical school of thought that came to prominence during the enlightenment... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems so, GC. The kind of generalization that can deconstruct all philosophies is likely to become a victim of its own success. Post modernism, as you say, is a product of 20th century rationalism. Rationalism subsumes everything, except gas-lighting totalitarianism. Even post modernism cannot escape it's clutches.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 I think that would be more a matter of degrees rather than kinds. After all, despite subcribing to skepticism, I doubt most modern skeptic groups would go to the lengths Pyrrho of Elis did and start arguing that we can't know anything at all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The beauty of rationalism, as distinguished from historical, or enlightenment rationalism, is that you can't get on the outside of it: everything on the outside of the reach of rationalism is unknown.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Postmodernism contains nothing but sophistry and illusion. In fact, I am amazed that you can seriously call yourself rational and at the same time support such obscurantist nonsense. Leucippus (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That really depends on what you mean by "postmodernism", as it is a rather broad term. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
There's also the whole "question all assumptions" thing that gives postmodernism some value, given that the average human mind is mostly mode up of a series of a kludges rather than an actual coherent worldview. CoryUsar (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Good post! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Holy fuck I asked a simple question and expected one answer from one person and then this question would be forgotten. How can Oxy start such long debates in a short amount of time? What sorcery is this? And where can I learn it?The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 07:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't care if something is "rational" or not. If rationality is used to justify power structures, then the problem isn't with postmodernism. Oxyaena Harass 10:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Power structures? So any arrangement of power is automatically bad? It may be rational for teachers to instruct and command students for their own success, but not according to you: they're all equal, so the student must control the classroom. Nonsense. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, you've never heard of the Sudbury modelWikipedia of education. How surprising. Oxyaena Harass 11:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, some bizarre model invented by a hippy and practiced by 60 schools worldwide. I'll give you credit, though: the students would learn nothing and would simply goof off, but it is far more probable than any anarchist system of economics you've proposed. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, you never answered my question. Is any arrangement of power bad? If so, I suggest you leave the site immediately, as there are mods with power, or at the very least stop being a sysop. You have the power to block people, a power many do not! How unjust! As a matter of fact, one might argue that RationalWiki has mechanisms and a community resembling a small state - it must be abolished!!oneone!! IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Bad faith argument noted, as a sysop is a position of trust more than one of power (considering most users are sysopped, which is a good thing, I think) that can easily be revoked if necessary or judged so by the mob and mods are elected by the mob. By STV, which is one of the fairest systems available. Techs are the only position that isn't elected that has similar perms to a mod, but they need to act within the purview of the mob. Also, you're using the "But you live in a society! Why don't you go live in the woods?!". Besides, you should check this. The video is long and I don't want to pull a "dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh!!!!!" in a rational debate, so if you want a summary, in a Sudbury school, students are happier and learn what they're interested in instead of some random theorem they won't use unless they go into a technical field. They also learn about democracy, which is a good thing in this system. I'm lucky because my interests coincide well with the syllabus on my country. But if they didn't, my country also has public secondary education for careers, think engineering schools. So it would be better. The point is that democracy is good. And anarchy, instead of having a president or a prime minister at the helm, would have everyone interested deciding what to do. At least in my view. Oxy, me, and Kropotkin are not a monolith of anarchic ideas. ElectrosPardon? 13:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
First, a sysop is a position of power. While it's accessible to many, it unlocks additional forms of power that are not available to users. This forms a rather loose and weak power structure. However, Oxyaena argued against ALL power structures, not just complex or controlling ones.
The same applies to mods: though their paths to power may be conveyed by forces that limit them and their power, they still receive additional authority and status, and form a hierarchy. Again, Oxyaena argued against ALL power structures, including weak ones.
I'm not pulling a "live in society" thing. She's railing against rationalism because of "muh power structures." If she is so strongly opposed to power structures as to believe that they make rationalism worthless because rationalism justifies some of them, then surely she should advocate for the abolition of all power structures, including the ones on this very website.
Sudbury schools do not have the rigor and focus to ensure that students learn what is appropriate. Also, schools aren't responsible for teaching whatever students are interested in learning; they are responsible for teaching students necessary skills and information for participation in society and the workforce. In fact, the point of teaching subjects such as history, foreign languages, and science aren't just that they make people more capable of interacting with society in an intelligent manner, but that they teach the students rigor, focus, character, hard work, and time management to learn new things and complete large amounts of work in a reasonable manner, something that is also necessary for career success. So while they may not be particularly relevant to a given student's career, they teach them valuable lessons and skills, and make them more adept at handling the world around them; they know things for themselves, rather than being taken advantage of by kooks and quacks.
And finally, democracy only works so long as everyone has a reason to participate, AND work with and within the system. A gang of students completely uninterested in learning may choose to either a) sit out of every activity, which they can't be forced into under this system, or b) hijack the democratic system to ensure that no work is done. Without authority, there is chaos. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough with sysops and mods. However, techs, which are undemocratic, need to be wholly trusted. The whole CheckUser debacle showed that it's probably not a good system. And I am aware that Oxy was involved. That's beside the point. And Oxy arguing against ALL power structures, including sysops and mods, is foolish, at least here. Someone needs to manage the higher aspects of a society, and they require power to do so. Judges have power over defendants. Clerks have power over, well, documents that manage your workplace. The best that can be done is democratically elect those positions. Unless Oxy comes out with a different idea. Again, we're not a monolith of anarchic ideals.
But you literally are. And refer to paragraph 1.
But they do. Watch the video I linked. It has an interview with a student that studied in a Sudbury school, AND their parents. And of course, a student will learn critical thinking on their own.
The gang that decides to sit out would then have their interests not taken into account. Besides, mandatory voting could very well be a thing. And hijacking the democratic process requires that process to have loopholes, like the filibuster. When a loophole is found, it must be closed in the rules of that process. That would be one of those democratically elected positions of power.
ElectrosPardon? 13:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You trust the words of a single parent and student over lifetimes of experience and countless academic studies and learning results? I'll tell you this: I went to a Montessori School for about 4 years. Not the same, not hardly, but a similar emphasis on child-decided learning. And guess what: I didn't learn nearly as much as when I went to regular old public school, where I could take something I learned there and research it further at home.

You also appear to misunderstand how government corruption works: it is not only loopholes that allow for hijacks, it is that which is outside the rules. Say our gang of students decides to bribe their fellow classmates with cookies or toys, or worse, privileges granted outside of school. Through this, they gain a slim majority of support to enact their agenda. If someone realizes (which would be difficult provided the gang is able to keep their manipulations quiet) and decides ton enact a rule, there's a severe problem: that person holds a democratically elected position of power. At any time, the gang and their bribed allies could vote out or otherwise reject those currently in power, and vote in someone inclined to their interests, thus ensuring the rules are not changed to hurt them, and they can continue to hold control over the process to ensure that no work or learning is done.

Why do you believe children, left to their own devices, without any sort of guidance, will produce universally positive outcomes? It's one thing to allow children some free time - for example, I would study math at home in grade school, and ask my teachers and my dad for help - but that also requires adult consultation and guidance. To leave students completely free poses a major problem: they don't know what they have to learn. It's the blind leading the blind. The values of diligence, focus, and hard work build character, and are far more valuable than some misguided sense of independence. IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank - Oxyaena's beliefs and this 'Sudbury school' engender chaos. I am reminded of B.F. Skinner's remarks about Milton's Satan: "When Satan falls from heaven, he ends in hell. And what does he say to reassure himself? 'Here, at least, we shall be free.' And that, I think is the fate of Oxyaena. She's going to be free, but she's going to find herself in hell." Leucippus (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. I'd ask Oxyaena to apply her logic to capitalism: in a system where "freedom" is held above all else, shouldn't she support it? Why isn't she a rabid anarcho-capitalist? But alas, freedom is good as long as it is useful. Too much personal, economic, or governmental freedom, and untold chaos and suffering begins. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed, and due to the state's monopoly on violence, states themselves are pretty chaotic, and can get away with the chaos they inflict too. Every word that comes out of your mouth just oozes "I have no clue what the hell I`m talking about and proud of it." Oxyaena Harass 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
You refused to even address my question, and the quote's from an interview inscribed in a William F. Buckley Jr. book. Obviously, your name was substituted, in the place of "old-style liberal." IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

in answer to the initial question, if there is any real difference at all, paranormal is anything that cannot be explained by current and accepted scientific thought. so stuff there is no real evidence for at all, like telepathy, UFOs, bigfoot, but people insist are real, we just waiting for the science to catch up.

Supernatural is anything that cannot be explained by science at all and can never be. like the soul, prophecies, miracles, magic. things of a spiritual nature, outside of the laws of nature.

i guess there is a lot of crossover. ghosts for example. the explanation one gives for them would tell which or if they use a dubious electrical device to detect them or if they can simply sense a presence. in either case its all bullshit believed genuinely only by the superstitious or the same sort of folk who are into conspiracy theories. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the "soul" is a crossover between supernatural and paranormal, for now at least, because we don't actually understand what causes consciousness. By all scientific logic, there's no reason you are aware of all that thinking you are doing, in the same way you aren't aware of all the thinking everyone else is doing. There's no actual reason for your mind to be little more than an organic computer, reacting to pain-response and generating probability matrices for food gathering and mate seeking. Yet, here we are. Or at least You are; everyone else could be "Philosophical Zombies". CoryUsar (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Stop being so reductionist, the human brain is not like a computer. It's radically different from any computer. What computer needs oxygen, food, and water to function? Takes decades to fully develop after birth? Is always changing its very makeup? Oxyaena Harass 20:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena - I agree with your point regarding the brain not being like a computer, or at least I agree that this is till an open question, between 'computationalism' and 'connectionism.' However, surely you would agree that consciousness is a natural entity, that is to say, consciousness is to be identified with the body. Anomalous monism seems to be the best solution to this general question. Leucippus (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@CorruptUser - As a consequence of methodological naturalism the only cause of consciousness has to be natural, this rules out, therefore, anything supernatural. Leucippus (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oxy
Chemical computerWikipedia
Wetware computerWikipedia
@Leucippus
Yes and no. Consciousness is less understood than gravity, and to understand what I mean by that, know that gravity is the butt of a lot of physics jokes for not being understood. At least with gravity, we can observe the effects of gravity on distant objects. We have absolutely no way to verify that anyone other than ourselves is actually conscious; the entirety of human rights and ethics relies upon the unprovable assumption that other humans actually are conscious, sentient beings and not simply automatons that merely act as if they are conscious. At some point we may be able to prove or disprove consciousness, but until then, well... CoryUsar (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
we dont need to be able explain something to place it in the realms of 'normal' or accepted science and out of the paranormal. we need only have something to suggest there is such a thing. black holes are not considered paranormal for example, and we cannot see them, but the behaviour of things around them suggest there is something there.
if soul equals consciousness then it is neither neither paranormal or supernatural as we can see it exists or at least greatly suggest such a thing exists. if we say soul is something more, something that exists and persists separate to our physical being, like an immortal soul it would be in the realms of the supernatural. mostly. you could argue that there is some unknown material basis for such a thing. as you could anything.
i dont think the distinction matters a whole lot. paranormal or supernatural both require a leap of faith to believe there are things like ghosts, and magic, and fairies at the bottom of the garden in the first place, with little to no real evidence for a thing to actually exist. a belief in the supernatural accepts that leap. it does not need science to validate, and likely wont shake such beliefs. a belief in the paranormal though is the pretense of rational science based thought. the flimsiest of evidence will validate a belief even when all else should give them pause, but is instead disregarded as flawed or false. they are like conspiracy theorists. the true believers probably are conspiracy theorists. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The "soul" is a supernatural idea. "Consciousness" is as close as science has to the "soul", but even then it's not well understood. CoryUsar (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser [3] Two can play at this game if you wanna spam links. Oxyaena Harass 22:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
So... you spam up the Saloon Bar with random videos to nonsense videos week after week. Then you jump in the conversation demanding "proof" that non-mechanical/electrical computers exist, and when someone responds with that proof, you immediately accuse that person of spamming?
The utter lack of self-awareness is actually hilariousl ironic given the topic. CoryUsar (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I said that the comparison of the human brain to the computer was a bad one. That's all I said. Oxyaena Harass 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The brain is not like a syntax computer. John Searle's Chinese Roomargument seems to explain why. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
What computer needs oxygen, food, and water to function? —Oxyaena
CoryUsar (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
It was a rhetorical question. Oxyaena Harass 01:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Organisation without power structures[edit]

Oxy could you explain how an anarchist society would deal with the following scenario: Two parents are completely neglecting their children. The parents don't want to give up the child but it is clear that the children are in danger physically (they are malnourished), emotionally (not receiving the attention they need) and are not being educated in any way and missing out on opportunities for social development. The parents show no interest in cooperating with anyone from outside to help them adjust the way they raise their children and are resistant to any interference of any kind. Leaving the children with their parents is not an acceptable option.

  • Will the child be removed?
  • How is that decision determined and by who?
  • If they are removed who will remove them?
  • Who determines which family the children are given custody to?
  • If no one volunteers to take the children where will they be housed and who will cover the expenses?
  • How are these policies and protocols determined? (please be more specific than "the community decides")
  • If these policies and protocols are not adhered to what happens to those who don't follow them and who is responsible for ensuring these policies and protocols about neglected children are respected?

ShabiDOO 01:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the whole "no private property" thing that Oxy believes also means no such things as personal homes and such, and all child-rearing is done in a group setting anyway? I always reject out of hand any system of organization that doesn't take child-rearing seriously (e.g., Objectivism, no, seriously, fuck Ayn Rand... but with protection) and am naturally suspicious of any philosophy written by anyone who never had to raise kids themselves (Ayn Rand again, Thomas Paine, Immanuel Kant).
Oh hey, when I asked google about how Anarchists raise kids (specifically, "do Anarchists have kids", the very first thing on the list was from the VHEMT saying that real Anarchists don't breed, followed by some sort of personal story about how family-unfriendly the Anarchist meetings tended to be. Hah, it was even in Louisville, and I think I attended one of those workshop type things! Basically, it was an environmentalist meeting, and one of the things I listened in on was a guy talking about how he was designing solar-friendly buildings, which I thought was a good idea, but he went on a bit about nuclear being terrible. Afterwards when I asked him to clarify a bit, he basically made up some stuff about how the mining used more energy than nuclear itself produced, which he had to basically make up after I had to show him that nuclear actually had a safer record than wind. Fun times. CoryUsar (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The VHEMT is, and I cannot stress this enough, a bunch of nutbags. Please do not associate all anarchists or anarcho-communists with them. ElectrosPardon? 12:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware they were considered anarchist before last night. I just find it funny how they are literally the first result when you google for anarchists with kids. VHEMT just happens to be the "nuttier than squirrel shit" variety. Not sure if our article on them needs more love or not. CoryUsar (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The thing about anarchism is it is always with us. It is the personification of the second law of thermodynamics. Chaos is an end state, but one that is quickly abandoned wherever possible. People organize to provide for the life needs of whatever community they find themselves in. What prevents anarchists from being influential is they tend to be alienated from societies in crisis. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism isn't equivalent to decay and chaos. That's statist propaganda. Maybe read what anarchists themselves have to say sometime instead of speaking for them. Oxyaena Harass 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Who said anarchism is equivalent to chaos? It may contribute to continuing decline into chaos. People do contribute to chaos you know, and its not usually the rule-following types that are doing that. Anarchists want to dismantle governments and central authorities, and that is a kind of entropic effect. Maybe disregard what anarchists say they want to do and extrapolate what they are doing. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Postmodernism is true[edit]

That. HairlessCat (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's like saying geometry is true. There are many kinds of geometries, all true when referring to the appropriate subject matter.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, the spouting off of ignorant and uninformed internet Dunning-Krugers does tend to get annoying after a while. Exactly why are the VHEMT nutters? What objective reason do you have to apply such a subjective label? Oxyaena Harass 20:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Nobody mentioned nutters, VHEMT or otherwise. Care to elaborate?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Read above. Oxyaena Harass 20:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
How far above?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani has COVID-19[edit]

He apparently tested positive recently, according to Trump. Interested to see how it plays out. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it be bad form to hope he has a long, painful and tiring recovery? I don't care, let's hope he suffers and shuts the hell up Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
He's 76 years old, it is possible that he won't recover. Although I wouldn't bet on that. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Herman Cain as we all know died from COVID-19 yet his official web site still isn't shutting up with red herrings about COVID-19 using Japan data (mind you, this is a country that got COVID-19 reasonably under control) and strange anti-Fauci rants. Sigh. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
What the fuck is up with Herman Cain and Japan? First it was his recital of a Pokémon "poem" and now this stupid shit. Cain should've moved to Japan and suck on Abe's neoliberal dick. 45.41.132.57 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The co-founder of TPUSA died of COVID a while ago yet Charlie Kirk is still opposing social restrictions. It's genuinely weird how sociopathic some of these people are about this stuff. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but Cain got what he deserved, it's like playing out in the middle of traffic. Anti-mask arguments really baffle me. I can kind of understand anti-lockdown arguments since lockdowns do come with their own set of problems. But anti-masks, I mean, seriously?! I'm really glad Texas has a mask order, our numbers would be through the roof without it. Aaronmichael5 04:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I think an adequate comparison would be people in WWII arguing they should have the freedom to stay outside while there are active aerial bombing campaigns going on. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
My viewpoint on shit like that is this: if ya wanna go out, go out, but if your get blown into a millions of matter-bits, don't come running to me: well, ur, assuming they could run at that point, that is. Aaronmichael5 4:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC).
Except during a war, victory depends upon people being able to work in the factories, and by getting himself killed, your dumbass friend is weakening Britain. And that's assuming he doesn't simply get crippled, which would be even worse considering that you now have to spend already-rationed resources on medical care and then taking care of him for the rest of his life. CoryUsar (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I have zero sympathy for him. He did not care for the people who died a painful death or those disabled post-infection. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
ok a few things. it wasnt illegal to go out during an air raid during the blitz. it was just patently stupid to do so. i doubt there were enough idiots wishing to wander around for no good reason for it to be an issue. any deaths from doing so would not be enough to have any impact. outside of wardens and the like, with no good reason to be out, you are probably a looter and certainly no loss to the war effort.
it would also not be similar to anti masker rhetoric. you cant see or hear covid. the dead are not piling up in the street, so unless you or a family member catches a fatal bout, its very easy to pretend covid is no big deal. and because its not an obvious or immediate threat, the inconvenience seems that much more onerous, and your financial woes are immediate and obvious, and you dont care for the type of people telling you to mask up, so fuck you, you aint wearing a mask.
not so easy to discount bombs dropping all around you. thems noisy. the ground shakes. buildings shake. windows shatter. if a bomb hits anywhere nearby, buildings will flattened. there will be fires ragings in their wake, and any uxbs could leave a nasty surprise.
another reason they not the same is who is harmed by wandering around during an air raid and who is harmed by not wearing a mask. you really wont be missed after death by bomb. no more or less than those whose shelter got a direct hit, but it only your own life that you endangered. for not wearing a mask its those around you that are harmed. its those around you that are endangered by flouting covid restrictions. you risk infecting others without a mask or attend large gatherings. or you risk getting infected by similar fucknuts and then you go home and infect your family and everyone you pass on the way while you sticking it the man going maskless.
a closer analogy if we must use a comparison to the blitz, would be arguing against the blackout. people grumbled about that. its effectiveness is disputed. you werent allowed to smoke outside. traffic accidents at night increased. and fines were steep. but if you did not bother you could potentially be guiding enemy bombers to their targets.
still a pretty weak analogy, because as mentioned, bombs and incendiaries are not easy to miss, neither are the craters and ruins they result in. not only is covid invisible and easy to ignore, its especially so with so many people in positions of authority or in trusted but partisan media telling you to ignore it. pretty sure churchill didnt earn his mythic reputation by telling folk the blackout is for pussies and bombs aint nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I hope he has a miserable time for a week or two and then recovers. I don't wish death on anyone, except for people who've engaged in genocide or other kind of mass murder, but I do wish for misery on assholes like Giuliani. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 14:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Heh, if we are comparing Winston Churchill to Donnie Trump, can we nickname Trump "Loseton Churchill"? CoryUsar (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Who is Ian Miles Cheong[edit]

And why is he spewing bullshit all the time, clogging my twitter timeline, and looks like shit? Is he worth an article? Dogeatsdog (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

He's apparently some asshole in Malaysia who has figured out that spewing American "conservative" talking points gets you lots of retweets on occasion (although compared to, say, K-Pop boy bands, he's nothing). You'd think he'd have enough local political shit to talk about, like the joys of using their bullshit fundie-level sodomy laws against opposition politicians,Wikipedia but no... At any rate, he's also mentioned on the Gamergate wiki so my guess is that he's one of those alt-right joys that made the transition from Gamergate troll to Daily Caller troll and discovered that it's fucking easy to write a "conservative" US article for cash, even though he doesn't even fucking live here. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Utah Monolith part 2[edit]

There is the Utah Monolith (December 2020) - which has even attracted the interest of the 'alien-botherers and Area 51-ists' and the other place. Various others such as this and this have been spotted.

Is the topic RW-worthy in its own right? Anna Livia (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC) @Anna Livia - Anna, I would have to say a trueistic Yes! Leucippus (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I say we wait until more info is available RationalHindu (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
As the Saloon Bar is regularly archived - where can the information be 'parked' during the interim? They tick enough boxes - minor mystery, extra-terrestrial waffle, sky phenomenon etc. Links to the Georgia Guidestones, Delhi Iron Pillar, and Toynbee Tiles (on WP) might be relevant. Anna Livia (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a big nothing: Some people's art project. Bongolian (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Right wing extremists are at it again[edit]

Hallo[edit]

Hallo, RationalWiki. We hope to be helpful to you guys. We have been lurkers for a long time, and already know Most things about how this Wiki is meant to work. Please Wish us luck. Thanks to all of you. Legion (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well,@Legion, I wish you luck. Oh, and you're welcome. I guess. Twodots (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hold up. Who is this "we"? I'm not sure if shared-use accounts are allowed on this wiki. Either way, I wish you the best of luck, Legion. 45.41.132.57 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
"We are Legion" - come on dude - get with the anonymous [sic], meaningless, classical-sounding references!Aloysius the Gaul 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Twodot, thank you for luck. Mister/Missus 45.41, "We" is a joke. To me, Legion is a word of interest and sounds good. But, I am one person. There are no other persons using this Moniker I use on this wiki. I thought that it would be comical that because the Biblical Demon "Legion" was a "we". It would be comical that I acted in similarity to them. Aloysius, I do not quite understanding the words you are using. I believe as of currently that you are speaking that the Gaul Aloysius is not in reality a person who has existed, but is meant to be thought of as reminiscent of classical. With all things, there is always a possibility of incorrect. Considering this, I ask you to please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption of your Meaning, Aloysius Gaul. I profusely Apologize if my wording is too Lengthy. Legion (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hallo, hvordan står det til? Feel free to ask if you wonder about something!-Ms. OliviaUse Chatter here 18:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
wait, guys, is Legion Norwegian? Twodots (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
IPs could be multi-contributor - eg those assigned to library and other public access computers. Anna Livia (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
No, Twodots, I am not a Norwegian Person. Legion (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Twodots: Delibirdas greeting up there was in Swedish I think. Norwegians don't have the wonky Å (which we Finns call "Swedish O") in their alphabet. Also, welcome Legion. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That's Norwegian or Danish--Swedish would be "Hallå" and "Hur står det till?" Oh, and Norwegian does in fact have Å, just as Swedish and Danish do. (Swedish uses Ä and Ö where the other two use Æ and Ø, BTW.) Zontar (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the correction. I used to speak pretty decent Swedish in high school, but I've had to speak it exactly twice in the last 20 years, so I've gotten a bit rusty. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem with tattoos[edit]

The problem with tattoos is they're so permanent. I can see marrying a girl and having a few kids, but tattoos, they're so permanent! Leucippus (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait, did you just imply that children are not permanent? Either this is a Poe, or you believe in post-natal abortions... CoryUsar (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
ok...? Twodots (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
its a Drake Sather joke Leucippus (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Be sure to have a short sleeve shirt picked out for your funeral.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
It all depends on the design and type. If it's some ugly or profane thing, then you better be into it. And depending on the material, it can be almost completely removed (with enough money, of course), or never fade in the slightest. That's why I advise staying away from tattoos - a drunken idea, a youthful rebellion, or a midlife crisis are great ways to end up with ridiculous tattoos that you now have to wear to every party, wedding, job interview, and workday. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
In Japan, where there's a tradition of the Yakuza getting full-body tattoos, there's actually a museum that collects donated tattooed skin from the deceased.[4] That's a little closer to permanency, but imagine the selling point to the pre-deceased, "You've been a nasty shit for your whole life, but after you've threatened your last store owner you can make a lasting contribution to art!" Bongolian (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Tattoos? What about scars? Every time I get a minor cut, I get a permanent reminder of my injury. I have several scars caused by self-harm and it is unsettling that they can never be removed. Whenever I take a shower, I try to look away from them. I got tooth fillings from neglecting to brush my teeth. I can feel them with my tongue, and they are never the same as the healthy enamel that I used to have. Just this morning, I noticed that I chipped off a bit of a tooth when I was grinding my teeth during sleep. Every time these things happen, I get upset that I have to carry these injuries until my death. 45.41.132.57 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I have about 8 or 9 tattoos. All small, self designed symbols. I look a little like an IQ test when you can see them all. I get more as my life progresses. Basically I carry my life history on my skin but only I can tell what they relate to and why. AceModerator 22:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Tattoos are great. I have a full left sleeve inspired by Leonard Cohen song and another 3 tattoos on my right arm and 1 on my right shoulder blade. I'd probably have more if my tattooist hadn't moved to another town. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Tattoos are great. They let me instantly know if I'm dealing with someone who has a lot of cool stories, gets emotionally attached, or is an outright psycho. Nothing like asking someone to spot you at the gym, and noticing the SS tattooed on his arm. Turns out, at just $10 a month, Planet Fitness is really popular with pedophiles and other ex-cons.
I also view tattoos like car bumper stickers. If you don't have any, fine enough, but it doesn't seem like you've really made your car "yours" in any way. If you have a few it's all good, and you don't mind letting others know a bit about you, but you do have things you take care of and get attached to. If you have more bumper sticker than bumper, you are probably a crazy person. CoryUsar (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
i have no issue with peoples tats whether they have deep personal significance or merely aesthetic. i do however, take umbrage with the whole car/bumper sticker thing. specifically with 'it doesn't seem like you've really made your car "yours" in any way'. because its very much not my car, it is my body. it is not something that i have acquired, it is not something that has rolled of the production line, with mass produced uniformity. it does not need to be made 'my own' because it is not an object external to myself requiring me put my mark upon it. it is not property it is my body. it is my entire physical being. it is innately and fundamentally 'my own'. it was 'my own' from birth, every day and every year since of lived experience makes it more my own.
it is my body and it is my prerogative what i choose to do with it. it is not a personal failing or any indication of something lacking, that i choose not have any tattoos. there is nothing that they convey that i cannot do so via my clothes and hair, an importantly, i can amend them when i wish. anything significant enough that would require the permanence of a tattoo, would not be something i would like have to permanently broadcast. why would i want to and why would it be necessary to have people who nothing about me except they have seen a tattoo on my person and that tells them about me? and there is no guarantee it tells them what i think it does.

all that can be really gleaned from someones tats is that they have tats. if they have none? it tells us they have no tats.

it is foolish judge someones character on something that is literally skin deep. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Uh, the tats a person puts on them is literally showing you something about themselves. It's even more revealing than the clothes they wear, and I absolutely will judge someone based on how they present themselves and their personal hygiene and so forth, because I'm autistic and fuck you world I'll play by your stupid rules. For example, when I see someone that doesn't know how to wear a mask correctly, I think "that's probably a fuckwit", and when they don't wear a mask at all I think "no, seriously, this person doesn't even deserve to be urinated upon if they were on fire". CoryUsar (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I need help with my beeps.[edit]

I'm trying to add my contribs into my sig, but it isn't working. The link appears to be invalid. Currently, I have it as "BeeperBeep at me!Look at all my beeps!". BeeperBeep at me! 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be a Kenshi fan, by chance? Replace your arm with a crappy robot limb and you are now Cyberbeep! CoryUsar (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Beeper Simply add [[Special:Contributions/Beeper|(insert your text here)]] into part of your sig. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 23:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for assisting me with my beeps, friend. BeeperBeep at me! 02:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Portal icons for debates and essays?[edit]

I have an idea. Someone should make a portal icon for the Debate portal and the Essay portal. Currently the images for depicting debate and essays are ripped off of Wikipedia, so it would be cool. Those icons will then appear on the main page and also on the RW:Contents page.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_pencil_icons for the essay icon.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuvola_debate3.svg for debate...?The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 17:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
How so? Twodots (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Our essays and debate sections have "some" interesting content but a LOT of garbage too. I don't think they need their own icons as an easy way to drive users to those corners of the site. If people are interested they will find their way there. ShabiDOO 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
As someone who is writing an essay, I don't think a portal for essays is a good idea. Few of them use sources because many are just people ranting about whatever.RationalHindu (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
What Shabidoo said, basically. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Okie doke. Twodots (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know. It seems a lot of discussions in the Saloon Bar are serious discussions of policy or ideology. By making the debate space more accessible, it might encourage people to have those conversations there rather than cluttering up the Saloon Bar. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean... You aren't wrong. But also, there's some seriously stupid/vile stuff in there. For example, a while back (before I joined the site) there was a Nazi who kept spamming debate pages about Nazi talking points. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Some of the essays smell like Passoã apparently tastes, but it's rather subjective; some think they smell like passionfruit. Bongolian (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there some rule preventing racists, Neo-Nazis, and their ilk from being banhammered on the Debate namespace? Currently, if they try those stunts in the Saloon Bar, I'm sure they would be banned. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
it seems like there used to be hundreds of debate one needed to wade through for anything of interest, and it was even harder for anything still current. i remember being new here, seeing the debates and my chance to impress and dazzle with my colossal intellect and biting wit, posted my poorly proof read truth bombs, and then no one noticed because the debates had been dead for months. it was rw's loss. we could have been something. but you've had your chance (wipes tear from eye) AMassiveGay (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There should also be a portal icon for Recipe. That way, recipes for tasty treats like Recipe:Fruitcake become more known. 45.41.132.57 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
We have icons for the Saloon bar, so why not this? Also, bringing unwanted attention to the essays and debates is NOT a valid point because they are literally on the mainpage. I don’t want to create a new portal for Essays and Debates, it’s just their icon that will replace the File:Essay.svg and the File:Debate.png and will come on the RW:Contents page. It seems no one likes this idea, so I have no choice but to implement it on my on...The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 03:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Alright, so I don’t have a photo editing software, and I ain’t gonna do this in MS Paint, I need svg. https://www.photopea.com/ Should work.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 03:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
For recipies:-https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Font_Awesome_5_solid_utensil-spoon.svg The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 03:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Well actually it might be better to get a little consensus before you actually make and add the icons first? It's great that you're considering ways to improve the wiki but I don't think this one is a good idea. It's one thing to have a bunch of links you can explore and click on...it is another to iconise it as a quick and hilighted link to a neglected space with mostly bad content. ShabiDOO 07:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I do think that there ought to be some kind of brainstar system for essays, and think that more ought to be done tp promote and increase the visibility of the higher effort ones. I have written several. Some are topical and dated. Others are higher effort and of abiding interest. Doing this will require people to swallow their misgivings about the opinions set forth in them. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
as far as the debates portal goes, we need to be able to ordered by at the very least date - whether date created or date of last post. this way we can reduce the number of debates we'd have to plow through for anything of worth, deleting and/or archiving when considered dead and inactive. what is required, as i realise when writing, is an internet forum.
as debates in saloon bar - whats wrong with serious discussion there? its were everyone in is so you can be certain of some response at least, with the need to 'bump' as might be required in a forum (like there is no way that would be abused. and it would be archived when we done with it. or moved elsewhere should it be necessary.
and for every 'good' debate that would be generated over on that portal, not originating on a talk page or in saloon bar, there will be a deluge of utter shite. i dont mean from nazi trolls and the like, but just pointless dross masquerading as humourous. look at the example of the pointless polls - one or two funny polls (the ones i post) overwhelmed by a mass of arse, with unlimited list of dumb options (everyone elses) making it all a hideous eyesore. i envisage any attempt to invigorate the debate portal will have any renewed interest meet a complete lack of restraint as the pointless polls have endured, resulting in it dying once more as it collapses once again under its own weight in snark. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem with attaching any sort of rating system to essays is the same we have with any rating system: People are gonna use it as a like/dislike button, and things that get high votes will result in people thinking that RationalWiki approves of that content, whereas the entire point of Essays is that they don't have to reflect our core message/content. To go really lazily, you won't find us having a mainspace article on why God is real, but someone who believes in a God can totally write an essay on RationalWiki to argue their point. In my tenure on this site, I've seen only one Essay outright removed for extremely distasteful content (which was because it was pretty much an incel screed that broke several of our CS rules). That said, I do agree that well written essays should be promoted, even if it is to incentivize people writing more of them, which is something I'm interested in. One approach I've seen a few times is that editors link Essays they wrote and are still proud of from their userspace, which I personally found enjoyable, but is a bit more limited.
As for @Sqrt-1, use GIMP for regular image editing and I think Inkscape helps with editing SVGs, although I'm not too familiar with the latter, so I can't help you beyond that. Adding portal icons isn't necessarily a bad idea, Essays in particular are already a "pseudo portal", ref. Category:Essays, which could have some sprucing up with a nice icon. The debate portal is an outdated mess with one of the "featured" debates being from 2008. It needs a more serious overhaul, but at the same time, the Debate namespace barely gets used in favor of throwing around beer in the Saloon instead since that's just flat out easier than expecting involved parties to move wholesale to another page since the Debates tend to start here. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sirius@Sqrt-1 Methinks we could use a soapbox icon for essays- after all, you give your own opinions using those. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean, yeah...The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 12:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I made an essay icon (my first time making an icon, ever). Any thoughts?The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 12:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Not bad! I like it. Keep in mind that as a general rule, the "core color" for the image front and center for icons is white, not black. Even then, this one is really nice. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I notice in the description, you wrote "I am no lawyer, but this is from commons so it should be fair use". If you look on the Commons page, it says the icon was released into the public domain, so fair use does not need to apply. As a courtesy, you can release the circled icon into the public domain or license it under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. 45.41.132.57 (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vote to add debate icon[edit]

Aye[edit]

  1. NavigatorBR (Talk) - 04:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

  1. ShabiDOO 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 05:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. RationalHindu (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

Vote to add essay icon[edit]

Aye[edit]

  1. Looking pretty good! --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 00:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. NavigatorBR (Talk) - 04:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Looks lovely. Twodots (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Yellow looks a lot better. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. Looks good. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

  1. ShabiDOO 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. RationalHindu (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. I don't know who made the vote before I even really made the icons but alright.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 09:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Animation of an Alien[edit]

I've stumbled across this alien animation and many people are saying that this is real evidence of aliens because the real story that it was just an animator doing a project is... Somehow unenviable. A lot of people are coming with crazy conspiracies that it's government slowly releasing this stuff which just makes no sense, some say that the footage is definitely real and some say that the audio is real despite the description saying that it's an animated fiction.

I just wanted to, quite bluntly, ask for confirmation that this is just a work of animated fiction from people who are not as tainted by their mental health issues as I am, it seems my mind is very susceptible to argumentum ad populum and argument by assertion (goddamn my monkey brain). Initially, a lot of people said that it was Trump who was the threat named in the video now people are saying Biden for some reason. But yeah, I just wanted to confirm with you guys that there's nothing to worry about this as it's just a fictional animation.

Also, one thing I struggle to understand is why do people cling onto claims that are blatantly false in order to confirm their beliefs? I've been thinking about that a lot lately and I cannot come up with a sufficient answer.

Thank you.--WMS (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's blatantly an animation. For a non-color recorder made at any point from the 50's to the 70's, the flashing lights seen at about the 0:16 mark would not have been rendered in nearly as high quality. There'd be a lot of color bleeding and general distortion. Not to mention that the government agency referenced in the title card was deestablished at that time: the Air Technical Intelligence Center was suspended by 1961, and replaced with the Foreign Technology Division and the Defense Intelligence Center. Moreover, buildings and other assets possessed by the agency were transferred, sold, or destroyed, with government records attesting to this. Why a government film would put an agency that a) doesn't have anything to do with the kind of intelligence aliens would involve and b) doesn't exist at the film's supposed date in 1964 are two gaping holes that make the whole thing fall apart. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... an alien speaking in perfect English... with an American accent... in America (the only country that aliens ever seem to land and be interrogated in, apparently)... saying that some nebulous "nuclear war" will start in America specifically... and OH GOAT THE ANIMATION QUALITY. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 19:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The most obvious spot where you can see it is animated is actually at that 0:16 frame... if you pause, it looks... well, like a pencil-shaded drawing, to be honest. To be honest, though, this is indeed very good CGI animation IMHO, so I guess it will catch some people off guard, even though you can easily look up his projects or even click on his uploads and kind of guess that this person works with CGI animation. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
What's amusing about most 'aliens' is the anthropomorphic positioning of the eyes and mouth on the 'head' (which is connected to the rest of the beast by a 'neck') Applies to most SF as well. Scream!! (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it is comedic that we create Alien beings with Human traits. Consider that perhaps these Beings could have Radial Symmetry or No eyes...! Cosmos is vast. For all to be like we Apes would be Strange. Legion (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Alrighty thank you for the confirmation and pointing out the ridiculousness of assuming otherwise haha. Cheerio :).--WMS (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
they have to be humanoid because its going to be a guy in a rubber suit. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Performative shitposting, I really don't know why you people engage with obvious bad faith posts like this...[edit]

Communist conspiracy garbage[edit]

Socks[edit]

Is there a penalty for operating multiple accounts for the sake of having multiple votes in coop-cases and the like? If not, there should be. Twodots (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the penalty's just moving the fraudulent vote into the "ineligible" section, after pointing out the socking in a reply to the "vote". --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 02:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
If the accounts are not voting (just commenting), there's probably no penalty. Voting from multiple accounts in a single vote is against the rules (RationalWiki:Community Standards#Voting), so it could warrant a penalty depending on what the mob thinks at the time (there's no specified punishment in the CS). Bongolian (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Alrighty. Thanks. Twodots (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia and rationalwiki are hopelessly SJW. only encyclopedia dramatica and conservapedia can be relied upon. — RationalWiki[edit]

https://twitter.com/rationalwiki/status/526320075964694529

The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 11:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance a 6 year old tweet has today. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 11:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
someone should quote mine this.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 12:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Lol I bet  K e n  D o l l 's already writing another of his stupid "essays" to do just that- especially given his regained obsession with our site. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 19:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Virgin Rational Wiki VS THE CHAD ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/virginvschad/comments/8zxw92/the_virgin_rational_wiki_vs_the_chad_encyclopedia/

Disclaimer, not made by me.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 10:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like ED is completely down, and has largely been so for the last several days. Apparently Chad can't run a wiki, performing even worse at this than the very low standards set by Conservapedia (currently up but defaulting to the mobile homepage even on desktops, what the fuck?) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
And ED's died and resurrected numerous times; this current incarnation of our site's been around for 13 years. And one actually has rules that they expect to be followed (which has kept them from being overrun and turned into yet another playground for alt-right trolls who hate 95% of the human population)- and the other's ED. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 19:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Wait what? When did we get rules? Did somebody overthrow the mobocracy? Dendlai (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I meant our community standards that the mob often amends and changes to adapt to changing times. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 03:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist, and Trump knows about it"[edit]

A few days ago, the former Israeli space security chief claimed that both Israel and the U.S. are in contact with a "galactic federation" of aliens and have signed an agreement to do experiments in an underground Mars base.

This seems to have gotten some media attention, and it seems that people are mainly treating it as a joke and the whole thing seems to be a promotion for Eshed's new book.

No doubt people will use this as "official proof" that earth has been in contact with ET's because of the guy's ranking and position.

I wanted to know what do you guys think about this? --WMS (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There are two things that strike me as not terribly believable about this right off the bat.
A) It's not very believable that Trump would know something, and not subsequently tweet about this sort of HUUUUGE accomplishment. :) Trump's tendency to disclosure classified information apparently is notable enough for an entire Wikipedia article.Wikipedia
B) It's not very believable that, out of the entire earth, *only* America and Israel government representatives would be in contact with any sort of advanced alien lifeform. If I didn't know any better I'd say there's a little stink of the American evangelical end times here (which also tends to elevate America and Israel and forget that there is a whole rest of the world).
We will find out if his claims have merit eventually, but as we all know, you can be smart enough to win a Nobel prize and end up going completely cuckoo in the end. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
He's trying to make money from a book. Pay me some money and I'll make a harmless claim too. Pay me enough and "harmless" is open to interpretation. CoryUsar (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
You wouldn't be the first person to sell away your ethics for money. Oxyaena Harass 16:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I pride myself on being a bit more expensive; once lost a great job because I didn't want to creatively interpret some numbers. Everyone has a price, some people cost less while others cost more, and some costs are a matter of blood. What horrible things would you be willing to do to protect the ones you love? CoryUsar (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
"Everyone has a price," of course includes the example: "do this or die." And yet there are patriots.DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
My father is a retired Marine, and was a horrible husband and father. I swore to never be like him, so I hope I don't have to find out. I`m not a violent person, and I actually get a PTSD reaction from conflict. Oxyaena Harass 17:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I know there aren't any space aliens because A) we aren't at war with them, B) we aren't fear mongering about them, C) Trump isn't blathering about them constantly, and D) corporations aren't exploiting en masse. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
So just a guy making a bizarre claim to sell a book, backed up by zero evidence, not the first time something like this happened. It really grinds me when people make these kind of claims and expect us to not question based on nothing empirical.--WMS (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Jason Colavito, who is a regular follower/chronicler/commenter/debunker of this kind of stuff, has pointed out that it’s simple BS, which only took off because it was published in Jerusalem Post (i.e. a “serious”, English-language newspaper), after which US churnalismWikipedia essentially took over. He also compared and contrasted it with similar views from an equally elderly crank from Canada who never got that kind of “serious” news coverage. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Came across this while looking for material to expand the Louisiana Baptist University article[edit]

https://jabalallawz.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/0/4/21048306/chuck_whittaker_jabal_al_lawz.pdf

It is a doctoral dissertation from Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary. I bring it up due to the seemingly low quality of it and the fact that it is from an unaccredited school. For those of you with PhD degrees or even Master's degrees, can you tell me how much quality there is to this paper? I am thinking of incorporating it into the LBU article. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's bad. Often times, one can judge the quality of the work by whose shoulders one rests upon (in this case the bibliography is indicative). If Reverend Dude Whittaker had relied upon peer-reviewed sources, it would have been a good start at least. Instead the bibliography is filled with popular works (e.g., Facts on File), citations of holy books (e.g., the Quran), and generic secondary sources (e.g., Encyclopedia of World History). People who do quality academic work may rely on secondary sources for background reading, but as a rule they're not going to cite them in an academic paper unless they're doing a study of popular culture. Dude references a "Dr Fritz" several times but gives no actual citation for him. Amusingly, he states, "A graduate researcher in geography at Southwest Texas State University and amateur archaeologist Dr.Glen Fritz D.D.S." Yes, doctor is a dentist. Bongolian (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian how would I integrate it into the article? --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that the school is unaccredited (and is open about that fact), it's to be expected that their standards for theses are not rigorous. Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian sorry to bug you again but I made a mention of the poor dissertation quality in the article. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm a college undergrad, and I concur with Bongolian that the use of encyclopedias in collegiate writing is usually a no-no. Many professors in an accredited institution would deduct points for that. That said, I've seen published academic papers referencing Wikipedia and RationalWiki, which is a huge, huge, huge no-no in academia. 71.215.100.2 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

A lawsuit[edit]

The State of Texas is suing four other states and it's apparently going to the Supreme Court. Any thoughts? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Paxton is a crook. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
What? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
For what, exactly? Is Texas trying to secede or some shit? Twodots (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Twodots This is the top trending subject on Twitter, so you should probably check it out there, but it looks like there making accusations about election irregularities. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Paxton's basically kissing Trump's ass trying to get a pardon for his multiple fraud charges, methinks. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
So you're not convinced that the lawsuit is going anywhere? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
A) It's un-Constitutional (Article 1 Section 4 clearly gives each state the power to manage their own elections); B) Biden formally secured over 270 electors four days ago; C) The "safe harbor" deadline is today, dramatically decreasing the chance for any challenges. The filing is laughable and doesn't do much beyond reciting laughable Dominion conspiracy theories, the shitty Bush v. GoreWikipedia decision, and ridiculously shitty "statistics" pulled out of his ass. Sources mentioned in the brief include the Daily Mail. It's basically a Gish Gallop of nonsensical arguments. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Paxton is a crook and has been implicated multiple times for corruption. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Ever since Obama got elected, Texas has been known for spamming out lawsuits against anything that doesn't fit their political agenda. I think they tried to sue the Obama administration like 20 times over the course of 4 years. As far as states go, they're the undisputed kings of frivolous litigation. What they're suing over, I don't know, but I'll assure you it's purely political and pretty petty, if you'll allow my alliteration. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Well Twitter is losing their shit over this. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Which political side of Twitter? And anyway, Twitter is a massive gaping cesspool of the most unhinged individuals and the worst hot takes I've ever seen. I mean, even my segregationist great-grandfather (if he were still living) couldn't top in a year what they produce in an hour. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Fascinating. I take it you're not concerned about the lawsuit then? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
All this inquiring about how others view the lawsuit makes me wonder how you view it. No, I'm not concerned with it, as it possesses no validity. I'd like to believe that the Supreme Court possesses sounder minds than the Trump campaign team, and understand that ruling in favor of Texas is THE most destabilizing move they'd make in 150 years. A dismissal of election results that supported Biden would rack up tensions in the same way that the Dredd Scott case did, creating a very volatile situation that pisses off a huge number of people (even those not particularly involved right now) and emboldens/riles up everyone. They don't want to crank up the craziness - just look at how they refused to take on nearly every Trump election lawsuit. They know what they're dealing with, and they don't want any part in it. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Considering how the last six minths have played out, I really don't think the Trump team cares about who they piss off or how much disharmony they create. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
WHY would they do it? People create such disharmony when they think it benefits them or when they think they have no other choice. Neither is true for conservatives in this scenario. Why take such a big risk in annulling this election? It's not like this is their last stand or something-the Republican party will be surprisingly well positioned when Biden takes office.-Flandres (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not convinced that they're hellbent on a coup, but Trump's post-election litigation is one of the most ruthless subversions of democracy America has seen in a while. I feel like I'll only be completely convinced that that the fight is over when Biden actually takes office. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
SCOTUS still has to accept the case. I doubt they will to be frank. SCOTUS doesn't like ratfucking elections. Gore v. Bush severely damaged their credibility and they don't want a repeat. If they even accept this case, they are significantly giving extra pressure for Biden to try to stack SCOTUS. That would be a nightmare for the Republicans if it were to go through. While the current SCOTUS line isn't... great, none of them are beholden to Trump, he has no leverage over any of them to force them to do his bidding. They have little to gain and everything to lose by taking a case like this, which is amplified by it's naked lack of actual pursueable content. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 21:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump doesn't have any leverage over SCOTUS justices? Did he not personally implement almost half the court? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Why would he have leverage over them? What would he do to them if they displeased him?-Flandres (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, he can't force them to do anything, but why would he personally implement a judge if he wasn't certain they would back him? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
That assumes more loyalty and fraternity in politics than there actually is. If Trump thought they were loyal, but is also obviously a sinking ship, they will just abandon him.-Flandres (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To put it simply; Trump cannot leverage their positions against them. SCOTUS isn't beholden to him, they will be there after him. Their main loyalty at the moment is to the Republican party's single issue interests at large, which is abortion, the ACA and gun control. The worst outcome for them is if Biden packs the supreme court, so they have every incentive to not encourage that. Trump picks his goons based the amount of unchecked power he could provide them until they stopped being useful to him or if the insanity got too much for them, at which point he fires them. He can't fire SCOTUS without significant congress/senate fuckery (SCOTUS justices need to be impeached like POTUS to remove them), so be lacks that leverage over them. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 09:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
anyone got an actual link to any content.... any at all?? you know.... like what it's about?? Aloysius the Gaul 20:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Here. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
"Experts in election law were quick to dismiss the likelihood of the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case." That was the bottom line. Twitter is not the place to go to be reassured.
DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!22:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The actual Supreme Court filings. — Unsigned, by: 24.8.34.53 / talk
sign ya goatdamn posts. Twodots (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Be brave nobs. Your appeal has been denied.
DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!03:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Boy it's sure been a while since I posted something here...and I realize that this is a couple days after everything has been talked about. But shortish version of what's going on is that as other users have already mentioned, this suit isn't going anywhere and it's so filled with shit you could bag it up and sell it as fertilizer. Basically, there's no merit to the case itself, since states get to determine whether or not they're following their own state laws. Even if the federal government could step in, Texas doesn't have standing to actually raise the issue, since it's not actually suffering any real injury. And even if it could show those two things, it's all based on horrendous statistics and nonsense conspiracy theories.
As to the larger question about SCOTUS, while it's more conservative, as other members have pointed out they're not in bed with Trump. Plenty of Trump-appointed judges at the lower levels have balked at some of these cases already, because they aren't specifically Trump judges, they're conservative judges appointed by Trump. Which means they still have some basic conservative principles of jurisprudence. And one of those principles include not using federal power to force states into doing things that the Constitution specifically leaves up to the states. So either this will end up being dismissed, which I think and from what I've been hearing from legal experts is the more likely outcome, or the case will be heard and then Texas will lose. Either way, the idea of Trump being installed by SCOTUS isn't going to happen. Mabian (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The tRump team's filing with the US Supreme Court contained this gem:
The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable.
The plaintiff (Texas via Attorney General Paxton) basically admitted that not only do they not have evidence but claimed that it is not even hypothetically possible to find evidence. So, SCOTUS would have to basically have to come to a majority opinion that evidence doesn't matter at all. Perhaps coincidentally, the FBI subpoenaed Paxton regarding his alleged corruption on the same day as the SCOTUS filing.[5] Bongolian (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
It's fairly brilliant, honestly. If you remember the main goal isn't overturning the election, but working the marks to keep feeding Trump's coffers. They have basically said "No evidence is evidence the election was stolen". Won't hold up in court for a femtosecond, but boy, I bet those protesters are going to LOVE it. Revolverman (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The Pennsylvania AG filed a brief that did an excellent job ripping apart the Texas suit, calling it a "seditious abuse of the judicial process", and (among many things) ripped apart the seriously gross abuse of statistical math by a so-called "Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D" in the Texas brief. And yes, the main takeaway of this filing is: A) it probably was filed because crook Paxton is kissing Trump's ass in order to get a pardon; B) Republicans in too many states are pretty fucking scared of the Cult of Trump, and previous studies demonstrating that Republicans can now be compared to other illiberal populist parties in the world (like Poland's PiS, Hungary's Fidesz, Turkey's AKP) were, indeed, quite correct. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why this case is in the Supreme Court boggles me. States have the express Constitutional power to create and enforce their own election rules - how they do so is irrelevant, so long as they don't conflict with federal law. The plaintiff has shown no evidence that federal election laws were broken, so there doesn't seem to be any basis for a case. The fact Texas decided to sue seems like a cheap ploy to push the case through the Supreme Court as fast as possible: cases between states default to the Supreme Court, even though the issue isn't a federal one. They're trying to avoid the more normal route of filing a case in state court, then appeals court, and then hope the Supreme Court will take it. If the Supreme Court takes the case, I'll never trust them to properly respect states' rights again - the conservatives should be worried. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's only considered by SCOTUS because SCOTUS is the legal mechanism for states to sue each other. But this should be thrown out without a statement because they can't prove an injury, nor is there a reasonable remedy.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What's everyone's views on those strange metal obelisks that appeared in the USA?[edit]

Alien contact? 1.152.106.38 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's probably just hyper-dimensional entities warning that the culmination of history is approaching. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
More srs answer: It's been discussed. But the latest, predictable status is that (since it's an easy art project -- three sheets of aluminum or steel sheet metal riveted together) it's inspired tons of copycats, some who over in the other wikiWikipedia are actually identified by name. It's like an Internet meme, only a lot more expensive to copy. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
A publicity stunt gone wrong. –Tuxer (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the later monoliths (Romania, California, etc.) are almost certainly publicity stunts or stupid art projects or something, but I dunno if the first one was. I mean, it just seems odd to put something like that out in the middle of absolutely nowhere. Obviously, I don't think it was aliens or whatever, but it just seems weird to put an art project someplace where nobody will see it unless they stumble across it by pure chance. If I recall, the area was used for filming movies, so I'm wondering if it was a prank left by a film crew or something. 174.97.172.77 (talk)
The original one (per a Reddit thread) had been there for a few years before being discovered. My guess was shindig/gathering/"unofficial campground" marker of some sort when first reported. (The "Westworld prop" theory though actually is a bit plausible.) It's close enough to Moab Utah, and even closer to such oddities as Rockland Ranch (homes formed by blasting a hole in a very large sandstone rock and building the home literally inside that hole) where some of the last good-ol'-fashion-polygamous fundie Mormons can be found. Oddballs can and will happen in the American West. (The real question is, where does one purchase sheet metal near Moab, Utah? Closest place I can find is Grand Junction, Colorado...) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
We already went through this above. Can it. It's a metal nothingburger. Bongolian (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
At least one monolith was placed by an Australian youtuber called I did a thing and his friends. It's possible he might have colaborated with other people to deploy them in more places spread around the world. ElectrosPardon? 14:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Well we don't know what it was, so we have to conclude that it must have either been God or aliens. But which?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Why would God or aliens or whatever contact our sorry asses? We're fucking destructive loonies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it was an alien God now I think about it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Alien God you say? Qthulhudidit! Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 15:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Why assume they would be a homogenous block? Some might surely find us interesting if only in a scientific manner. Alien civs we find would comprise quadrillions of individuals. Oxyaena Harass 15:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Unless they're a hive-mind. Or one gigantic organism. Or we find their derelict, empty ships floating in the void. The possibilities are endless! Twodots (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This may be relevant... CoryUsar (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Have started off Draft:Metal monolith‎ so further discussion can decamp there (rather than disappear into the Barchives). Anna Livia (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Say, if by chance (almost no chance) the obelisks are from interstellar origin then there is a likelihood that they may be the theoretical probes futurists are always talking about. Like, the probes i'm talking about are the kinds that listen in on the internet, radio, and so forth. 17b (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool book store in town[edit]

Last week I saw a bookstore in town and it is awesome! They actually have a big variety of literature including hard to find manga. I am actually shocked that they had LGBT+ manga and Hentai. Keep in mind that the town the bookstore is in has mountains of homophobic conservatives. I got my hands on three volumes of Neon Genesis Evangelion manga today! --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Conservatives don't read silly. It could be an actual satanic church and they would never find out. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Enjoy your hentai, dude. lol Twodots (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It's tentacle time...IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not really a Hentai fan (although I have watched some before but none with tentacles...ew). Something I did find funny (speaking of tentacles), I watched a video from the YouTube channel Foxen Anime which discusses anime and manga a few days ago and a thing the YouTuber said pertaining to Attack on Titan chapter 135: Thank you Isayama for reminding us that Attack on Titan came from Japan. Reason being was that in the chapter Eren's freak of nature giant Titan sprouted a tentacle, used it to strangle Armin's character and the tentacle was shoved in his mouth. Somehow I found it more disturbing than Eren's global genocide. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
kinky. Twodots (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
A Clockwork Orange was the apotheosis of violent literature, no amount of imagery can capture it (and frankly that's a good thing, if you've only seen the movie it's actually a lot less violent than the book). But for a modern equivalent of hentai, the third book in Laleh Khadivi's trilogy is along those lines. It requires reading the first two for context, but anyone who finds the visuals of high schoolers fucking hard and often will certainly enjoy it; there are other reasons too, but I can see the appeal for people who like perpetually horny people who use their cocks and pussies as some sort of experimental apparatus. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Fun octopus fact: Octopi can actually smell/taste things with their tentacles. It enables them to search for prey in crevices where they can't utilize their (most excellent) vision.[6] Bongolian (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't know that when I eat octopus tentacles, I'm engaging in both oral sex and necrophilia. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
You learn something new every day, amirite? Twodots (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't write off hentai just because it's weird. Sometimes you find hentai with a half decent plot. MGQ jumps to mind... Anyway, good to hear that your store stocks LGBTQ+ manga/hentai. Just uh... be aware that Yaoi (gay stuff) is often more written for straight girls than it is for gay dudes and Yuri (lesbian stuff) is more written for straight dudes than lesbians. That isn't to say there aren't like, exceptions and that they can't be highly enjoyable for people of that sexuality but yknow, important to keep the demographics in mind for 99% of the LGBTQ+ stuff in anime. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 10:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Be aware of the difference between 'gay fiction' (by chaps for chaps) and 'slash fiction' (by chappesses for each other: may involve Suffering Beautifully/Hurt-Comfort). Anna Livia (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I only support gay fiction if it's extra manly. Like, Tom of Finland manly. We shouldn't cater to the nancy-boys, we don't need no more twinks running around. If you are attracted to guys that look like girls, date a girl. Just get the biggest, burliest bear on bear. Fireman on Lumberjack, the plot writes itself! Out in the woods, a group of lumberjacks are caught in a forest fire, just as they are about to suffocate from smoke inhalation, they hear angels; it's a helicopter! As the firemen descend to beat out the fire, the fire grows in their hearts. One by one, each of the lumberjacks is carried on the shoulders of a firemen. The broad, well-muscled shoulders from years of hard work. Up above, the forest looks quite different, almost beautiful. The engines of the helicopter constantly thump loudly, as if it's racing, powerful heart. No one can hear what happens next, as... hey, I'm not turned on, YOU'RE TURNED ON! Shut up! CoryUsar (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
You should consider writing gay fiction, dude. Twodots (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Is this lumberjack being referred to? Anna Livia (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Corruptusers says "If you are attracted to guys that look like girls, date a girl." You may be semi-joking here (I hope you are) but I've actually heard so called "masculine" gay gays say shit like this. It's a prime example of homophobic views within the LGTBQ+ community (like trans-phobia in the gay crowd). ShabiDOO 19:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's clearly satire, don't worry. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The joke is that I'm (pretending to be) a "totes not-gay brah" that's clearly gay. CoryUsar (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Ahhh yeah. Nice. Reminds me of Mr. Garrison's transformation from "putang lover" to gay-slave-owning-demented-faggot through the process of writing a steamy romance novel that ends up winning a gay-fiction-award. One of the best south park episodes ever. ShabiDOO 20:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that was from the Cherokee Hair Tampons episode about Alternative Medicine.
"Mr Hat, what ARE YOU DO- Oh, Mr Hat!!!"
Yeah, definitely one of the better ones, but the rainforest episode is still my second favorite; each joke comes so fast and hits the nail on the head each time, so you don't even have time to catch your breath between laughs. The best, of course, Scott Tenorman Must Die. Oh, but where does Awesome-O rank? Or the World of Warcraft episode, complete with an epic song from one of the members of KISS? Or, dear god, the Lord of the Rings episode, with "backdoor sluts 9" still being a meme all on its own? CoryUsar (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would have a hard time choosing between the two parter "Do the handicap go to heaven" where we learn that god is a bhuddist midget blue donosaur-cat that snaps flies out of the air with its tongue or the "Go God Go" episode where cartman travels through time cause he doesn't have patience to wait for Nintendo Wii while Garrison and Richard Dawkins have a relationship with one another. Those two parters pretty much are the pinnacle of South Park mixing absurd hialirty with piercing social critique/commentary. ShabiDOO 21:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As for who you are attracted to, eh, you are allowed to be attracted to any consenting adult you are attracted to. Being attracted to slender, petite men versus bears is not much different than a straight guy preferring petite girls over an amazonian beauty. Or the whole "butch and lipstick" lesbian thing. CoryUsar (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Being attracted to any "slender, petite" adult is a problem. When people age, they often gain weight and lose their slim body. This is especially true for couples who have children, as they would have less time to maintain their sexy body. Thus, people attracted to skinny adults would have a worse sex life in old age. People attracted to "larger" adults have the upper hand as their partner's body would be less susceptible to ageing. Thus, those people have more time to enjoy their partner's sexiness, leading to a more successful sexual relationship in old age. Sadly, I myself prefer slender adults, so the laws of biology shall fuck me over (pun unintended). 45.41.180.25 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
In hindsight, it would be interesting to know if there are any studies about the correlation between one's sexual preference of body shape and the duration of one's sexual relationship with their partner. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
In terms of South Park, they should do a special where PC Principal and Vice Principal Strong Woman are made to be like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The writers made Garrison into a parody of Donald Trump so it would work! As for South Park's Pandemic Special, I had a feeling that Randy Marsh would use his Tegridy Farms weed for a quack cure for COVID-19 although not in the manner I excpected. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol get fucked[edit]

SCOTUS denies cert to Texas v. Pennsylvania due to lack of legal standing. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 23:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned that lawsuit in a thread above, looks like the Supreme Court isn't Trump's servant after all. What makes it better is that none of the judges Trump appointed voted in his favour. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts & prayers for the right wing fever swamp. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
So, I heard about the accident at the nightclub. Thots and players. CoryUsar (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This whole mess is comedy gold. I sense parodies of this are going to be made for years to come and the term "Trump Supporter" will end up as a pejorative term. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I mean, Trump's legacy was already destined to go to shit when they tried to impeach him, he borked the COVID crisis big-time, and became the first one-term president since George "Atheists shouldn't be citizens" H. W. Bush. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 02:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
We've naenaed on the bastard. Hoorah! Twodots (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Found out my mother is a conspiracy theorist[edit]

I was talking to my mother about random stuff, just general chat, and at one point she asked me how is it that they managed to find a vaccine for COVID within 11 months. I tried to have a logical discussion with her, but I ended up receiving more than I bargained for. I found out that she's quite the conspiracy theorist. She believes that:

  • COVID was designed by Bill Gates to decrease the world population
  • The vaccine is being used to implant chips in people to make them slaves
  • Freemasons rule the world
  • Jews rule the world
  • Believes those goddamn sensationalist tabloid articles about "asteroid coming towards earth"
  • Believes in the New World Order
  • Thinks Nostradamus predicted a shit ton of things
  • And thinks that Facebook is getting rid off conspiracy theories about COVID not to battle misinformation but that they're in on this whole "COVID conspiracy."

I contested all her conspiracy theories, and when she couldn't find a retort, she just called me "brainwashed by the media."

I feel really weird about this, I'd be lying if I said I didn't lose some respect for her. I mean, it just feels odd, I love her obviously, but it just feels weird knowing her beliefs in relation to my experience over the past few years with conspiracy theories.

I'm probably making a bigger deal out of it than is warranted, I don't know, I just feel odd.--WMS (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a small thing. I've heard about people recently divorced because of differences about COVID and one case where a son cut off his mother from his life; these cases were where one party is an anti-masker/Trumper/antivaxxer. When one person in a family is a conspiracy theorist, it really can tear a family apart when that person is vocal about it or when it becomes a significant part of their life (e.g., William Cooper had a very bad relationship with his siblings because of his conspiracy theories, alcoholism and violence). There a number of places where you can look for advice about how to talk to a conspiracy theorist, e.g. this one:[7] Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't yell or insult her, that will only make it worse. Just ask her very calmly our conspiracy theory checklist.
For example, COVID being designed by Bill Gates to kill people.
Who designed it for him? He's a programmer, not a biologist.
Where is this lab?
Why have none of these scientists defected, if for no other reason than money?
Why start it in China which isn't particularly friendly to him and might have him murdered, instead of starting it in, say, Chicago?
What does Bill Gates stand to gain from fewer people buying computers?
What's preventing anyone from discovering this?
If these preventions are so great, how do you know he really is behind it all?
If he really wanted to depopulate the world, why bioengineer what is effectively a super-flu, when he could've released far deadlier diseases that already exist, such as Smallpox or Bubonic Plague, and thus don't require an army of scientists to develop?
Or if he really wanted to create a new extermination plague, why is the mortality rate so relatively low? CoryUsar (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Not a day goes by where I hate conspiracy theories more than the day before that. Heck, conspiracy theories were literally why I ended up joining this site. They're a great way to get people to believe the most bullshit stuff based on a foundation of literally nothing but fear/emotion, which is why it's very hard if not impossible to convert people out of it. Aaronmichael5 02:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification about how this kind of stuff can strain a relationship Bongolian, I thought that maybe I was being unreasonable but looks like my reaction is not out of the ordinary. Thank you also for the link, this will be very helpful moving forward with this. CorruptUser, thank you for the comprehensive instructions, that's what I strived for originally but due to my lack of confidence I must have slipped up somewhere. Thank you for the list again, I'll be sure to refer back to it if this topic comes up again. Aaronmichael5, I'm in the same boat honestly, everyday I find new reasons to hate conspiracy theories and, like you mentioned, I seriously doubt I'll be able to convince my mother to think about this stuff more critically, but at the very least I hope she'll stop saying that I have been "brainwashed" or "manipulated".--WMS (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I knew conspiracy theories were ridiculous, I didn't know they can do that to families. Now I hate them even more- almost as much as I hate religion (which I have known for quite some time can do just that). --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 03:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Eh, religion has its purpose. It's just that we, as a society, should be about ready to outgrow that phase, or most of us anyway. We may get to the point where religion is still around, but most of us know that Jesus is just the grown-up Santa Claus that we use to get teens to behave.
It's also a bit more than that too. I have a long-winded spiel about the purpose of art in society, so feel free to skip this.
In the A Song of Ice and Fire books, better known as "the novelization of Game of Thrones", one of the common questions asked of the characters is about four men in a room. There's a man with a sword, and three men are each asking him to kill the other two. The first is a man with a crown, who offers a title. The second is a man with a septum/cross, who offers salvation. The third is a man with a purse, who offers gold. Who lives and who dies? Who controls the commoners; the kings, the priests, or the merchants? Well, there's an answer, there's a fifth man, the man with the pen. And I'm not referring to George RR Martin as some sort of snide answer, but rather, the storytellers in general. The bards, the writers, the actors, the musicians, the poets, all of them as a whole. The stories they create and are told to kids decide what those kids value most. Those stories cause the people to value salvation, or gold, or titles more than all else. The stories from our fables, our folklore, and yes, our Holy Books. In that sense, religion does have a purpose.
The problem arises when religious ethics are too rigid, where they don't keep up with society. What is ethical in one century may not be ethical in another; in the ages long past before birth control, before modern medicine, before paternity tests, pre-marital sex truly was a risky endeavour to be abhorred, but today is different. War itself was just a fact of life, but today it is counterproductive, any so "smite the heathens" is a terrible message to send. In that sense, in that religions hold us back, they need to be fought, tooth and nail. But if they would learn to be relegated to children's tales and nothing more, and even then a lot of the stories removed, they wouldn't be so objectionable. CoryUsar (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I have parents and siblings who believe in conspiracy theories, but I never bothered wasting my time and energy into saving them. My parents believe that the Tiananmen protesters were American spies and that the killings were justified. This is strange since my dad literally participated in the protests. Their beliefs have certainly impacted my relationships with them. I would still discuss politics with them, but I would avoid criticizing China and instead focus on anti-capitalist and anti-American discussions, which I actually do enjoy.
Conspiracy theories all have the same problem: they are unfalsifiable. Perhaps you can tell your mom that falsifiability is an important part of making a theory scientific. Falsifiablity is not a weakness, but a strength. It allows a newer and more accurate theory to build upon the original theory. I think the example in Falsifiability#Examples is a good demonstration of that. I might be wrong, but I think it is much more important to teach a person to think like a scientist rather than directly disproving their bullshit. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I didn’t know I wasn’t alone, my mother seems to be on the same track to believing such conspiracies. She believes in Hindutva, and is extremely nationalist. She ALSO believes the same conspiracy that covid was man made by China and the research to spread the virus was done by Bill Gates. Since a large majority of Indian-Americans voted for Biden, she now considers all Indian-Americans as “traitors” and only looking for their own interests (she believes only Trump can finish China).The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 04:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My dad caught it. The man looks 200 years old now, feeble, complaining that the NFL is putting off games. Recently I've been looking at a thing, which is to anthropomorphize things, like systems, like viruses, and how much easier it is to understand the "wants" of something that doesn't actually want anything. It's when you can only think of a thing as having the same desires/wills/intent as a single human. I think a lot of this conspiracy stuff really fails at the point that it's one single intent. My dad still thinks the NFL shouldn't delay games, but he's not ignorant to COVID, and I'm like "you're not in charge of football." He's not that upset about it. Anthropomorphizing democrats as a killer anti-god is... common. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I will also say, people I like, unrepentant Yiannopolus gamergaters, believe that the left is just somehow withstanding the trolls and cheating. Get with it, go hug your mom. The point is confirmation bias. The theory needs needles, and it gets them, just a few notes to keep going. Disproving it is literally exactly the same as disproving a God belief. And there's a double-down effect with anthropomorphizing and dominionism where God literally has control of the country, but it's also through elected officials, don't blow that paradox.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
There's a subreddit for people who've lost loved-ones to QAnon: r/qanoncasualties.[8] I also added some links for advice on talking to people who believe in conspiracy theories: Conspiracy theory#How to talk to conspiracy theorists. Bongolian (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for those links. I, and probably many other comrades, will find this of use. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It is interesting to reflect that a conspiracy theory is a lot like a religious belief: instead of a god, it is the indeterminate they doing something, and no evidence can break that fever. What Gol said: love them anyway. That's the only true way to resist specious ideology. "I love you, but I think you are wrong about that," is the way to go.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Adopt a Stub (Week 4)[edit]

This little fella here belongs in the wilderness, not in the horrid house of some smelly human! The same cannot be said for our little stub here, however. I'm not convinced it belongs in the wilderness of our mainspace at all.

Another Saturday has arrived, and you guys know what that means! That's right, drugs and alcohol baby I found you all a stub to play with.

Now, before I begin, can you all please, PLEASE, promise me that you will not inject material into our wiki which you just straight up copied from some other corner of the internet? That sort of stuff brings out my allergies and makes me sad! (Well, actually, I don't REALLY care what you do my friends, it doesn't raise my rent or make my mother more annoying than she already is. That said, it looks bad when our wiki reads exactly like the source you are quoting. Anyway, I'm not your dad or some shit. You do what works for you, fellas.)

Anyhoo, this week's Stub of the Week is Rand Flem-Ath. No, this person isn't a Harry Potter character. He is a crank, and a crank with books published, at that. Have a look at their Amazon profile. "Atlantis beneath the Ice: The Fate of the Lost Continent?" Ha! What a load of nonsense... wait it has a 4.5 star rating out of 113 reviews?! WTF...?!

As per usual, you have 28 days to improve this unreferenced, 3 sentences stub. If you don't, I will make it my mission in life to destroy it on the 09/01/21.

May your PC never crash. Regards. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 11:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you intentionally slowly making this more challenging? This guy doesn’t even meet wikipedia’s notability guidelines... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Flem-Ath and his beliefs have not gained much traction. I can’t even look up the content of his books to analyse it. His website is dead (unrelated but his face his an egg lmao). I give up. Delete it.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 12:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
But think of the comedic value, dude! Twodots (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sqrt-1 YEEEEEEEES!!! VICTORY!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (Let's give it some time, my man. I agreed on 4 weeks with Spud. On another note, if you want a REAL challenge, did you know we have this article in our mainspace: Pervert?) - Rairyu75 (Talk) 12:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's blow these blooty bastards out o' t' wata'. Twodots (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I have successfully AFD'd a couple of hopelessly tiny ones, while continuing to help Panzer with Hollow Moon and Anna with her recently-created draft on the monoliths. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I took a stab at the page, but ultimately he's not well known. Bongolian (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the final nails in the coffin for a clownfish trying to swim on scorching pavement...[edit]

His and Paxton's stupid SCOTUS case got thrown out 7:2. Not even one of his appointees dissented. I told y'all there's no need to worry. What are your thoughts on this? --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The lawsuit was absurd, even to a dispassionate layperson reading it. The threat to American democracy by tRumpers will remain for some time however, at least until the widespread nativism fades away and the remains of the Republican party are no longer cowed by tRump's threats. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are, in a nutshell, "lmfao lol rofl". Twodots (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The accelerationist part of me is disappointed; it would've been better if the SCOTUS sided with Trump. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
They were never fully cowed. Both groups were exploiting each other... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
My thought is that even 7-2 is looking at it generously, as Thomas and Alito voted merely to give leave to file (i.e. "we'll agree to at least listen to you") because they believe that SCOTUS has to hear original jurisdiction cases. But the fact they wouldn't agree to grant any other relief immediately suggests even they were skeptical of Texas's ultimate claims and the decisions could be described as 9-0. Mabian (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
That's correct. Bongolian (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This was basically how I predicted the SCOTUS would turn on any attempt to overturn the election, with one notable exception. I'm actually positively surprised that the cult lady voted to throw it out. Never had much doubts about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch though. Or Thomas going the way he did for that matter (Alito was a tossup besides being a tosser). Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Support your inner 12 year old[edit]

Today is 12/12/2020. Anna Livia (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I miss the years 2001-2012, when people would celebrate 01/01/01, 02/02/02, etc. I remember Skyrim was released on 11/11/11 for some reason. It's sad that we'll have to wait another 80 years before we can experience that again. By 2101, I'll probably be dead and never get to see that. Funny thing that I was actually 12 years old on 12/12/12. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget the 'other calendars' (including Julian) - and there is a chance you might see those dates.
There is nothing wrong in indulging the inner 12 year old. Anna Livia (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
There isn't, but 12/12 happens every year, and I'm curious if 12 year old means last year of pre-teen? I had a much more existential experience around 15 getting a a learner's permit to drive a car than I had going from pre-teen to teen in title. But that's me, my 12 year old self and emotional intelligence are basically enemies at that point in my life. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For defending my userpage. ^-^ Twodots (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What's everyone's opinion on the U.S military?[edit]

Not the top brass, or the strategic decisions or commands given out through the president, ranking commanders, or others in power, but the average U.S servicemember. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

They should stay in the US. Unless sanctioned by UN or defending US or a fellow NATO member from an actual invasion. So far they are going beyond that and thus my opinion of them is rather low.
Though I admit, they are just following orders when they kill innocent bystanders and first responders in Middle East. So they've got the Nuremberg defense at least. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 17:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The average solider? Most of them are just ordinary people, hardly worth "judging" in their own right. My opinion of the military as an institution is much lower.-Flandres (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
What Flandres said. Most people join the military because it's the only meaningful venue for economic mobility for them. My homeless friend joined because he needed fucking shelter, at least the military will give you a bed and a roof over your head. Oxyaena Harass 17:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I've seen service members travelling (or even having lunch) in my country and several other countries that I've lived in. When they are in uniform they aren't particularly that different than any other person. I find if there are two servicemen in a Madrid restaurant (or in Paris or London) having lunch, you don't particularly notice it unless you saw them in uniform. Same if they are travelling on a plane. If anything while on a train or plane in Spain and most of continental Europe they tend to be even more low-key or quiet than other people. When seeing service members in airports, planes or restaurants in the United States Jesus fucking christ you have absolutely no doubt they are service members even if you've never seen them (just overhearing them). The more there are in a group the more they act like giddy teenagers on their first road trip. The obnoxious level goes up exponentially per their numbers. Their swagger level is usually through the roof. I cannot tell how many times I had to listen to service members brag about beating up some local in a bar or telling extremely vile and demeaning stories about women. Most non-Americans find it really bizarre how strangers "thank service men for their service" or buy them lunch. I think this clearly adds to the swagger and overconfidence. I would rather be seated next to two screaming babies then be within ten rows of a group of service-members on a plane. I had some friends in the Belgian military posted in Afghanistan and they said they hated when some US servicemen visited an international bar. They almost inevitably got shit face drunk and tried to start fights. He also said the average education level of even officers was shockingly low. Of course I am entirely and unfairly focusing on the most obnoxious of the most obnoxious, but if you're looking for impressions, that's the impression I got. A friend of our's husband was an ex serviceman in Madrid and he never ever shut up about his exploits, army stories, he knew everything better than anyone and interrupted people all the time. One incredible surprise though for me was that there is a considerable number of servicemen who are democrats. Far far higher than service members in Spain or Belgium who tend towards the left-side of the spectrum. And a friend of mine is married to a US soldier who is one of the nicest guys I've ever met. But again, by pure public impression...ugh. ShabiDOO 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Half the selling point of joining the military is that uniforms are an aphrodisiac. Which, ironically, is also why terrorists do what they do; "grievences" are mostly an excuse, they join Al-Shabaab and the like to get laid and, oftentimes, they don't care how. No, seriously, it's disturbing just how much overlap there is between terrorists and Men's Rights Activists and Incels and the like. Hell, ISIS didn't even beat around the bush about the whole "join us for the all you can rape buffet". CoryUsar (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
That's pretty reductive to be honest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty disgusted with the military right now for their failure to protect women in uniform from an epidemic of sexual assault. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
True, overly-simplistic and a bit of a blanket statement about all of them, but not wrong. There's also a disturbing amount of rape victims who join both the military or terrorist groups to try and prove something about themselves. Also a lot of pre-trans men in the military who are trying to prove their manliness, e.g., Chelsea Manning. Trans women? Whatever the term is for a person that's male at birth but before they realize they are trans and becomes a trans woman. Also, a lot of gay terrorists who do believe in their religion and truly believe themselves to be monsters, and this is their only path to salvation.
But, whatever the individual case, "sexuality and sexual abuse" covers a disturbingly large amount of the reasons people join the military or terrorist groups. CoryUsar (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
it is over simplified and is so much vague nonsense. you cannot conflate rape victims with those struggling with sexuality with rapists. the motivations and issues of these people are not a comparable and is frankly offensive to do so. yes, there are all to do with 'sexuality and sexual abuse'. but thats so broad that its meaningless.
it is also wrong, at the very least pointless, to compare the reasons people joining the military with the reasons for joining terrorist organisations. i am sure there are commonalities, things like duty, a sense of belonging, of purpose, to prove themselves etc. it doesnt say much when the organisations are fundamentally different. the motivations of people looking a particular group needs to be combined with who these people are, and just as importantly, how they are being recruited.
isis has very sophisticated recruitment tactics for example, is very different to the us military's and they target very different people. there is much variance in the methods of different terrorist groups, and there is much variance in who is recruited. it defies easy overarching explanations for reason people sign up. isis is a case in point. they different approaches for those local to them in iraq, than those recruited globally like those in europe. it is not a one size all approach. it is tailored to the individual, emphasising themes of empowerment, community, a personal or group grievance. they come from all socio economic levels, sharing only a sense of alienation and marginalisation - this is what recruiters look for, its what they can exploit. sexuality is used as a recruitment tool, but its a lot more than promising women. its often that its an uncomfortable subject for the target - they often not much than kids, its always a tricky subject for youths - it provides the recruiter with leverage, an opportunity to exploit a vulnerability.
isis also target those with a history of sexual violence, which shouldnt be too much of a surprise. for isis rape isnt just promise for means of recruitment. its part of the job description. rape is a weapon of wr and control, and kidnapping, sexual slavery and human trafficing are important revenue streams for them.
its also important to remember that isis recruit women as well.
for recruiting locally though it is different, for western recruits example, suicide bombing is pushed as a a noble and sacred thing, martyrdom is their ticket to heaven. in afghanistan suicide bombing is less a noble and sacred duty, and more something that the mentally incapable are coerced into doing.
ultimately, there are many varied reasons for people joining the legitimate military, as there many varied reasons for joining many different terrorist groups. so varied that anything resembling a shared trait is unlikely to particularly enlightening or useful, or just plain wrong. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes. There are any number of rationalizations for joining the military. Economic factors may tend to dominate the many varieties of viewpoints, but patriotism is probably an important one too, including the factor of family tradition that is very strong in the southern states. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s a complex issue and I know ppl who have joined to eg escape abusive fathers while being trans, but also I know ppl whose lives been destroyed by them. So idk about individuals but as a whole, I am too tired to think about it so I just say. “Fuck em”. 49.182.73.216 (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

New article attention category[edit]

Say hello to Category:Articles consisting mostly of direct quotes and images. It's automatically added by using the template {{highlight reel}} to a page. I've also added Highlight reel as a problem reason to our Problematic article template, which makes these articles ingegligible for Bronze ratings or higher.

For the motivation, I've seen several editors complain about the amount of our articles that are nothing but highlight reels of "whence the awfulness be", instead of clarifying any form of a greater point. The two articles I started this category/template off with (Stonetoss and RedPanels) are good examples of this and articles such as Elon Musk are at threat of becoming this. This should hopefully help get us an idea of how many of these pages there are and which ones are worth salvaging and which ones are better off being rewritten or thrown into AfD. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am copy-pasting some of the debunking out of the image captions on the StoneToss article.--Ms. OliviaUse Chatter here 09:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sirius Oh my Goat thank you SO MUCH for this new category! It's a great way to draw attention to articles where the editors do too much "Kenning" (see here for definition). --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 18:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Haha, I like the term Kenning. Reminds me of typography kerning, which is quite a different thing. And no problem, I'll be adding the template to pages when I stumble across them for sure (and possibly expand some to prevent them from falling into the trap if I ehave the expertise). Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 20:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. The term had mostly died out when the editors who coined it all either lurked or LANCB'd, but now I seem to have brought it back- and introduced a second definition to it. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 02:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Stabbings at a StS rally[edit]

During a Stop the Steal rally in DC, some violence erupted between the protestors and the counter-protestors. I just now heard about it whilst randomly browsing the web. What are your opinions regarding the violence? Twodots (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I remember seeing a post a while ago saying 'The delusion that a lawsuit is going to completely flip the election is the only reason we aren't seeing places get shot up'. Well, here we are. Post-election violence was slightly postponed by the fact that people are only now, after SCOTUS turned on Trump, realizing that the election is really over. Get ready for a bumpy ride. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Why the fuck are people protesting during a time when over 3,000 Americans are dying per day due to a fucking contagious virus? Even a completely peaceful protest will kill people. JUST STAY THE FUCK HOME! 45.56.183.85 (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Because Nazi punks the Proud Boys are kind of dumb. I especially enjoy how they think they are on a mission from God and perform the very Christian act of burning a BLM sign posted outside a Black Methodist church. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd bet a joke-block that those tRumptards on Parler will blame it all on socialist BLM vaccine deep-state Pizzagate antifas. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 07:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: Twenty-three people have been arrested. Oh, and apparently some maniac brought a taser. Twodots (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Is a TASER better or worse than a handgun? Obviously, a TASER isn't nearly as deadly as a handgun. On the other hand, being less deadly means the person wielding it is more likely to pull the trigger, and "less lethal" is not the same thing as "non-lethal", especially if have a heart condition. CoryUsar (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Annoying Bigotry from a Far Right troll[edit]

Good job, you really owned us! But seriously, try harder next time. I'd appreciate even a mildly original statement. Currently, your pathetic platitudes make you sound like a squawking parrot. IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Parrots are smart, though. They're more like a primitive, shit-eating worm. Twodots (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
To keep with the bird theme, I'd suggest a chicken instead. Myopic, self-absorbed, completely unaware, and prone to overreaction. IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Chickens are useful and productive. Maybe an exceptionally stupid pigeon? Twodots (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Nah, pigeons are pretty smart when it comes to navigation, awareness, and finding food. As a compromise, how about a headless chicken? IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear BoN, "retarded" doesn't exactly signify originality and intelligence. And I understand that the word "platitude" might sound like gibberish if you haven't graduated grade school. Just hang in there! Study hard enough, and you may not even be held back! IveBeenFrank (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Headless chicken (mode) might be the most apropos, since as the case of "Miracle Mike"Wikipedia showed, a chicken does not necessarily need its head for basic life functions (homeostasis). Bongolian (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
What exactly is a fee fee? I should know this seeing as I'm a "tranny" but I seem to be out of the loop. RationalHindu (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Due to the BoN's low encephalic processing power, there's not enough memory to store "feelings" as a complete string, so it must be separated into "fee " + "fee" IveBeenFrank (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Who is that "Mr Poot" guy and why does he feel entitled to vandalize RationalWiki?[edit]

I may be out of the loop, but it seems a Nazi secretly loves this wiki. After all, he keeps coming back to express his frustration. Moreover, the block log has 100 entries on this guy alone which also begs the question: Why not make an abuse filter rule to automatically ban newly created accounts with the word "poot" in them? 2A02:120B:C3C4:35C0:7C09:69E3:5A34:8B86 (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Who knows why he comes here. Oftentimes he doesn't create accounts with the word "poot" in them, but he's easily identifiable by the content and style of his edits. The mods often rename accounts that match his editing style to a variation of Mr. Poot. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There are couple of banned people who persistently come back under often unacceptable usernames. Racist, homophobic or transphobic usernames are common amongst them as are usernames impersonating or attacking other (sometimes banned) users or persons of interest. I think Michael Coombs/the banned user:Mikemikev is the most common poot. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 18:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
This is actually an inside joke. I have a good friend who is a semi-famous amateur radio operator, and he and his crowd have a humorous and unique vernacular. "Poot" is their word for fart. I thought it appropriate to rename the vile usernames using this word. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm so happy to learn this Cosmik. Such a useful and fun word to add to my vocabulary. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 19:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
He doesn't create his accounts with "Poot". It's an inside joke among those of us (techs, mods) who the mob currently trust with renaming privileges, where if some long-term wandal/troll creates an account with an unacceptable username, we rename it to a variation of that.
And also, I didn't know that @Cosmikdebris started that tradition; I thought it was Duce, who started the "[group/major RW editor that is being insulted in a username] do(es) the LORD's good work and will rest in Heaven" thing that I sometimes do. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
"Mr Poot" usually makes accounts with slurs in them like the n-word, so people with the user rights have been renaming them. Here's the user renaming log if you want to see everything for yourself. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 19:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Naked URLs[edit]

I've compiled a large list of pages suffering from an excessive amount of naked URLs [| here.] I'd appreciate help getting rid of them. If you get rid of all the naked URLs on a page, post something letting me know on my talkpage. Thanks in advance. Twodots (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

On the Homicide bomber article you recently added to that "to fix" list, I started fixing the citations but got distracted by the page's bad quote formatting, and instead ended up rewriting most of said quotes using {{cquote}} and adding the page's first "note" citation. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Good job, dude. It's people like you who keep the world going round. Twodots (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Just a thought, but maybe we should require bronze rated articles to have proper URL citations. Right now that's only required for silver and gold. I don't really mind "naked" (Oof, I feel dirty for saying that) URL's on non-rated pages (especially stubs), but I think bronze articles should be more properly sourced than that. Aaronmichael5 4:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Twodots (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

U ever[edit]

I'm Back[edit]

And I don't have any ideas. Sorry for wasting your time.Jeh2ow Damn son! 12:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

HE HAS RETURNED! HURRAH! RationalHindu (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Good to see the return of another lurking editor. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Claims that Obama “proved” aliens are visiting US[edit]

Stephen Colbert interviewed Obama, in a segment (at 9:50) he asked him about UFO's and the exchange went like this:

Colbert: "UFOs, any UFOs, did you ask about that."
Obama: "Certainly asked about it."
Colbert: "And?"
Obama: "Can't tell you, sorry."
Colbert: "Okay, Alright, I'll take that as a yes. 'Cause if there were none you'd say there were none, right? You just played you hand, I thought you were a poker player. You just one hundred percent showed your river card."
Obama: "Feel free to think that."
Colbert: "I do!"

Many believers are using this as proof that aliens are in contact with the US, they are claiming that when Obama was saying "Can't tell you" he was nodding his head, they say that this means that Obama was hinting at the fact that aliens visit earth, they're using this as "proof" of the theory. To them this is proof but is there a way to look at this rationally and and not jump to that conclusion?—WMS (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That exchange is nothing more than a politician working up the press. Obama wanted to be charming, garner interest, and seem funny, so he played along with Colbert. A remark on a late-night comedy show certainly doesn't count as evidence for aliens. I don't know where you're finding people that keep making these claims about aliens, but trust me, evidence for the incredible requires incredible evidence. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty clearly a joke when viewed in context. And again, if there were space aliens Trump would have tried to bribe them and/or start a conflict with them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have gathered that, as you said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you're both right it's just a joke. Honestly I don't know how I keep finding these woo claims, it's like I lose control and a very paranoid version of me takes over my body. Anyway, I'm still waiting for a response from therapy so hopefully that will be able to make me less susceptible to bullshit. Thank you guys! :)--WMS (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing bullshit shat out of Mr. Poot's hairy ass[edit]

Blaming Your Mistakes on Others[edit]

Because it happens so often within politics and circles on the internet, I wanted to know why people blame others for their faults. As it turns out, the Psychological projection is way more powerful than I first thought. It's easier to blame mistakes on others than it is to acknowledge them, so it makes sense to avoid the problem altogether.Jeh2ow Damn son! 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be quite rampant in politics with the rise of pr and damage limitation, why own up to being useless when you can blame anyone and everyone else for your failings. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
"We didn't start the troubles, it was those damned Catholics wanting equal rights and better pay. Sure we were in our rights to shoot them in their estates and when they had a shamelessly peaceful protest march in Derry." Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Being honest about all of your mistakes makes holding onto power extremely difficult. Anyone who holds a position of influence needs the support of those directly below them. Revealing your mistakes makes you susceptible to others challenging your position. This is also the case when you are trying to rise up the ranks. In politics it is all of the above only exponentially worse because you can so easily be voted out at the next election which is why a party is never wrong and why leaders only admit mistakes when they are so grave and could not possibly be deflected.
Ordinary people blame their mistakes on others for a myriad of reasons ranging from completely selfish to doing so unknowingly and/or being unable to recognise their own faults. We are terribly flawed humans and, as always, sometimes 100% honesty can create social disruption and serious problems. ShabiDOO 15:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a pity what the IRA has become. Oxyaena Harass 21:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean you're disappointed that a terrorist organization has become less violent? Unless you're going to argue that they aren't a terrorist group, or that terrorist groups are good. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank The IRA is a bunch of glorified thugs these days. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Also there was never one group, but instead a series of groups that used the IRA moniker. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The IRA was a self defense organization, the British Army was certainly no better. Oxyaena Harass 03:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Everybody can be very, horribly wrong in a situation. If the idea of a more radical incarnation of the IRA interests you, watch video of Omagh; it was carnage for nothing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t even know the IRA is still a thing. What’s even the point of them nowadays? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 05:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Some would still like to see North Ireland leave the UK by any means-look up the phrase "dissident republicans." A lot of them have also degenerated into petty gangsters who just use IRA trappings, however.-Flandres (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @I'veBeenFrank It's easy to condemn from your privileged, liberal vantage point. Odd how you never condemn the societal factors that lead to terrorism in the first place. Oxyaena Harass 08:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently being a autistic man who grew up in an abusive working class home makes me privileged! Who knew! Oh, and apparently I am a liberal now, which sure is news to me! The amount of stupidity contained in that post would be remarkable if it was from literally anyone else. Oxy, please stop trying to armchair analyze people who disagree with you because you are terrible at it, hmhmhmhmhm...-Flandres (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, justifies killing innocent individuals not currently posing bodily or physical harm en masse through terrorism. I'm sure the Taliban thought of itself as a "self-defense organization," protecting Afghanistan from the evils of Western society and culture. While societal factors may increase the likelihood of terrorism, they do not provide justification for them. These people could have participated through democracy, and endured the long waits like everyone else. Protests would do fine. But killing innocent civilians is immoral. Unless you'd like to argue otherwise...IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Flandres I pinged you by mistake. My bad. Oxyaena Harass 13:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
So the people in the American Revolution should've just "participated in the democratic process?" Organizations like the Sons of Liberty were terrorists. The Founding Fathers were terrorists. Do you defend them? Educate yourself on history and political theory before soapboxing off to me. Oxyaena Harass 13:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
First, it's nice to see you just waltzed right by my question. On history, it's sad that you love blanket statements so much. Just because one group committed acts of violence, that means every single Founding Father or other figure associated with the American Revolution was a "terrorist." Second, not all militias are terrorist cells. Going of the dictionary definition, terrorism is defined as unlawful violence against civilians, noncombatants, or neutral areas. For the most part (this is key here - while I'm not excusing the actions of those who did target civilians, they weren't in the majority), militias and other groups targeted members of the British government and military forces. Prior to all-out war, they explicitly warned and informed the officials to back down. Not many were killed. While you may argue that British governmental officials were noncombatants, they were still participants in an enemy regime, and would be valid military targets under current international law. Finally, let's assume that what you said was true, that the Founding Fathers were terrorists. So what? Does that make terrorism good? Seeing as how you avoided my question, I'll emphasize it here in the hopes that you can answer it: Is terrorism, or the extrajudicial killing of noncombatants, justified? IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank When you say non-combatants, are you including Loyalist groups? If so, you may wish to rethink your classifications. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No, Loyalist groups participated in military operations. They're combatants. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting how my comment quickly led to a discussion of the pIRA, even though I was referring to the British Government and their excuses in regards to Ballymurphy Before Ballymurphy and the Bloody Sunday killings a few months later by the same murderous regiment the RA was an old boys club, moaning and cranky about the order to down arms in 1962. If you deny a group of people equal rights and self determination what do you expect will happen? Well, according to Margaret MacMillan's Reith Lectures, it was a civil war in Northern Ireland, something that both the UK and Irish governments fail to recognise for whatever reason. (and while you can handwring about wether or not violence is the answer, it brought about the good Friday agreement, something the the Brits would have had no interest in beforehand, and judging on the post brexit comments from MPs, have no fucking understanding of now. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I was more discussing the modern provos(the remnants of them anyway)-if I had been talking about the Troubles(and before) I would have mentioned that yes, in many ways the brits only got what they paid for. At a certain point, if you lock down all other solutions, people resort to violence.-Flandres (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Frank is an idiot, don't expect him to understand any of this. Oxyaena Harass 20:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Your inability to answer my questions and your love of personal attacks makes you look foolish and stupid, not me. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. has been elected the 46th President of the Untied States of America[edit]

It's over. Eagerly awaiting an explanation from our resident Deep State experts on how Trump can still win. 174.97.172.77 (talk)

I suppose faithless electors were their last hope, weren't they? Perhaps it is over. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump is such a pussy. If I were him, I would bribe every Democrat elector and ask them to change sides. 45.56.183.85 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank whatever that you have no idea about what actually motivates your political opponents. Semipenultimate (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually his last hope now would be if Congress, when tabulating the electoral votes, voted to override them after a two hour debate wherein each senator gets to speak for 5 minutes- which, since the GOP's senate majority (not counting Pence's tiebreaking vote) is now at a razor thin margin of 52:48 and enough Republicans have already said they wouldn't support such a shameless attempt to steal the election, is not gonna happen. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
At this point, the only senatorial debate that really matters would be if they were trying to disqualify electors. In order to disqualify electors, BOTH the House and the Senate have to agree. DerFluchtPlan (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, since the Dems still (albeit barely) control the House and enough of the remaining GOP majority in the Senate have said they won't support such a move, that's not gonna happen either. All it would do is make Biden win this election yet again, for the n-teenth time. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 01:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Fuck yeah! Twodots (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
All of 4chan on suicide watch Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We have successfully naenaed. Twodots (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
"All of 4chan" Pretty sure /po/ didn't even notice. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Nah, /pol/ noticed, but their reaction is business as usual: shitposting about imagined race oriented civil wars, brain-dead racial stereotypes, and dumb conspiracy theories. Also, not every /pol/ poster is in favor of Trump. I think thedonald.win is the current home of the most unhinged (in a mall ninja, keyboard warrior, yet still a sucker for fraudsters like Steve Bannon sort of way) reactions I've seen so far. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see why this would demoralize the far-right that much-if anything, they would become even more feverish. Look at how Qanon, if anything, GREW after the end of the Mueller probe!-Flandres (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
"Nah, /pol/ noticed" I said /po/, not /pol/. Papercraft & Origami, not Politically Incorrect. There are multiple boards for different interests, you see. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, a funny, tee hee. I don't think 4Chan gives much of a shit about politics aside from /pol/ and /b/ and occasional shitpost spillovers.
For those knee deep in the politics, though, one interesting thing about the thedonald.win side is that the Donald's Most Loyal Fans appear to be splitting from the GOP. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Flandres Do you not see the 'doomer' conservatives/far-right nutjobs? Sure, some of the far-right will be invigorated and possibly commit acts of violence, but a good chunk of loony /pol/acks have just had their dreams crushed. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, people totally take that well. they won't, like, snap back even harder for the next far-right douche or anything like that! They will just stay depressed forever!-Flandres (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Flandres Trump developed a near-schizophrenic cult of personality among his followers, which things like QAnon were structured around. The next far-right douche may be just has authoritarian and pernicious as Trump but wouldn't be as well positioned because they're not Trump. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nah. They're so deluded, they make people with schizophrenia look sane. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 02:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar, your naivete about politics is amusing. The far-right will still turn out in droves for the next douchebag-they always do. Republican voters are very consistent. Remember how they pretty much shoved Bush 43 down the memory hole when they used to practically demand every American worship him?-Flandres (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
To be fair though, they probably consider Dubya a RINO by now, as he respects Muslims' right to exist, encouraged freedom of press, and was quick to accept the results of this year's election and pledge his support to Biden. However, I still think nobody on the right will give a shit about tRump after some time, just like Joe McCarthy eventually alienated so many of his former allies that soon after he lost his Senate seat (he was R-WI), no one gave a shit about him after the fifties. Also like McCarthy, our children will be taught stories about Sleepy Donald's impeachment attempt and how he tried to undermine our democracy in their history classes. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 05:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A successful attempt. He *was* impeached. Just not convicted. Dammit. Dave Wise (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@CircularReasoning Stop with the fucking ableism. Stop throwing schizophrenic people and others with mental illness under the bus. I`m fucking sick of it. Oxyaena Harass 20:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
How is it abelism? Nobody's discriminating against the mentally ill, just pointing out that hardcore Trump supporters are more deluded than those that suffer from delusions. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@IveBeenFrank I think Oxy is upset because people with schizophrenia are kind of the butt of the joke, albeit indirectly. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Can art be called creative[edit]

If it is just drawing from things that already exist? Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative?Machina (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. Plenty of art isn't of things that actually exist. Twodots (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Can [anything at all] be called [anything at all]? Yes, obviously. But what constitutes originality and creativity are different questions. Generally, if you're not confident about whether thing X has trait Y, you probably either haven't defined Y in enough detail or looked closely enough at X. I could post the dictionary definitions of those terms and explain how they relate to art (the answer is yes, art can obviously be creative), but is that what you're looking for? Phrase your statements to say precisely what you mean. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Kaaaayyy....this got out of hand. I was just asking if we can call art being creative when really it's just copying what already exists. I mean is it really new in any way?Machina (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ask Andy WarholWikipedia. :p Actually, to be honest, photography is (largely) "copying what already exists", yet it is easily possible to be creative. Creative options include staging elaborate setups for a photograph, creative lighting techniques, and even elaborate post-processing techniques. I would say the answer is yes even here. (With other pictorial art forms, of course, you are not merely limited to what actually exists, so the scopes is even broader still.) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course art can be creative. novel ideas are presented all the time. Think about how revolutionary Stravinksy's "The rite of Spring" was (there was nothing remotely like it before), or Richard Strauss's "Elektra" or when female writers began writing serious novels from a female perspective or when cubism was introduced in the physical arts. Those who pioneered things like cubism or theatre of the absurd. Even when artists recycle previous ideas they always add something new to it (even if it is the restructuring of old ideas in a way that hadn't been done specifically like that before. Shakespear's "The Commedy of Errors" introduced a new set of twins, inspired by (among others) Plautus's play about a commedy of errors regarding separated twins. His work, to me at least is infinitely more hilarious and complex. Just go see some experimental theatre and you are bound to see something no human being has ever done on a stage before. Watch some of the more insane episodes of South Park and you'll also see some plots that would be pretty hard to find anywhere else (Satan is in a gay relationship with a wimpy guy and has to resist Saddam Hussein who is more sexual but abusive and then has to visit God to ask for advice who turns out to be a blue bhuddist midget dinosaur. I mean, I don't recall reading any story remotely like that in any culture in any time period. Saturday Night Live once in a while does something super off the wall like Tunsis the Driving Cat. Roald Dahls Charlier and the Chocolate Factory or the BFG: he may have been inspired by some ideas but much of it is truly creative and original. ShabiDOO 08:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Iran's leader called Trump a terrorist........[edit]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-rouhani-biden-trump-election-b1774815.html

And I find it to be absolutely hilarious! The leader of Iran also called Trump the "most lawless US president". The leader of Iran is 100% accurate. Trump does not give a shit about the law when he happily ignores the laws of the land. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is one of the more dangerous legacies of Trump people don't talk about enough-he is VERY useful for enemy propaganda. Trump is essentially what the Soviets tried to portray the average president as, and he does pretty good for the Islamic extremist version too. On a pedantic side note, remember Rouhani is not the leader of Iran-he is merely the president.-Flandres (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Considering that Iran is behind, like, 40% of the world's terror plots or I don't have a degree in bovine coprology, Iran knows a thing or two about being a terrorist.CoryUsar (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Iran is also funding the Houthis, who do have a legitimate bone to pick with Saudi Arabia, so I would be hesitant to lump them in there. Oxyaena Harass 17:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Remember back when the US funded right-wing death squads/terrorists in Latin America? Fun times... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
If those tyrants try that shit again, they will know well that I will have destroyed their entire country from the bottom up. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No you won't blowhard BON, and neither will anyone else except them. Aloysius the Gaul 19:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Try me. I work my ass off in an industrial job, where I get constant haranguing from my boss. He reminds me always that the surveillance cameras are watching, and if I do not work sufficiently, I will get fired. I got part of my finger cut off from handling the machinery. Screaming in high agony, my boss told me to shut up and keep working. These capitalists have no sympathy for us. It is high time that we rise up and give up our lives for all of us. 45.41.180.25 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You're damn right. Oxyaena Harass 20:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
That's probably a dumb idea with the way shit works right now... Also, I'd rather not give up my life if it's all the same to you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The Houthi flag literally has "death to America" and "curse the Jews" in giant letters, and they were in the middle of a genocide of their own, exterminating or cleansing the last few Christians and Jews left in Yemen. Sometimes the underdog is a son of a bitch. CoryUsar (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean, most of the time in international politics there aren't any "good guys". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
But there are "less-bad guys". In this case, KSA might actually have the high ground, even if the situation is so awful that the high ground is still below sea level. CoryUsar (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden administration and relations with Israel[edit]

I have been thinking about how Biden would interact with Israel's Trump loving prime minister. With the Trump administration there have been inflamed tensions with Israel, Palestine and Syria. Namely Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel's claim over Golan Heights and allowing the Israeli Prime Minister to begin a new onslaught against the Palestinian people.

Will the Biden administration due anything different? I have been thinking about it since the election. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden's a simp for the Israelis anyways. Oxyaena Harass 03:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Because of international politics, don't expect either to engage in any open hostilities, should there be any hostilities at all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden has a fairly pro-Israel record. Like most moderate Democrats, even when he may express disapproval at what they are doing, this never turns into actual punitive action. Besides, didn't Biden run a campaign saying he would return international relations to "normalcy?" The USA pre-Trump still enabled the abuses of Israel, you know. Biden wanting normalcy means you kind of have to accept the bad parts of the pre-Trump world.-Flandres (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The better question is what is Netanyahu gonna do to step back from the Trump ledge. Most stuff Biden can't reverse, but actually engaging with the PLO and Hamas might improve the situation, but I doubt it.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The PLO, maybe, unlikely but maybe, but not Hamas. Aside from them being Iranian puppets, you can't negotiate with religious fanatics. It just doesn't work. Heck, the entire reason they even exist as a major force is because Israel did reach out and backed them some 30-40 years ago... CoryUsar (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hamas has political power in the region. They must be accounted for, otherwise many Palestinians won't accept the outcome of talks. Hamas is no worse than the Taliban.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a question[edit]

Would it be pansexual if a cis male finds transwomen attractive? I ask because I am starting to take an interest in transwomen and just wanted to know. If you are the far right troll spewing hate I do not need your input. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this kind of thing, but I think it depends. Do you also "like like" people who are gender non-binary? Trans men? Trans women/men who do not present as feminine or masculine respectively? --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 23:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you'd qualify as SwES. Twodots (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm a transwoman so I think I have a little authority in this topic. If you're attracted to cis and trans women only then you're still straight. If you're attracted to folk of every gender then you're probably pan. Hope this helps! RationalHindu (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that poly and pans are attracted based on ones personality. The rest, correct.--Ms. OliviaUse Chatter here 09:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I oversimplified a bit but you are right. RationalHindu (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hell, I am steadily preferring trans women over cis women. --Channel 48 WDEM-TV3 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians to retire their name for the next season[edit]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30515643/sources-cleveland-drop-indians-nickname-105-years I'm guessing this means they'll be called the Cleveland Baseball Team until a new name is decided. Aaronmichael5 4:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Good. It's about time. While I don't buy the argument of some that "Indian" when used to refer to aboriginal Americans/Canadians/Alaskans/Inuits is a racial slur (and people need to stop calling everything a racial slur), I do think that a) why continue using a massive and embarrassing misnomer that was coined by someone who mistook them for fucking South Asians just because they had dark skin (and then, of course, did a little genocide against some of the Carib ones)? and b) it just doesn't seem right to use as a sports team name a people our country has a long, long history of committing various genocides and ethnocides against to try and change the racial and religious demography of itself. --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 04:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no such word as "Inuits". Inuit is plural. Inuk is singular. — Unsigned, by: 216.126.242.68 / talk 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
There are many native americans who prefer the term indian. Go to any "pow-wow" and you'll see stands selling "Indian fry bread" and "Indian tacos" sold by Pima, Papago, or Apaches. Language is descriptivist and the word indian is a good example. Although I won't speak as to whether it's a good name for a sports team...-Hastur! (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not inherently pejorative, but appropriation for commercial use (like the Cleveland team) is. Another example of non-pejorative usageis the long-running, Canada-based Indian Time (I think it was formerly Living on Indian Time, but I could be mistaken), an Indian-run news site.[9] Bongolian (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
More performative bullshit. Yawn. Oxyaena Harass 08:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@CircularReasoning Don't forget forcible subjugation and theft of land. Oxyaena Harass 09:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, if there's two overarching groups of people, both completely different in culture, and you name them the same, you're bound to muddy the waters. You need to use context as to which group you're speaking instead of just using a single word and immediately getting the listener to understand. But the Brits and Chris were total wankers, so honestly, there is no good solution. ElectrosPardon? 10:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't believe that they had it for about 90 years. Everyone knew that it was racist from the start.Jeh2ow Damn son! 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is the story behind it, doesn't strike me as having had a malicious origin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
If you honestly think malice matters in terms of systemic racism and discrimination, you're missing the forest for the trees. Oxyaena Harass 21:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Intent absolutely matters. I didn't say it was the only thing, but it's sure helpful to know what people were thinking by it. The name Yankee sure isn't a compliment a lot of the time, to put it mildly, yet the team in New York does just fine because they didn't name the team in an effort to insult anyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Yankees aren't a marginalized group with a history of forced assimilation and genocide attempts against them like Native Americans are. Oxyaena Harass 07:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, how come no one complains about the name of the Boeing Apache attack helicopter? Is it because it's badass? I think it's because it's badass. CoryUsar (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The Cleveland Indians are still planning to use the "Indians" cognomenin 2021. This suggests the change has little to do with an acknowledgement of a transgression and is more like a rebranding move. "Indians" is the good part of the name really, but I guess they are stuck with Cleveland.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm a Kansas City Chiefs fan, have been forever since I was born just outside of the city. I really want them to re-brand. The story of their name is a little more complicated, because if I remember this right, they were named after a white mayor who really liked Native culture and had people call him the chief. But not in, like, a respectful way, oh hell, I can look this up. [10] So the issue is that it's technically named after a white guy, but he was technically appropriating culture in the most obvious way. Like I said, I really want the team to re-brand, I at least told my dad like 5 years ago the Tomahawk chop/chant is preeeettty much not ok, and he actually stopped doing it before a lot of the in-stands fans did. We also lived in an area with a real Shawnee population when I was a kid, and my dad isn't a racist so it was a pretty easy sell even years down the line. I work with guys who think "Washington Football Team" is the dumbest thing in the world because they can't wrap their heads around an incredibly meta mascot. But they actually don't have any ties to the program, fandom of the team, knowledge of the history, and they ultimately do not actually care if the team is called the Redskins. They just think it's dumb, which with these guys, is a pretty clear indicator that it's not dumb. It's hard to explain to a lot of these guys that yes, it is racist even if they, themselves, aren't offended by the Fighting Irish, a private Catholic college. To explain "It's totally fine to change your mascot" is harder to argue against. I mean, the Houston Oilers did it in 1996 and became the Tennessee Titans. It's business, it's marketing. And yes, we can do better marketing than ignoring/mythicizing a real and living population of the country as a mascot for a sport. The "I don't know, I don't care" argument is alive. If it's SOOO unimportant, why defend the racist mascot? It's rough out here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)