RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive380

This is an archive page, last updated 2 February 2021. 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>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Corporate reasoning for social media takedowns

Do you think social media websites are deplatforming right wing idiots more for money or to avoid legal repercussions? Are they more afraid of a boycott from people upset they won't deplatform extremists, or governments bringing legislation that mandates what can be said on their platform? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The latter. The reason it took them so long was because Trump was threatening to lay down the removal of section 230 on media sites. Literally the monday before the insurrection happened, Pai announced that they were dropping the "remove section 230" shite. That is not a coincidence. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately I think the issue is more about money than anything else. Most major social media websites run off advertising. Large companies generally don't want to be seen promoting extremist content.

Focusing on right wing American politics is not the way to think about this.

Remember, in the past Reddit and Youtube got scrutiny also for child exploitation content or other grossly offensive communities such as FatPeopleHate, CreepShots, etc. In 2017, the big to-do for a Youtube boycott was advertisements appearing alongside videos made by Islamic State and other Arabic terrorism.

Fuck, Youtube last year banned some "drill" music videos for being too real-world violent.

Social media isn't going to give a shit, frankly, if you make an entire video series explaining, say, the Bush Doctrine. So this framing of things as "right wing politics" is incorrect.

Unless, that is, these days, American right wing politics is only about shit companies may not want to advertise next to: climate change denialism, COVID-19 denialism, QAnon conspiracy bullshit, anti-vaccination bullshit, COVID-19 quackery, white nationalism, and (especially) the promotion of political violence in relation to these elements.

Unfortunately, Trumpism in the GOP made "right wing politics" more in this direction. So I imagine they are also worried about what Congress might do, as both "sides" hate them at this time (one side wants to force social media to carry extremist content, another side wants tougher government mandated enforcement against extremist content...). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget that, while corporations are generally amoral they are usually staffed by real human beings, some of whom have hearts. SolPyre (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

section 230 is unique to the us. there is not that kind of immunity for the likes of twitter and co elsewhere in the world. legislation does have to play catch up with the realities of the internet. germany has laws in place to formalise the responsibilities of these companies, and they face heavy fines for non compliance. the eu has more voluntary guidelines that were drawn up after discussions between social media companies and the eu, with more formal legislation in the pipeline. the uk has the online harms white paper to set up a framework and a regulatory body for these kinds of things.

trump is actually correct when he says section 230 gives social media companies too much protection, even if his own reasoning is a bullshit hissy fit. it might have served a purpose back in the day when the social media companies were not the behemoths they are today. when you had to the library or a university to get online, and everything was dial up, scope was limited. reach was limited. and so was potential for harm. now its a market that has been consolidated into a few giant all powerful corporations, they reach a massive world wide audience that gives them an unprecedented level of influence ranging from individuals to multinational companies to national governments.

because social media has this massive reach, it means shit stirrers, charlatans, and hate filled bigots have a massive reach. people who before twitter came along, could reach only those who heard them ranting on a street corner or read the flyer left under the window wiper on your car. now you have their manifesto in your news feed. their bullshit is legitimised and magnified. these social media giants should be responsible for the dogshit that is spread. not least that they have always decided what content you see, even without directly removing egregious content. at least, an algorithm decides. creating social media bubbles and distorting our views of the world.

they absolutely should be held accountable for the toxicity that social media helps spread and create. they racked in enough wealth and power from it. they wont be any poorer from being properly regulated. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Wikipedia Anna Livia (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hurray, it's theotherwiki's bday! Twodots ^{Annoy me} _{Look, ma!} 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sad again

How is everyone else doing, just wanna have a “conversation” of some some sort about things that are happening and whatnot 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asela Do you think seeing other people saying they're feeling fine will make you feel better? Spud (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a bummer Asela. What's up? ShabiDOO 13:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm doing great, thanks. Could be better though. How are you? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spud Probably, I don’t really get jealous of other ppl feeling fine anymore, and it’s nice to hear that good things are happening at all tbh. @Shabidoo eh nothing in particular, just the usual stuff (anxiety, feeling lonely, not feeling great about myself, missing my ex, etc) but it’s nothing super particular. Thank you for asking. @Nebuchadnezzar7658 I’m glad you’re doing okay, and hope you do even better soon. I’m okay for now, just woke up and so I’m right now too tired to figure out if I’m as sad as I was yesterday. We’ll see. 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 22:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing pretty OK too. We had a massive two day snowstorm here this week, which made walking to and from work a bit of a hassle. Then the temperature dropped to -20°C/-4°F, which brought its own inconveniences, but at least the weather was otherwise nice. And I'm actually a fan of snow too. I also went out with a girl I like twice about 2 weeks ago, but we've been working different days and hours since then. Might be able to see her on Monday though, so that's great.

I hope you'll be able to find some happiness in your immediate life and situation Asela. Otherwise, I'm here at somewhat inconsistent hours, but I wouldn't mind conversing if we happen to be around at the same time. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 23:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm happy because it's the weekend and I won't see my horrible boss for 48 hours. Spud (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Dude, that hurts because it's the weekend and I'm so glad I don't have to be that horrible boss for 48 hours. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm completely obsessed with "Spirit They're Gone, Spirit They've Vanished". help.

So this was the debut album by Animal Collective but it's credited to "Avey Tare and Panda Bear" when it was released 20 years ago. This was back when they were more underground than influential in the 2010s so it's noisy and weird as fuck. It starts off with "Spirit They've Vanished", a noisy track, but if you read the lyrics and grow older, it becomes a very beautiful track. Following it is "April and The Phantom" where it starts to blend that mix of pop and noise with acoustic guitar and synthesizers. The lyrics sing about a girl running away from her parents with the ghost of her as an adult. "Penny Dreadfuls" follows after the untitled track written by Avey when he was 16. It's a gorgeous piano ballad about a public elementary school bus ride, one of the more accessible tracks. Following it is "Chocolate Girl", an 8-minute catchy pop tune as an ode to failed middle school relationships. The 12-minute Finale "Alvin Row" is something to it in itself. It starts off with Alvin being "born" symbolized by the wall of noise with the song developing as he ages to a young adult in the lyrics. It feels like it was 2 songs woven into one, but Avey did a wonderful job putting it together, and putting it into parts feels like an insult to it. This album has become the anthem of my senior year as those chaotic symphonies to childhood have touched me. If you're open-minded enough, I highly recommend listening to it because this type of music can't be heard anywhere else. Rockford the Roe (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

When I was in high school I despised Animal Collective. I thought The Unicorns were dumb. I thought the Postal Service was for girls. I thought anything that wasn't quite angry enough for me was lame, and anybody trying anything else was artsy-fartsy, I was making fun of Arcade Fire before it was funny. It hurt so much deep in my guts to actually listen to the stuff and admit to myself I was being too narrowminded to be cool. I don't like to listen to a lot of Animal Collective or Panda Bear and I still don't quite get Avey Tare, but I've got enough songs from those guys that hit so hard that I'm always down for it anymore. And I'm a Unicorns stan now, after being like "This is cutesy dipshit bs." Having tried and honestly wanted to make music myself, although not in that AC vein, I'm so mad at myself for limiting myself by saying "that's not real music." Being said, I did have a friend who tried to woo a girl by making her a mix CD of what he thought were her favorite sounds, based on her AC affinity. It didn't land. It's a solid album, it's really novel and clever and listening to it again, not every idea is that cool, but the creators don't step over each other or leave any idea unfinished. Band relationship goals. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Check out akron/family. It's more a psychadellic big group but it hits the same texture beats. If you don't like it, let's go. So, as a punk fan, Pixies, Deerhoof, Dinosaur Jr., Roomrunner. As a theater fan, Decemberists, Fiery Furnaces, Neutral Milk Hotel, Beirut. As a post-rock fan, Godspeed! You Black Emporer, Kikagaku Moyo, Murder By Death. As an art rock fan, old Astronautalis, old Modest Mouse, old Man Man. As a classic rock fan, I have to admit to myself that Animal Collective is in that category now. There isn't a modern analogue to Animal Collective that I can directly figure out, they did something special. I did roll my eyes at the song "My Girls," but everybody gets old. I mean, I'll be honest, Billie Eilish takes influences from every style of pop I've never listened to and mashes them up. I think that's cool in it's own respect and I have nothing but respect for it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Users

Is it possible to learn this power? IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's on the special pages. CoryUsar (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank: You'd need to be a mod or a tech to rename users. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 18:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You can do a tech application on the request for user rights page, we have a procedure for it which is outlined in the CS. Also make sure you know how mediawiki, HTML/CSS and our Edit Filters work (also you need a mod/existing tech to back you). Mod you can become through our official election process, which happened fairly recently and you only are for 1 year. (Speaking of which, we kinda need more active techs, we kinda hemmoraghed a good amount of our active techs in the past year, with Oxy and Dysk losing it for rights abuse reasons, EK choosing to go down with Raven seemingly and Duce recently LANCBing). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 22:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

But given how rarely LANCBs actually last, maybe Duce could return? (Especially since his LANCB rationale was based on a huge misunderstanding) But then again, Kazitor never came out of "retirement". Or FCP. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 04:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I still hold hopes that our Supreme Commander will return one day. As I understand, it was just real life catching up with him that lead to FCP becoming less active and that might still change. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 10:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

China claims...

...it has it's first COVID death in 8 months. I mean Jesus fucking crapper not even Trump can bullshit on such a monumental scale. ShabiDOO 17:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Even during Spanish Flu, the countries reported low death rates instead of no death rates, so that everyone could be told "no, your particular town is just harder hit than most, the rest of the country is doing ok, anyone saying otherwise is an enemy spy and should be reported to the authorities". CoryUsar (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I know you guys hate China, but what non-conspiracy theories are you basing your "That's bullshit" on? They went into total lockdown in the cities with cases. That's not the actions of a country faking not being sick while very sick. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We have an entire article devoted to your evidence Aloysius the Gaul 23:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo: oh, I think he can DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!}00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ikanreed, a lot of countries had brutal lock downs. But you know, once the strictest measures were released, and even when very carefully letting people in (with harsh quarantines) even then still a few people died. A country of a billion people that relaxed the lock down and had a porous border (even with quarantine) could not possible have zero deaths in 8 months. That's fucking preposterous. China is one of the ultimate disinformation states. ShabiDOO 03:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with China is that their statistics have been notoriously sketchy in the past, and it was pretty clear that they fucked up at the beginning of the pandemic with the usual cover-ups and citizen reporting censorship and what not. Overall, Asia has handled the pandemic far better than Europe and the Americas (possibly the previous coronavirus outbreak, which was largely centered in Asia, helped in one way or another), and I wouldn't be surprised if China was doing pretty good ala Japan or South Korea currently. But it's still hard to trust official China statistics; "zero in 8 months" seems a bit optimistically skewered, although it's not something that can easily be proven one way or another. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The real problem is they have a habit of releasing disinformation to try to maintain a strong front internationally, particularly where the notoriously fickle US is concerned. If I remember correctly it's been confirmed that they tried to coverup the initial warnings of a pandemic to save face, which backfired on them (though when the US tried this same tactic it ended up being far worse), though they did ultimately shift into high gear once it became an international concern. With all of that in mind, and also bearing in mind that they were quite draconian in their lockdowns for awhile, it's possible, though unlikely, that the figures are accurate. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that they said "death" not "case", as that's an important distinction. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

With a disease this virulent and easily spread, covering it up is not some trivial task. Cory and shabi are just kind of dumb conspiracy theorists, but only about "acceptable targets". You literally cannot pretend CoVID-19 is not happening without literally hundreds of thousands of deaths(see: US). My in-laws live in Bejing, and would know as well. China is not the only country to manage a lockdown-based local eradication. This attitude of theirs reeks of racism. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And a million people disappearing shouldn't be easy to cover up, yet how long after the fact did we find out about the Uighur "re-education" camps? I'm not saying it's impossible that China had a better response to COVID than the West, but I am saying that it's all but impossible they had such a perfect response that they've only had 1 death in the past half of a year. And it's really not that hard to hide even a thousand deaths; old people die all the time, just declare that Grandma died of "respiratory failure" and done, no COVID death to report! CoryUsar (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please do ignore my nuanced response... I don't know why I even bother trying to correct people who are too terminally dense to actually listen... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ikanreed you are so bloody naive if you believe China didn't have a single COVID death in the last 8 months. I wouldn't believe a single major country if they made that claim regardless of harsh lock-downs when they have open borders. I especially don't believe a country that claims this when they are notorious for releasing disinformation (most notably their claim that they are just "reeducation institutions" in Xingxiang, erase all mentions of Tienanmen square, lie regularly about their yearly provincial growth figures and regularly publish endless bullshit in their national state run newspapers. They literally just jailed a Chinese journalist for reporting on the original outbreak. Can you seriously believe anything their government says when they make such an incredible claim as "no deaths in 8 months"? Calling out "racism" or "conspiracy theories" is a stupid hand-wave of yours. Are you as confident about this as you were with "Trump winning the election"? ShabiDOO

Incredulity/doubt is reasonable - making a counter claim on no actual evidence is bullshit.Aloysius the Gaul 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is the more likely scenario? That A) China got COVID under control, or that B) China did not get COVID under control and is lying about it? CoryUsar (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s also fairly easy to fudge the numbers by applying a very strict definition of “death from COVID-19” that excludes any cases where there are other contributing factors and/or by registering the immediate cause (e.g, heart attack), rather than COVID-19. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking back on my past

I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that I supported supported Donald Trump at one point. I know that I can lose my grip on reality sometimes due to mental illness. I am glad that common sense kicked in before it was too late. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly the same deal for me. The far-right propaganda hit me when my depression and anxiety were worse, coupled with my first ban from theotherwiki, and with my dad echoing it, I fell right in. I cheered for trumps first impeachment. To think I would had been at 1/6 if I didn’t get out is frightening. Sievert 81 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not entirely your fault. Exactly like Hitler, he was somewhat charming and very VERY charismatic. Most people (And by most, I do mean rational Conservatives, not the literal racists who still support him) voted him because they thought he was gonna help the economy strive and improve people's livelihoods, well he managed to do the opposite. There is also the undeniable fact that Hillary Clinton was opposing him and nobody liked Clinton, I have heard there were Democrats who voted Trump just to spite Clinton. 2A02:120B:C3C4:35C0:7825:26CF:BFEC:4E66 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A thing that bothers me is the fact that Trump and those like him prey on people with mental disabilities. Be it developmental or psychiatric. It is so damn unethical. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am convinced that Gun Girl, Poop Girl, you know her name, has fetal alcohol syndrome. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As a petty jerk, one of the things I loved doing throughout Trump's term was reminding rabid supporters convinced he was going to win in a landslide victory in 2020 that he managed only an electoral win against America's most hated politician in 2016, and that not being named Clinton was an advantage he'd be sharing with whomever he ran against this time. Artificius (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it wrong to troll Trump supporters on Twitter?

And how far is too far? Making fun of their kids? Trolling teenagers who support Trump? Trolling people with disabilities who support Trump? 2607:FB90:4283:A722:8010:F4E6:901A:5593 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not worth your time in my opinion. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Fucking around with twitter is a waste of time. It would be a much better use of your time to contribute to RationalWiki and document the abuses of the trump crowd here. For example, the mob has come together and created our article on the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot and made it into a great source for outing all the enablers, participants, and criminals involved in the insurrection against our country, all backed up by reputable sources. I'm proud of my contributions there and for every other mob member who's made that article. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 06:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ditto on the article. I'm just completely blown away at how it's only a week old, and yet it's already grown to more than 111k bytes in size. In fact, I think I'd be comfortable giving it silver at this point — and I never thought I'd say this for such a young article, but once all the errors caused by all the users' and good-faith BoNs' scramble to add stuff in get ironed out we could even give it a gold brain! --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 22:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Cosmik. The only good use of Twitter is when used as a demo for OnlyFans...

(ok ok, stupid joke, but there's really NOTHING of value from seeing celebrities yak about their opinions on stuff they know nothing about or posting pictures of the food they are about to turn into poop) CoryUsar (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh Cory, don't even get me started on how I have to put a conscious effort into pretending to care about such famous people whining about how hard and unfair their multimillionaire lives are, as well as into pretending to care about whether or not they think that the fact that a vaccine (Sinovac) made by Chinese university labs will soon be authorized for emergency use in the US is "proof" that vaccines are the mark of the Beast propagated by communist Chinese socialist Jewish Muslim black atheist radical liberal 5G genetically-modified deep-state media antifas that will include microchips which will allow our God-King George Soros eyes and ears into our every move and turn us all into neuroatypical gays. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 07:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it depends on the celebrity, and the problem. Lots of celebrities were sexually abused as children (and as celebrities), and I'll take my own yuppie problems over rich rape-victim problems, thank you very much. Attractive people can have problems too... CoryUsar (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The debates page

Over the past couple days, I've done some expanding of the Debate page. You guys think it looks any good at all? My goal is to get this page into at least a bronze category eventually. Aaronmichael5 4:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks reasonably good to me. 'Bronze' is pretty much up to individual Sysops as long as it's better than the average article and not a stub. Bongolian (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As the self-appointed God-Emperor of Rationalwiki, I have no extra authority so it doesn't actually matter. But you can change it to Bronze and I won't edit-war you over it. CoryUsar (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, so if I'm understanding right, Bronze is for any article that's well written/not a stub, while silver and gold require a vote on the talk page? If that's the case, I'll add the bronze to the debate page pretty soon (I definitely feel as if the topic is relevant enough for it), I'll just need to make a few more edits before that though. Aaronmichael5 21:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if Trump dodges prison (somehow).....

He will be living in a mortgaged cardboard box. All those lawsuits will bankrupt his sorry ass. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thought this was somewhat funny

A Virginia man was arrested yesterday at security checkpoint near the Capitol after being stopped for having an unauthorized inauguration credential. After a search of his car, authorities found a loaded and unregistered handgun, 509 round of ammunition for the pistol, and 21 shotgun shells. He says it was an "honest mistake." This is one of those times where I can't tell if he's just completely oblivious of the world around him, or he's just lying. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WNs aren't the brightest bulbs; they're terrible liars. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 16:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Conlang in a South Park episode

In the South Park episode "Goobacks" there is a fictional language spoken by immigrants from the future seeking work in present day America.

This language known as "Future Speak", is an amalgamation of all world languages. The Future Speak language has also a unique alphabet.

How difficult would it be to create the Future Speak language in a fully functional language? I know that languages have radically different rules to them. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The challenges of actually learning that language would be insane. In that case the consonant inventory of that language would be WELL over 150 consonant sounds (if you included combinations of injectives, retroflex, aspirated, creaky, pre-nasalised etc. Vowel sounds (with short, medium and long vowels, rounded-unrounded etc) would be nearly 50 sounds. It would have at least 100 gender/noun categories and at least 70 grammatical cases. There would be at least a dozen tones. It would have bizarre and complicated stress patterns. It would include the most complex conjugations and declensions. It would be both analytical and synthetic, it would be a combination of nominative/dative AND ergative AND more exotic types. It's vocabulary would be a strange mess. I suppose if we had to just force them all to amalgamate somehow you could reduce those numbers a little but it would be so complex I think it would take a few generations before it was reasonably spoken natively AND regional variation would happen so fast as it developed that different languages would very quickly emerge making it difficult to hold onto a world standard. It would sound nothing like the language on South Park. It is a helarious episode though! THEY TUK R JERBS! ShabiDOO 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm no linguist but I think you might be over-inflating here, OP asked how difficult it would be to create the futurespeak language not how plausible it would be for such a language to eventually exist. I don't see why a skilled individual with some funding couldn't make a fake futurespeak from the samples of that South Park episode. That sort of thing has been done before (Dothraki and Klingon). The conlag created might not hold up under scrutiny by linguists but I don't see why it couldn't be just as functional as other created languages. SolPyre (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Technically, modern English is already an amalgamation of a great many world languages, just heavily leaning on French and old English, especially for grammar. There's words from almost every part of the world somewhere in English: kamikaze(Japan), robot(Polish), algebra(Arabic), karma(Sanskrit), commando(Afrikaans), patio(Spanish), bayou(Choctaw), amok(Malay). The actual list of words not derived from Latin through French or from German through Old English is gigantic, colossal even.

So why does that not count? Well, because it's too familiar to you, and too unfamiliar to speakers of other languages. Also because the south park writers are kinda racist, and had a definitely intentional message of "race mixing is bad" incorporated into that episode's message. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, racist? You're joking, right? Heck, "They terk are jarbs!" is from that very same episode.CoryUsar (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

South Park has some issues for sure, but racism is a new one? From what I know, the creators are far more hardcore libertarians who go "all politics are dumb and holding a solid position on anything is a sign of weakness" than outright racists. Anyway, I could totally be wrong here, but this is news to me. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. In the party of politics, South Park is the one teenager in the corner spitting out obscenities at everyone while thinking they're cool. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Except they have some cred to back up their claims of being cool, unlike that obnoxious teen trying to reframe some historical event in the most anti-American light possible even if it means ignoring actual facts and then expecting praise for being "smarter" than the mainstream. CoryUsar (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

i have generally found that the guy spitting out obscenities at everyone - the equal opportunity offender - are pretty much always just racist. not sure parker and stone are any different there. two white american guys do love their racist stereotypes a little too much. im sure there is an argument to be made that they are satirising such stereotypes. but there is a pretty good argument to be made it just perpetuates them. i seem to remember asian people rarely be anythng more than crass stereotypes.

i mean the whole 'not racist if you have a go at everyone' defence falls down somewhat if when you are having ago at everyone, the race based stuff is only ever thrown at non white people and is usually all that is ever thrown their way. is it really not racist if your digs are entirely based around race for one group, but for your own ethnicity you rarely ever make reference to race at all? if you arnt a racist you need to work on your material.

and it isnt satire having a 'racist' character as the vehicle for your racist jokes. they are still your racist jokes and you might be joking but not really.

i used to watch south park when it first aired. it was funny, i guess, up to a point. it wore thin once the shock value dissipated and whatever point was being made with an offensively racist/sexist/homophobic caricature has stopped being made but the character still around and no longer offensive to make a point, just offensive. some religious groups gave it the kind of pr money cant buy and its become a sacred cow to the sort of people who make passionate and principled defences of the freedom of speech against authoritarian censorship in general but specifically against not being racist.

it just annoys me that we are supposed to give south park a pass for its flaws, or even to acknowledge them AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Matt Stone is Jewish. I don't think that counts as "White"; I don't think I've ever heard of a White Supremacist group that welcomes Jews as "fellow White people". CoryUsar (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

South Park portrays a great deal of white people as entitled, insensitive, semi-racist (or full out racist) dysfunctional people (especially rednecks). There is literally not a single race, class, gender, sexuality or anything that is not ridiculed by South Park. With the exception of Jew jokes (self ridicule by Jewish people) most jokes about race, class and gender are done in a way that points out how stupid racism, sexism and homophobia is. Much of South Park's LGTBQ+ treatment (especially in the later seasons) strives towards acceptance and tolerance of LGTBQ+ (hence in an episode where their parents get angry with their kids for apparant homophobia, big gay Al's sanctuary of pets who have dealt with homophobia, Tweek and Craig's parents struggling and accepting their kids percieved gayness, the boys fighting for big gay Al to be their gay scout leader. This is all countered by outrageous LGTBQ+ jokes which lampoon gay culture in a way that I as LGTBQ+ find absolutely hilarious. People being accepting of Garrison when he comes out of the closet (but then ironically only superficially in a way that shows social hypocrisy. The school showing shame for firing Garrison just for being gay. An episode which celebrates the legalisation of gay marriage. Big gay Al's song in the film is one of the funniest gay cabaret's I've ever seen. I don't think it's an understatement to say South Park helped normalise LGTBQ+ culture for my generation. ShabiDOO 08:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting how they admit they were wrong on both Global Warming and Trans issues. The Global Warming denialism is really the one thing I find inexcusable with them, because even before South Park existed much of the public (even if not the majority) was pretty well aware about Climate Change and all, whereas the initial Trans episode is much more forgivable when you remember that you really didn't see any positive depictions of Trans people in the mainstream back in 2005. CoryUsar (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@shabidoo - just going to have to disagree. the white characters get range, are more nuanced, more 'real' (as real as is possible for such a show), especially when contrasting with some of the more egregious steretypes - asian characters for example are depicted in a manner that mickey rooney would think a bit much. any point about hypocrisy is blunted when the hypocrisy shown is done by characters so much less overtly ridiculous (still often ridiculous none the less, but less so) comparatively than those it is shown targeted by it. i also feel its easier for some groups to laugh off abuse thrown at them as banter thats not really possible for more marginalised folk. to me south park is the guy smiling why he throws abuse at you, feigning incredulity if they get a rise. 'its just banter' they insist 'you've no sense of humour'. no it is not banter. banter is between equals. this is bullying.

i cant speak as to it helping normalise lgbt culture, i cant personally see it and its honestly not a position ive heard before - and i'd long since stopped watching before most of those events occurred. im more inclined to believe its normalised racist, homophobic, transphobic bullying. it gives license to bigots to condone their own prejudice as banter, and its 'just saying what we all think' anyway. they arent neighbours, but still the same neighbourhood as the proud boys.

@coryuser - jewish and white are not mutually exclusive and we shouldnt be taking our cues from white supremacists. it has to be said though, the us has had interesting take on whiteness over the years AMassiveGay (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jews have never and likely will never be considered "just another White ethnicity" by "White" people for any significant length of time the way Italians and the Irish (themselves once viewed as "non-White) are viewed as "White", any more than Arabs have ever or will ever consider Magrebi or Mizrahi Jews to be just another Arab group for any significant length of time. Jews only get to be "White" when it comes time to blame problems on "White people", not when it comes to being the beneficiary of discriminatory policies. CoryUsar (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

i repeat - americans have had some strange ideas about who is or is not 'white' AMassiveGay (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"White", and most definitions of race, is somewhat arbitrary. Europeans themselves are extremely racist towards other Europeans. For instance, the way the US treats Mexicans is basically how most of Europe treats the Poles. Chances are you knew Marie Curie was French, but did not know she was Polish too. The rest of the Eastern Bloc doesn't have it much better. Even Germany still has some issues regarding East vs West Germans, similar to how New Yorkers view Upstaters as a bunch of backwoods hicks. One could make the case that, as Indo-Europeans, Indians and Pakistanis should be considered just a tanner "White", but good luck with that. Britain treats "Pakis" in the same manner as the US treats Black Americans, just much more intensified.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Once again, for no significant length of time have Jews ever or will ever been/be considered "White" by "White" people, and the only time Jews will get to be "White" is when it's in a negative connotation. CoryUsar (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

He's baaaack...

The legend has returned one last time...Seeing him in the news again makes me like I'm traveling through time. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Rove once again proves he actually has a brain in his skull. I'm not being sarcastic, he's actually one of the brains behind the party. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Rove ain't an idiot, that's for certain. But Giuliani? Oh, hell, considering his proposed defense strategy-- "I'mma prove that there was too voter fraud and that means the Prez didn't incite nothing because it ain't inciting if it's true", for those who didn't read the article-- he seems perfectly prepared to carry all the idiot balls for the both of them, the rest of the party, and most fringe groups. Kencolt (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually saw that turd (Rove) in real life, post-Bush. He was personally rearranging the display of his memoir at a Texas airport bookshop. Even flunkies have vanity. Bongolian (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems that Giuliani isn't on the Trump Defense Team ™ after all. he claims it's because he's maybe/probably a witness, what with speechifying on the 6th, and not because the other Trump supporters look at his strategy as too fucking idiotic even for them. Kencolt (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Infographics on Ranalavona

The video is fucking shitty, and shockingly eurocentric. The shit she did was no worse than what any of the European sovereigns were doing during those days. It neglects to take into account that she was fighting off foreign colonialism, you know, the stuff that's supposed to be bad. Vlad Tepes gets a lot of defenders, but Ranavalona gets none. Tell me, why is that? The video just repeats standard propaganda and is not equipped to deal with the complicated subject matter. Not surprising, when you have a series literally titled "Most evil." — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on "When bad people make good art?"

I know there are better things to discuss right now, but I was just wondering, what are the thoughts of a rationalist and humanist community on this topic?

A few resources:

• https://medium.com/@cmmhartmann/what-to-do-with-good-art-from-reprehensible-people-b547c8f7666a
• https://writerunboxed.com/2018/05/08/when-a-bad-person-makes-good-art/

— 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 07:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So, before I ask questions about Jared Leto, I would like to talk about the band Lostprophets. I heard Lostprophets and I actually liked it, I was like 14. Never heard again until, weird baby rape. I never liked 30 Seconds to Mars, and then, eventually, weird Island cult stuff, but it all worked. Rivers Cuomo has a weird interview where he claims he told everyone who wasn't naked to get out of his hotel room, and it worked, but he is also the Weezer guy who wrote Pork and Beans or whatever it was called. What made Jared Leto an idol? He looks like a discount Jake Gyllenhal, if I managed to spell that right, but 30 Seconds sucked, nobody plays that, who goes to his island? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I say to hell with moralizing about the sins of artists and creative types. I really don't care about Ted Nugent's politics, he's a musician and his opinions on such matters are no more expert than mine, and no matter how disagreeable they are, they don't change the fact that his first solo record from 1975 is a towering masterpiece. That said, I do have qualms about patronizing the films of Tom Cruise or Joaquin Phoenix on account of their beliefs and opinions, but that's more of an anti-cult thing that has nothing to do with the private sins that usually give rise to that kind of handwringing. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tom Cruise I know about, but I thought Joaquin Phoenix was no longer in a cult. I'm not caught up in this drama, would you mind explaining why you still don't patronize his films? Back on the topic at hand, it all depends on how they make their art. The Triumph of Will was a revolutionary piece of filmmaking, and is still fairly impressive today, but it served a barbarous cause and advanced a vile philosophy. Technically impressive and thematically complex art that expresses the horrible opinions of their creator is in my opinion worse than poorly constructed art, and should be avoided. But good art that is divorced from whatever insane opinions their creator may have shouldn't be forgotten. For example, Thriller is a solid song (in my opinion at least). Whether or not MJ was a pedophile, it will still be a good song. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You really picked Nugent as your shining controversial amoral boy? Well, cool, guess I'll fucking die. At least Frank had the balls to bring up Michael Jackson, whos art should at least be considered as the result of damnable hunger for the next big sweet hit. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's Orson Scott Card. He made a pretty influential book series that I read as a kid, I kinda got into his works for a bit and he secretly fed me the SpaceBook of Mormon; the one thing that stuck with me from the SpaceBook of Mormon was a bit of Graph Theory in terms of interpersonal relationships. But the guy himself? A total twat. All writers are to some extant, but this one is just, well, even if I could ignore how rabidly anti-gay the guy was to the point where I'm convinced that he's the first called whenever the National Park Services needs to find a few bears, it only just gets worse from there.

So, should we not read his books? CoryUsar (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If I may interject, I'd say that's really up to you. I personally enjoy his work (in fiction, that is) even though the guy is a bit of a prick. Twodots (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt, I never was much of a Michael Jackson fan and would noet mind much if I never heard a note of his music again. Dancepop does nothing for me; AFAIAC it's all still disco, and it's axiomatic that disco sucks. That said, while what little I've read about his life suggests that he had reasons for being as messed up as he was. Understanding is more important than judgment in these cases. Posthumously assuming that he was guilty of crimes he was acquitted of while living is a poor way to treat an African-American, IMO, and fortunately I'm really not interested enough to care one way or another. Nugent, by contrast, was a hard rock icon in the desert years of the mid-1970s and I remain interested enough to care. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand why numerous pedophiles are as twisted in the head as they are, but some actions are so horrific that no excuse can ever be enough. I don't know for certain if Jackson was innocent or guilty, and I don't think we ever will know, but if did do what people claimed he did his childhood traumas could never be a sufficient justification. CoryUsar (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally dont feel it necessary to avoid the works of noted arseholes. if you still get pleasure from music or a film despite who created then imbibe. even if their arseholery is evident in their art, theres no need to never see nor hear it again, it just means you'd need to be aware of issues with a particular piece. even more so if you were to recommend something to someone, it would probably be best to mention a piece has its merits despite its obvious flaws, and be mindful of the fact not everyone will be able to or is required to look beyond its shortcomings.

its not so long ago when everybody was a racist or sexist prick, and their art reflected it. we would listen to or read anything more than a year old if we couldnt look beyond such stuff. shouldnt be too much of an issue if its 'of its time' racism, unless maybe its racist even for its day. i suppose its harder overlook things like that when it comes from a current figure and not from someone long dead from a less enlightened era. if they are current then they should know better.

its ultimately a personal choice. i can listen to micheal jackson but not to morrissey because i'm less invested in michael jackson than i was with the smiths. film or books i have no problems enjoying stuff made by arseholes at all, its jusy easier to do than music which hits on a more emotional level than other mediums cant quite reach.

the only point im a little unsure about is, if the arsehole in question is a convicted paedophile, will listening to their music, reading their books, watching their movies mean i am giving cash to a convicted paedophile? its one thing separating art from its creator, its something else to be paying the cunt. michael jackson was never convicted and is dead. hes not going to profit. gary glitters stuff gets played at us sporting events regularly and hes a convicted rapist. kinda wince when i hear his stuff played knowing he profits every tme. but at the same time, i highly recommend that people should watch chinatown. its just such a good film. directed by a convicted (and on the lam) rapist.AMassiveGay (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is going to be the start of the bad one. I apologize. I would agree it's a little different when you've invested in art and you look back and see, oh shit, I was invested in an ass, and I was also kind of an ass at the time but I've grown and changed myself. It's a little harder for me when bad people make groundbreaking art and control, or at least direct the art narrative of the time, It's tough for me to get the difference. Like, is it OK to say Nazi scientists made medical breakthroughs? I think the nature of medicine would say, no, medicine does not require unethical sourcing. Is it OK to source art from rapists and pedophiles? Well, the nature of art is different. As broad and wide as the talent spectrum is, for art, I would also say that no, sourcing art does not require accepting unethical artists. There was a really cool interview on Fresh Air with Fran Lebowitz, where she said she didn't like Andy Warhol, didn't talk to him many times but they didn't get along, and explained a big reason behind her dislike was because so many people from his factory died, and not from AIDS because that crisis hadn't hit, but from what she saw it was Warhol's callous and disengaged encouragement of the young peoples' mental instabilities, for the sole purpose of, what she believes, came from his own entertainment by watching people do crazy shit. You never know with these bougie WASPiring art-party grudge keepers. But, I mean, I remember reading Warhol got shot in the gut and one of his members held him crying, and he told her "Don't make me laugh, it hurts." And that's either The Joker level disassociation or Superman level reassurance, but his factory was the 60's New York art scene, madness was kind of the main feature. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

So many people involved in that scene came to bad ends, starting with Edie Sedgwick. But was also a welcoming space for gay and trans people well before that became fashionable and I am inclined to be indulgent. The victims, too, were products of their time. A far more difficult case is presented by the many intellectual figures and writers who sympathized with Fascism or Stalinism in the era prior to WWII. Ezra Pound is the big one, of course; you also have not only Roman Catholic extremists like G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc - the latter could be extremely funny when he wanted to - and also more respected writers like T. S. Eliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Henry James. Now the 1930s were a fucked up decade much like recent years, and led poets and creative writers towards the unpoetic distractions of social and economic reforms, and it seemed important for any literary intellectual to take a stand, no matter whether their intellectual achievements were at all relevant or not. More importantly, Mussolini and Hitler looked very different before the revelations of Auschwitz. I am not prepared to lose all of these writers from the reading list because of mere politics. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm using this term right, the Overton Window? Is it possible, and if so is it worth separating these individuals from their works in any era outside of their own? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the Overton window is that it frames the spread of conventional political opinion; anything within the window is nominally respectable and likely to be heard on mainstream media, while views outside the window are extremist, eccentric, and/or scary. Admiration for Mussolini and, probably still then to a lesser extent, Hitler, were possible things, at least before the war snapped that side shut. And all sorts of Hollywood creatives found themselves in hot water in the 1950s because they made sympathetic, conventional war films about our Soviet allies and their struggle. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So, and this is just me trying to parse something complicated... The politics of the art would be respected outside of the Overton Window, but the individual's politics would not? That doesn't sound exactly right. Again, just me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

My Drunk Take on US Politics and Democracy

I have been arguing with an old buddy of mine, we disagree and fire off digs. We did student congress together back in high school. We're both realists, and he's kind of a left-centrist who calls me a hippie, but he said something that really pissed me off. He said he doesn't trust democracy anymore because stupid people vote, and I am just, so tired of that attitude. Taking into account how reluctant low population states are to get rid of the electoral college, here's my solution.

Dissolve the senate into the house. Give every state 2 extra permanent house seats, don't change anything about senate elections, just put those seats in the house. Replace the senate with an elected judiciary, two judges per state who have to be elected. Anything from the legislative branch would have to pass the judicial instead of a second level of legislation. I mean, nothing is getting past the legislature as it is, and I agree each state would run the risk of judicial theater at the state level, but we already elect judges at the state level. I think it would invigorate democracy and inhibit pure ideological theater.

Please, tear the idea apart, I'm not putting it out because I think it's a perfect plan. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In general, I think this is a good idea. The Senate is undemocratic, and gives extra power to small states. California should honestly have 10 senators. It might be easier to just expand the house, that's necessary anyway, but like you add all the sensors plus 75 more seats and I think we`d have a more responsive democracy. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: California has a higher population than Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico combined (39.51 million vs. around 38.84 million). That's two senators that represent more people than 24 senators. 71.120.86.44 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Naaah, it makes perfect sense!!!! becuz muh statez ritez!!!! Twodots ^{Annoy me} _{Look, ma!} 05:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue with that [adding California seats] is it doesn't address the union complaint. I am personally against the electoral college, but there is a cart, which is our idea of a perfect democracy, and a horse, which is our government. There has to be some balance of power in the governance, and I really don't think it's a good idea to assume just getting rid of something that is statistically undemocratic is like, how you run a democracy. The main point is the senate is not working at a legislative level, despite how "fair" it is or is not, those low population states still participate in the union, so I'm saying dissolve that garbage version of representation and make it an active/scrupulous version with just as much power without taking away any of the very important union representation. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see where you're going with this-- at least I like to think I can-- but it kinda ignores the reason why there's both a Senate and a House. See, the thing is even at the beginning of this wonderful thing we call a... whatever the hell we call it (there's been a lot of debate about that of late) the guys who were writing the Constitution saw one major problem coming in fast. Smaller states, with smaller populations were still sovereign states with technically equal standing to any other. Some had much larger area than others, and thus potential population growth that could surpass smaller but wealthier (and at the time, more influential) states. And it was clear to anyone with a whit of common sense that Rhode Island would be willing to let itself be counted as less worthy on the newly forged national stage than New York (to give an example).

The solution was the bicameral legislature that granted both equal representation (Two Senators, everyone gets the same, all states are equal as states) and proportional representation (Congressmen? How many people you got in the state? Okay, there's how you figure out how many congressmen). Now, yeah, it's a different country these days (for one thing, it's actually a country rather than a formal union of smaller countries) but the various states still have legal, cultural, and social differences.

And I somehow doubt that many states-- I daresay most of them (if any) would be willing to give up that guarantee of equal say that is the Senate for the sake of "streamlining" the government. It's not to their advantage, and in the end, advantage always counts. Kencolt (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is kind of irrelevant than there is a significant number of people who clearly vote for a party that works against their interests if your concern is the utility of democracy. The greatest utility of democracy is its ability to depose a bad government. The "representing the interests of the people" is a huge huge bonus per democracy but it only works reasonably well if you have a good system in place such as proportional representation. and America doesn't have it nor likely will any time soon. So the yo-yo effect of a red vs. blue government does VERY little to properly represent the interests of the people, especially when the parties are so similar (when you compare with the political differences in say multi-party Belgium the two US parties look virtually identical). How intelligent people's votes are is far less important than if people are intelligent enough to get rid of a bad government (teetering on tyrannical or cutting down on rights or ending democracy). Of course there is no guarantee people will over throw a bad government, luckily this time in the US they did. Otherwise American democracy is kind of silly as you can't really represent the will of the people that well with two parties that are both caricatures of the progressive vs. conservative agendas, aren't significantly different and play back and forth every one or two election cycles. ShabiDOO 13:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that the House is more powerful than the Senate, right? Regardless, if Government can't do anything, that's actually the system working. Half the point of the checks and balances is to keep everyone too busy fighting amongst each other unless a crisis occurs. As for the Senate, the idea is that the Government has to have support of both the population and the regions. Without the Senate, Nevada would have virtually no say at all, and California could simply vote every session to build another toxic waste dump outside of Reno. It's not a perfect system, but even the EU saw this system with its flaws and still gives proportionately more votes to Denmark than to France. CoryUsar (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't need a president nor a strong senate which can frequently block the lower chamber. Commonwealth countries and contitutional monarchies (UK, Canada, Spain, Belgium, most of Scandinavia etc) have had all power concentrated in a single chamber and within the chamber itself has all the checks and balances you need. Prime Minister being stupid? Cabinet intervenes or party members vote against it or party picks a new leader. Government does something unconstitutional? Supreme court steps in. Bad government? They get elected out the next election. Why on Earth do you need a president or an upper chamber that regularly blocks bills? The will of the people vs. the will of the people vs. the will of the people? It really seems like madness when you see the kind of gridlock that happens for two or even four years. ShabiDOO 16:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the gridlock isn't a bug, it's a feature. The goal is to keep the Federal government from interfering too much into what each State wants except for national emergencies and foreign policy. The Fed is much, much more powerful now than it was in the 18th century, and that's not something the Founders would've agreed to. Not unless you believe they would've been fine with the Commerce Clause being used to tell me I can't grow marijuana for personal use, because growing my own marijuana for personal use only and not selling to anyone else reduces market demand for the drug and therefore affects interstate commerce. CoryUsar (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a "feature," which means the system is working exactly as intended. Ie, we need a new system. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is pure political dysfunction. When an even remotely contentious bill gets passed it is an absolute miracle. No wonder the rest of the developed world is light years ahead on so many issues. Zheesh. ShabiDOO 17:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's take Abortion as an example. (I want legal abortions personally, but I view Roe v Wade as SCOTUS overreach). If enough people don't want it, should Missouri be able to tell California to ban "partial birth" abortions? At the same time I also don't think California should force Missouri to legalize all abortions either. BUT! I also don't think California should subsidize Missouri's welfare system that's overburdened with unwanted children; I don't think it's a coincidence that the states most against abortions are also those that have a net cash inflow from Medicaid and other Federally subsidized programs. Until proven otherwise, any issue comes down to money. That's just one example of an issue. It also becomes problematic when you have other things, e.g., does a state recognize certain marriages or divorce, and so forth; there's an old lawyer puzzle about a man who marries, divorces, remarries, etc. Read if you want some fun, otherwise skip. Basically, Guy marries Wife 1 in State 1 but then divorces in State 2, while State 1 doesn't recognize divorces, Wife 2 is Black and is married in State 2, and the guy remarries in State 3 where they don't recognize interracial marriages but do recognize divorces. Then he dies. State 1 says he's still married to Wife 1 who gets the inheritance, Wife 2 and 3 have no claim. State 2 says he divorced Wife 1 but never divorced Wife 2 so she gets the inheritance, Wife 3 has no claim. State 3 says he divorced Wife 1 and never legally married Wife 2, so Wife 3 gets the inheritance. Who actually wins? The lawyers. CoryUsar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I've always thought this argument was dumb. All parts of government have grown stronger and more complex over the centuries, in every enduring state. The reason is that the world is constantly growing more complex at a faster rate, so that government has to grow to catch up. The founders knew this - it's the reason why the militias that were so revered in the Revolutionary War disappeared from political discourse and ceased to be a valid solution after the debacle that was the War of 1812.

But back to the main topic, there's a key difference between slow deliberation and vituperative partisan gridlock. One takes a while to produce a solution, and the other never even tries, as everyone's too busy undoing what's been done and fighting each other. This is a major problem, as a weak and divided Congress creates a super-strong Judiciary. Everybody turns to the Courts for their political agenda of choice, which can affect the lives of millions with a few pages. This is what the founders opposed, see Federalist 78, which specifically says "It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power." Just see how important the Supreme Court has been in our lives over the past decades - all without being elected or having any accountability to the people. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose so.CoryUsar (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm just saying, the reasoning for the Senate was to be the "the saucer to cool the peoples coffee", which I didn't realize until recently is because these fucks actually drank coffee out of the saucer. I feel like that combined with the slavery, should be enough to say we need a solid structural change.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There just needs to be some way of ensuring that you have both "popular by numbers alone" and "popular by region" before something is allowed to happen Nationally. And no, having the Senate only slowly replaced over the course of 6 years rather than all at once is not a bad idea, which is what the "saucer" argument was about. After all, you don't want a situation such as 2002 where due to recent events, xenophobes could win on the campaign of kicking out all the foreigners, and both the Senate and House agree on an ethnic cleansing. Rather, you have 2 years of a rabidly xenophobic House, with 2/3 of the Senate there to block the crazies for the next couple of years, to prevent the country from going entirely crazy. Then 2004 will roll around, and hopefully the public calms down a bit, and the House has more levelheaded people in it again. CoryUsar (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you want to feel old... That porn star on your other tab? If she's only 18 she was born after 9/11/2001. CoryUsar (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate being the person that has to make this argument, but we have to trust people to make the right decisions about who they support. That comes with educating voters about the issues, and being responsive to their needs. That explicitly means there needs to be more representation, not less. I'm not convinced 2002 would have seen a wave of genocidal candidates running for office, any more than I would be convinced there would be a massive wave populists in 2008 to redistribute the wealth and execute all the bankers. There would need to be things that would need to happen at the same time as destroying the Senate and expanding the House, like equitable voting rights, and strengthening the bureaucracy with technocrats so that we don't have political hacks creating policy. With strong institutions implementing policy, they would represent the limit to nuking Afghanistan, or raiding the coffers of Goldman Sachs to make guillotines.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's all based on an unhealthy paranoid distrust of government which is toxic and dysfunctional. Look around the world with governments with only one effective branch of power and look...they do fine. No tyrannical overreach. No out of control legislation. Canada is also a federal system with strong provincial powers where virtually ALL the national level power happens in one chamber with no separately elected president, where the upper chamber only tweaks the bills and NOPE...in 150 years there aint been no craziness. The same could be said of a dozen other similar countries. Abolish the presidency and senate, make your one chamber with proportional representation and you just might have a fighting chance at joining the civilised world with centralised health care, necessary social programs, properly addressing climate change and catching up with the Europe/Canada/NZ/Australia/Japan/SKorea on so many fronts. ShabiDOO 03:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see being skeptical of Politicians being unhealthy, at least not unless you are assuming it's impossible for Politicians to actually do right by the public. Right now, we have a President who no one in their right mind should ever done business with, and I'm still trying to figure out how they did. NYC contractors all talk to each other, especially on big projects, so at some point all those contractors who kept getting screwed by Trump are also partially to blame. He is being replaced by a guy who, while better, is still fawking awful. And that guy was the Veep for Obama who, again, was still pretty shit, the media just presented him in a better light, even if he was better than the previous guy. 20+ years and we can't get a single decent guy/girl in charge. CoryUsar (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I said "unhealthy distrust" is the problem. There is nothing wrong with healthy scepticism but for fuck sakes your political system is literally built on systemic paranoia of branches of government that cannot be trusted to function on their own. That is very unhealthy. Once again...look to other countries that have absolutely zero problem with a simple political system and learn from them. If the government does something unconstitutional then you have a supreme court to stop them. That's all the checks and balances you need. Let the government govern...even if for a term or two your party didn't win and you despise what they do. Zheesh. ShabiDOO 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

They kind of do just govern at the state level, the states tend to have one chamber and a governor with a court that basically goes along with everything. The US federal government is not really comparable to the French parliament, but rather, to the EU Government, whereas the State of NY would be comparable to France, kinda. The people everywhere in Europe have a massive distrust of the EU government, to the point that Brexit happened, if you want to talk unhealthy paranoia. CoryUsar (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

France is not an example I was talking about. They have an elected president and a semi-interfering senate. I was referring to countries with westminster systems like: Canada, UK, Australia, NZ and constitutional monarchies like Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. Most of those countries also have a federal system with provinces/states/nations with comparable levels of autonomy that the US has. Just look to Canada where their provinces have considerable power. Yet at the national level you just have one effective chamber (and a non-interfering useless second chamber which many people want abolished despite the fact it cannot even fully block legislation). No need for a president, no need for a second competing second chamber. 150 years of no notable problems. It's really helarious listening to Americans saying that things that work in other countries just cannot work there. Like healthcare. Works in literally EVERY SINGLE other democratic developed nation (and developing ones) but for some reason wouldn't work in the US laugh my fucking ass off. Why on earth would a functional non-toxic non-gridlocked government not work in the US? It's almost as if you want your government to not do things. ShabiDOO 16:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

France may not be the best example, but you're missing the point. The US is not a country like France, nor the UK, nor Australia, Spain, whatever. As a country, it's more like the EU itself, but stronger. And with a language that virtually everyone speaks, and even more porous internal borders.

Incidentally, that is one of the reasons the individual states don't have their own Universal Health Care, or decent social programs. The EU countries all have UHC and decent welfare, but there doesn't seem to be a EU-wide healthcare system or welfare system. If you are poor in Europe, why be poor in, say, Poland when you could move to, say, Sweden with its better welfare system? For starters, Sweden deports non-Swedes who need social services, even if they are citizens in another EU country. Any US citizen who is able to show up to any US state can instantly become a state resident; New York can't deport people back to California if they don't want to go, though free bus tickets can magically appear. Furthermore, there aren't really significant cultural barriers preventing people from moving, as virtually everywhere in the US people speak English as their primary language. That isn't the case in the EU, if you speak Danish there's only one country where everyone else speaks Danish. So no cultural or legal barriers for internal migration, unlike the EU. So how does New York prevent all the poor people from all the other states flooding in to take advantage of their great health care or generous welfare system? Simple; not have healthcare or a decent welfare system in the first place! It's a race to the bottom for every state to be the absolute shittiest to poor people, to try to prevent the other states from sending their poor people to that state. CoryUsar (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No the US is nothing like the EU. The EU is a massive treaty syatem with countries willing to slowly harmonise SOME laws and institutions. They are still entirely sovereign nations and can leave any time and have a far greater amount of autonomy from the EU system than US states have. The EU and the United States could not possibly be more different. Once again, (and I'm saying this is the third time): Canada has a similar level of devolved powers with their provinces as the US has per their states. They are completely comparable. Yet they don't have a system conducive to legislative gridlock. I don't know why you keep insisting the US is unique the relationship between federal powers and strong state powers. It is NOT unique at all. America is just a country, it is not some exceptional entity that is incapable of enjoying or benefiting from what the rest of the world has. ShabiDOO 17:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Europe has reciprocal health care meaning you can use emergency services anywhere (some countries charge a small fee for hospital visits). Also, EU countries only deport citizens of other EU countries who are being an undue burden on the social welfare system (not people who need it). In many countries you need to have worked or be resident for a minimum period before you access some services (though some services are always available). Examples of deportations: In Belgium 50 Spaniards were deported after working for only a month and then taking Belgian unemployment for two years (making no effort to find a job). In Spain, Bulgarian and Romanian citizens were deported after completely abusing the system and claiming multiple forms of social assistance. Very few EU countries will let you just go there and start taking services, especially without contributing. I don't know how it works in America but I doubt someone from Vermont can just go to Wyoming and instantly start getting state welfare and unemployment insurance without a minimum residency or having worked in the state. Some EU countries expect you to make modest social security instalments if you aren't working, or you use your EU health card for emergency medical insurance or doctor visits and claim it when you go back home. But unless you are taking advantage of a social program, nobody is deported for no reason. I've lived in 4 EU countries effortlessly with minimal bureaucracy (in France you don't even need to fill out a single form). I've used the health care system in three of those countries without even having to fill out a single form during or after a hospital visit (just showed them my EU health card when I arrived, end of story). I claimed sick leave with no problems in another EU country when I got sick (one month hospital stay and four months of follow up, no charge for anything, zero paper work). But yeah, the EU is certainly not the US. They are autonomous countries and they can deport you if you abuse their services, commit certain crimes or pose a certain risk. ShabiDOO 18:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My dream system is to eliminate any forced regional aspect from the Senate entirely. Everyone votes for whichever Senator they want nationwide. The top 100 get in, the remainder have to pledge their votes to one of the top 100. Senators vote with the proportional force of the number of people that voted for them (a Senator who got 2 million votes vote counts twice as much as a 1 million vote Senator). You want to vote for someone that will represent your state, go ahead. You want to vote for a Senator that is in favor of single payer? There will be someone to fill that niche. Want to vote for a conspiracy nut? Well, there will be plenty of those.

This ought to create a Senate with a fairly accurate mix of the real opinions and desires of the actual populace instead of the current "Sorry, you voted for my opponent. Fuck you." model. Individual votes will continue to matter outside of election day. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Would be easier to just get rid of the Senate as a separate body of the legislature, and include them in the House, but also guarantee each region (Northwest, California, Texas, Southwest, Northeast, Southeast, New York) have a certain number of seats.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I was never intending an easy solution, but regionalizing the US, as opposed to giving each state two elected judges is... well, have you ever asked border cities how they feel about their neighbors? It would still be statistically unrepresentative, but at least there'd be some qualifications like having worked with the constituency and being familiar with law. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

By "it" I mean my original elected judges instead of senators plan. Really, what I'm begging for here is some modicum of competence. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Machine Guns

I just got back from Florida yesterday. While I was there, I saw a billboard that said "FIRE A MACHINE GUN!! Starting at $24,99 per person." With a picture of a women shooting this BEAST of a gun on it. it literally looked like the same people who did Disney World's billboards did this one as well. Gotta say, I think Florida has officially out-done even us here in Texas (or is starting to, at least). Aaronmichael5 21:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

You can do the same thing in Vegas. I may not like guns, but having shot several, there is something generally satisfying about it.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a Bojack Horseman episode about just that, but it was about so many things as well and should've been broken out into like 3 episodes. But, it did give us the nice "thoughts and prayers" joke just a few weeks before the Vegas shooting that injured 500... CoryUsar (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

probably trying to appeal to the same - tourists. i'd imagine if you are visiting from an area where gun ownership is a rarity, it would like paying for the use of a sports car and taking it round brands hatch for a couple of laps. an opportunity that do something 'exciting' that you only ever see done by profession sports folk and for a pleasant couple of hours you can get a little taste of what life could have been like if you'd had a more exciting and reckless youth and life filled with fast cars and loose women instead the one were you have a middle age spread and midlife crisis and you've paid drive an f3 car round the track a few times and indulge a fantasy.

getting to shoot off some guns is probably a bit if thrill or at the very least a novelty for most visitors to states i'd imagine. 25 dollars sounds like a relatively cheap day out and a chance to indulge a gung ho fantasy. if i were stateside for some reason, id probably give it a go, just for the experience. i couldnt do anything like that here in the uk. i wonder if they give you a certificate fora memento? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Even in the United States (with its NRA gun culture and all), you cannot purchase a new fully automatic gun since 1986 (thanks to a bill signed by Ronald Reagan, showing how times have changed). And even prior to this, thanks to a National Firearms Act passed in 1934 (in lieu of Prohibition gangster violence), it took a fair bit of paperwork to get one. Because of this, there is very limited supply. Therefore, while owning a fully automatic gun is legal, most used fully automatics are now priced in the tens of thousands of dollars range. Dealers of fully automatic weapons must posses a Class 3 FFL license (which is a fair bit more painful than standard as I understand it) and there is significant paperwork involved to be an owner, or even sell the gun to someone else. I'm sure there's some foreign tourists that go for this as well, but honestly, with the bureaucracy and expense involved, there's also a large domestic tourist that this is aiming for, the way gun culture is over here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am an ex-soldier and love guns, despite also being a fucking commie in US fascist terminology - love the machinery, love the cause and distant effect. love the smell, the fel the physical presence........ fired guns for hire or as a guest in Ukraine and USA..... liking guns doesn't actually make you a right wing wanker.... but sadly it is one of hte wider indicators if others are also present! Aloysius the Gaul 23:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I was gonna say I saw that billboard in Nevada, so second, RipCityLiberal. I fired a bb gun as a kid, I got into airsoft a little with some friends. I've never been paintballing. Went shooting real-deal with a group of guys one time out in the country, everybody but me brought a gun because, spoiler, I don't own a gun, and it was fun. There was one kid who was kinda dopey and he brought a .22 and kinda waved it around like a bb gun and it made everyone really uncomfortable, but he was like "no, I got it, my hand isn't anywhere near the trigger, stop freaking out," in kind of a brought-the-smallest-gun-gotta-prove-I-got-the-biggest-dick way that boys do. I got to fire a mosin, which was cool. The guy who owned it was a retired sniper, he caught every casing he ejected, told us all how expensive the rounds were and like, that was so cool, how was that not supposed to be cool? I caught the gun fever for a second. Then my senses hit me and I was like "but these things are designed to kill people." So I bought a pair of bamboo swords, and my friends and I couldn't be responsible with those even a little bit, so you know, guns are very fun in a specific environment, but Homer was right, the blade itself incites to deeds of violence. Gol Sarnitt (talk)

Along these lines, there were once some quasi-pornographic films that came out in the 1990s of scantily-clad women firing machine guns. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This whole thread has been kinda interesting actually. I didn't know this site had so many people who actually liked guns. Maybe that's just what Conservapedia wanted me to think. Aaronmichael5 19:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone likes guns, sex, drugs and alcohol. The issue is that all of them need clear, sensical rules to ensure that it's done safely. CoryUsar (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Alcohol tastes like piss and sex repulses me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1) You aren't everyone :P

2) You are missing the point; firing guns, much like that little list and probably a lot more, is both fun and dangerous. We can argue about how much regulation that guns (and the others) need or what kind of guns should be legal, but at the very least, like those other things, we have to agree that we need clear and sensible rules around their use. There should be a minimum age on their use, basic safety lessons and perhaps even included in mandatory high school health classes the way we already do with sex ed, permits and background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on some of the deadliest guns and mods (e.g., no bump stocks nor full-auto, limited capacity and calibers, etc). Most of us here support stronger firearm regulations than the US has, but many of us also enjoy shooting guns, and that can come as a surprise to some people such as Aaron.

3) You're not really selling me on the whole "dating you" thing. Sorry! CoryUsar (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The NRA has done a good job of transforming guns into white identity / rural identity politics (which is all the better for increased gun sales -- the paranoid are really good at wasting money on paranoid bullshit), which has also created the interesting side effect that some people find it inconceivable that someone with liberal viewpoints would own a gun. This is bizarre. Guns are a tool first and foremost to me. Some people have fun with various hobbies (hunting, recreational sharpshooting) and there is nothing that says "thou must be white nationalist to hunt or shoot clay pigeons". Some find it useful for protection -- while this side can easily blow up into the paranoid style, it's possible to be sensible on this matter, no requirement to be "white nationalist" on this either. r/liberalgunowners on Reddit actually is a pretty decently sized group these days (123K members) -- it seems there are a sizable amount of people who own guns, but are sick of the NRA style politics surrounding them. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's also an individual, personal rights issue, oddly. It's entirely consistent to want to legalize/expand gambling, prostitution, gun ownership, trans/homosexuality, female genital mutilation, conversion therapy, recreational drug use, homeschooling, arranged/underage marriages, and much more, all on the grounds that the State shouldn't interfere into either personal or family matters if it doesn't absolutely have to. That's basically Libertarianism at its core, and naive for numerous reasons that I won't get into. People tend to pick and choose though from that list based on their own beliefs. Generally, you won't find too many conversion therapy proponents who argue that both the State shouldn't interfere with what the parents decide for their children and argue that two men should be allowed to enter into some sort of marriage or civil partnership if they so choose, but it would still be consistent. CoryUsar (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

So there's some nonsense in that Libertarian argument and it stems from massive equivocation. The state doesn't have a reason to prohibit something if it can be non-exploitive, like gambling, sex work, gun sport, self-identification, look, look, ownership of scheduled drugs, homeschooling, keep reading. The problem is the broad brush that all regulation is nanny state, rather than talking about specific issues. So, here's what I'll say again. All guns should be registered same as a silencer, or as I'm constantly told, it's a suppressor. Call it a gun club, it would not be difficult to register yourself as one. It won't be difficult, but it will legally matter if a gun is registered or not registered. They kinda do this with drugs, already. If you don't have a tax stamp on your drugs, you can but don't necessarily get higher penalties for owning illicit substances. One-time taxing a gun is more reasonable than one time taxing any amount of drugs. If you don't want to pay your taxes on your illicit gun, don't use it anywhere it might be considered in a legal sense. You can still have your illicit guns, you just can't use them unless it's very private use. It's kind of the difference between legalizing and decriminilazing. I wouldn't put forward similar sentences to drug war sentences for owning illicit guns, because that's a separate issue. Using illicit guns, however. Does anybody complain about a fishing or hunting license (spoiler: constantly)? We can't do exactly the same thing with fishing/hunting as we do with gun ownership, that would be insane, (sarcastically) Regulating guns would be like treating a gun the same as a silencer and we all know that doesn't have precedent. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Need input on something

https://www.universalclass.com/catalog/index.htm

Anybody have any experience with Universal Class. I read good things about it but I want to be sure that I am not sinking money into low quality courses if that is the case. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems with this type of organization: 1) They're not accredited, so you generally can't apply credit from their courses to an actual college 2) They offer junk courses (e.g., alt-med, 'couponing'). 3) Unless you're already employed in the field, an employer may not accept these classes as evidence of skill. What's good: 1) the price per course is cheap ($50 to $75), so the risk to trying it out is not that high 2) If you have trouble with self-directed learning, and you see a skill that you want or need, it might work out. Bongolian (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What are you looking into? Some MOOCs are backed by legitimate universities -- Coursera, Udacity, and EDX, to give a few examples. (Our company also used Pluralsight for IT programming.) From my perspective, MOOCs tend to be good for supplemental training for those already in careers, not as full education. As a result, most MOOC courses tend to be IT or business management oriented. I personally am not liking the looks of a place where "Meditation 101" is the most popular "office skills" class. You can, to take an arbitrary example, also learn Excel skills at Universal Class, and to be honest it probably isn't a complete waste of time. However, my bet is the 5 week intro to analyzing data using Excel class at EDX is superior... and EDX is free. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

--Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 21:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are good suggestions, PanGalacticGargleBlaster. Bongolian (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Waiting

As in, I'm currently waiting for it to be noon today.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 13:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And it is. CoryUsar (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Now we have a real President. I know that Biden is not perfect but he is certainly better than Trump. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Fox News of Israel

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/opinion/if-black-lives-matter-then-dont-palestinian-lives-matter-opinion-631983/amp

The Jerusalem Post uses the same type of rhetoric as Fox News. I just love their distortion of both Black Lives Matter and the Palestinian people.

I smell possible Rationalwiki article. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is true, we are going to be in for hell...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-fbi-bulletin-armed-protests-20210111-4ayc73bv6bhwvpl77euctzexuy-story.html the FBI is warning of sieges on ALL 50 CAPITOLS. Holy shit. I was predicting at least 500 rioter deaths when they try to assassinate Biden on the 20th, but not all fucking 50. If rioters can break into a countries capitol, a states capitol will be a piece of cake. This is terrifying. I live 10 minutes from my states capitol. I want to document the protests/riots/insurrections that happen, but my parents are not letting me anywhere NEAR that shitshow (and rightfully so). The 20th is going to be the bloodiest day in America since 9/11. Sievert 81 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As disturbing as I find this, it seems that not all 50 state capitols are likely to be stormed by as many people as the national one in DC; some, like Kansas, Wyoming where nobody even lives and the New England states, where even most conservatives are somewhat more centrist, are not under credible threat but still deployed their National Guards just to be on the safe side. However, others like Michigan, Minnesota, the other Washington, Georgia, Florida, Arizona and Texas are the most vulnerable and are on high alert. (And also, I hear Washington State's capitol is one of the best-guarded, along with Arizona's and Minnesota's.) --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 04:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The creation of martyrs to the cause should set the rebellion back at least 10 years. Aloysius the Gaul 04:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect a big day. There is the confidence that Biden will die and Harris will be an unelected president, which is kinda like gambling. They'll be happy enough if it happens. I think they are "standing down and standing by" for a good stretch Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's stupid to institute metal detectors for your colleagues and fining them thousands of dollars, as if people have thousands of dollars, instead of just saying "You know why you can't have a gun in here, right? Nobody can have a gun in here, you understand that, right?" Fucking metal detectors, what a god damn rip on my freedom. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not just have a symbolic protest - eg a picture on a dartboard/archery target at which you can throw water bombs, paint or other material of choice? And have enough participants for the arrests and court appearances to clog up the legal system. (This is probably too subtle an approach for such protestors to appreciate.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much honestly. It might be a bit rocky, but I don't think we're gonna be living like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome post Jan 20th just because of protesters. Aaronmichael5 19:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not with that attitude we won't. Who. Run. Bartertown. CoryUsar (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Do any of u have any idea how risky Ohio is? I’m not American but someone very close to me and very vulnerable to these fuckheads lives there, and I’m just concerned for their safety. They don’t live like, super close to the capitol, but they also live a fuck load closer than I do and that is not great. I’m probably gonna need to chug a bucket of clonazepam on inauguration Day tbh so also uh preemptive warning that if I black out and say some dumb shit pls just block me for a while thanks. 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 03:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Just in general Ohio is probably medium risk. Though they are very conservative, Gov. Dewine has instituted strict Covid guidelines. That is where I think the largest risk lies, right-wingers angry about the election and Covid restrictions. Michigan is probably among the most at risk, considering it has both those features to the extreme and a Democratic governor. Oregon has a similar threat, ditto Washington (state).-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

All depends how coordinated the nutters are. You can't have all your guards at all your capitols, some are going to be softer targets than others. Due to the election results, I think Georgia is the most likely target, but everyone knows this so it will likely have the most defenses. But the nutters, if coordinated, may decide to all storm Vermont instead. What would Vermont be able to do against 1000 armed protestors storming the capitol? I'm not even sure if Vermont has that many cops. (Looked it up, Vermont has about 1100 cops). CoryUsar (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgia would probably be high on the target list. Out here on the west coast, the militia movement is popular and organized. One of them ran for governor in Washington, and a state rep let them into the Oregon capital. Considering there have been two attempts to penetrate the Green Zone in DC though makes it clear that will be the primary target.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I also have friends in Georgia I’m concerned about but thankfully they’re all cishet white centrists whomst live hours away from the state capitol. Ohio though? A bit nervous tbh. Does anyone have any suggestions for how, exactly, I can help or manage to not fuckin panic for my Ohio Person??? I’m just feeling very hopeless and I don’t like this feeling of having no control or ability to help. 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 01:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't rule anything out. But between the extra security, the loss of Dear Leader's megaphone (recall the pretext of the Jan 6th storming was Donald Trump's "Save America" rally, would January 6th have happened were it not for Trump and Giuliani's egging the crowd with violent language?), and the fractured confused reaction to the insurrection in far-right social media... it might not be so bad on January 20th. It might, but it might not. Sunday's protests in Ohio was rather small and included people dancing for peace in attendance, and there was no incidents whatsoever. So here's hoping it stays more like that. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

So judging by the lack of news stories...the transition of power was peaceful? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Call me biased, but I'm using this as proof that Twitter is the bigger problem than Trump. CoryUsar (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A Minor Confession

Is it wrong that I'm against forced vaccinations? Don't get me wrong, I hate anti-vaccine conspiracy theories just as much as anyone else here (maybe more), but there's something about it that just... idk, doesn't sit well with me. If your goal is to counteract any bullshit vaccine conspiracy theories, forcing it on people (which would presumably include anti-vaccine conservatives) isn't the best way to do it. That would very likely only reinforce their "Government is trying to poison/kill/etc us with their vaccine" theories. We'd very likely have literal rioting and looting in the streets if we decided to do something like that, the likes of which would probably make the capital breach on the 6th look like Candy Land. I'm not anti-vaccine at all, even though I'm not really in a huge rush to go out and get the vaccine since I'm pretty much in the lowest possible risk category (I'm 23 years old and have no underlying conditions), but certainly nothing against it. Aaronmichael5. 21:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not wrong. Let them suffer from COVID. It's not the state's job to police stupidity, unless of course said stupidity goes against the will of the antivaxxers' children who might be old enough to give informed consent to vaccines. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 21:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem arises that when someone doesn't wear a mask nor gets vaccinated, they can spread it to other people who might've been following the rules, or are protected by the people who aren't pigheaded asshats. If the world was fair, drunk drivers would only kill themselves, people shooting at others would have the bullets fly backwards, and gym benches would only be dirty for the people that don't wipe them down after use. CoryUsar (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've thought about that too, which is why for me the vaccine-requirement argument is different from the mask-requirement argument. The former only helps yourself while the latter helps others (though I think research has found that there is at least evidence masks can also benefit the people wearing them as well). Also I think CR has an even better point than it seems. Surely the state would have more productive things to do with their time than to drag Farmer Brown to the doctor's office to get his COVID vaccine. Aaronmichael5 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh... how would getting a vaccine not help others? If you don't get sick, you can't spread the disease. CoryUsar (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Aaronmichael5 22:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Forced anything is bad. But if you pay people to take the vaccine, no problems.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In my state, you can't go to public school unless you were vaccinated, with exceptions for provable medical reasons. Absolutely nobody had a problem with this until AUTISM!. Just have the same thing for public schools now, and allow similar for employers. CoryUsar (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Forced vaccination is often a scare tactic/red herring since no one on record has ever been 'forced' (i.e. restrained against their will) and vaccinated. The closest to anything like that was an in-principle type of case that the US Supreme Court ruled on in 1922 where someone's child had been denied access to getting vaccinated (Anti-vaccination movement#Government intrusion). The Supreme Court ruled against the person who brought the case, ruling (Prince v. Massachusetts, Zucht v. King):

“”Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.

Physically constraining someone to vaccinate them is just terrible publicity/optics, so it's not done. Historically, the constraints tend to be social (e.g., prevention of attending public school who has not been vaccinated). Bongolian (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

People who can't be vaccinated (think cancer patients, immunocompromised, alergic people) are only protected if everyone else is also vaccinated, vaccines not only protect you, but it stops the virus from spreading. Vaccines are the only real way to herd immunity. Also, if you vaccinate enough people and the disease has no other host, that disease is gone and you never need to vaccinate anyone again for that particular disease, saving resources. See smallpox and polio. That's why mandatory vaccination is so important. 2804:431:C7F3:9157:9068:E97A:E7B5:2BF9 (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Forced is a very loaded term, mandatory fits the same thing. And somehow, people still forego these vaccines, what absolutely brilliant weasels they must be to get themselves and/or their children out of forced/mandatory vaccines. Are you against standard vaccinations? Because vaccinations are very standard. Doesn't seem like anybody is unfairly compelled to get a vaccination. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Once vaccines have been fully delivered and unless you have a valid medical reason then I think all of these are completely reasonable (in order of most obvious to some might not like it but I think it should be a no-brainer)

1. No vaccine then no going to school, using public transport, entering government buildings or workplaces, entering public parks.
2. No vaccine no going to a work place or taking any transportation other than your own.
3. We pay a fines for not having fire detectors or no wearing our seat belts...you should pay for not having a vaccine (most especially in countries with centralised health care)
4. Fines should be astronomically high for not vaccinating your kid (you're free not to do it but you should pay a very high fine for it every month...preferably doubling each year). That way you really show how much your world view or religion means to you by parting with a painful chunk of your money to fulfil your deeply held convictions.

But yeah, forcing an injection into your body. No. Just keep people from entering spaces and paying fines. ShabiDOO 16:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little ambivalent about generalized obligatory vaccination - but more against it than for it for social reasons.

But some organisations ( like airlines) may well make it a requirement to use their services or some countries might make it a requirement for entry. So if people don't want to vaccinate I think it's reasonable that they should assume they will lose access to some things.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Go PROVE that the person on the bus didn't get vaccinated. That's why the mask mandate was such a mess; there had to be exceptions for people with medical conditions that prevented masks, but then every asshat and their mother would claim "oh, I can't wear a mask because it's too uncomfortable". Schools are different because kids don't just show up to a random school, it's the same kids in the same classrooms every day, with enrollment paperwork and all.

As for fines, I'd prefer an "idiot tax". No vaccine but not medically exempt? You get an extra 5% idiot tax added to your income taxes, can not be removed with deductions. A doctor gives a suspiciously high number of exemptions? Audit them! The US is bleeding money, this would be a fine way to reduce the budget deficit a little. CoryUsar (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Uhhh...electronic vaccine certificate. If the inspectors can check for your travel pass...why can't the police request a vaccine certificate? In fact the EU is debating a vaccine passport at the moment. ShabiDOO 17:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Airlines are certainly working on it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Inauguration

I'll be back in exactly two years. HairlessCat (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Heh. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's final speech

I saw the Trump speech on the news and of God was it cringeworthy and self serving. Even in his final speech he claimed that he won the election. He also claimed that he had the highest approval rating of any President. While there were cheers for Trump I also heard booing.

Can't wait for when Trump ends up dirt poor. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We should gaslight Trump by saying he was never president. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What gaslighting? Because I know what a President is supposed to be-- on either side of the aisle-- and he was never one of them. Kencolt (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'm relieved that I no longer have to worry about Berwick getting nuked anymore - given his antics, that seemed like the only thing left for him to trigger. 183.83.146.119 (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I was actually very disappointed with the speech. I wanted to hear: "I won I tell you I won!", "I have sent the bill to Mexico and they are going to pay any day now!", "You still haven't seen my health care plan! It's going to be great!" and "Why didn't they at least try injecting bleach? Cowards!" Instead of that it was pretty anodyne.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on site

Clicking my username on the top bar redirects to some user page named "Ooga Booger N****r". I don't know how to fix it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@MirrorIrorriM I fixed it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed. Thanks GC! MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

How did that possibly happen? I gotta know! 104.225.183.70 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I got it now. That A E idiot moved a bunch of people's usernames and they where moved back but still left some sorta redirect? 104.225.183.70 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@104.225.183.70 Apparently someone was exploiting the fact that until earlier today (in my timezone), autoconfirmed users used to be able to move pages. The techs have since made it so that you now need to be a sysop in order to have that permission. We needn't worry about it anymore. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 00:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

1776 Commission is complete shite

This probably needs some sort of article refuting all the absolute garbage in this document. It's definitely revisionist, reminds me of something from European fascists from the early 20th century. Some particularly awful bits:

• Compares progressives to fascist movements (and seems to imply that conservatives are Communist, doesn't really makes sense)
• Takes MLK Jr wildly out of context, including that Civil Rights and 'group rights' are some how synonymous
• States the founding fathers weren't hypocrites, even though they very clearly were and they were called on it at the time
• Implies that America wasn't the exception in adopting slavery, and that it was necessary

No historians apparently were on the panel, and it is being roundly rejected.[1] But I can't help but notice that constantly, conservatives believe two antithetical things in American founding; That the founders were perfect all knowing geniuses that redefined the world, and they were men of their time operating within a world that denied rights to others.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's the perfect example of political forces creating their own political narratives as propaganda. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the kind of report that almost no one actually reads, so it was probably a way to throw money at fellow-ideologues. It's peculiar that they chose the '1776' at this time since it's not an anniversary document, but rather a time when '1776' has been co-opted by fascists: Enrique Tarrio, current head of the Proud Boys, owns a swag shop called 1776.info. '1776' was spotted among insurrectionists at the Capitol. It's also not just this document that's trying to coopt MLK; both Ivanka and Melania are trying to wear the veneer of MLK on their Twitter feeds to try to make themselves look less savage on the way out. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Two of the head writers are associated with the notoriously uber-conservative "fuck affirmative action" Hillsdale College, and the other head writer is Carol M. Swain whose views are... interesting. So it's to be expected. I find bemusing, but atypical, the "We Will Require You To Be Patriotic to Our Whitewashed View of America Because Freedom!" attitude prevalent in this document (I mean, fuck, they put in a good word for "patriotic education", who the fuck do they think we are, China?), as well as the atypical reductionism of the Founding Fathers' religious views in order to elevate Christianity. It was funny to see them include, for instance, Mark Twain in their "timeless stories and noble heroes to restore every American’s conviction to embrace the good, lead virtuous lives, and act with an attitude of hope toward a better and bolder future for themselves, their families, and the entire nation." Apparently, they have not read much Mark Twain. (But hell, they also included Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land.”, too, of all things, and we all know what Guthrie's guitar kills...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh... the entire New World adopted slavery. The 13 colonies were not unique, and virtually all the major European powers had established hereditary chattel slavery. In fact, about 60% of the slaves in the US actually came from the Caribbean; the colonies were originally an afterthought compared to the wealth that was places such as Haiti and Jamaica. CoryUsar (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about the United States. That's irrelevant. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, this is about this document's claims. RCL is saying that this 4th claim is entirely false. I'm countering that it's not entirely false. 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

But that's the thing: the entire report is either a) cherry-picking people they don't like and committing Jonanism, or b) taking a semi-solid point and taking it out of proportion, lumping in other crazy conclusions and wacky statements, until it becomes farcical. IveBeenFrank (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In this particular case, the document is right, but that doesn't mean the whole document is right. A bigger issue is that in spite of there being virtually no one alive who even remembers meeting a slave, massive racism continues to exist. Brazil had something like 10 times as many slaves imported and unless I'm mistaken, racism isn't one of their perpetual problems. CoryUsar (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Addendum. No, apparently racism is still a massive, massive problem in Brazil. World, you continue to disappoint. CoryUsar (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Racism is a problem throughout the world, still, everywhere. And slavery is not a uniquely American problem. I actually had less problems with the "Slavery" section of the document, bar some whitewashing (for all its Bill of Rights, early 19th century United States was still full of Andrew Jackson types and Dred Scott type bullshittery) and ^{[citation needed]} statements ("the movement to abolish slavery that first began in the United State" -- questionable). The next section, however, where "progressivism" was portrayed as a challenge to America's principles (alongside fascism and communism), really went off the rails. (In this case, we're talking about Teddy Roosevelt's party here. Hitler, Stalin... and Teddy, challenges to America, according to this report. Yeah.) Even worse was the "racism and identity politics" section. Both sections complained, using only narrative without evidence, of "group rights" challenging the principle that "all men were created equal", and bleating about "identity politics". The rise of radical white identity politics under Donald Trump was not mentioned, of course, due to the obvious fact that this was a political hack piece more than anything historical. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If we want to say "the idea that 'slavery was necessary' is a terrible, awful idea", then yes. Slavery was hardly "necessary", it was done because it benefited the slave owners even though it harmed the slaves even more, and it was quietly encouraged by the European powers because the largest beneficiaries of slavery were European industries who relied upon cheap raw resources. CoryUsar (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue, as I have on this very Saloon bar before, that although slavery itself was not uniquely American, the type of supercharged chattel slavery wasn't replicated anywhere else and was particularly brutal. And although much of Europe grew wealthy on the backs of slaves in North and Central America, the United States took significant steps to legally protect the practice, sought to silence people who challenged it, and until very recently denied the brutality sheer evil of the practice behind some sort of jingoist bullshit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Also is it plagiarism if you take stuff that you already wrote? [2]

Only in special circumstances, e.g., an artist sells the rights to their first 10 albums but then wants to release remixes of their original songs. Beyond that, I dunno? CoryUsar (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, while New World slavery was indeed the worst of both African and European slavery, it wasn't unique to the US. All major European powers had basically established inherited chattel slavery, and slavery in the US wasn't radically different from slavery in the Caribbean or Brazil. CoryUsar (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Eugene Scott of WaPo makes an interesting argument that the report is primarily to attack all identity politics except tRump's identity politics (white).[3] Bongolian (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden administration disbanded the commission and pulled the website down. You love to see it.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And Donald is already doing something nice for both Republicans and Democrats.

He wants to start a whole new party [4]. Now, it occurs to me that this will have two effects.

First, most if not all of his base will toddle off to follow Der Trumpenfuhrer, which would almost certainly weaken the Republican party considerably, giving the Democrats an advantage in the next couple of elections-- in fact, much more of an advantage that usual for a US attempt at a third party, because he's likely to take a much larger chunk of voters with him than previous attempts (Trump =/= LaRouche, after all).

Second, the 'real' conservatives (those who are moderately right of center instead of happy proto-fascists) will find themselves weakened, but free of having to deal with Trump. And let's be honest, conservative =/= insane, no matter how most here would feel about it. The remaining Republican membership will be diminished, but stronger in the long run, which is going to be good for them.

As an added bonus, we can easily identify bad quality politicians not merely by speeches, but by adherence to the "Patriot Party", since they're either going to be (a) sincere about it, which means we don't want to vote for that idiot, or (b) using it to grab the local vote, which means they're hardly the ethical types we'd want in office anyway.

I kinda hope he goes for it. It would be... amusing, and a useful radar to detect who we absolutely do not want in office. Kencolt (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Two Things.

1. Creating a political party takes political capital(Which Trump has little), monetary capital(Which Trump is lacking), and time to develop (Which Trump notoriously has little patience), making the likely exercise dead on arrival.
2. Historically, the Patriot Party was an Anti-Fascist party so LOL.

-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Trumpism-GOP split is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Hard to predict anything at this point, because on the one hand, post coup attempt, Trump is damaged goods... and on the other hand, Trump has a cult following who honestly are pissed at the GOP for having the audacity to sort of kind of respect democratic institutions. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Two-thirds of big dollar GOP donors cut off funding to would-be coup supporters in Congress: that could give a push to a schism if the donors don't cave in.[5] Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The logical thing for the Republicans to do would be to support impeachment and thus ensure that he doesn't run again in four years.

Because there will probably be a split between Trump supporters and the party at some point. It would be better to have the pain now and then have four years to recover. Otherwise they will have the split sometime before the election when Trump runs again - and that would be worse for them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is what McConnell is signaling. Trump could of course throw his support behind someone or one of his children, but they probably lack the raw political power Trump wielded effectively in 2015. But if he runs in '24 or announces his run in '22, he becomes an issue for the GOP.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one reason why Mitch McConnell is suddenly open to the notion of impeaching Trump. If Trump is in fact convicted, then all it takes is a straight vote in the Senate to bar Trump from any public office. The Democrats will happily go along with all this. Barring Trump the candidate will enrage his disciples while leaving them nowhere to turn but remaining in the Republican Party, which is still their best shot to 'own the libs'. As long as Trump remains a possibility he will be a threat. The Republicans excel at strategic thinking while the Democrats are generally inept. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To respond to the actual "Patriot Party" question at the start of the thread - this would be a nightmare scenario for Republicans. While I agree that Trump himself lacks the skills, temperament or finance to get it off the ground he has historically been pretty good at getting other people to do the heavy lifting and then taking the credit for it.

Even if he himself were barred from office he could still get one of his spawn to lead the thing. And this would be an absolute disaster for the Republican Party. Because however many votes he obtained they could only come from one place - the Republican Party. And with the recent very balanced election results, a 15% Trump vote would bury the next GOP candidate.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two unknowns here that I think won't really take shape for months that will best inform if this actually happens. The first unknown is the results of the impeachment trial. If Trump is convicted and barred from office, then although he would lead this party, he would need to find candidate(s) to run. The other is whether this group of voters that has shown a slavish devotion to Trump really maintains that support or simply goes on supporting whatever the GOP says. Although Trump did successfully bring some new people into his coalition, GOP candidates ran ahead of Trump basically everywhere in 2020. Trump in general is just more vindictive than anything else, I could see him targeting specific races; Cheney in Wyoming, Rice in South Carolina, Meijier in Michigan, Herera-Butler in Washington in addition to Romney in Utah (who is probably a yes to convict), Murkowski in Alaska (ditto) and Thune in Wyoming South Dakota.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Best Wishes to Biden

Putting thoughts on Trump aside for a moment, I was never a huge fan of Biden for many reasons. I never thought he'd be that great of a president. Hopefully I'm wrong though and he turns out excellent. Aaronmichael5 20:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The worst Biden could be is an ineffective President. He won't be an active threat to the American democratic process.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden is a rapist. End of story. Yay that the jester in yellow is gone, but boo that a rapist now has the power to pretty much make any woman's life a living hell and get away with it. "B-B-BUT IT WAS THE ONLY CHOICE" really? The media smering Bernie for supposely being "sexist" with no evidence beyond heresay, and shoving the balant DECADES OLD evidence showing that biden's a molester and rapist under the rug was the only way to defeat the dumpf? No, I don't think so. Spoiler alert: nothing that will actually progress human rights will change under Biden's tender. Just look at his fucking record: https://twitter.com/ABox400/status/1350168485264052231

As soon as we stop sucking up to "kinder" totalitarians such as biden, the sooner we get actual change in this country.2601:602:A7F:1960:49D7:2BEB:8570:53B0 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Reade accusations are F A K E! Go somewhere else, Bernie Bro. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

bErNiE bRo!!!! Man you're a fucking joke. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Reade allegations were pretty dubious though. Even the Republicans never made a big deal about it. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 01:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read up on the Reade accusations before spouting off the cheap lines some random on the internet told you. We have Joe Biden#Tara Reade covered it on our site already. The short of it is that the accusations don't hold a lot of water because Reade kept changing her story significantly once the pieces of evidence that would "prove" her story kept never going past circumstantial evidence that at best indicated that she was a disgruntled employee. Furthermore, she spend literal time cozying up with extreme right wing sources who just wanted to use her to smear the Democratic nominee. Reade's accusations are just that; accusations. Accusations without evidence are baseless and Reade has nothing but circumstantial evidence backing up her story. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is an interesting Times article called 'Believe all women' is a Right-Wing trap. It discusses the claim that the "all" part of the hash tag was guided into the twitter universe of discourse by right-wing critics of feminism. DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!}. Now, that would be disconcerting. 03:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Curious. I mean, I can see it. I was told by my Q nut that "Biden just ended womens' sports." I asked him, "...What?" and he read off his phone, can't quote but trying to be accurate - "Biological males" are now protected to take part in university sports, clubs, programs, "E-T-C". - I said, "well, et cetera is a pretty clear indicator of a thorough take, isn't it." The "biological males" part totally wooshed over my head in the moment though, I was so lost. He said he had a friend who was saying he was going to get into women's dead-lifting because he could win and make money. I said "But you said universities. That's NCAA, you can't make money as an athlete in the NCAA." Somehow, that was close enough to get him off his bullshit. But no, it's an encouragement for transgender athletes to be included, not any kind of mandate that forces womens' sports to accept men, like, the fuck? These guys are all so fucking unsettled.

There's a Jordan Peterson thing going on too with some of these guys with this idea that Biden's mental health secretary wants to put people who misgender other people into re-education camps. "Well, I must be retarded, because I just said the word retarded, and now I get a disability check in Biden's America. Thanks for your tax dollars" and the other guy was like "well, it was kinda click-bait, I just like getting this other guy riled up." These guys aren't reading any of this shit correctly, and they are having strong opinions on it. It's not that the reading comprehension has gone down, it's that the money is made by cable news breaking stories, my guys, the money is made by spurious information, the money is made by the incredible feedback loop of nonsense sourcing nonsense, and both sides are the bad guys in this. This outrageous lack of reasoning that if the "left" controls the media, you have to pay somebody else for your "real" media is nutso bonkers level lack of critical thinking of whether you're actually for or against the imaginary left or the imaginary right that it just slips past these guys. It just slips past them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My (way too early) Republican 2024 nominee predictions

The top 3 republicans I think are likely to challenge Biden in 2024 are [drumroll for 10 minutes] (3) Greg Abbott, (2) Kristi Noem, (1) Ron DeSantis. Be back in 4 years to see how well (or not so well) this aged (Also keep in mind I'm making no predictions on whether or not they will actually win, these are just who I think will challenge Biden in the election). Aaronmichael5 15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC).

Whatever happened to Condi Rice? CoryUsar (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cross Abbott off that list, he's not making moves in that direction. Dan Crenshaw might though. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both are dying to be President. Cruz especially. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Cruz lacks the charisma, to my understanding he has little appeal outside of the hardcore Trump base (which isn't the entire Republican party). Dunno about Rubio though. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Condoleezza Rice? Really? The woman has consistently shown zero interest in the top spot. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I certainly think they'll both try to get the nomination. Their success is dubious, however. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not asking why we aren't including her, asking what she's been up to lately. She seemed to be one of the more competent members of Bush's team. It's kind of weird to remember, but Bush did hold the record for most non-WhiteMale cabinet members of any President until the next one (helped of course by the constant changing of his members, plus adding a department). Oh, how times change. CoryUsar (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I know it's way too early but if I had to bet on anyone winning the GOP primary for next pres, it would absolutely be Tom Cotton. Dude is fucking terrifying. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The really scary thing about Tom Cotton (besides everything else) is how freakishly long his neck is. On a more serious note, I can definitely see him winning the GOP in '24. Hawley's the one who's scariest to me (though his political career may have been shot by his role in the coup). I'd probably give Harris a 75% chance or so of being the Dem nominee (Goat help us all if Biden has the poor judgement to run for reelection). As for Donny fron Florida, if he isn't convicted, I think he'll probably run third-party. From what I've heard, he's absolutely furious at the GOP leadership for not helping enough with his coup. If life really wants to throw us a curveball, the progressives in the Democratic Party will split off to form their own party and we'll get cursed four-way vote splitting. TheEndlessVoid (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see Rubio running tbh, or at least getting very far. Somehow I completely forgot about Cruz. he might definitely make a run now that I think about it, I doubt he'll get the nomination but he's more likely to than Abbott come to think of it (I could see Abbott running as an Independent, since he's done certain things (i.e mask mandate) that would lean Democrat even though he's a Republican). I don't think Trump is going to run again in 2024, contrary to the pretty popular rumor circulating right now. As for who will run for the democrat side should Biden not run for a second term, that's tough. Could very well be Harris, and I seriously doubt Sanders is gonna run yet again in 24, 20 was his last chance to ever become president. I think that'll be interesting to watch though cause honestly, given Biden's condition, I have serious doubts he'll even make it four years, let alone eight. Aaronmichael5 17:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aaronmichael5 Abbott only did the mask mandate for show. He undercut the ability to actually enforce it several times and tried to fence sit. Trust me, as a native Texan I know where he stands on most issues. He'd run as a Republican. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget Nikki Haley; she could actually win. And Pence, who's already being all but stumped for by his colleagues who are trying to paint him as the savior of the Republic. But if Trump runs as an independent, Harris might win by a Reagan-scale landslide due to the divided field. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 04:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Cruz got skunked, he won't be in the race. Ben Carson probably never knew he was in the race at all. Mike Pence was a political polyp, nobody actually cares about Mike Pence. What happened to Paul Ryan? I get major "I'm the P90X incarnate, the muscle boy, I was the one who said sell your phone to get your medicine because personal responsibility" vibes from that ghoul stalwart caretaker of our democracy. He didn't exactly like Trump, remember? Probably back in vogue in 4 years. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Has America run out of Bushes? --Annanoon (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No, but I think the Bush dynasty is dead outside of Texas.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, the US will never run out of dolts who will get us involved in lengthy wars, fail to deal with the excesses of the financial sector, and horribly mismanage natural disasters. CoryUsar (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I keep thinking about how Trump supporters claim to be for law and order

Yet they were happy to break the law. Does law and order only apply when you defend corrupt police officers? --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No. This is a complicated subject in terms of psychology, but the very condensed version is they have a very selective idea of "law & order" and who that ought to apply to. They also believe that any misdeeds they commit are "for the greater good" and can be justified in the name of "protecting their country". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

True. It has been compared to religious ecstasy. If one is doing what God wants, then that alone makes doing it right. Any evangelical will tell you the same. This phenomenon can be found on the left as well, though not nearly so frequently these days. The Christian distinctions of the far right seem to have collapsed.DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!}01:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

GC's correct. Trump supporters believe in law and order and have a sense of justice, though we see those as huge perversions from that most of the evidence is saying. If they perceive what's going on as a desecration of "law and order" they'll do whatever it takes to fight for their vision of law and order. It's all warped but if you view from that angle, it makes a bit more sense. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And that's why true Lawful Good types are obsessed with following even "stupid" rules except in the most egregious of situations. Because when you can break the rules when you "know" you are Right, anyone else can break the rules when they "know" they are Right. CoryUsar (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

When nations fight conventional wars large parts of the the populations in each county are convinced they are standing up for law and order.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Law and Order" for Right-Wing means; police arrest, detain and beat black and brown people and prosecutors target easy low level offenses to guarantee resources. It is a means to control communities rather than dispense equal justice.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello friends

I am not Steven Wilson, the prolific musician sometimes considered the face of modern progressive rock. I did not write and record albums such as Hand. Cannot. Erase. and I was never in Porcupine Tree. Pleased to meet you. ^{— Unsigned, by: I am not Steven Wilson / talk / contribs}

Hope we guess your name... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He's a man of wealth and taste? CoryUsar (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

At least our new user has something in common with the rest of the wiki in that none of the rest of us are Steven Wilson either. (as far as I know) Though that does rather leave the claim somewhat lacking in the uniqueness department.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WOW u did not create some of my absolute favourite music ever nice job 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 23:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sysop email

How can I email a sysop? Os2tadd (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually no need, you can just comment on their talk page for most things. CoryUsar (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

100% necessary in this case. It can be anyone Os2tadd (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Find a sysop. Go to their user page. Select "email this user". If they have it set up it should work. But wiki things are usually worked out on the wiki. (And if it's a super duper legal problem please don't select me.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Depending on who it is, it may not work — not all sysops enable emails. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"If they have it set up it should work"Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I received the email. I'd like to reassure you all that it wasn't a legal threat. It was just someone who thinks they were unjustly blocked. And I think they were too. But I'm going to give the person who did the blocking a little more time to respond first. Spud (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't get what everyone is worried about, just email the same guys I do every time I fuck up, cabalmailinglist@ratfuckwik.org They'll def help you out Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Babylon Bee fucking sucks

They‘be not only got shithouse politics, but their stories are also not even remotely funny. That’s all I had to say, just had to get it off my chest somewhere. Fuck the Bee. 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 01:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We covered them briefly as part of our fake news page: Fake news#The Babylon Bee. Bongolian (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is taking a large amount of self control to not edit that section to call them a terrible and unfunny shithouse rag that should not continue to exist. 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 05:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

People have the audacity to call that slime on level with the Onion. No, it is not. They've rehashed the "multiple genders" joke so many times, and they published this rank bile headline "Shocking New Study Suggests Disagreeing With Gay, Trans People Not Same As Hating Them". The article was too nice on them, so I fixed it. I still think we're being too nice. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be they weren't as obviously transphobic back when that text was first written. Bongolian (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a bit of it. They had that one transphobic headline and I sorta let it slide since I just assumed they didn't know better and maybe spent more time mocking televangelists and making jokes I don't think really get the point of left-wing views. But seeing so many of those headlines afterward, yeah no. At least I supplied extra headlines others found trashy and reiterate transphobia and they don't really have whatever the rest of my benefit of doubt it. They do maybe have an okay joke or it's funnier than you think (there's a headline about Biden's presidential pick being so close he could smell it, but I see others point out it's a joke done already, but I don't think I've seen it and it's not repeated to the same degree the transphobia is). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You should be more careful when you write your articles. "including trying to parody left-wing views (this includes bigotry and a persecution complex so prevalent in evangelical Christians; they have despicable, but predictable, transphobia that pass off as jokes)." it reads as if those views were popular within the Leftist side of the political spectrum. BRB gonna edit that thing after I save this edit. 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:E8DA:E940:58EA:FEAF (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I got so mad reading their headlines I didn't want to leave that page without indicting them for their mean-spirited headlines. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remember them being terribly bad, but I haven't visited in years. Hoo boy. Four years ago they seemed to exhibit some self-deprecation and actually seemed to gently poke its own culture. Now, they have devolved into just another shitty wingnut site, with much of their humor consisting of pointing at Others and making the equivalent of cringe ethnic slur jokes (or other "humor" that's in the same vein). Like every other wingnut site, in other words. That heavy dose of politics wasn't around as much in the beginning. Sigh. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there an established name for this lying technique?

I was looking at this thingy on a Q-anon criticizing Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/comments/l3bpkb/ive_seen_this_going_around_q_circles_im_wanting/

I was wondering if there formal name for this.

What I'm seeing is a series of questions. The questions have different TRUE answers but could share a single FALSE answer. Many people yearn for the simple and dynamic, even if it's completely wrong. This is similar to just asking questions, but I think it has a different element.Zipperback (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The closest I can think of would be poisoning the well. But my response to most of those questions would be "I have no idea" so it does not seem very effective technique.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I would call it a gish gallop, although instead of a flood of bullshit "facts" it's a flood of bullshit "questions". All of these questions assume you lack the Google skills to pull up the correct answer in 5 seconds. For instance, Biden *did* get the 21 gun salute, and Biden taking a private plane doesn't matter (if anything, it's possibly a sign of the petulant poot who formerly occupied the White House having one of his typical temper tantrums.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, this is not one dishonest and/or fallacious argument, but several. JAQing comes to mind immediately, as does poisoning the well and gish galloping, but there's a few more. There's also FUD, not even wrong, and some degree of begging the question. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There's also a number of non sequiturs. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder that you can't point out fallacies assuming fallacies mean someone is wrong. Can only talk about faulty reasoning, not the conclusion. See fallacy fallacy. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, "just asking questions". Bongolian (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot add my complaint onto Mod Noticeboard, so I will do it here

I suggested the admins of RW to rangeblock a set of problematic IPv6 addresses that were consistently vandalizing RationalWiki, specially the article on gender (Just check the fossil archive). Now his IP got manually banned one after another, and restrictions were put onto the website to hinder his vandalism, but he would start making accounts to better help him vandalize the website. First, it was User:TAOB which got banned after vandalizing a lot of pages at once (Particularly the ones focused on gender and LGBT if I recall correctly), then we got user:Xdlol which did basically the same thing as TAOB, and now we have user:A E who went berserk against the wiki by moving a bunch of random pages. It does not end there I also recall that two users signed up on here which were user:lol and user:xd, neither of which are active and both did absolutely minimal edits just to appear as honest editors which was the same tactic TAOB, xdlol and A E used to get the autoconfirmed privileges before wreaking chaos on here (Besides, it is suspicious that xdlol has parts of the names from the two other "not-so-active" editors). I am sure you are just thinking that it is a phase and he will stop, Mikey (Who is a far more mediocre vandal) vandalizes the wiki nearly every single day, what if that person I'm talking about does the same thing? He'd be a far bigger pain in the ass than most other petty vandals on here and he would cause enormous chaos like I said earlier. My biggest worry right now is whether he hides even more accounts on the website just to use them when he's ready to use them or not. 2A02:120B:C3C4:35C0:E52E:216:D569:1B2C (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have noted your comments and vandalbinned lol and xd as a precaution. Bongolian (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I created this account just to make some small edits without making my IP public to everyone who checks the page's logs. I have no idea who Xdlol/Lol is, I didn't even notice it was Xdlol the one who created my user page. You can check my IP, it's from a residential range and the ISP doesn't even support IPv6, the country is also consistent with the edits I made. I'm not very active so I don't mind being on the vandal bin, but I don't want to end up getting banned just because a troll created an account with a similar username. Xd (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Gnosticism seems to be the strangest by far

http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

I've come across several religions in my life but this one by far is the most out there. It just reminds me that humans will believe anything (not to mention the whole thing is based on personal experience which could not POSSIBLY be flawed in any way whatsoever). Machina (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been posited that there are similarities between Gnosticism and QAnon.[6][7] Bongolian (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain? As in the level of nonsense?2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:40 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow the links that I gave. "One of the things that makes Gnosticism a nice metaphorical frame for Trumpism is it presents the divine as this series of contradictions. Probably the most famous gnostic texts, The Thunder, Perfect Mind." — Jeff Charlotte. Bongolian (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the most 'heretical' branches of Gnostic Christianity was called Manichaeanism. I recommend you read the Manichaean creation myth. (it's an acid trip) Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see the parallels. The one thing I notice is the primacy of personal experience, which means that nothing I say will change their minds on it.Machina (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Zach Hubbard is deleting comments

I knew it. I suspected it for a while now, but now I have indisputable proof that it's true. This guy is deleting (i.e censoring) comments. I left some comments on This video he uploaded today and they're now gone. They were not controversial at all, no death threats/leaking private information/etc, polite comments... gone. Why would people delete comments if they're right? Very dishonest in my opinion.

UPDATE: what's a good way to document this sort of thing on a Rationalwiki page? Obviously, I don't like putting things into pages without evidence (especially when considering something like this, which is kind of a serious accusation tbh), but then again how would you "prove" someone deletes comments, if you know what I mean? Aaronmichael5 00:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There's the Appeal to censorship page, but I'm not sure how you would go about citing a deletion if you can't access the log. Before/after screenshots maybe? Avida Dollars^{her again} 11:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Avida Dollars Love that new sig! --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 16:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

UTC)

Aaronmichael - Left you a message on your talk page. Antigem (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts on Anti-CovVaxxers

What are your thoughts on folks who are against the SarsCov-2 vaccines, which I'm gonna call Anti-CovVaxxers?

First, I'll preface this by saying that Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-CovVaxxers are not the same since folks are often part of either one of these groups, but not both (Anti-Vaxxers also oppose the SarsCov-2 vaccines, but they oppose every vaccine in existence, so that's why they are a completely different group).

I noticed that there were a lot of people who were Anti-CovVaxxers, far more than it should be reasonable, some countries have a whopping 40% of their population part of the Anti-CovVaxxing subgroup when regular Anti-Vaxxers only, make less than 1% of the population.

Most of the contention comes from the fear of RNA which resides within the vaccines themselves and it seems that most people that know about that are afraid it changes their DNA potentially causing permanent damage to their body. 2A02:120B:C3C4:35C0:49FF:F507:72A0:354B (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

most people that know about rna vaccines probably are not worried at all about their dna. anyone who is worried are so because they dont trust the relevant authorities at all or not enough to disregard a warning of a supposed risk floating around that they have no way of knowing if it is true or not but sounds sciencey enough to not want to risk it. in more normal times you'd look to the health authorities or ask your dr to explain the risks and put your mind at ease, but right now after so much wilful misinformation much of it political in nature, with the appropriate authorities credibility attacked by others in authority, there is no one some feel they can trust enough to clear up any doubt. they dont need to believe any rumours just need to be uncertain enough to not want risk it right now.

any one whos head isnt spinning from all the claims and counter claims but not onboard with the vaccine is likely because they are convinced covid is a hoax in the first place and will point to any claim to justify a decision to not take up up a vaccine made before there was any vaccine to take. some areas these people will lean a particular direction politically, elsewhere they are mostly your standard conspiracy theorists whose numbers have swollen due the circumstances we all find ourselves in.

so we have one group who are just uncertain, one of assorted nutjobs, and one of self serving pricks. blame the trump administration and their pals for the erosion trust of the health professionals when we needed their guidance while amplifying deliberate misinformation sowing seeds of doubt amongst even those not normally so credulous. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a friend who didn't want to take the vaccine, so I quizzed him on how the immune system actually works. It became obvious very quickly he didn't know what a virus actually is, nor what antibodies are. After explaining it and giving him sources about how vaccines work, and their practically flawless track record on having symptoms that are irrelevant vs the diseases they treat, he was convinced. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's our poll on it!

Would you be willing to take the initial COVID vaccine?

Oh please, a "rushed" vaccine only has concerns about effectiveness, not safety	25	Vote
Sure, even rushed, the vaccine is probably safer than risking COVID	72	Vote
I'm a bit concerned, but someone at high risk from COVID should still probably take it	146	Vote
I'll take my chances with COVID	24	Vote
It would give me Autism!	24	Vote
I *cough* already had COVID *cough*	14	Vote

Personally, if the vaccine had come out in October of 2020, I wouldn't have taken it. Why? Because the vaccine itself had become political, and it was clear that all the normal restrictions and testing for safety was being thrown out the window. This is not a "normal" vaccine. We have a President who proved he would let hundreds of thousands die if it meant increasing his chances of re-election, being replaced by a President whose only redeeming quality is that he is not quite as bad, so either of them saying the vaccine is safe makes me less confident the vaccine is safe. Now that the vaccine has been around for a little bit, plus a bunch of people are in line ahead of me anyway, makes me more comfortable that this is like any other vaccine. CoryUsar (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I work face to face with disabled adults I'm near the front of the line, so I got the first of the two Moderna shots. Minor sore arm at the site for about a day, similar to a tetanus shot, but none of the apocalyptic side effects people freaked out about. I've had so much COVID exposure, and somehow avoided it it, that I was the guy willing to take a chance. Next shot in about 3 weeks, here's to hoping it works and that most people have a similar experience. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There is also the group who would prefer to be in the second or subsequent tranche when they can reassure themselves that the risk is minimal (and who can point at a couple of clinical trials which went wrong as their justification). Anna Livia (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've had my first (Pfizer) jab so I'm obviously in favour of it. No effects at all beyond what might be expected from being jabbed in the arm with a needle. Scream!! (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I really think my grandparents on my mom's side (both septuagenarians) should return to their home in Florida so they can take it sooner than they would if they stay here in the Pacific Northwest. I'd definitely take it when my turn comes. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 20:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It Depends. I wouldn't take Putins Sputnik Vaccine, but I take AstraZeneca, because it's the only non-MRna vaccine. Neutral on Biontech/Pfizer.Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would willingly receive any free vaccine even if no human has ever been tested with it yet. I don't care if anyone else has been tested with it yet. MRNA is not magic, biology is not magic. We know how something will behave before anyone is ever injected with it. By the time it gets to human testing, it is all but proven safe. There has never been a vaccine which had side effects that make it not worth taking at any point in its human testing (and I dare people to come up with one to prove me wrong). Vaccines are safer than eating lettuce, for Pete's sake. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"We know how something will behave before anyone is ever injected with it." I believe thalidomide would disprove this. It was not known to cause birth defects before it was released. "There has never been a vaccine which had side effects that make it not worth taking at any point in its human testing." Live polio vaccines have been known to cause polio. Polio has been eliminated from many countries, so outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is arguably not worth it to administer this vaccine. Retiredpoopermalikged (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For many of the same reasons I never play a video game on release day, I'll happily wait 'til something (travel, work requirement etc) compels me to get it. Plus, even if by some miracle I did catch Covid, I ain't gonna die, and I'll be able to take a couple weeks off work, hooray! Kia ora from New Zealand, bitches :P Kauri0.o (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well good luck with that, Kia (although I don't know exactly what that would be for you). It looks like you're already pretty lucky with the weather in NZ. Love from America. Retiredpoopermalikged (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Professor Stick tears William Lane Craig a new one

https://youtu.be/fl1-6OpwWgk

William Lane Craig jumped on the China caused COVID bandwagon. I love Professor Stick's response to it. Worth watching. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

MAGA tears, anyone?

--Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 08:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh oh

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/20/qanon-biden-inauguration-trump-antisemitism-white-nationalism

It appears that with the "Great Awakening" failing to materialize, neo-Nazis and white nationalists are planning to recruit disillusioned QAnoners into their ranks. Is it possible that we could be seeing a mass conversion of Q supporters to neo-Nazism? I mean, if you think a cabal of Satanic pedophiles control the world, it isn't too much of a jump to think that a cabal of Satanic Jewish pedophiles control the world.TheEndlessVoid (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Eh. There's enough similarity between the two groups that I'd be surprised if they consider themselves all that different now. They have the same political goals, same fantastical stories or arcs, and support the exact same people for nearly the same reasons. IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not really too much stretching involved for that bullshit. Just point out that Epstein was Jewish, make up some story about him being an "outcast", and done. Maybe throw in all the other infamous Jewish rapists too. Terry Richardson, Roman Polanski, James Deen, Harvey Weinstein, Dr Luke. But ignore Ron Jeremy; can't have people thinking Jewish men are well endowed too, now can you? CoryUsar (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Nazis are coming out of the woodwork. The failed coup attempt and Biden's inauguration kind of forced their hand. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sunlight is a great disinfectant. And to para-quote Mel Brooks, "If there's a Nazi in the room, I'd rather he let me know!" CoryUsar (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Don't think for a second that with the fall of Trump the rightist threat is gone. Far from it. Gotta be vigilant. If anything this could also be a boon for Nazi recruiters. There's a lot of disaffected Qanon cultists out there. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Trumpism isn't going anywhere anytime soon. People can't fall into that trap of "Lol he only got one term he failed etc etc". Four years was more than enough to start that movement, especially with Biden in office right now. Should Biden somehow fail (not saying he will, but you do have to admit he's far from the best possible candidate), they'll use that to their advantage for sure. Aaronmichael5 15:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not to mention the structural issues that lead to Trumpism in the first place (neoliberal capitalism for starters). — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Oh please, Biden was supposed to be the "experienced mentor" for Obama, and that was 8 years of failure with great publicity. Syria and Libya? Basically more Iraqs. Bailing out the banks and AIG? Yeah, giving money to the idiots who fuqd it up in the first place is a really good move. Obamacare? Have you seen the premiums and deductibles on that lately? Obama was only slightly better than Bush, and Biden is likely to be Bush 4.0. CoryUsar (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Biden is Bush 4.0" has got to be the dumbest take I've heard all day. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't see Obama continuing a lot of the same foreign policy mistakes as Bush 2? Syria? Libya? Yemen? Because those did not end well, in part because they still haven't ended. It's easy to forget the wars when it's happening Somewhere Else, but the people are still dying, refugees are still being produced, and for all the "take one for the team" other people have to endure, the US can't even claim to be better off for those wars. Bush turned a blind eye to the financial sorcery that was CDO's, but I didn't see Obama do a thing to punish the people involved. Sometimes we need to see some heads roll, but for the entire situation, well, name the people who were imprisoned as a result of the banking crisis? There was one, and only one, and I don't think either of could even name him without Google. And as Obama's VP and primary advisor, Biden shares a lot of blame for those messes. So yeah, Bush 4.0. CoryUsar (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No. What you are seemingly failing to understand is that if the US would just have pulled out and left, you'd get another power vacuum there. That's why it still hasn't ended, even if ISIS is a shadow of it's former self with no real powers left to claim. The US is for fucking once cleaning up after the mess it left behind when squashing what it deemed terrorists, in spite of Trumps own meddling in that effort to escalate the conflict again, but this time with local powers. It's not great at all that there's still conflict there, but just pulling out and letting the situation sort itself out there is just setting up for the next major terrorist group to get a territory and start terrorizing civilians there and in the west again, leading to the next intervention. Pulling the US out of it is just setting the US up to have to send it's troops in again in around 10 years because youd get a second 9/11 on your hands. Staying there and trying do de-escalate the conflicts (which is frankly what during Obama's tenure the situation in the middle-east was) is the only solution, even if it's a shit one. There is no good move here. The banking crisis was a mess and whilst seeing blood and heads roll surely would be satisfying, it wouldn't have stopped or changed the fact that if there was no saving the banks, you'd have an economic crash on the degree of which the crash of 1929 would look pale by in comparison. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So.

Do you believe Obama made the right decision in helping overthrow Gaddafi?

Do you believe Obama made the right decision in attempting to overthrow Assad?

Do you believe Obama made the right decision in helping KSA bomb Yemen and the Houthis? CoryUsar (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The decision to overthrow Gaddafi was multinational, led by NATO, with a frickin' UN security council resolution to back it up.

When did the United States attempt to overthrow Assad? I recall the opposite actually being said -- Obama was criticized for *not doing enough* to overthrow Assad after chemical weapons were deployed by Asssad.

The United States support for the Saudi led intervention was also not just limited to the United States... the UK, France, and Canada supported the effort (along with nations dominated by Sunni Islam, as the Yemen war is sectarian).

Ultimately, the answers to these questions are more difficult than you are making it out to be. The president of the United States is just one player here.

Hell, if we want to be completely reductionist to the point of farce, all three of these conflicts can trace their root to the Arab Spring. Since the genesis of the Arab Spring was social media on the Internet, one can be silly and ask "was social media, or indeed the entire Internet, a mistake?" PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The UN can pass any resolution it wants, but Obama made the decision to commit to overthrowing Gaddafi. And as for Assad, the US was backing the rebels, don't pretend otherwise. Turkey bleated on and on about demanding that the US take a more direct approach and actually invade, in spite of not invading themselves, and also had the nerve to demand the EU take on all the refugees the war was producing. The US could've just as easily stayed out of Syria, in which case Assad would've quickly crushed the rebels and ISIS would never have taken hold. But the US got involved, and the war dragged on for as long as it has, because the US thought it was going to be simple. Like we thought Iraq and Afghanistan would be simple. CoryUsar (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Crank magnetism at its finest. I can't really say I'm surprised that Qers heart Nazism; I mean, they both think that there's a satanic pedophilic pizza socialist BLM antifa Biden big-tech conspiracy plotting to create the NWO that is all masterminded by DA JOOOOOOOZ as it is. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

They may think it, but I doubt that any of 'em can pronounce it.DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!}01:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

in the uk the Parler takedown has dealt another blow to the British far right so maybe something similar happening stateside? i dunno, its early days AMassiveGay (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Dallas traffic is getting retarded

Okay so this isn't exactly political but who cares. So earlier today, when I was on my way to the gym, this dumbass in a mini-van (yes, you read that right, a mini-van) tried to tailgate behind me. When I was getting on the Interstate, he/she/idk was like 3 centimeters behind my back bumper, and then as soon as I'm actually on the Interstate, WOOOOOOSH! Away it goes around me leaving me in the dust (I was driving at the speed limit, btw). I don't know why, but traffic here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has gotten INSANE since I moved here. That's the 5th time in the last month I've dealt with an insane driver like that, wasn't always this bad. Aaronmichael5 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What are you doing going to a gym during a pandemic? Exercise at home or go for a jog. ShabiDOO 21:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

...I've been going to the gym since August. Masked up, wiping everything down. Because I don't have a barbell and 400+ lbs of plates where I live, nor a spotter. On the plus side, I've gotten a few new maxes, and can honestly say I'm deep into the 1000 club. I'm getting close to the human non-doped limit for upper body, which is kinda cool. Ok, not that close, but definitely the kind of strong you don't want to meet in a dark alley. CoryUsar (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Can we please not use ableist slurs? — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gyms are not too bad actually as long as people actually wipe down their equipment when they're done with it, as well as the other COVID procedures. The only time a gym can really spread anything is when retards go in there and disregard said procedures (which really applies to any public places really). Also, my gym is a small hole-in-the-wall type gym, it's not a major chain like Planet Fitness or LA Fitness, so there's generally not a lot of people in there: often, I'll actually be the only one in there except for the employees. Pretty much any business can operate safely, the real covid spreaders are A) businesses that don't follow procedures (i.e let people crowd together when they're not supposed to) B) large public non-distancing crowds (self explanatory) and C) retards who won't wear masks (notice that these said individuals are almost ALWAYS the same ones who complain if places shut down. Like yeah I want stuff open too but actually do what you're supposed to for Pete's sake and it won't be an issue). Aaronmichael5 20:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm in a good-ish mood. New max bench at gym today. Tree-fitty! Tree dolla and fitty cent! CoryUsar (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"(yes, you read that right, a mini-van)"

Nothing wrong with mini-vans, usually the more docile specimen of cars though. That being said, this doesn't sound horribly different from usual traffic shenanigans. You sure this isn't just confirmation bias? Lose tailgaters as soon as you can though, you want whatever inevitable statistic down the line to be their problem somewhere else, not yours here. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a problem I've noticed, which is when I come across one bad driver on the interstate or main roads, I run into two or three other bad drivers even on a short trip. There's absolutely nothing but speculation to this claim, but I think extremely bad driving trickles down. Just this week, I was near two guys in big pickups, one was all Fast and Furious'd up with custom wheels and a muffler you could shove a watermelon into. They gunned it like an asshole, weaving through traffic, no surprise, but then this other big pickup also gunned it and started weaving through traffic. It pissed me off, sure, but I have for a long time had this hypothesis that overtly aggressive driving spreads.

A few months ago, on the interstate, an open trailer popped up on a rough spot of the interstate I drive to work on, and one of the two swing doors literally flew off. And I'm like "Holy shit, this is my final destination moment" as the door bounced and shot back up into the air, and then bounced and skidded, and I literally had to drive over it with about 25 feet in front of me because I couldn't brake with the people behind me and I couldn't change lanes with the people next to me. I was originally going the speed limit, dropped speed to about 40, drove over the trailer door as it skidded, got over to the right lane and stayed at 40 because I was worried my passenger side tires were going to go flat. The tires survived, a bit of the trim got the worst of it, but I got tailgated hard a couple times until I got to the next exit. Whole time I'm like "I don't want to deal with you hitting my car, everybody, please just go around me." But even stuff like, where I really would not put myself at fault but I am driving very slow on the interstate, I think that can get people into overly aggressive driving. Gol Sarnitt (talk)

I wish I could get a job working for the police, have a dashcam, and record reckless jackass drivers. Oh, cutting across 2 lanes of traffic just outside of NYC and weaving in and out? Well, I send the record of that to the police, they send you a bill for $250 and when you have to pay I get a check for $50 and the satisfaction that I just ruined some asshole's day. That's a better deal for the state than the red light cameras which take a whopping 50% cut.CoryUsar (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but that's aggro vengeance shit. Just know that you're a competent driver and you're on top of not scuttling your own day over the uncommon asshole, we're all on the roads, we're all actively trying to get somewhere. I had friends in high school that would try and get hit, because as one guy put it "I'm driving a 300 dollar car, if you hit me, you total my car, who wins?" There are a few spots in the city where people consistently don't know what the traffic does. Two lanes shift to one lane and then immediately open back up into two lanes on one exit. People who don't know what they're doing absolutely fly, 15-20 mph over the speed limit in the right lane and then have to get left so they can get right (which to anyone in America, is the bad way to go fast and change to a slower lane). I still hear from people who know that exit "If I could only just let those motherfuckers hit my car, I'd have a new car" but nobody ever lets it happen because it would be a nightmare. It's also favorite speed trap for the state troopers. Should probably just get renovated.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Connecticut interstates are known for being death traps, especially I-95; the speed limit is more like a recommended floor, and you *will* get run off the road. Large sections of them are old highway never properly upgraded to interstate standards, they go straight through the most populated areas of towns and cities, and there are way more exits than anywhere else. Then there's the Merritt, which (though it doesn't have trucks) is even harder to navigate and ridiculously windy, and (I shit you not) has several entrance ramps with stop signs before you can enter the lane; everyone has at least a few stories of 5 minute wait times for merging. Even New Jersey drivers, who are legendary for sucking monkey butts on the road, find the experience terrifying. For my part, having learned to drive on said roads I'm probably one of the only people who ever felt like he was taking it easy on the NY section of I-84; the CT section has one of the most ridiculous interchanges imaginable, where people constantly collide trying to merge on a narrow curve with obstructed view, and in the last two years they somehow made it even worse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I used to drive I95 in CT all the time. It's BOSTON I have trouble with. Theres this one exit I pass, the highway is 3 lanes, but the entire highway is stopped because of all the Massholes who wait until the last moment to merge, so I can't get past. What that exit needs is for the leftmost lane to be painted a bit so that you can't merge out of it until after the exit, with a traffic cop issuing plenty of tickets to anyone ignoring the lines, until everyone learns to merge out of the leftmost lane sooner than a tenth of a mile before your exit. That or make the exit a double-lane thing to increase traffic flow, Boston's roads were designed by drunk traffic engineers. CoryUsar (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Boston is its own issue, mercifully not one I have to encounter all that often. But they are horrible, and no better when you get on I-90; I nearly got killed coming out of a rest stop when some fuckhead with a yield sign decided to go full-on Japanese Better Off Dead Guy (there's a reference beyond my years!) on my right. Though for CT, in 2017 they also changed the 95-91 exchange to be exactly the opposite of what you'd think, what retard thought you should get into the right lanes in 95 to fit onto an extremely narrow ramp to get on 91 going north eludes me; it never fails to completely fuck up traffic, and the signage gives you about 1/2 mile advance notice to boot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I had to call my dad this morning. I drove better in a 2000 Buick Century than a lot of people with 4 wheel in a massive winter storm. I made it all the way home, no issue. Went to climb the hill in front of my apartment door because all the spots at the bottom were taken. I got stuck literally around a yard or meter before hitting the hil, slid the car to the far side. I was already stuck, but the plows buried it. I called my dad this morning, I never call my dad, he picked up, and I said "Hey, how busy are you this morning?" He said "Pretty fucking busy." We got 12 inches of snow, by the way. So I said "It's not an emergency, my car is kinda buried, I tried Uber and Lyft." He said "where is your car?" I told him "Kind of in the wrong spot, I emailed my apartment last night" I pushed my car into a decent spot after it got stuck. I was on the phone with him clearing my car off. No joke, I got snow plowed up on my car, and I expected it, I was stuck in the wrong spot. I saw a couple other people look at me like I was insane while I stabbed out snow from my exhaust, because I'm not tryna fall victim to the silent killer just sitting in my car. That's maybe an exaggeration, but they definitely saw me stabbing my scraper/brush just to clear out my exhaust. I get that I was in a bad spot, I didn't want to be there but I actually had to fight to get there once I couldn't make that last damned yard up the hill. So my dad came and drove me to work, asked me when I could dig my car out, I told him 2. He came back with his snowblower and a shovel. He knew I wasn't going to call him unless I was in real trouble. He cracked a couple ribs in his own driveway a few weeks ago. I spent 30 minutes straight just shoveling, and it got worse the more powder I cleared and the more I had to get under my car. I wasn't going to call my dad for help unless that's my last course. He told me "I didn't quite believe you when you said your car wouldn't get towed" and then we had a manly men doing manly things half hour. And don't get me wrong, I had to shovel 5 foot high snow for 30 minutes straight to keep up while my dad ran the snowblower. We were manly men doing manly things. Minor communication, because we both knew what we were trying to do. I mean, I swear, if I tried to do it on my own it would be 2 days. My dad didn't make me feel bad about it at all either, he just showed up, gauged the situation, we agreed on a solution, and came back with everything we agreed we would need. I worked my ass off with the shovel because I know he fell and broke his ribs. We cleared a path and kinda trusted the car would slide if we pulled it with a tow strap. He looked like his dad, my grandpa who once challenged me to ping pong after falling down some steps and broke his ribs too. I told Papa that it wasn't a big deal, I wasn't that bored, I didn't want to play ping pong that bad and he just fucking laughed at me. My dad is Papa now, I was really that stuck, he showed up and we did it in under an hour. I could not have done it without him. "This is kind of how my day is going too, believe it or not" he said. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The R Slur

I've said it, I've typed it on this site. I hear it constantly, so I'm going to type it out one more time.

"Retarded"

I personally don't think it's as charged as we're worried about. Nobody is going to look a human in the eye and call them the R slur honestly. That does not mean that the R slur isn't a slur, I absolutely do not mean that. I am team don't call mentally/socially divergent people the r slur.

But there are language norms that you have to respect, for me, these are dipshits who have called each other the r slur or the f to the double g T slur for fucking ever, and I'm really embarassed that they do that, but I'm not going to stop talking to the people around me over it. And I'll choose the word "retarded" over not being able to explain misgendering every time. It's not that the language isn't hurtful, it's that it needs context. Kill me for this, it's a strange take but these people actually trust rapid onsent gender dysphoria as science.

I do not buy into the idea that "either it's all ok or nothing's ok," that's a bad take. Using the words with intention and context is important. They are not retarded, just, they are not using what God gave them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the takeaway point is though, but did you really have to type out that word to try to make a point and without more consideration for who reads it? I can't say with any confidence how this is charged or not, even though I'm not neurotypical, though I do think the r-word carries a lot of weight that slices super deep especially when the Internet's already filled to the brim of people, even on the liberal/leftist side, that are all to gleefully labeling horrible humans as just "mentally ill" and telling some to "seek help" or "talk to a therapist" (as if someone who sometimes needs therapy as a matter of life or death or help them understand themselves and others better, that person who needs therapy is a horrible, horrible person). I would tell people to stop using the r-word and I'd personally crib the use of that word in our saloon bar. It is not a problem that what was once-accepted becomes unacceptable. Our language's adaptable. We can always find another word (if not already have them) that more accurately describes intellectual bankruptcy of people we dislike and don't agree with and that's without the risk of hurting and punching down those that are vulnerable and are held most dear by a loved one. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 09:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That's really good. There's a question that I asked myself, like, immediately after I posted this. "But don't I know better?" I really think I do, but I left it, I'm not going to pretend I didn't post it, or say it, and yes I do know better. There was something in me that wanted to drag this up and out and I really appreciate you talking about it. I am not unable to use different words, I don't like the R slur, but it's part of the lexicon and I'm surrounded. I put it in quotations and referenced myself saying it because I am the one saying it, and I never wanted it to be outside of my control. I understand it's a hurtful term, and I want everyone to know when I say it, it is me, personally, choosing to say it. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it better, just means it's my decision to use the word and therefore my responsibility. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it seriously, I don't get a lot of that in my day-to-day. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And "they are not retarded" is to reference people with zero disabilities that I know who throw the word around. I know this can get pretty muddy, so I just want to clarify that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

CW: uncensored slurs that others have used against me that I’m leaving uncensored to make a point. Anyway.

Uhh dude man pal bro idk what exactly your point is but I gotta say. “Nobody’s gonna look someone in the eye and call them the r slur”??? I’m not sure what you meant by this, but I can say for sure that that’s definitely not my experience. Not to make assumptions here, but I feel like if u had ur whole school and adult life whilst being too autistic to have even slightly decent social skills, and too physically disabled to Kick A Damn Football, you may not say that so confidently. I can tell you as a fact, that I have been called, to my face, by both children AND adults, at every age from “baby” to “Old Ass”, every slur from a “retard” to a “spastic” — sometimes just for being the Human That I Am, and more frequently because they KNOW that I’m both autistic and physically disabled. So like. No. I have been called these things by people looking me in the eye, with the explicit intent to hurt me for my disabilities and neurodivergences, and for this reason I find it extremely difficult to tolerate the use of such words by ANYONE who hasn’t been in that situation, no matter the context. And that’s facts.

I guess you probably meant it in a different way but I do have to say that ppl using these slurs that way really upsets me pretty bad so I felt the need to emphasise it, for anyone else in the audience whomst might be confused or whatnot. 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 12:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There will always be slang for "you did something dumb". Much English slang for this (which subsequently has leaked over into many other languages) -- idiot, imbecile, retarded, cretin, moron -- has come from language previously used in legal, psychiatric, and scientific fields to describe what is now known as "intellectual disability" or "general learning disability". I know there's been an effort to make one of these words "the r word", but I'm not sure if it will be successful (the movement seems to have been "in the rounds" for a couple decades, but from my perspective hasn't gotten a lot of traction). Unlike ethnic slurs, these are words generally are used as an oblique personal attack, not *quite* as much as a class based attack -- it's less literal. When you call someone a "motherfucking shithead", for instance, generally you aren't literally describing them as a head made of feces who commits incest with their parent, you're just "pissed off!" at them for some reason, and not in a way that you are urinating, either. Same with all of these (to go more old-school in terminology) "blockhead"-y terms -- they are typically not used to call someone intellectually disabled, rather, they are generally used when someone is "pissed off" that someone did something they think is dumb (regardless of if it is or not, of course).

Of course, there are some people who *do* weaponize this word. But my experience is that these are the type of shitheads who weaponize *everything*. ("Faggot" was the favorite phrase, I think, for these type, no matter the circumstance, as noted above.) We have slang for these type of people, too -- asshole -- that is not literarily correct, but is somewhat closer to what their odiferous behavior suggests. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

My experience so far has been mislabeled as autistic from trolls here, but only because I fit the demographic (passionate video game fan? Someone wrong with them). But more personal attacks I've endured included being called a freak who needed happy pills. Being called the r-word would've have the same effect, though "freak" has wider application and isn't specifically targeted at disabilities. But if a word gets enough traction from others that they tell me to stop using them, I'll stop. It's not a big deal. This happens all the time. I don't think fecea or garbage are going to object being compared to. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Autist" is a great example of a word that is not a common insult like idiot etc., but some asshole 4Chan trolls have weaponized it. Half the time, though, it seems to be someone trying to insult you for being too smart or something, so it's often kind of laughable. (As a footnote, others have taken this "autist" term to apply to the strange world of r/WallStreetBets, currently in a bit of a "tulip mania" over Gamestop options, for some reason. Not sure why.) I agree that it's no big deal to stop using words that have gotten enough traction to be seen as hurtful. Language evolves. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Can't tell if that's serious or parody. Announcing that no one should use the 'R word' would leave most of us guessing which word was meant. (Republican?) Good one! Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That "most of us" is, what, an inflated substitute for your views? Most people know what "r-word" would mean. If you're so confused about shortened unacceptable words being mistaken for another word, maybe go talk to people more instead of laughing off at suggestion that maybe a full word, something that can get you moderated in places (Discord TOS) isn't acceptable for decent people. But your comment is not worth serious discussion, like I'm so tired of your constant smug ignorant condescension from you. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, even Twitter's crappy moderation will discipline people for using the R word. It's an offensive word except in a few contexts when it's clearly not a slur. Bongolian (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A similar example is "ignorance". This one really bugs me, a lot of people (especially on the internet) think being "ignorant" is being "stupid: this is false. Ignorance just means not knowing. For example, I know a lot about writing and video editing, but I'm completely ignorant about fixing cars. That doesn't make me stupid, just like a mechanic isn't stupid for knowing how to fix cars but having no clue how to cut someone's hair. Aaronmichael5 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC).

One of my favorite client stories is of someone who, like me, has The Big A (and knows I do as well); she said of herself and her coworkers, and I directly quote, "We're not all fucking Rain Man here. I'm retarded, but I don't sit around saying I need to go to K-Mart; seriously, even I know that's retarded. Sure, some retards are like that, but some of us can do more than fucking smash our heads against a wall." (In context her point was, though she very much likes the move Rain Man, she thinks it's retarded to believe everyone with her diagnosis is like that, which I can certainly relate to) Certainly not all of them, but a surprising number of clients are, if anything, more inclined to refer to both themselves and other things as being retarded than anyone I know; I have more stories along those lines where that came from. More generally, I dislike the freaking out about "disability" because it just means you aren't able to do something, and once you take the sting out of that the other "insults" along that line lose their punch. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I really do get it. I went through all of my schooling a year older than everyone else because I went to special first grade. Transitional first grade it was called, and then my family moved and the schools were like "first grade again." I know I'm used to being called the r-slur in the meekest terms, and I'm pretty much used to it, but I also know it doesn't have the same defense as calling something "gay" which I still also hear a lot, but it's about systems and nouns, not people. I wasn't meaning to justify it, but I was meaning to start a conversation that I haven't seen in a long time. "Oh, you don't know what they mean if they say r-slur" is weak. Just throwing it around like it's not powerful, like there's a Rain Man and an R-slur delineation isn't the way to work it either. It's fair that you have it, and I know how incensing it is. And what I tend to do with the word, when I overhear somebody says "That's retarded" is to say "Well, you know, I'm retarded, I got sent to special first grade." Not "The word retarded is protected" or "The word retarded doesn't hurt me or the people I know so whatever." I know I kinda drove the heel into this one (pro wrestling term), but it did mean a lot to me to finally figure out people don't always mean what they say. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

To calm my own point down, the word is an anachronism. Nobody is the actual R-slur. If anybody uses it as a slur with no context, yes, they are ignorant. I'm sorry if I don't always stand up for your justice, like I really am sorry. I'm not a superhero. I will not use the word on this site because the arguments against it actually make sense, not because it trips my triggers. I will continue to hear the word and deal with it my own way. But I can accept that what I posted here is uncool, and everyone posting the r-slur can at least recognize that word after they type it. I think it's fair to recognize we don't all use it in bad faith, but there is no situation that is so important to use it in bad faith here. Is that close? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a movie called The Ringer? It's a favorite among my population, and the same client I mentioned above once said of it, "I loved that it took the retarded people to see the one was just pretending to be retarded, and then couldn't figure out anything else until he talked them through it". Her other favorite moment was the guy with Down syndrome asking, "When the fuck did we get ice cream?" A lot of people got their knickers in a twist over said movie, but my guys love it; they find it captures the spirit of the Special Olympics, and they love the idea that people can laugh about it right along with them. Obviously some of my guys had trouble with bullies and awful family members (that's a whole long conversation in itself), and they want to be treated like humans; part of it is having some fun with both their strengths and weaknesses, and as their staff we play to both however the situation calls for it. I've never once just called a client a retard (though one did loudly announce, in public and unprompted, "I'm a retard", he has a long history of attention seeking behavior), but I know a few who find the retarded test video amusing, so if I need to get them on track I'll play that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

in the uk, 'spastic' or 'spaz' is on par with the american usage of 'retard'. its considered one of the most offensive terms you can use in the uk, outside of its proper medical usage, so much so the spastic society, a charity for the benefit of those with cerbral palsy had to change its name to scope in a bid to reduce stigmatism of the condition. wikipedia has it that kids use the term 'scoper' now for the same effect. little shits AMassiveGay (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Books that are classics in the making

• The Great Gutsby
• 50 Shades of Slay
• Green Eggs and Pentagram
• The Very Hungry Cacodemon
• How to win friends and kill demons
• NukaCola: A History from the Atomic Age of Flavor
• The Guts of Wrath
• The Ripping Tree
• Eat. Rip. Tear
• Demon Farm
• 1984 Dead Demons

These books from the Doom Slayers personal library. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me how silly Eternals writing is... God that game is a step down compared to 2016. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I live in the heart of redneck land

So many damn Trump and Confederate flags. It is just awful. Very few LGBTQ LGBTQ flags and Black Lives Matter signs.

Worse yet- many of these people are gun nuts who like to drink heavily. Am I stuck in a Texas somehow located in Michigan? --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You'd be surprised, Michigan is actually pretty Republican outside of Detroit. Funny thing is I just happened to get done watching Open Season and that movie reminds me a LOT of what I'd expect in upstate Michigan... nothing but forest and guns. Aaronmichael5 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Republican voters are everywhere but fortunately thinly spread. I found "don't tread on me" and "thin blue line" trash driving through California as well as "government created drought" signs (it's over environmentalist issue of the delta smelt, a vital indicator species, declining). Obviously it's not the smelt killing jobs compared to climate change facilitating harsh and lengthy droughts. Anyway, California has a lot of Texas too, just outside of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, basically out of cities. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The eastern part of Washington State may as well be called "West Idaho". On road trips to that area before the pandemic, I saw a ton of MAGA flags. But I don't know what it's like now. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 00:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I live in Kansas, where the legislature is once again trying to amend the constitution to remove the right to abortion. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Almost all the Trump supporters refuse to take the signs and flags out of their yard. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump got more votes than anyone that wasn't named "Joe Biden". He has supporters everywhere, and unlike, say, Bush, many of his supporters seem to be of the "raging fanatic" variety instead of the more "he's the least awful alternative" variety. Outside the cities, Trump is massively popular. CoryUsar (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in Nebraska, born and raised in rural and suburban Kansas. Still have a lot of family there. I'm very lucky that my family is full of respectful country libertarians raised in bum-fuck Kansas and teachers from the east end of Kansas emigrated from Kentucky and Virginia. Not a gun-nut to be found, as far as I can tell. A few are Trump voters but not wacky Trump supporters. I feel like I rolled a natural 20 at birth on not being pressured into a political opinion. Being said, I had an argument today based on me saying "I don't think it's right or worth the time to call all Republicans racist. But I also don't exactly disagree." Man, the police argument went about as well as expected. I got hit with the just a few bad apples, not every police officer is racist, and the guess who signed the war on crime act. I said "The Democrats are racist too." and that cooled it a little, but then the justification that police went to trial and got (not my airquotes) "exonerated" and an admission that no system is perfect, and then I was like "but the system, that's imperfect, somehow disproportionately rules against people of color" and huff and puff and I just changed the subject. To be fair, the guy was conflating institutional racism with being a loud and proud racist, and he's probably always going to do that. But when the Fergusen riots went down, my later Grandpa, watching the news listening to my dad and my uncle say "protest is fine, but rioting?" spoke up and said "people don't riot for no reason." That was it, that's all he had to say about it. And nobody argued with that, they just kinda kept watching the news. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedballs

ive been feeling out of sorts of late, alternating between lethargy and restless manic energy.

all i needed was a speedball, and i back to my usual jolly self.

yes a cup of tea counts as a speedball - tea(upper) + warm milk (downer) = cup of tea (speedball).

everything is better after a cup of cha AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ooffff I’ve been trying so hard to not get back into the stims recently so? I will just try ur “Tea Speedball Recipe” thank u 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 00:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, so is an Irish Coffee now a speedball? CoryUsar (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

probably. downing vodka and red bulls all night is not dissimilar to speed. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

amittedly not the classic speedball that offed so many celebs thoughAMassiveGay (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, we're all tough. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Candy flipping in my House

Taking some acid and also some MDMA. Gonna hopefully clean up my “emotions”. Since I have no friends whomst want to talk to me or be near me, does anyone have suggestions for how I can be Not Lonely? Thanks 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 00:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Go to https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds and create an account. It doesn't take long, it's free and easy and they never send you any spam emails. You can then listen to marvelous BBC radio 24 hours a day from anywhere in the world. It's what stops me from feeling lonely. Spud (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Try FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted#But_I_miss_the_social_setting_at_church, or look for clubs for things you're interested in. There's a club for just about everything, and there's plenty of lovely people out there who'd love to socialise with you! Enjoy it, though maybe don't attend something for the first time while candy flipping, hehe. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I had a nice trip. Turns out I do have friends bc my best friend and pal invited me to see the Wonder Woman movie then we went to his house and he gave me some weed and we chilled. Nice time. Now I have no serotonin and feel like shit but worth it ig. 💜 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💜 23:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

So, the spike and drop, I get. It's worrying that the drop hits so hard that if nobody wants to talk to you in that extended time you're losing sight of whether you're lonely or not. I don't do psychoactives often, I got distracted by videos about mescaline the other night and now I'm, like, in this longing period where I want to try it, but I don't have the fever. MDMA is definitely not "do on your own time" kinda shit but it's also not the best answer for social coherence. I'm really glad your best friend invited you to a movie and it's fucking cool that you went. If you have to do MDMA to ask to hang out, very much problem, but I know it's a good way to make the time meaningful instead of quietly braving a panic attack. I have a similar problem with anxiety and alcohol, I'm not tryin to talk down to you. The move needs to be lateral, yes, the lift is always nice, but the drop into thinking you're totally alone just because you're on some personal shit and it's not making sense is really, really dangerous. People legitimately like you and want you around them. By that evidence, you are a likeable person whether it's artificially comfortable for you or not. You have to get more comfortable with the alone time if you're gonna do that shit alone. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You're a bright, honest, good writer. You express yourself really well. I can't speak for anyone else, but I like the cut of your jib. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

New to the site and how to move article to from draftspace to mainspace (if possible)

Hello! I am new to the site and I wanted to ask how I could move the page about Alt-Right troll Brittany Dier Venti to the mainspace of the site. I'm surprised there is no article about her since she was a big name attendee at the violent neo-nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. She is also pals and associated with many other people you have featured in your alt-right section of this site and I'm surprised she wasn't put on here sooner,so I was wondering how a new article can be moved from the draftspace to the mainspace of this site. Is there certain formatting requirements that need to be met,etc.? I'm new here so your help would be greatly appreciated!

Here is the draft of the article below for context https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Draft:Brittany_Dier_Venti ^{— Unsigned, by: Amerimutt / talk / contribs}

@Amerinutt I've moved it for you. And done some clean up to make it look more like a RationalWiki article. The first video on the page wouldn't play because it had been deleted from YouTube so I removed it. Spud (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Loonies

Someone needs a snickers bar. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 17:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)