RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive382

This is an archive page, last updated 22 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>, <380>, <381>, <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>

, (new)(back)

What the heck?

I checked the block log today and there was a user called "Cyberdildonyx" on there, that name sounded familiar enough since it is very similar to "CyberRobotnix", a troll I have known for several years. That username was created and then banned fairly quickly, alongside other offensive usernames relative to either myself or my website, I actually wonder whether they were made by the same troll I am talking about or Michael Coombs who'd have decided to impersonate him. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Reflective rant on the stupidity and apathy of the Human race

Today I went around to my local Tesco, where they've placed signs on the floor and at the door informing people about wearing masks and about keeping at least 1m apart from eachother. But do people respect the rules? Even if said rules have been plastered everywhere for over a year? No they fucking don't!! I am aware that my response to this is an extreme reaction, but quite frankly, I Despair for the future of humanity. Supposedly educated people can't even bother to follow the obvious and straightforward rules. They think that wearing a mask makes them invincible and therefore it doesn't matter how close you are to people, as long as you wear a cheap piece of fabric all is well. Witnessing this today made me think of the film Se7ven, in which the apathy of humans is a dominant theme throughout the film. I find it quite hard to not draw pessimistic conclusions about the human-endeavour, when I see things like this it seems as if humans will never learn. Why even bother pursuing such noble causes as science or rationality or reducing suffering etc? when you are such a statistical minority; why even care when others won't? no matter how many chances they've had. Its times like these that its tempting to think of the human species as a rotting-festering carcass. As an addendum: I typically do my food-shopping online, but today I thought I'd see if I could get something from my local, it was only when I arrived that I discovered the impossibility of safely shopping there, at which point I thought fuck this, and left for home...coming back empty handed but safe. →Leucippus 18:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just imagine how we'd fare if COVID was "bubonic ebolAIDS" deadly instead of just "old timey disease from Oregon Trail" deadly. CorruptUser 18:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, AIDS is really bad, but there's been HIV denialism well into the 21st century. IMO, even if COVID's fatality rate were orders of magnitude higher (5-10% rather than 0.06-0.1%), the conservatives would still do nothing but find scapegoats, complain about "liberal socialists," and be generally incapable of arriving to systemic solutions. Conservative thought requires every ill to be placed on "personal responsibility" rather than analyzing social processes. SonOfStranger (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why the politicians resort to lockdown, when you give people simple orders, they do not follow them. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If the virus was as deadly as Ebola, the authorities would have responded how they responded to Ebola. The higher lethality would also decrease transmission in more direct ways (you can’t cough on someone if you’re dead). Christopher (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The problem with Ebola wasn't necessarily its lethality, but rather that it killed people way too quickly; its incubation period is about 4-10 days, and has obvious transmission vectors (if you know to look for them). COVID is much different in that it has an incubation period of about 2 or so weeks, during which people are still infectious but not symptomatic. SonOfStranger (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll do you one better: What if, when we go to Mars and terraform it, some highly-contagious alien bacterium previously frozen in ice thaws and starts infecting people and killing them with high fevers in mere days due to a complete lack of immunity? --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

[EC]Short incubation period and high lethality go hand-in-hand. I can’t imagine a virus that infects you, does nothing, then immediately kills you.

I know we’re talking about hypothetical diseases, but being killed off by Martian bacteria is pure science fiction. We’d test all the water first, if only to make sure we’re not destroying anything. Anything we somehow miss would be in such minute quantities that it wouldn’t be able to harm us. You then have to account for the fact that, just as we’d have no immunity to the bacteria, the bacteria would have no immunity to us. This is all without considering the fact that wherever we’d build a base wouldn’t have bacteria in it; Mars almost certainly never had life at all and the bit we’d colonise definitely wouldn’t (we’d pick one of the bits that’s already been thoroughly explored with rovers I’m guessing). Christopher (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There are examples of long-incubation period diseases with moderately high fatalities, if one takes 5-15% as a high mortality. Chicken pox (herpes zoster virus) was generally considered a minor disease of childhood since it's rarely fatal (1 per 100,000).[1] But latent herpes zoster from the initial exposure in childhood causes shingles during old age, with a mortality rate of 5-15% in untreated adults due to declining immune systems in old age.[2] Bongolian (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In response to all of the above - thanks for responding, although I feel my rant has inspired a somewhat tangential thread. Thanks Corry and SonofStranger - I think you have both presented, although hypothetical, the disturbing reality of severe diseases in contrast to COVID. Circular even-though your response may be "pure science fiction", I believe that it reveals a problematic and disturbing theme correlated with climate change: the potential for more novel diseases emerging in the northern-hemisphere, and more generally, the world. And finally thanks Christopher for injecting a degree of reality into the proceedings, which I think brings all the respective views into balance. →Leucippus 21:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your response is not an extreme reaction. An extreme reaction is one that would replace "going postal" in the lexicon with "going Tesco"! Aloysius the Gaul 19:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be such an extreme reaction to replace the American idiom with the British. I can't bear to think about those poor yanks; confused, alone, strangers in a strange land. As for impromptu mass murder: replacing the USPS with Tesco...well...it seems more my cup of tea i.e. not Really that big of a deal. →Leucippus 21:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the case. COVID is about as deadly as the old timey disease we just put up with back in the day, and it's actually much less deadly than Measles. The difference being of course, that the older people already had measles as kids and so they didn't die from it as adults, plus in the days before The Pill you needed The Good Lord to pitch in and take a few back.

I don't know if we'd be able to survive a really tough disease that ended civilizations back in the day such as the Bubonic Plague or Smallpox... CorruptUser 21:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also you know, not nearly as infectious, or kill 400,000 Americans in twelve months. Other than that...-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have pretty much the same response, and in the same shop, too (Yay Tesco). I've changed my eating and purchasing habits to reduce how often I have to go to the shop; not out of safety concerns (well, not PURELY out of safety concerns), but because going into a supermarket lately really gets me annoyed. For me it's less that I think they're stupid or apathetic, and more that the weird arrogant denialism that I imagine they have that gets to me. The idea that people are ignoring advice because A) They think they know better or B) They think they're in some way being brave or badass by doing so bugs me a lot more than the ignoring the advice in the first place. I can't quite put the concept into words. I get a similar reaction on a road near me: the limit is 50mph, but about half of the drivers there seem convinced it's actually 40mph. They will drive on it at 50mph, then when they come to a speed camera, slam the brakes on to go down to 40mph. The idea that these people think that they're breaking the law and outsmarting the enforcement of said law, when what they're actually doing is failing to read "50" on the big signs, bothers me significantly more than the behaviour itself. Same thing with masks and distancing and all that. X Stickman (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@X Stickman Don't get me wrong I'm not expecting perfection (nirvana fallacy) from people, just the slightest suggestion that they give a shit. Also I don't necessarily think that they're stupid, just that they're behaving stupidly. But I do think apathy plays a role: after all, its easier to not give a shit, caring takes work, however little effort is required. I deeply sympathise with your point (A) it seems like a natural urge in humans to see oneself and ones own standards as superior, nevertheless there are varying degrees of this "urge" and the shoppers I mentioned seem to be manifesting symptoms on the far end of this spectrum of arrogance.→Leucippus 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, there is a large percentage in the world that is well aware that a pandemic is going on, and acts socially responsible. The socially irresponsible however is of sufficient size to be very annoying. The amount of socially irresponsible annoying people on this feature varies by country and culture and place by place. Probably the mere act of going out, even to the grocery, increases your chance of running into the irresponsible type, because the more responsible are going to be staying home a lot more these days. So a selection bias may be in play. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal Uh... Measles is THE most infectious deadly disease we know of, like, so infectious that "herd immunity" requires vaccination rates in the mid-90%s, it's BRE is estimated to be around 15 (that is, without anyone being immune, 1 person would infect 15), whereas without lockdowns and so forth COVID would've been around 4 (which is already super-spready). The only reason there weren't plagues of the stuff was that virtually everyone alive already had it when it came through in their childhood. In terms of how deadly it was, it killed .1% kids that caught it, and that's if they catch it as a kid. Compare to COVID, which kills an estimated .001% of kids. If we lived in a world where measles didn't exist before and then "Measles Virus Disease 2019" struck, not only would "MEVID" would've torn through the world like wildfire and there'd be a fuckton more than 400,000 dead.

That's just it. COVID isn't the deadliest or fasting spreading disease that could possibly happen. COVID is a wake up call in terms of sanitation and pandemic responses. CorruptUser 01:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's kind of been the false dilemma all along amongst the (uneducated) masses. One side: COVID is gonna kill everyone. Other side: COVID barely even kills if it's not an outright hoax. Neither is correct. Aaronmicahel5 02:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's already an incorrect argument for that. *Ahem.* It *hhhhhhck* It is important for your immune system to personally battle every disease, because *Ahem* that's how the human race gets *kf* stronger, the immune system was *Ahem* designed to fight off disease, and it will make humanity. It will make humanity. *Ahem* it will make humanity weaker to immunize against this virus that is weakerandlessdeadlythantheflu, *krm* I'm not scared of dying from it, I'm going to catch it every year until I die. *AHKHEM* Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It finally happened

We just left Yemen. I hope other countries listen.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 03:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Added to list of unprecedentedly decent things the Biden administration has done so far. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just passing through

Haven't been here in a long time. Glad to see it's still a fun spot. Be well all. DogP (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back, feel free to say hi, maybe laugh at an article or two for old time's sake. What made you leave, if you don't mind me asking? Cortex (chat) 19:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Drama. It made me leave years ago too. (different name then.)Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

First Bronze Page (?)

So I went ahead and awarded myself certified my first article as a bronze rating. I think the article is detailed/impressive enough to warrant it. If anyone disagrees, please remove it (the sooner the better as not to raise my hopes). Aaronmichael5 22:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely worthy of at least a bronze. Congratulations, now I'm not the only person who shamelessly promotes their own work :P CorruptUser 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You should format your citations. No bare links. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you CorruptUser, and for DuceMoosolini, I'll definitely go back and fix the citations when I have a little more time, although I don't think that becomes a requirement until silver. Aaronmichael5 23:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sunday Vent

If anyone feels the need to scream into the void about something, you can do it right here. I'm not sure if this would be a welcome thing to the wiki, but experimentation is fun. The Good Bird (Problem?)

It's fine. There's a lot of things I'd like to vent about myself but I don't know where to start. Uh, I hate silverfish. Also wtf Ohio. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank u for this opportunity. Why the FUCK cleaning my house gotta be soooo hard aaaaa and FURTHERMORE I just feel like if I look at 1 more news or politics I’m going to fucking lose my shit BUT I can’t stop looking bc I have this feeling that doing so makes me a “bad lazy selfish” person and alsoooo I’m so fucking scared for my American pals. And NOW there’s a dang impeachment that the repubs r gonna let the fascist get away with everythingg which isn’t surprising but is still horrifying. Also fruit flies. God I hate those little bastards. 🖤 ASELA^ཊལྐ 🖤 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Welp, I was about to vent, but then I found something that made me forget about everything else in my life that's bothering me.

Who do I have to lobby to get this remade?! By the sweet tap-dancing baby Jesus, I think this might be the greatest looking movie of all time!!! - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I saw part of that movie from Svengoolie's show. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Started a little grease fire in my apartment. Ruined two perfectly good towels putting it out. Trying to think positively, because I'm getting new furniture soon and the towels would not have matched-Hastur! (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I tried to watch Godzilla 2014, I know some guys really hyped about Godzilla v Kong. So Science mom and dad had an anomoly, science mom says over the radio "close the doors I can't make it" so Science Dad does it, and then Science Mom shows up in the window in a redundant "You probably didn't understand that this is a painful moment of loss" kind of thing. So flash forward, Army Son has to go get Science Dad at his apartment, where we see a drawing of bat on the wall among a million news clippings, because that's how Science Dad remembers how echolocation works. Science Dad is in trouble again, Amry Son asks Science Dad why he can't just let Science Mom go, Science Dad drops the line "Because I sent her down there." And I was like, OK "sent down there," is really good language, and there was a hard cut to Science Dad and Army Son is a boat floating up to a forbidden contamination zone, and I'm like "Wait, is that the River Styx?" and then they get out of the boat and three dogs run past them and I'm like "holy shit, is that Cerberus?" But then NOTHING comes out of it, Science Dad isn't exonerated, Science Mom isn't raised, Hell, Army Son just gets over his Science Dad's death, like, the second somebody asks him a question. Long movie short, they ask Army Son about his Science Dad's research, and Army Son says "I don't know, we didn't talk about it" and I say "well, he had a bat on his wall" and they ask him for anything and I say "He had a bat on the wall" and Army Son goes "wait," and I said "Well we know he has a bat on the wall" and Army Son says "He was studying echo-location, like these things are talking to each other" and I said "I am not the demographic for this movie." And then Army Son has plot knowledge throughout the rest of the film while simultaneously saving everyone he meets from every disaster and being allowed along on military things by saying "I'm Army Son, let me go with you, army." Like I can enjoy garbage action, but I can't enjoy garbage development. Watched King of the Monsters, it was literally better even though they casually introduced hollow earth. The first thing they did was say "The world understands that these monsters exist now" and that was all it took. One line of exposition to rule them all. Still a garbage movie, but tenable because of the entire lack of world-building. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

science dad was exonerated in the eyes of army son who just thought he was an unhinged lunatic until giant bat popped up. its a dogshit movie and all, but he did get a kind of 'told you so' moment. he could have had if hed gotten on with life and saw it all on tv, but i think they were going tragedy. king of monsters was infinitely worse though. dunno how godzilla v kong will work though. both of them have been established as the hero in their movies so i reckon they'll fight for a bit due a misunderstanding then team up an battle some other menace, then theyll embrace and passionately kiss and wonder of into the sunset to have implied freaky monster sex. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

King of Monsters was infinitely worse in the same way that the original Fast and the Furious is about cars being more important than cultures but now it's about demi-gods battling with cars. And I totally agree Kong and Godzilla are gonna give each other a look, defeat the real bad Kaiju, and respectfully move apart a la Batman v Superman and Mecha-Godzilla will be a lesson to the humans that they just need to stay out of it. Both King Kong and Godzilla are monsters invented to call out and display human arrogance, I'm not that stoked on how either one is being used now, I don't have much stake in the story, because the story was bad, is bad, and they blew it off with the second movie. At least we weren't supposed to care about the humans, unless we were, in which case wow, missed every beat on that. New science daughter gets an email from dad, we meet Mothra, I said "Mothra" at the exact same time as science daughter, because these movies are trash. Then Mothra got unruly, I said "Mothra just needs an email from Dad" and then they did the science thing with the Orca sound laptop with the invisible speakers that said "Alpha call" or whatever, it was bad, you have to understand I agree on that point. Maybe I was just fatigued from the pace of the first one, but at that point I stopped caring and watched the stupid monster fights. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

humanity is just a vehicle for exposition, as screeching magafauna notoriously unemotive. they would be better films if they just let the monsters fight. trying to make dumb bullshit seem not dumb, just amplified just how stupid those films are. and much worse than that, they made it all so fucking dull. b movies can be all kinds of garbage and it not matter if they are fun. making them so dull is an unforgivable movie sin. pacific rim the other hand ridiulous bullshit. really fun though AMassiveGay (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm probably going to watch Ben Shapiro's school shooting movie tomorrow, if I can find it. I am usually ashamed of myself in an extremely roundabout way for watching movies without paying for them, but I might be ashamed of myself in a roundabout way for paying for a movie for once. It should be easier to watch than a Sci-Fi fake horror alien documentary, "But some say these are true facts" kind of thing. I mean, it's going to be bad, but knowing it's all just made up characters, I won't have to pore over every single decision to make it look real and convincing. Wish me luck regardless. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Portier

So, Chris is a real living person, one that you probably never heard of, which makes me hesitant to create an article without discussing this first.

He's not a dumb man, you don't get on the WHO's cancer research team by being stupid. What makes him of interest to me/us is that he is the reason that Glyphosate was upgraded to 2A "probably carcinogenic to humans". He left the IARC about a week afterwards... with a check from trial attorneys for $160,000. Basically, he seems to be the pesticide version of Andrew Wakefield. Thoughts before I make an article on the guy? CorruptUser 15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Right now I'd call glyphosate's status as "undetermined / controversial" regarding cancer (although from my viewpoint the evidence does seem to lean towards the "mostly harmless" category at the moment, that's just an opinion based on a quick survey of Google scholar, which is hardly expert). The problem with this guy is that it seems like much of the criticism comes from biased sources, such as this one from the American Council on Science and Health (a group known for pro-industry shilling) and this link from the "Genetic Literacy Project" (whose ties to Monsanto have been questioned). Politico isn't always the greatest source either and a group called Corporate Europe Observatory (an anti-corporate lobbying group, so they've got bias too) responded to these allegations. I guess the kicker is that unlike Wakefield, I see no evidence that the scientific community has flat out rejected Portier's findings with glyphosate at this time -- currently the toxicity of glyphosate seems to be a "work in progress". PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually had some familiarity with Portier when he worked for the National Toxicology Program (US) many years ago. I don't think he could be considered the equivalent of Wakefield unless he did something really egregious in the intervening years. In the risk assessment world, there are a range of opinions about applying the precautionary principle, and except for the extremes, views within that range would probably not be considered crankery. It is at best an unseemly conflict of interest (and at worst bribery) to accept interested-party money when one is effectively regulating an industry. Bongolian (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with "probably carcinogenic to humans" is that it tells you nothing about the probable/possible risk that it will give you cancer. Bacon is also classed as "probably carcinogenic to humans". Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Tomatoes themselves should be in the "probably carcinogenic to humans" category because they contain trace amounts of nicotine. The "Tomacco" Simpsons episode was right! In fact, EVERY plant is full of poisons, that's why literally half of the mass of your body is dedicated in some way to protecting you from poisons. Liver? Natch. Kidneys? Yup, along with your bladder. Lymphatic system? Of course. Lungs? Not their primary purpose, but you do exhale a number of toxins, plus a good chunk of your lungs is about filtering out the toxic things in the air. Tongue? That's literally what your "bitter" tastebuds are sensing for, along with your sense of smell and eyesight. Skin? Of course. Blood? One of functions of your circulatory system. CorruptUser 21:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The IARC conclusions, though qualitative rather than quantitative, do go through a thorough procedure by a panel of international experts.[3] Bongolian (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Vrillon tv interruption in 1977

This is fucking stupid and it’s an obvious answer to a dumb question but in the 70’s, and ITV station was hijacked by a person claiming to be ‘Vrillon’ of the ‘Ashtar Galactic Command’ and basically it was a message to end nuclear weapons so in the “new age of Aquarius” humanity could “evolve” into the “light.” Just to clarify because, surprisingly, there are people who think it’s real, this is just a hoax right? I mean, if benevolent aliens wanted to communicate to stop our “war like tendencies,” of all places, why would they broadcast it on a local English Channel in southern England in perfect English? My assumption is that it was protesters pulling off a stunt because of Cold War shenanigans- but brain is a fuck again, and I just need a second opinion. In the Wikipedia article, it states that the transmitter was unorthodox and open to exploitation. Based on logic, science and evidence, this is a hoax correct? Not aliens right? Just hoaxers yeah? (God I’m a fucking idiot I know...)—WMS (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In the US, we had the Max Headroom signal hijacking event of WGN in 1987, and the satellite uplink hijacking Captain Midnight broadcast signal intrusion event in 1986. These are verified events. I'd agree with you that the event you're referencing is most likely a stunt pulled off by some clever activists. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember seeing that video a long, long time ago, and instantly noticed some pretty obvious flaws: One, that the name "Asta" clearly sounds like the Greek word astros meaning "star", and two, that the aliens spoke perfect English (a notoriously difficult language), in a British accent. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is the video, this is very much the New Age style vision of aliens (as noted by the Aquarius reference), reminiscent of the Pleiadians style of alien mythos (also known on The Other Wiki as Nordic aliens) without using the name. One of the features of this mythos is benevolent aliens who are concerned about something (in this case world peace). The Other Wiki also mentions that this style of alien mythos may have been inspired by The Day the Earth Stood Still (the 1951 version, an actual really good movie... not the crappy 2008 remake), where an alien landing story is used as an allegory for the very real atomic bomb race at the time. I think one thing common about alien mythology is that they often have served as metaphors for present hopes and fears. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I listened through a 2 hour video too hungover to get out of bed between some Swede and some reptilian lady. I'm not sure why it came up on my suggested, I've never watched a reptilians video before, the algorithms have some strange reach, but I listened to it and it was obviously fiction. If Aliens or deep... I dunno what to call the subject of this interview, subterrestrial, HOLY SHIT no spellcheck? Well, that's weird, except I just kinda used human language to make a descriptive word and in the interview I listened to it was all a mix of doing that and not doing that, but if ALL this shit is somehow really going around, you at least got one buddy who will say "Holy shit, you had it right." I'm listening to you, and I take you seriously. I just think we would have spotted it legitimately, I don't think anybody could have covered it up so well. I get consumed by stuff that is interesting to me as well, you haven't fucked up or anything, you're just not distancing yourself from it enough. I know that's pretty much Scully's advice to Mulder, but this isn't the X Files, the reason Scully gave that advice is because it was written as honest, real advice. You are not limited to your knowledge of or belief in aliens visiting earth. But your belief has to be met with personal skepticism, and you're doing a knockout job of that. You're honestly looking to disprove the hypothesis, that's cool, please share anything that spins you up. Meta-reality is not as easy as math when it comes to the scientific method. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Reddit vs Wall Street

This is a thing of beauty. There's a subreddit, WallStreetBets, that's basically dedicated to people making ridiculous bets on the stock market. People have made, and lost, large sums doing this. However, they learned about an investment company, called Citron Research, that was short-selling GameStop, as a way to cash in, if the share price of GS continued to tank. Well, these guys went "fuck that shit" and started buying GS shares. To the point where GS is up nearly 300% in the last month alone, and Citron is staring down the barrel of an 8-figure loss. Intro to the story here. -RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, go Reddit taking down corporate profiteers! On the other hand, Gamestop? That's who you decided to stick up for? IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I know what company to buy Puts on...

Today the price was between $60 and $145, dear lord that's some massive market manipulation.

Ah, here we go. Blegh, so expensive. So I'm looking at those puts with a 1/29 expiration (this Friday) and $60 strike. The bid/ask spread is relatively low compared to some of them. So basically, if GameStop goes below $51 by Friday, every dollar below that is profit, which is hardly impossible considering the company was at $20 two weeks ago. If it's between $51 and $60, then partial loss. If above $60, all loss. Someone in the options market already made a fortune...CoryUsar (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, seriously did consider buying those puts at like $10. But the contract is for 100 options, basically $1000. A bit too rich for my blood, but, we will see how much hypothetical money I would've made. Remember, it's a $60 Strike so every $1 below $60 is $100 in option value. Of course, never exercise an option early, better to just sell the damned thing :P. CoryUsar (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The GME stock thingy is a bit of a "tulip mania" to me as I've mentioned before, but hey, some people can make money with that sort of thing (some people can lose money, too). Hopefully it's not a handful of mods colluding in the background. (Because, that would be a pump and dump scheme, and you'll get SEC'ed for that). If this is an organically grown meme, it's all fun and games. I think I looked at the put options for GME and none were timed or priced like I wanted, the US stock market is frothy and tech overall has some insane valuations right now so I have no idea how long this valuation will last. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing about making money in scams is that if you aren't in on the scam, you are far more likely to be one of the suckers that loses money than one who makes money. But, oddly, the fancy stuff like short selling exists specifically to fuck over people trying to pull scams. If someone is doing a pump and dump, short sellers can come in and eat their lunch so to speak, only, in much much more colorful terms. If someone is trying to cause a sell-off, others will not just buy but buy on margin and again, eat their lunch, and again, in much more colorful terms. CoryUsar (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You hate corporate profiteers but you're pro-capitalism? Curious.... — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction in the slightest. Virtually all economists hate rent seeking, and all but the deranged An-Caps believe government regulations should exist to prevent such behavior. CoryUsar (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

All capitalism consists of is rent seeking. — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

From the lady who wants us all to rearrange the entire system so she gets free shit but doesn't have to work for it. CoryUsar (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you try reading what socialists have to say for once instead of mouthing off from a position of ignorance like the dense fool you are? — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser The remark about "free shit and not working for it" is not cool, man. It's a common phrase, utilizing a dangerous bootstrap mindset, by conservatives used to attack and belittle poor people for not working hard enough and is used to oppose policy that'll save lives or otherwise help people including guaranteed public healthcare, subsidies for education, affordable college education, affordable housing, and more. Some people can't work, some people are working to their limits. Oxy seems to be in dire poverty and under disabilities. It's not good form to strike people's vulnerabilities like this. Sure, she's way too aggressive but don't use such rhetoric that can propagate mindsets that can and will harm vulnerable people. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

...and would've lost $600-700 had I bought the options. Dodged a bullet there.CoryUsar (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Gambling. If Wall Street Bets isn't enough to remind people that stocks, dollars, and the economy are based on feelings, rather than facts, I don't know what to to tell you other than reverting to Fiat currency would leave you with nothing, you personally, with nothing. Like, what do people want out of their economy? A huge casino seems to be the current meta for the US. I can't exactly blame anyone for it, it's not like people trust saving your money out here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, derivatives are gambling, and could probably do with a bit of regulation, e.g., at least 1/4 of all derivatives must be held by people owning or having a vested interest in the underlying commodity/stock, or, everyone else has to pay a small tax to trade. Are you an oil producer? Then you may purchase all the puts or sell all the calls on Oil that you want, because paying a few dollars to guarantee you never have to sell below $50/barrel is definitely worth it to you. Are you a Wall Street Hedge Fund that doesn't actually consume or produce oil? Well, you are going to have to pay a 10 cent tax per Oil option that isn't traded with a legit oil producer, you filthy speculators. Basically, the derivatives market would all but collapse except for the people who actually have a damn good reason to be involved in options.

Stocks are a bit different. The real value of a stock is the present value of future dividends, and if you ever go into the market not understanding this I don't want to hear any complaints about losses. If people think Toyota is a junk company that's worth a mere $20/share but it's paying $5/share every single year, someone can put a lot of money in Toyota and keep getting a fortune in dividends. If people think Tesla is this amazing Trillion-dollar company (more than all the other automakers combined, well, they can put their money in it but they will never see the dividends. Eventually the other investors are going to get sick of never seeing the profit, and, well, eventually the world runs out of fools and Tesla's stock will crash. It might take a few years, it might take a decade, but eventually it will all come crashing down. CoryUsar (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Economies and stock markets are always "a bit of both" with data and feelings, sometimes more one than the other. Manias are super common in history. Options have their use, but they sometimes have a whiff of gambling to them in practice. (More "boring" entities like bonds and dividend paying staple stocks are a different story.) This is not the first massive "short squeeze" (see Volkswagen in 2008) but this is the first one I can think of where an amateur mob is ganging up to take on a hedge fund. A return to fundamentals is most likely at some point, and hopefully too many of the mob don't get burned on the way down. But so far it seems that all indicators are that the hedge funds shorting GME are probably going to get burnt the worst. Given everything I know, it's hard not to root for the mob here, to be honest. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The mob burning a market manipulator into ash is exactly how the market should work. Kind of. Let's say a stock is trading at $70. If a market manipulator tries to raise its price to $200, the mob is supposed to come in and short sell the shares until the stock is back down to $70 and the manipulator loses his shirt. If the manipulator is short selling the stock down to $20, the mob is supposed to keep buying the stock until it's back to $70 and again, the manipulator loses his shirt. That the mob is over counter-manipulating is "wrong" in a sense, but definitely not anything to cry about; if a manipulator should've "only" lost their shirt but loses their pants as well?

Good.

Fuck them.

Without lube.

As for "gambling", it's only gambling if the edge favors the house. In the derivatives market, every penny you make is a penny someone else loses; it's a zero sum game. But there's the fees involved, plus the big boys can trade faster than you, so the edge is against you. It is gambling; you are better off at a casino. So I can say, as an actuary (the profession that enables the finance world to exist), the derivatives market could kick out 90-95% of the people/money involved and it would be a net gain for society. CoryUsar (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's only a "zero sum game" if you buy into financialization as a ideal, at least inasmuch that the stock/bound/etc market accurately enough reflects reality at any moment to not have unwarranted side effects. If you pull a Bain capital, acquire a company like Toys R Us on the cheap, load it up with bond debt, then allow it to disintegrate, that actually destroys the business. People lose their jobs, locations close, shopping centers have a missing anchor, and the side effects reverberate. That was going to happen to gamestop with this scale of mass short. Should that happen to gamestop? I couldn't say, but it's not a game, and thinking of it as a game(even a game theory game) disconnects from reality. Here we're seeing the effects of large scale actors trying to control the market as a whole. Be it billionaires with hedge funds or an alliance of a couple million users of a bad website. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Derivatives Market only, not the Stock, Bond or Commodities markets.

As for Bain, I think there are numerous people at fault. If Bain buys ToysRUs, and then they go to Deutsche Bank asking for $10B in loans using TRS as collateral (and use the $10B in loans to buy cheap plastic garbage from themselves and pocket most of the $10B), it's on the Federal Government to step in a regulator and slap Bain upside the head, it's on Bain for pulling this shtick, and it's on Deutsche Bank for being so fuqtarded as to sign this deal. When DB signs this deal and demands a bailout, it's on the Fed for being so fuqtarded as to even consider giving DB a bailout, and it's on the public for re-electing these idiots who gave the bailouts.

As much as I hate to say it, if the companies are going to do stupid shit on the expectation of a bailout and get said bailout because they are "too big to fail", then yes I agree with the people who say we shouldn't let these companies get "too big to fail" in the first place. CoryUsar (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Robin Hood shenanigans

Anyone see what's happening with Robin Hood? Apparently barred certain transactions that people consider market manipulation. It's getting like 100,000 1-star reviews and people are calling for lawsuit. Capitalism is complete disgrace, but that goes without saying these days. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's 100% certain they burned through all the reputation they made. Banning a long position as market manipulation is particular insane though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

On the plus side, the initial take from Congress is unexpectedly bipartisan trashing of Robinhood. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Elizabeth Warren tweeted that (in essence) Robinhood pulled a scummy move today. So did Ted Cruz and Marsha Blackburn. I wonder if anything will come of this moment. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe it, AOC and Ted Cruz actually agree on something! Now if they could find a little more common ground maybe we could get things done in this country. SlayAllPedos (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd rather the Social Democrat and the opportunist who's spent the last four years pandering to fascists not get along, for obvious reasons. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Are we sure the Wall Street bigwigs lost?

A lot has been made about the shortsellers allegedly losing $19,000,000,000 or so due to people buying up Gamestop stock. But are we sure the shortsellers have lost? In stocks, there's something called "options". Options are, well, you purchase the right to buy or sell at a specified price and date. A Put option is the right to sell, a Call option is the right to buy. Let's say the stock is trading at $100. You purchase a call option with a "strike" price of $110 for $5. At the end, if the stock is $105, you aren't going to buy the stock at $110 so the option is worthless. If the stock goes to $150, you buy it for $110 instead and then resell for $150, effectively turning your $5 into $40. If the stock is only $112, your $5 only got you $2 so you lost $3. Puts are the reverse, you purchase the right to sell for $90, and if the stock goes to $50, well, that option is now worth $40. You can "write" options, meaning that instead someone else will have the right to buy or sell the stock and you have to eat the loss, in exchange for the money up front, but at the risk of the stock going to the moon and you being on the hook for a fortune. So you write that call with a $110 strike for $5, if the stock goes down, you keep your $5. If it goes up to $200, you are now on the hook for the $90, so you lost $85. If you own the stock itself, well, your gain on the stock is wiped out by the loss on the option. You are in essence buying and selling the volatility of the stock. If the stock is more volatile, the options become pricier, if the stock calms down and stays close to where it currently is, the options are less valuable.

But, back to short selling. Most short sellers, if not too aggressive, purchase call options. Basically, stock is at $100, you short sell it, if it goes to $70 you made $30, but if it goes to $500 you lost $400. However, if you purchase a call with, say, a strike price of $110 for $5, if the stock goes to $500 your short sale lost $400 but your option made $385, so you can never lose more than $15. Of course, if the stock stays at $100, you lose the $5 for the option, and if it goes to $95 you got nothing in spite of being "right" about short selling.

Now, a wall street firm doesn't necessarily have to buy equal amounts of calls as it does short selling. What if, hypothetically, a company shortsold GameStop for $20, but bought twice as many call options for pennies at $50? In spite of losing on the shorts, they make so, so much more on the calls. Furthermore, the people buying up those options might not have been the Redditors themselves, but other Wall Street firms. It's entirely possible that, while someone is losing, the big WS firms are still making money hand over first. CoryUsar (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally think the story is too good to be true, and there's a catch OR there are other rich funds in there joining reddit in the speculating wars or whatever. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That one group? Sure, they're out of a job for now, though they likely had golden parachutes. Personally, I find it rather amusing that people are rooting for the same sort of scum who work at hedge funds just because they're fucking over established firms. Remember, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the mistakes of conspiracy theory types, and even those who are WallStreetBets meme edgelords, is assuming that "the rich" or "the investor class" is some sort of evil monolith. There is a *lot* of "Wall Street opinions", and Wall Street has both Warren Buffett and Michael Milken types. CorruptUser described quite well the game of "hedging", where, in lieu of uncertainty, one tries to play both sides of the coin. Aggressive short sellers don't have a great reputation on Wall Street (just ask Dick Fuld Jr., who dissed short sellers in spite of being one of the fucktards most responsible for the 2008 real estate crash/recession) so in some ways there's no issue whatsoever with WSB dicking over the short sellers. But one thing I do see with the LOLmeme revolution of WallStreetBets is that, unknowingly, they are helping to bail out some companies with pretty fucked up finances. AMC is a great example: due to streaming being of increasing dominance, cinemas probably need to perform a complete makeover in order to compete in the future (future cinemas IMHO will be more like, say, Alamo Draft House, providing a more full service experience of some sort). With COVID-19 fucking up their traffic, many cinema companies like AMC were in serious deep doo doo, with a lot of debt and nothing short term to lean on. Thanks to the Reddit army, AMC is in a much better position to revamp. There's a lot of the power of crowds at work here, and while you can see the power of crowds saving other beloved companies, you can also see the potential for abuse (no surprise some Dogecoin shills tried to hype up the cryptocurrency train shortly after the Gamestop hype, for instance). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also just a flat out pump and dump scheme, so I would caution anyone buying GME shares (or really any share that's being pushed by WSB and other people) to not do this stuff. You don't want a visit from the SEC, because this is the kinda stuff that they will probably go after because of how obviously fraudulent it is. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 12:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sirius Also the guys at the top of WSB are using the naive rubes as human cash shields. @PanGalacticGargleBlaster While "the rich" may not be a monolith per se, they do have certain overall behavioral trends. They're less likely to push for things like worker co-ops or unions and they're more likely to actively oppose these things. That isn't to say that there's some kind of grand conspiracy (fuck every leftist or anyone else who says or implies there is, learn behavioral dynamics you effing twits!) but that there is, again, overall behavioral trends. Though to be fair those trends make sense for people enmeshed in business culture. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I'd go so far as to say "people do and advocate for what they think is in their personal interests". And hell yes, fuck the Grand Conspiracy types; anyone who thinks even several dozen people could control a single major city all by themselves, let alone the entire world, needs to be slapped upside the head a few times. CorBlimey (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the famous Upton Sinclair salary quote applies here. The rich business class also has fucktards like your John McAfee types who made tons of money on scams (in McAfee's case, promoting, pumping and dumped crypto in meme-driven social media... the crypto mania shares some similarities to WSB mania to me). It's difficult for me to tell if WallStreetBets is orchestrated or if it's just mob rule (seems the later to me), but since this group has grown by literally millions in the last couple of weeks and has dominated headlines, I'm pretty sure if there's been some illegal coordination, it will be found out. An individual who gets scammed on the GME deal won't get the SEC, but any sort of person that coordinated this, if this happened, will be in major SEC trouble. Of course, a mob driven pump and dump is still a pump and dump. But there won't be anyone to blame when the inevitable crash occurs. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't take a joke

This gamer is actually really amazing how she can express her frustration in real time (without editing) so well to a stupid sexist comment. I don't think I'd be able to keep myself as composed and not go off on a tangent or trip over my words. Love her response...especially the "I need a beer" at the end!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRSsreMR2E

ShabiDOO 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I want to apologize

For sending an army of IP addresses to vandalize the wiki, for repeatedly creating new accounts to vandalize the wiki and for attempting to change the meaning of gender repeatedly and when I say "I apologize" I do mean that I am genuinely apologizing. I have not attempted to vandalize the wiki in a while and that is plainly shown by the fact that you have not had to ban anyone in a while (Perhaps with the exception of Mr. Coombs. Nonetheless, I attempted to keep him far away from RationalWiki by preventing him from utilizing the internet via DoS and that was working more or less).

Can we all be friends? I promise to offer constructive editing to the wiki from now on. TAOB (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing is believing. Make some substantive and constructive contributions and you can come out of the vandal bin. Bongolian (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do all users have the "suppressionlog" permission?

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Technical support#Why do all users have the "suppressionlog" permission?.

Remember to include a timestamp when moving a discussion for the archive bot. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Conservapedia on Mike Pence

Moved to TWIGO:CP

Remember to include a timestamp when moving a discussion for the archive bot. Christopher (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RW Spotify playlist

I think I removed something by accident. I was trying to edit myself. I have a compulsion to do that. I'm really sorry and incorrect if I clicked off a track that I didn't add. I'm pretty sure I did.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I have a link to it? TAOB (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

here u go 🖤 ASELA^ཊལྐ 🖤 23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Colour and art discussion.

Colour presents a challenge to science in that the fundamental objects of science literally aren't coloured e.g. photons are not coloured, we know that they are solid and subvisible and that they are sufficient for colour perception. And yet colour is a dominant and enriching aspect of most people's mental lives. I imagine that without colour art may have never flourished.It would probably have been stunted. Some would suggest that colour is eliminable from science. I beg to differ, I think that a satisfactory account of the world needs to explain colour. A curious thing about paintings is there similarity to language, more specifically to the letters and symbols that make up a language (semiotics). One need only look to Chinese or Japanese to see this relation. Early man's ability to 'picture' reality, be it in cave drawings or lines in the sand, must have influenced his growing ability to arrange other marks into patterns that we now call words. What I wanted to highlight here is that art maybe closer to other areas of human activity than is perhaps assumed, even to those areas we call inquiry.

Anyway, I've been interested lately, in discussing art with you lot (I'm no artist or expert, so I don't care about what responses I get, if any lol). I just chose randomly to look at some van Gogh paintings and I picked this one: The Sower The painting has structural features: patterns, quantity of colour, order, symmetry, forms of life, positioning of objects etc. It also has content-related features i.e. the sower in the field, birds, the sun, etc., content grounds the painting in our reality. And of course the colour itself, is both structural and contentful: there are the various properties of the colours involved (hue, saturation, intensity etc) the extremely detailed parts and then the emergent properties of the wholes; and on the contentful side the colours evoke: mood, attitude towards things, conscious experience (i.e. there is something it is like to experience a sun set), the mind of the painter. When it comes to van-Gogh, who had episodes of psychosis (due to his epilepsy), I believe we see in "The Sower", the tendency towards interconnection, everything seems to fit together, and yet at the same time, it seems as if every painstaking detail is tearing itself apart from the whole. Anyway that's my two cents... I tried not to sound like some pretentious fop. Leucippus 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

While I think color does add a dimension to art, I think if we humans can't detect color, art will still happen, but just take another form. After all, we don't see any color in the UV spectrum yet some animals can detect UV (birds, insects). Anyway, there are many, many ways to make art, not just paint colors, including sculpting which doesn't require color knowledge. Also, it didn't take until later 18th century, after the Enlightenment and so, for humans in Europe to actually understand how color or lighting works. They certainly drew what they saw, but didn't realize that shadows had color. Johannes Vermeer applied this new understanding to create more realistic lights in the images. So saying color is, uh "eliminable from science" isn't true, and it took a scientific breakthrough before artists started taking fuller advantage of color and replicating light. Also, color is always dependent on light but is also dependent on surrounding colors too, and these observations only arisen because, again, observation being a part of the scientific method.

Even so, you still need to understand how stuff works including the science of color (you don't need to be an expert) and you should definitely know that color is reflected off light. Observation is an extremely important trait in science, like you should describe an object rather than be limited by labels. Reduce an object to its basics. See a beer bottle as not a beer bottle but a cylindrical shape that extrudes a smaller cylindrical shape that's half the total length and diameter. Lines do not exist, they are simply contrasts of colors. Shadows have light, so color shadows not with dark or gray but with complementary colors. Human skin has subsurface scattering causing it to appear red under the light, but even in less direct light, you still need a layer of reddish to make skintones. Some of this knowledge seems obvious, maybe not, but it wasn't as obvious centuries ago. Didn't take until Renaissance to document perspective.

I can't speak for art outside of what's happening in west Europe and the United States, but you notice that East Asia, such as China, emphasizes on capturing an essence of the subject rather than render it realistically and there's a more limited color palette (mostly blacks, some red). Art developed there just fine. Monochromatic works still looks beautiful. Sure, there's less color involved, but who's there to put value on color or lack of color?

Finally, I just want to add that we all take for granted of having an extensive palette of colors compared to what artists had to work with before the 20th century. Not all paint hues are created equal in affordability. If you're not a rich painter, you just do not have access to beautiful aquarmarine blues or the brightest of yellows, so you work mostly with earth tones like yellow ochre. Additionally, paint tubes were not invented so all your subject matter are under studio light. Impressionist painters (like Van Gogh, keep in mind!!) had the benefit of paint tubes so they could paint outside and actually observe how color interacts with light and also capture the fleeting nature of light and our perception (remember that painting you cited? captures fleeting nature of light). You chose an interesting example for color since Impressionism was a stepping stone between trying to fabricate imagery from art and to abstract art; after the advent of photography and differing attitudes of academic art, Impressionists, with their paint tubes, went out of their way to abstraction by focusing less on immersion, less on blending colors to replicate shadows and such, and more on the physical qualities of an art piece, the color choice, the brush strokes, the 2D composition. There's also influence from Japanese prints during trade at the time, Japanese art influenced quite a bit of the Impressionist painters of the time, see Japonism, which, again, contributed to abstraction. And up until the past few decades, synthetic colors like highlighter yellow, hot pink, electric green, none of those existed, even though they're so common today in print, fabric, and more. Our access to color is more expansive than ever, but I don't think art back then also suffered from a lack of color and lack of accessibility to color, it just was different and probably more limited. Again, what would art be if we could perceive UV light? It'll probably look a bit different, but it's still art. Just as if colorblind animals can paint. After all, color has dimensions but you can still make art without color as we'd still perceive tonal ranges.--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I know shit about art, but Van Gogh has always been my favorite painter. I also like Monet Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Photons are red. Proof, if any is needed: Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the initial poster about the nature of colour. But I don't see why that makes it a "challenge" to science. It's fully explicable in terms of photons and eyes.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In response, in particular, to @LeftyGreenMario and @Bob M: what I was trying to emphasise was that whether thought of as photons or discrete packets of radiation emission (quanta) that correspond to certain wavelengths, these physical entities are used, amongst other things, in causal-explanations of colour, but they cannot account for 'colour' e.g. when I look at a red apple and say "that's red"; since the physical objects (energy or matter) that are posited in the causal explanation, are colourless i.e. the photons (matter) are not coloured, the wavelengths of radiation (energy) are not in themselves coloured, all we can say is that certain wavelengths cause us to perceive certain colours. I would like to thank LGM for enlightening me to many features of art and colour that I was ignorant of. I don't doubt that what Johannes Vermeer and other artists were utilising science in their work, however, the results they were using do not account for colour itself, they cause the phenomena but are not themselves coloured. Leucippus 17:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am still at a loss to understand how you think this is "challenge" for science. We are a sight-orientated species. If we were more like dogs then smells would probably be given names and you would be making the same argument about smell. For that matter, as humans you could make the same argument about degrees of wetness. "Wetness" like "red" is what our senses make of what is going on in the world. Neither "degrees of wetness" nor "degrees of red" describe what is going on at the fundamental physical level, but this is not a particular "challenge" for science. It's simply something to be described.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's my point: colour, smells, taste, etc are all types of sense-impressions: phenomena that have an intrinsic character. None of the current sciences are actually describing them though, they're describing various physical entities e.g. sub-atomic particles (physics), the retina of the eye (biology), the central and peripheral nervous system (neurology) - they all provided detailed explanations of things that aren't coloured. And isn't it an essential feature of the scientific spirit to desire for understanding the truth of our world (perhaps the maximal drive has always been towards the ever elusive transcendent notion of Truth).

This leads me to my next point: the 'laws' of physics provide a description and explanation of the most general features of reality of which - the special sciences - are said to 'supervene' upon. Whereupon, these general laws, as I mentioned in my previous comments, are not able to actually account for the phenomena called 'sense-impressions'. Now I don't know whether this is, as you yourself acknowledge, really a problem, but some would find the current entities, that our current physical laws can account for, provide nothing informative about sense-impressions.

On the other hand, there are some who advocate an emergent picture of science, one which sees each special science as having its own emergent laws, that are irreducible to physical laws; in other words these individuals want to include a new domain of entities - with their own laws - to account for sense-impressions. They have gone by various names some calling themselves Evolutionary Naturalists (Roy Wood Sellars and his son Wilfrid Sellars), or others call themselves Emergent-Materialists/Physicalists: both conceive of the universe as evolving new laws and entities, that are irreducible to less complex ones. A useful example here would be 'consciousness', which would be viewed by them as being the result of natural evolutionary processes - processes not covered by current science. Crucially they would not use the holist idea that something like consciousness is the result of the whole being greater the sum of its parts, and acquiring different properties at a specific level of complexity. They would instead view the new evolved laws as being irreducible to explanations involving complexes of their current parts, as opposed to the static conception of science, wherein the current laws of physics are exhaustive, period. If you're interested in reading more about this type of problem or why it might be a problem, and the notion of 'Evolutionary Naturalism' (which is as the article notes 'emergent evolution' without the pseudoscientific woo) I would suggest reading this on Roy Wood Sellars Roy Wood Sellars, who incidentally is one of the principal authors of the original Humanist manifesto.Leucippus 18:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

request for discussion input

Category_talk:Centrist_stupidity#Rename_to_Centrism_of_the_golden_mean. The category keeps having issues, would like some people to vote for/against this (preferably if it's the latter, motivate your decisions). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 22:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yay, New Kurzgesagt Vid

More importantly, YAY, ONE OF MY FAVORITE TOPICS!!! Nuclear energy! Wooooo!

Anyway, fun times ahead, watching at the moment. CorruptUser 23:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant, this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be seen. Opposition to nuclear power is very similar to opposition to GM stuff - "it'll make us wrinkled", it'll induce some disease", blah blah. I mean, there's a terrible climate crisis going on and the first thing that many people want to shut is nuclear power?! Meow^Purr 07:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Overall I agree that the public fear of nuclear power is often irrational. However, nuclear power has disadvantages, and the "pro nuclear" side often tends to gloss over them.

A) Up until recently, nuclear power was a "go big or go home" solution -- massive centralized plants. To do nuclear properly in this fashion was expensive.

B) Big Nuclear power has the potential for mass scale failure that makes thousands of acres of land uninhabitable for a long time, something that has no counterpart in any other energy source apart from coal fires. (Hydro failures can massively affect thousands of acres, but not in a long-term way.) The same applies to waste disposal, nuclear waste can be dangerous for a long time.

C) Nuclear has unique security and geopolitical concerns due to the other major use for nuclear energy. One only has to look at Iran's quest for nuclear power etc. to see the problems here that don't really affect producing power by natural gas.

Certainly these are "challenges" and not something to completely irrationally dismiss, though. What I'm particularly fond of is the "small modular reactor" concept going around recently because at a high level, it seems to minimizes the expense and the potential damage of failure (it also fits a more renewable-driven world where one can use SMRs to smooth out peaks). I also think that small nuclear might be a possible solution for areas like the cargo shipping industry where a dirty fossil fuel replacement is not forthcoming in the future (past efforts to make nuclear cargo ships have failed due to the expense, but maybe if SMR works out as a cheaper, more modular version of nuclear, something might be possible here?) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Massive centralized plants also reduce the chance of accidents, even if each accident could become bigger. There's also the security issue; if a small plant that produces 100 mw needs 10 guards, a large plant producing 10,000 mw doesn't need 1000 guards. As for weapons proliferation, Iran's problem is they refuse to adhere to the non-proliferation treaty they agreed to back in the day. It's possible to get nuclear power without a serious risk of nuclear weapons, some designs of plants make it difficult to create weapons-grade material whereas the hypothetical Thorium reactors make it all but impossible. The potential for permanent damage is, well, it's serious but people forget that both Fukashima and Chernobyl were Gen II reactors, and Chernobyl was a shitty reactor to begin with (seriously, any design where the control rod causes the reactor to get HOTTER while the reaction slows is inevitably going to fail). Gen III's are much safer because they rely upon "passive" failsafes instead of active ones. Active failsafes are things like diesel pumps for the coolant in the event of a power failure, which failed in Fuka when the earthquake knocked those out of commission, whereas passive failsafes are things like electromagnetically suspended control rods which automatically fall into place if there is a power failure. The only way for a Gen III to have a really bad day is if someone is actively sabotaging the thing. Gen IV's are even better, though only theoretical, in that the configuration/fuel is such that even if the operators were trying to make it melt down and actively sabotaging the plant it couldn't, e.g., the Thorium molten salt reactor again, where the coolant is also the fuel, so the reactor physically can't meltdown even if you wanted it to.CorruptUser 14:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

political corruption, budget cuts, corner cutting, human error and hubris put any claims of safety on a sliding scale of credibility varying greatly from country to country. and the havoc a dirty bomb would produce would be immense and costly even when not especially deadly or destructive but ever more probable with more potential sources for nuclear materials.

countries where, though certainly not a 100% guarantee (i have to look up how the spell that word every fucking time), safety can be assured for nuclear power is a huge limit on its viability and its being the 'answer' to climate change. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a fair concern; almost every major industrial disaster is the result of incompetence or corruption, and the scale required for a Gen II to fail is commonplace in major nuclear countries such as India. Looking at you, Bhopal. Sell the safety equipment for scrap, replace all the skilled workers with untrained incompetents? Yeah, sure, that'll work.

As for less corrupt countries, Fukashima comes to mind, and even then, there was user error involved. The earthquake knocked out the diesel generators, so the plant manager had to make the decision to either use the pumps connected to seawater and basically trash the reactor and get fired for losing tens of billions of Yen even if it was the right decision, or to hope for the best and probably nothing bad would happen. The manager chose... poorly. So yeah, the Gen II reactors do need to be replaced or upgraded. CorruptUser 16:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure nuclear energy has problems. Everything has problems. The question is whether it has fewer problems than the carbon-producing alternatives. (Yes, I know the ideal would be renewables but we are not there yet.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Some renewables actually have large problems of their own -- in addition to the occasional dam failure, dam hydro power often results in some seriously shitty, long-lasting environmental effects for thousands of acres that also suddenly become flooded and uninhabitable, at least while the dam is up. Nothing's perfect. Fossil fuels are polluting when used (this can be nasty, both in the immediate health effects of pollution and the long-term environmental effects of climate change) and has pollution issues both with extraction and transport. So there has to be a balance of everything. I don't think it's great to be reflexively against nuclear power, personally, it's a perfectly valid option with pluses and minuses. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a very complicated issue. I, for one, think that nuclear power has its advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages:

1. A nuclear reactor can power a city for about 70 years.
2. No carbon footprint
3. Provided that the water is filtered properly before being released back into the environment, is far cleaner than oil and coal plants.

Disadvantages:

1. A reduction of water supply for even a few hours could cause a Fukushima-like meltdown, leveling entire cities and rendering entire areas uninhabitable for a good 75 years.
2. Could be a magnet for terrorist attacks; some may also want to steal the plutonium to build dirty-bombs, as others here have pointed out.
3. Runoff water that is not properly filtered can contaminate the environment with nuclear isotopes.

--Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 18:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Teeeeeechnically the nuclear reactors have a huge carbon footprint in terms of concrete construction plus all the mining, but then again, so do dams and solar power. Probably less carbon footprint, due to producing so much electricity. As for cooling when there's no water available, yeah, that's probably an issue that may not be solvable with Uranium and boiling water reactors, the core is just that radioactive until the material decays. CorruptUser 21:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Disadvantage points two and three are fair enough, but point one seems a bit flawed. Even if water supply goes off for a while, the worst case is a Fukushima-type meltdown, which tbh wasn't that bad - at most a few deaths from radiation (not dismissing this, every life is a life lost, but this is far less than the countless millions killed in coal accidents), and a few dozen cases of health issues. Most of the time, the plant can just be shutdown safely. Only a Chernobyl-type accident can level entire cities though - nuclear plants are fundamentally different from nuclear bombs; their level of criticality is much lower, and they are not primed to blow; ergo, they can't explode like a bomb. Of course nuclear power is problematic, but not much more so than windmills and solar - they need lots of space as well and also have high investment costs, working out to about the same as nukes. Solar panels will hopefully get more efficient soon, but by that time I guess we'll have much safer gen IV reactors. I personally think the future lies in making renewables fulfill all small-scale power needs (energy stations, traffic lights, fences et al) and having nukes handle large-scale generation. Desert countries, of course, can have a solar party. There is one big issue though, the one Cory pointed out above - a country with a not-so-great record for safety or scrupulousness getting to run a plant. Meow^Purr 09:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The infrastructure does go a little further than concrete and mortar. The more points of high voltage production, the more gas is used to insulate the transformers. I'm not exactly worried, I'm so nuclear that every time I hear a person say "nucular" I shave off a micromillimeter of tooth, but I do remember there is the concern that Sulfur Hexafluoride is a really popular insulating product and supposedly the biggest baddest greenhouse gas ever invented. Back to the countries with not-so-great records for safety or scrupulousness needing to use a lot of this gas. Home country of the US of A included. Moreso, energy companies, who consistently look to cut costs wherever they can get away with it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ RE: "sulfur hexaflouride is the biggest, baddest greenhouse gas" Methane (which has been trapped beneath ice sheets for a long-ass time, flatulated out by livestock and, while its greenhouse effect before it dissipates into space or gets reabsorbed into the nitrogen cycle has a fairly short half-life compared to CO2 and water vapor, could turn our planet into a pressure-cooker for a few years): Am I a joke to you? --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 04:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Methane is even worse than that. The upper atmosphere breaks down methane into CO2, which is a minor issue on its own, but can only break down a certain amount of it each year. Adding more methane causes the existing methane to persist in the upper atmosphere even longer. As for how serious it is, well, it's not the doomsday scenario of "life on Earth extinct", but it very well is the apocalyptic scenario of "polar ice caps no longer permanent". CorruptUser 07:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Leftist Cancel Culture"

The Wyoming GOP just censured Liz Cheney for wanting to impeach Trump. The Arizona GOP just censured Cindy McCain, the wife of one of the state's most storied politicians. But you know, the real problem is leftist cancel culture and their political correctness. The right would never change our vocabulary and disown others for their views. Never.

The previous message has dangerous levels of sarcasm involved. Viewer discretion was advised, meaning you shouldn't have read it, you sons of bitches.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Standard trumpist logic lmao; the sad part is that this is actually how most Republicans think. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 03:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It fucking sucks how hypocritical the GOP tends to be; they condemn cancel culture... before proceeding to censor dissidents for the MEEN and TERRIBBLE crime of arguing that Trump should be convicted. I don't think he should be convicted, but still... Iron Man 2020 (the future has arrived!) 17:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump impeachment

At which local time will Trump get impeached by the senate? Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 12:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

He's already been Impeached, that is a process from the House. The Senate can convict him, that likely won't happen. The trial begins @ 13:00 EST, but a vote on conviction likely won't occur till next Monday, unless we also get witnesses.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Run, Fight, Hide or whatever by Ben Shapiro

Spoilers abound.

It wasn't bad, definitely a lot better than I thought it would be. It kind of took the DC route, though, where the only characters that got development were the villains. Main antagonist was a literal Joker rip-off, he wore some kind of green velvet jacket but was also broke and from the trailer park? Had a scene where protagonist was tracking him and he was literally throwing his arms around like Stan from the Monkey Island series. His goons were a brother and sister. The brother was "talks to voices in his head" mentally ill and also suddenly gay in one scene, just to reassure us that he's bonkers, and his sister is... Evil? Doesn't matter, she dies in a girl muscle fight, we didn't need to know anything about her, she's crazy gay boy's sister, so he can be mad about that. They've also got chubby ineffectual nerd who doesn't actually believe in what he's doing, just wants to get back at everybody because he got pantsed in middle school and everybody says he's got a small dick. He gets a redemption moment, where instead of using a gun to compensate for his small dick for evil, he uses a gun to compensate for his small dick for good. In the end, the actual hero gets retribution by doing the actual evil thing that they reference at the beginning of the movie. Like, it became a power fantasy really quick, and there was a lot of decent writing dressing it, but I mean, the whole thing wasn't a bad action hero movie. And it was kind of aware of what it was doing wrong, and had a couple good subversive jokes in there. Like, it understood and followed a lot of modern conventions for stories. The hero resolution was crazy evil retribution though, and I don't think it was trying to tell a story about violence creating violence.

I just realized that's the fucking movie. Wrongs create violence, and violence solves violence. I mean, even from the opening scene where I'm like "Ok, we've got a little psychopath as our protaganist" she never stopped being one, she just killed the bad people. And in the end she did the psychopath thing of understanding the difference between a mercy killing and letting an animals lungs flood with blood and she does the bad thing? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

As I listen to Behind the Bastards read Ben's absolute disaster of a novel, I'm kind of shocked it's not a trash fire. Granted, someone put money into this, so they likely demanded someone competent help write the thing.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 08:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Was it better than "How to debate leftists and destroy them"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently this movie was not really made for Shapiro, but instead was made by a company called Cinestate who had made a few direct-to-video low budget thriller movies. The studio's target was the macho grindhouse action crowd in the direct video market. Most of the previous movies made by Cinestate weren't badly reviewed overall, either (most of the reviews I've encountered for Run Hide Fight are pretty bad, though). However, The Daily Beast !!!TOTALLY DESTROYED!!! Cinestate with an expose on sexual misconduct at the studios. (This expose was created after one of their producers was arrested for raping a minor). The film company folded shortly afterwards. So The Daily Wire picked it up. The Daily Wire probably will do okay as a movie studio if they stick with a similar macho grindhouse formula, free of any direct politics. But I have a feeling they'll probably amp up the silly white male grievance politics in their promotions of their movies, which will limit their market considerably (hell, it will even limit the people who want to work for them in the first place). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense that it was written by somebody else for the most part. It was very much pulp action. I'm sure Ben made it his mission to splice all the insidious coding coding into it, though. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's Run, Hide, Fight. And, to be honest, I think it'd be worth a watch, but I don't have a subscription to the Daily Wire. iRonMan (Excelsior!) 19:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I probably shouldn't have goofed on the title, nobody will be able to find it if I do that. It's not hard to... put your goggles on to watch it. I would never advocate, or suggest refusing to sign up for the Daily Wire to watch this passion piece as a viable or honest way to watch it. After I put in the common search terms to watch a movie online, I didn't even bother putting in work of clicking through 2 through to 500 pages to find a thoroughly illegal streaming site, so I wouldn't be worried about finding it that way. Very dishonest, to not buy a subscription to Daily Wire for 14 dollars just to watch a movie. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I know, bro. Everything's good. Iron Man (Built in a damn cave)

Happy Superbowl

Gonna be a great game today. Unsurprisingly, My favorite conspiracy theorist is throwing around clues for both teams being "rigged" to win. Can't wait for his inevitable "I called it." bullshit video later tonight.

That aside, who are you guys cheering for? A. Buccaneers. B. Chiefs. C. I don't give a fuck. (I'm barely leaning Chiefs but man it's close) Aaronmichael5 22:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

C. The two teams I had any interest in, Green Bay and Buffalo? BOTH lost. So... can't really care. CorruptUser 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

C. Gridiron football is an ugly, violent, thuggish game that I have no interest in. Of course I will watch some of it - for the ads, which are fresh and sometimes interesting. I barely lean Bucs, mostly because of the absence of Tom Brady on that team. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 23:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

" I barely lean Bucs, mostly because of the absence of Tom Brady on that team." Uh... you got that mixed up, Brady is the QB of the Bucs. Mahomes is on the Chiefs. Revolverman (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Chiefs, but I’m from Kansas. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Shows you how much attention I paid. Oat milk, zero alcohol Budweiser and other signs of national decline on the ads. That much I did pick up. An awful lot of solemn and depressing, Uninteresting half time show. Probably will ignore the rest. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 00:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't watch sports to have a bunch of people making more money than I'll ever dream of tell me how to live my life. Why they think anyone would actually care what they think is beyond me. Just do what you're paid to do and play the fucking game. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And, of course, the Chiefs are playing like dog shit. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s okay because Mike Pence can overrule this and say the Chiefs won during the confirmation of the game score. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy three hours of actual programing between nines hours of ads!

I couldn't resist. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Look, I been cheering for the Chiefs my entire life. I was born outside of KCK, ton of family in the Kansas City area, it's the home team. I cheered for them when they had nothing, I cheered for them last night. They played like the Chiefs I'm used to watching, I'm not that mad. I had been saying the O line was a weakness since the Raider's game, and then it got bad so I said if they play like they played against the Raiders, it's no deal. I had a guy at work tell me "you kinda called it." I'm a fan of the sport, my team lost by playing at the bottom of their game instead of the top, but I'm not upset. They got beat. I mean, the defense also kind of dragged Tampa's offense across the goal line late in the second quarter, if I want to complain about anything it's that, but I also am not saying they got extra flags, every flag was on a really loose and unprofessional foul. All in all, you know what, they got beat. I wore my Chiefs hoodie today, because I've been a fan before this season and I'll be a fannext season. I saw a ton of Chiefs gear everywhere on last week, nothing on nobody today. It literally does not matter if your sports team wins. Unless you want to play sports bets, there's no issue with your team losing. Everyone was talking about Mahomes' sweet perpendicular-to-the ground pass that got dropped, but I watched that play and said "the offense can't survive this," not "that dipshit didn't catch that pass." I guess we all watch games different. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll also say, Superbowl ads haven't been good since the Budweiser "wassup" guys. And by that, I mean, they made a meme. People are so comfortable and inundated with ads anymore that the idea of a breakout Superbowl commercial is over. Everybody was saying "the Weeknd's" halftime show was just OK, and, granted, I don't have a pop-music bone in my body, so it's always just OK, weirdo MJ . It was just OK, the same way as every other halftime show has ever been just OK. The halftime show isn't for adults. The only ad that I saw hit with my parents was the "we're coming for you, Norway" campaign on electric vehicles, because it was boomer level cute. And it was cute. The Gen Z guys I know liked the Dogecoin ad, and T Mobile had a couple funny ones, kinda? Nobody who can get T Mobile also has spotty service, it's a weird play. The amount of money that went in to getting those spots, I'm sure it's insane. But we can't find money for schools or healthcare. Pepsi at least drove home the "you gotta scan a Pepsi in your hand if you want the halftime show to be good" narrative, but like, people are already buying Pepsi for their kids. The fun of advertisements has been dead for at least a generation. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Macedonian naming dispute: An hypothetical alternate outcome

Back in ancient times the modern day Republic of North Macedonia was ruled by the Kingdom of Paeonia (a Greek-like country).

What would have happened if the Republic of North Macedonia went with the name "Republic of Paeonia"?

It is not like Greece could say anything as the ancient Kingdom of Paeonia was not where modern day Greece is. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

greece wouldnt have had to say anything, they would have been victorious in their naming dispute. 'in your face' is what the greeks would have said AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Since it's still Greek-like, they'd likely still be angry. Not until they start calling themselves "FYROM" like Greek nationalists insist on them being called or worse, "South Serbia" will the angry nationalists ever be happy. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Call the Greek province 'Macedonia'. Call the country the 'Empire of Macedon'. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 21:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Call them "West Bulgaria". Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Saying that in Ma- FINE, NORTH MACEDONIA!- is the best way to get shot. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 04:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the most ridiculous dispute in history. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say the war of the stray dog between Greece and Bulgaria was stupider (note that such a small country has taken part in numerous stupid conflicts...lest we not forget Cyprus and not accepting unification before joining the EU for yet one more example).ShabiDOO 16:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me just point out how absurd this whole naming debate is to begin with-not only do the North Macedonians have little relation to the nation of Alexander, the modern Greeks have little relation to the nation of Pericles. I think the name "Rumelia" would have been more accurate...but nationalism is one hell of a drug.-Flandres (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome our new Shark overlords

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/walking-sharks?utm_medium=Social&facebook=1&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0lC2F~dfqHC8BXL4z2J4vpjAy3UMkF2R--N7OWTcpet5EgSU3681n-xwTc#Echobox=1612450067

Sharks steadily evolving to walk on land? Of course these sharks were found in Australia. They always have the freakish Demon animals. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot wait to be devoured by these horrible creatures. "The sharks are small, don't be frightened." That's what they want you to believe, in reality the walking sharks are the end to our existence! Moria^. 22:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Iowa lifts all last traces of COVID restrictions

https://www.kcrg.com/2021/02/10/gov-reynolds-defends-decision-to-lift-covid-19-restrictions-gives-update-on-covid-19-vaccines/ What do you guys think of this? Is it too soon? Thing is, pretty much nobody lives in Iowa so I doubt this will have any lasting issues, I certainly hope not at least. Aaronmichael5 22:10, February 10 2021 (UTC)

I've been keeping up with Iowa during this pandemic, because I have friends that live there, and it seems pretty clear Kim Reynolds has no f*cking idea what she is doing. Generally, it seems she is a Covid Skeptic, but when the winds blow hard she puts restrictions in place, just long enough for numbers to drop, before getting rid of all the restrictions. There are a couple cities that are maintaining restrictions, but I don't think the pandemic ends in Iowa until vaccination rates in Iowa, Illinois and Nebraska are 100%. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in Nebraska. I was wearing a mask, and I heard from another guy in a mask that he didn't care if the Governor lifted all restrictions, he was going to keep wearing the mask. I mean, this was a guy I'd talked to casually three times in the past, and I kinda slept on the restriction lift before he told me. It was absolute news to me, but he was somehow relieved that I was still wearing a mask. I work with a guy who literally one time washed his hands with undiluted Lysol, and today was like "I went to a Walgreens on the northwest end and I forgot a mask, and all the cashiers and pharmacists didn't care at all." Which is cultural, it's just a Walgreens, yeah you get your medicine there, you should not expect to get actual medical advice there. We have never had a mask policy at work. We've got one guy who still wears his. We have had 3 confirmed cases, which quick calculation is between a 10-15% contraction rate at work from the start of the pandemic, and each person confirmed stayed home, quarantined, did not lose their jobs over it, and did not spread the virus. The take that "Oh, we didn't get it and we don't mask" is pretty dumb, but a lot of these people also think vaccination is a bad idea. I made a joke, I've got a National Guard employee who got vaccinated, so I went up to him and looked him over really close, snapped on either side of his ears. He asked me "what the fuck are you doing?" I said "I'm just trying to make sure you're not a paid actor" then explained about the Dover situation, and one guy goes "are you reading 4chan?" and I said "Worse. Facebook." I've seen the shit that some of these people inundate themselves with constantly, I'm on the lookout for Bells Palsy as the vaccine rolls out, because that's insane and inundating yourself in and waiting for the the worst possible scenario is not a good way to measure or meet risk. Wash your hands, you damn animals. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to view all the emotes on-site?

There's troll and the emotes on bartop above, but I don't know how many more of these exist. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Smileys and Category:Smileys. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 10:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't get TERFs on RW and elsewhere

By their own admission they are transphobic and proud of it. Why do the whine because we consider people like J.K. Rowling one of them? If they consider transphobia a good thing they shouldn't care about it. GeeJayK (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not think you realize that endorsing an ideology and being called out on it are two separate things. Calling a TERF, well a "TERF" is the equivalent to calling a Neo-Nazi a "Nazi", neither like that, because both terms have pejorative connotations. They invented a new word just to give themselves a term that is not pejorative in nature and it is "Gender Critical", which should tell you enough on why they really do not like the word "TERF". However, we should still call them TERFs for what they are because their behavior must not be tolerated. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also it's an accurate descriptor. They wish to exclude trans people, hence they are trans exclusionary. Their views are well outside the (academic) mainstream, hence they are radical. They bill themselves as feminists, which I doubt needs further elaboration. Hence, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF) is the correct descriptor. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They're trying to control the discourse whenever a label that succinctly and accurately describes them has nzgative connotations. They'll try steering to gender critical or to label you a misogynist to steer away from the accurate definition of being prejudiced, hateful, etc. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Did some big Pro-Trans law get passed somewhere, or something on that line? I've seen Transphobes pop up in a few sites I go to, all around the same time in the past couple days. Revolverman (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden rolled back a bunch of transphobic laws, so it might be that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah As I understand the term, "TERF" is used by activists to label transphobic women who call themselves feminists. It doesn't mean anything else apart from that as far as I can tell. UncleKrampus (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem is, there is an actual TERF culture, and people don't like to ascribe themselves to a culture for just having opinions that line up directly with said culture. I'm not saying it's bad, but I'm saying it's bad, you know? People don't want to say there are Rothschild space lasers causing California wildfires, but they really do want to say there's an elite Democratic cabal that traffics children and worships Satan. Like, OK, at some point you have to admit "same team." I am a feminist, I am trans inclusive, and I think that the athletics issue is way above me, and I defer to the athletics on that. I know there are women who could kick my ass, get that "biological" predication out of my face haters, because I know there are "biological women" who could kick my ass. But if the UFC wants to hormone limit, or the NCAA requires years of identification, to the point of no hormone treatments https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf (which is basically prohibitive to anyone in their late teens to 20s, so all the scary stuff is in these peoples' heads), I'm not saying it's exactly correct, but I am saying these institutions have already considered it and started addressing some of the more complicated issues. The yes or no opinion is what lands you in TERF territory, the yes or no opinion is what keeps you there. Like, trying to figure it out, if you care about the issue, best thing you can do for yourself and everyone else. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about Democrat, but given all the news with the Queen Mum, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that Prince Andrew has... dark desires... and the Queen Mum had been covering it up for decades. Donald Trump is uncomfortably close to that as well, what with his infamous quote about Epstein. "Pedophiles in control of our countries" isn't quite as far fetched as I would like it to be... CorruptUser 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Look, man, I don't blame you for that, powerful people have been really weird for a long time, but don't you think it's a little strange that you felt compelled to post that in a TERF topic? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry brah, had a few shots to calm my nerves a bit. My girlfriend and I are having an issue or two at the moment. CorruptUser 05:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to what you mean by TERF culture, unless what you really mean is what in the old days some of the old farts used to refer to as "mainstream culture." I fear there is a touch of denialism amongst some activists. From a semantic point of view we can confidently assert that trans women are real women. The very fact that much of the media uses the word in that way makes it so. That's how vernacular language works. UncleKrampus (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So, what I mean by TERF culture is a newly visible version of the "common sense" takes, and then right back into, Radical Feminism. Which, I'm really not against radical feminism, if we want to get down to semantics. So, the Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist culture bisects a couple of cultures, semantically, and there is a real group of self-identified radical feminists who think Trans women are "biological men" encroaching upon and exploiting feminism. I'm not sure if that defines my take any better, but it's not exactly old fart culture, what's that popular author, Shrier, maybe the author is not a self-described radical feminist, but definitely TERF adjacent. If you want to leave it at semantics, that's fine, calling somebody TERF for just being TERF adjacent is reductive and semantically incorrect, OK. But my point is, at what point do you have to admit "same team?" Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"TERF" in the vernacular is certainly not a technical term, anymore than "woman" is a technical term. Common English nouns have a variety of meanings, not generally useful in science or any form of exact analysis, even if they are acronyms. It is commonly understood that "female" has a widely accepted technical meaning that we, some of us, may find unacceptable, and of course that it is differentiated from "male" with respect to reproductive structures. It is my impression that this distinction is prevalent now in the life sciences, and that this distinction is causing problems. Truly one need not recognize such a distinction for ordinary life. Yet it does not seem plausible to expect people will generally refrain from making it, although I suppose it not to be impossible.UncleKrampus (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But, and no offense here, is that your grand take on the situation? That the distinction is sloppy and messy and bisects a lot of opinions? Because that's kinda my take too, which is what I'm trying to say "at some point, you have to admit, same team." I'm confused, are you asking me to run in circles with you? What are you asking for here, proof of TERF culture? If you don't want to define TERF as radically feminist, while also trans exclusionary, you'll have to define at least few of your other takes on the matter. I mean, we can argue about what is radical, what is feminist, but excluding trans women from the idea of feminism is... not really that hard to see as a radical version of feminism? Excluding trans women from other things, like a public restroom, is also, strangely, radically aligned?

So, I guess I'll make it easier, "Exclusionary" is an accurate term, and it's somehow not a snarl word in TERF culture, they would just rather say "critical." Your whole "words don't work that way" argument is gross, my guy. But mayhap your predilection for deflection is indicative of a misunderstanding of the argument? Dost thou supplant thine opinion with perfumed words? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Israel-Palestinian Conflict: Things are getting interesting

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/world/middleeast/icc-israel-war-crimes.amp.html%3f0p19G=2103

Looks like Israel might be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. Israel is obviously screaming anti-semitism to shut down discourse. Israel is so much like Donald Trump. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to wait and see before getting my hopes up. In particular, I am curious how the Biden administration will react. He does have a pretty solid record as a Israel defender...-Flandres (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why Israel should be immune to criticism. Nobody would call another a racist if any other government was criticized. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

...no one is claiming it should be. The issues are those of double standards, and the whole issue that many (if not most) of the anti-Zionists are thinly veiled anti-Semites looking for legitimacy. CorruptUser 07:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I support a two/three state solution, but the problem is that many palestinians don't want peace with Israel. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 09:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

there is little chance of any investigations anytime soon.the icc needs israel to cooperate with any investigation or even to just let investigators into gaza or the west bank. certainly not while the us in its corner and its seems unlikely that us would not support israel over this. after all, the icc wants to investigate americans in afghanistan and the us certainly not cooperating there. abandoning israel on this would just make the us not cooperating look even worse than trumps sanctions on the icc already do.

biden need not doing anything more than a bit of tut tutting at the icc for effect. trumps sanctions on the icc already in place. they are not his doing, it would just be not doing anything about them. he hasnt removed sanctions on iran either. he didnt put them place, but still going down that idiotic road. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also note. I-P is... a sensitive topic on every internet forum, and quite often turns into the nastiest of flamewars. Please be careful on anything involving I-P. CorruptUser 16:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I second Corry's caution, we're better than stooping to said levels. (Now for something sententious) This is one of the last refuges of equilibrium in this world, far from the madding crowd, lets keep it that way! Be this as it may, I reserve the right to take issue with someone's' points. Ad-Corry: I think its worth briefly explicating what you mean by "anti-Zionism". I shall interpret you in the following manner: the issue is not necessarily with being opposed to Zionism, rather it is the extremist 'caucus' that voice anti-Semitic views (intolerance) and yet at the same time, want to establish legitimacy so that they can engage in the rational discourse (be subject to tolerance). Furthermore, under my interpretation Corry wants to deal with this issue e.g. through increased education, or policies that crack down on radicalisation, particularly among poor and vulnerable Palestinians i.e. those who have lost their livelihood to illegal settlement. Was my interpretation faithful to your original intent Corry? I apologize in advance, if I have distorted your views. Leucippus 17:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. Whenever someone uses the term "Zionist" outside of the context of Israel, they mean "Jew". E.g., "Zionist Occupational Government" or whatever. There's a crapton of that, that can't be swept away by more closeted anti-Semites without exposing themselves. Especially if there's some nonsense claiming that Israel is controlling half the world, somehow. Beyond this and within the context of Israel, it gets... tricky, and it's hard to actually draw the line between criticism that's due to human rights concerns and criticism that's due to hating Jews and hiding it behind the criticism of human rights violations. CorruptUser 18:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Thanks for replying Corry. I am in full agreement with you on the use of the term 'Zionist' outside the context of Israel, by and large its an indicator of paranoia and/or hatred, amongst other things. Yes, claims about Israel controlling half the world or whatever, have all the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists. I was, however, interpreting your remarks specifically in the context of Israel and Palestine. Indeed, assessing whether someone is engaging in legitimate criticism of the state of Israel or covertly expressing anti-Semitism is a taxing and incredibly detailed affair, so much so, that I'm inclined to label it as an 'intractable problem' for the majority of us...even experts. One probably ought to be sensitive to the context of the behaviour, one must look at the accused's history, beliefs, intentions, desires etc(social-media history, religion, cultural upbringing, politics, etc) in order to make a robust assessment and judgment. Even then, a sharp distinction for deciding between anti-Semitism and NOT anti-Semitism, is to be despaired for, there simply is no tool available to cut this Gordian-knot. Perhaps we ought not to look at the literal statements of hatred (as there is all ready enough-difficulty, drawing causal connections between hate speech and actual violence) but re-focus on penalising intent to harm (psychological or physical), and conspiracy to cause harm. Leucippus 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I like to avoid using the term Zionist as it draws unwanted connotations. Those who support a Two State solution should avoid using the term Zionist when debating the issue. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A two-state solution is problematic; the PLO rejected many such offers and Israeli hardliners and settlers don't want that either. Given that on one hand, the Palestinians want a right of return, and on the other hand, the Israelis want their ancient cities in Judea, the best thing would be a one-state, two-systems kind of solution in which all are free citizens. The trouble is, this requires an enormous amount of good faith and Arab-Jewish harmony which the past century has utterly destroyed. Looks like this intractable mess will continue for quite some time to come. Meow^Purr 06:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A one-state solution would cause a civil war. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 06:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And that is the problem. Meow^Purr 08:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There's also the Three State Solution; Gaza goes back to Egypt, West Bank to Jordan. Palestinians go back to being second class citizens of those countries the way they were before '67. Of course, Egypt and Jordan don't want that; terrorists tried to murder the Jordanian royal family for not being anti-Israel enough, and Gaza offers Egypt nothing but headaches.

One of the solutions would've been possible if Israel had done the "smart" thing years ago and restricted the vote to only those who went into the army. This should've been done when the Haredi first showed up. At the time, they were only 400 families, and so Israel just let them be exempt from both the army and taxes. But those families all had 10 kids, and, well, they are too many and too politically united to force into paying tax or conscription now. Had that been nipped in the bud, the option would've been to annex all of the territories and grant citizenship to all, but restrict the vote to those who join the army and pay tax, and Israel would remain a Jewish state of sorts. CorruptUser 16:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh - Israel would then be a military state. Also, religious people are a key part of Israel. It is also necessary to note that there are others who have a right to vote in Israel - Bedouin, Druze and Christian Arabs, as well as Muslim Arabs who didn't flee or weren't expelled. Meow^Purr 16:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw, it is a sad irony when one reflects that Gaza was once one of the richest and most prosperous Levantine and later Hellenistic cities. Meow^Purr 16:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think these types of problems are known as 'Wicked problems', due to their complexity and complication: they are complex due to the amount of factors under consideration and complicated due to the necessary intrusion of human factors (that aren't necessarily rational) such as emotions, values etc; compromise and bartering are inevitable. Unlike the problems of science, a solution can not even be conceived-of, since the "problem" you mention cannot be made into a form (without compromising its original information) where we can use clear methods to either deduce or induce a solution from a given set of premises. Leucippus 16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Why must Israel be a Jewish state? How can we decry the theocracies of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, while support a country where many proudly proclaim that they are the "true" citizens of the state, and have the divine right to rule over others within their own country? To decry the totalitarianism of the Middle Eastern dictatorships is useless if this sort of Jewish Supremacy goes unaddressed. It is for these reasons that I support a one-state solution, not Palestinian or Jewish, but Israeli - secular, with no tribe or religion ruling over the other. Jews may live in their holy land, but so may Palestinians, without either acting as a ruler or a follower. This may be unrealistic, but it is in my opinion the only moral solution. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Further complicating things is that Iran is waging a proxy war against Israel for several reasons. Ignoring the ideological reasons and interpreting it in Realpolitik, Iran is doing this because 1) Sunnis and Israelis killing each other weakens both and enables Iran to further expand their Shia influence, 2) it endears Iran to the common Arabs, or at least makes it an "enemy of my enemy" situation, 3) the moment that Israelis and Arabs/Sunnis make a lasting peace, there is a credible fear Arabs/Sunnis will then turn all their focus on the Persians/Shia.

The most realistic chance for a permanent peace involves a combination of Iran collapsing and some outside threat causing Arabs and Israelis to break the cycle of violence. ISIS was capable of doing the second part, and indeed one could argue that ISIS did result in Israelis and other Arab countries cooperating and helped lead to Morocco and Qatar recognizing Israel as not their sworn enemy. But as long as Iran is around to stir up violence, they will always be able to find some group willing to accept money in exchange for attacking Israel, and another mini-war is going to undo any recent diplomatic gains.

IBF; if the rest of the world embraced multi-culturalism and was safe for everyone including Jews, yeah it'd be wrong for a country to exist based around one ethnicity. But that's not the world that Israel was founded in, nor is it the world that is today. Especially considering that the Arab world ethnically cleansed itself of their Jews (in the process siezing property that was four times the size of Israel). CorruptUser 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Muslims are also an oppressed minority in many parts of the world. Does that justify the existence of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran? Jewish supremacism is not okay just because anti-Semitism is a widespread force.-Flandres (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And there's dozens of Muslim-majority countries that are willing (or should be willing) to accept those Muslims if they are at risk of genocide. There's no guarantee that France or the US would accept Jews fleeing a genocide. Again, Israel's main legitimate reason for existing is that other countries keep reinforcing that reason... CorruptUser 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My argument is not "Israel should not exist." It is "Israel should not be allowed to commit ethnic cleansing and establish apartheid with impunity just because anti-Semitism exists." Sure, Israel can exist but that does not all polices they pursue okay.-Flandres (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser As Flandres notes, just because a minority is persecuted in some parts of the world, does not mean it is entitled to grab some land, evict the current people, all based on a an old book. Then again, the Jewish diaspora has faced unique difficulties - they are not alone there - but that doesn't entitle them to a specific plot of land; that just brings back the nationalist mysticism, wherein a plot of land is mystically associated with a given ethnic group. Despite this, the religious motive for wanting to return to Israel is understandable. However, as usual the implementation of said idea, was carried out far below an acceptable threshold of decency; the British mandate was poorly conceived and at best tokenistic. I am, of course in agreement with Flandres when it comes to Israel existing, of course it can exist. Leucippus 18:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually do agree with that. I believe that Israel wants to annex a bunch of land, it should have to give anyone on the lands annexed get the option to become citizens. Israel wants all of Jerusalem or other chunks of the West Bank? Has to offer all the former residents citizenship. CorruptUser 18:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response Corry. I'm lukewarm, to say the least about the idea, in principle, of annexing places based on persecution etc. However, in practise, I the state of Israel is a brute fact, and although I don't like your notions of basically a modern day Roman empire, I think they will be discussed in the future...unfortunately. Also, I hate to draw on analogies, but this type of thing hapended in Northern Ireland, and didn't work out so well Leucippus 18:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@IvebeenFrank A one-state solution (no matter if Israel or Palestine) would never work. This would cause a civil war. The best solution imo is a two/three state solution with borders from 1967. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the argument that Israel can be a Jewish state because of their ancient presence there, and because they need their own country, which used to be there. Thing is, Palestinians can make the exact same claim, and have the same legitimacy. That is mainly why a one-state solution (in the long term, if this bitterness can be healed) would be the only option - both sides want the whole land, have a legitimate claim to it and lived happily together before we colonized the place and started setting them at each other's throats. If they could somehow be reconciled, one might think about two governments - a Jewish and an Arab one - in the same country, coordinating on national issues, with everyone having equal rights. That's what Rome did; both the patrician nobility and the plebs wanted power, so one consul was a pleb, the other a patrician; there was a patrician senate, and a plebeian assembly. Meow^Purr 01:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For the Iran argument, I wouldn't agree. Iran is a totalitarian theocracy and so are the Saudis; Israel, on the other hand, is a liberal democracy that gives equal rights to all citizens (see Amos Yarkoni, for instance). But Palestinians need to be given citizenship as well - the problem with a two-state solution is that many Palestinians are descendants of refugees from the rest of Israel, and want to go back there (see Palestinian right of return). That is why the PLO keeps rejecting two-state offers (of course, their solution is unworkable; they basically want to kick all the Jews out and make it an Arab state). Meow^Purr 01:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

the problem with a two states solution is that it isnt two states its 1 and 1/2 states. thats the point of the settlements - they deny more and land to palestinians in such deal who are left be poor agricultural land and water rights, and its more and more likely this what will happen. its only covid that prevented israel annexing those parts the west bank where the settlements lie last summer, making a palestinian west bank a rump of a rump state enclave surrounded by israel which has complete control of its affairs. thats the two state solution as it stands, a return to 1967 borders tss is dead and has been for a while.

a one state solution doesnt on the face of it seem likely either, or one democratic state as ive seen it described. the problem here is israel in such an endeavour cannot be jewish and democratic. sure its a liberal democracy right now and jewish, but right now jews are the majority. that wont last long if israel covered all the west bank with palestinian arabs predicted to be soon become the majority. in that case, you can have a democratic israel with equal rights for all, or a jewish state with with rights curtailed for the non jewsh if it is remain so.

honestly, i only see the netanyahu's annexing of the jewish settled west bank and the jordan valley as what will end all this. it might be painful in the short term, and hideously unjust, generating all kinds of outrage. but long term, palestinians will drift away never to return. it just require time for such a situation to establish itself and become just as great an injustice to reverse as it would be to bring about. its a 1 and a bit states solution. its not a good solution, just seems like the inevitable one to me.

all over options depend on compromises that a too great to be realistic and good faith of which ther has never been. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is so frustrating. I'm pro-Israel and hold a positive view of Judaism, but dammit, why, oh why, is Israel doing all these human rights abuses? It's only going to escalate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. (Bitches don't know bout my engineering skills

Brexit discussion

Before the #Brexit became a reality AnCaps Libertarians and Conservatives kept saying they wanted that to happen just to enable the UK to trade much more easily worldwide since, apparently, trades were held firm by the EU, to that I have no argument because I am not knowledgable enough on economics.

Additionally, Europhobes, especially from EU adjacent countries like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, celebrated once the Brexit happened while often using the same arguments as the aforementioned Libertarians and neocons from the UK to promote the hashtag.

So this made me wonder whether this Brexit thing has any upside, nobody would vote knowingly for something if said thing would do more bad than good, and yet, the Brexit had so much support that it passed.

In hindsight, it is like Trump's election, he was elected because people thought he would be better than Clinton and then those same voters regretted it, so they voted for Biden instead during the 2020 election, ending the con man's journey. Any thought? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Brexit was stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"nobody would vote knowingly for something if said thing would do more harm than good", this brings to mind the debates over rationality i.e. debates over rational coherence vs rational norms. For instance some would argue that 'your quote' was not an example of irrational behaviour, in fact they would argue that it may well be coherent with their beliefs, intentions, and actions, maybe not on a global scale e.g. with all their beliefs, intentions, and actions, but perhaps on a local scale e.g. the short-term rewards that they may procure for their business (this is comparative to the man who wants to be healthier, but still lights up on occasion because it clears his mind, and helps reinvigorate his motivation, to take the larger steps needed, for his goal of getting healthier). Indeed some are sceptical about the very idea of a 'practical reasoning' for ends (goals etc), after all when it comes to our goals, they are influenced by our: feelings, values, desires, attitudes etc, which seem to have great difficulty reconciling with reason, one might ask - how exactly can attitudes or my desires, have the logical-structure that reason requires? According to this view, even voting for something that does more harm than good, cannot be called irrational; if voting for Brexit does more harm than good but is coherent with an individuals view that Britain 'rules the waves'...and not the EU, then it is still rational. Such are the difficulties in assessing peoples' rationality. Addendum: according to the view I have outlined, only when a belief is false can the behaviour be labelled 'irrational', for its the 'belief' from whence the first 'neural sparks' emerge, that may lead to an intention (I intend to do such and such), and then to a volition (I will do such and such) to arrive at my goal, that is my 'end'; the action itself e.g. the intention (I intend to vote to leave the EU), and the act of going to a polling booth and putting an x next to 'leave', can not be called irrational decisions or behaviour. It is the underlying belief(s) about the EU that may be deserving of the moniker 'irrational' Leucippus 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

brexit IS stupid. its not finished nor gone away. there is no upside to brexit. people did not vote knowingly for brexit. i doubt many can give you even a vague idea of what they thought they were voting for. its not what they are getting. i doubt the vacuous public school prick who rode brexit to the premiership has any more clue of what was being sold and even less clue now its his job to push it through. the arch brexiters in his cabinet making sure he faces the right way probably know, as do the tax dodging crooks who funded it all. doesnt fill me with much hope. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Brexit was sold to voters by ideologues who did not entirely understand, or properly explain the consequences. Different constituencies will see different costs/benefits to any decision, so there will be no uniform upside/downside analysis across all constituencies. Unexpected upsides for paper manufacturers and paper shufflers: a ton more of paperwork every time anything gets exported from UK to EU, also more employment for border guards and fish counters. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are right and there is indeed no upside to Brexit (And I would like evidence on that matter), then it all comes down to Europhobia since many Conservative Britains hate the EU. With Russia interfering with the 2016 election, you could assume the same happened with Norway interfering in UK's politics since people in this country don't like the EU. And for the record, I don't use "Europhobia" in the same vein I use the term "Homophobia", I'm fine if you don't like the EU, however, I'm more concerned about those who would screw me over just because they have a cult-like hatred of the EU. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Bongolian meant from "there will be no uniform upside/downside analysis" that it's likely, in general, that there won't be any obvious positive or negative trends, economic or social, on the micro-scale of individual communities or for individuals. That's being realistic, as opposed to pessimistic or optimistic. However, with time, we may be able to see more obvious statistical trends that warrant, either positive or negative evaluations. I think you'll find that people generally don't act, with the intention to "screw you over", that's not to say they don't act selfishly, and are apathetic towards whether your "screwed over". From a practical perspective, I imagine its pretty difficult to dish-out informative information about such complex affairs that is both general (i.e. provides info on how Brexit will affect everyone) and specific (how it will affect the individual, their job etc), I empathise with the layman's apathy - when it comes to such complex decisions - but I don't condone it. The misinformation and lies the Tories force-fed the public was, and is, truly repugnant. Leucippus 20:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

One of the most trivial things the Brexiteers promised us was was the return of the beloved blue passport. Well I've just got mine and it's indisputably black. It could only be blue in some kind of "emperor's new clothes" sort of way in which you accept it's blue because that's what it's been called. But this little bit of irrelevance is so totally symbolic of Brexit - people were promised one then and then given another and told it was what they should have expected all along.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There are at least three five demonstrable positives to Brexit (though only between 1 and 4 for most voters). Which ones motivated people to vote depended on which ones mattered most to them:

• The feeling of sovereignty: Because sovereignty doesn't really offer that much of a benefit besides the old blue passports, it is the feeling of being "free" (be it from an EU you don't like or the vampire EU boogeyman) that motivated some people. Never underestimate the power of the "feeling of being free and independent" and how it can motivate people to do things they even fully well know will cost them dearly in other ways. Not wanting to be in a group (despite the benefits) is a justifiable motivator to some
• No more free flow of Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants. This is the big one for some. Racism against people of these groups should not be underestimated. The serious political and economic consequences were actually known to some but they didn't care because for them, closing their borders to a free flow of immigrants they disliked was empowering, or at least was some tangible action they could support that would be some sort of stop to it. This was a huge motivator for some.
• Highly specific economic advantages for niche business owners: There are a few industries that would do a little better outside of the immense benefits of collective bargaining that the EU had with other countries. In some industries small consessions were made so that most industries would benefit. The reverse happens with Brexit where the UK might negotiate more favourable conditions for a few industries (even though over all the market would be hurt). It's a fair reason for some to vote for brexit (self interest).
• The end of EU supremacy laws. Even though all new EU laws are introduced via unanimity (all countries must agree) it is virtually impossible to pull out of existing agreed upon laws. Mostly conservative politicians find that extremely frustrating. One key example is the brutal austerity that the coservative party has inflicted on the UK. Despite it being horrendous, it didn't get their business friends as extreme favourable conditions as they would like (such as chopping labour protections, cutting social programs below the agreed minimum funding). Basically you cannot create a libertarian paradise while in the EU. This was a big motivator for a small number of politicians to not just vote for Brexit but bullshit their fucking mouths off to the public inventing endless lies and fake benefits to convince them to vote Brexit which ties into number 5
• All of those fake benefits those conservative politicians said would happen like a better funded NHS, a more prosperous Britain, better trade deals, a free blowjob every Sunday etc. Despite none of these coming true and clear unmistakable evidence to the contrary, people still believe in these lies.

So yeah, sovereignty, no more Eastern Europeans, niche-businesses, neo-conservative interests and fake lies. Those are all good enough reasons for some, even with a portion of them fully well knowing the consequences, to not just have voted Brexit but still stand behind it. ShabiDOO 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

My Nan, Aunt, and Uncle, voted Leave to get out of the ECHR and no amount of arguing could explain to them why that wasn't right. X Stickman (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've got an unintended advantage of Brexit. Fish stocks will probably recover. As EU vessels will have reduced access, they won't be fishing in UK waters. As it looks like it's going to be too complex for British fishermen to export fish to the EU, they won't be fishing in UK waters either. So it could be a big win for British fish - if not for British fishermen.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo "a free blowjob every Sunday" - yes you're right!!...but, without those eastern-European rates. I think some of the working class in the UK are still entranced by Thatcher's meritocratic iDEaS, according to which, they think the upper-classes deserve to rule over them. Its ridiculously childish mentality. We live in a society that is more akin to a plutocracy, contaminated with nepotism. Leucippus 17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no positive to either Brexit or the EU in its current state; the vote was always a choice between evils. The EU, in its original form, was a wonderful thing - an alliance of friendly states that collaborate on problems together and support each other on the world stage, etc. But it began growing into something more than that - it started pushing its laws on us, its fishermen began taking our waters (i.e. our own fishermen began suffering), the large number of Slavic immigrants began causing job losses for lower-class Britons, Germany was using the EU as a bully pulpit to get the upper hand in trade, and the bloc is becoming more centralized, which struck a raw nerve among many Britons (we have normally had a big sense of "we ourselves"). The vote was largely anger against this, not for any supposed positives in Brexit itself. Personally, I am divided, and am very glad that I came of age only last year and did not have to make the torturous choices of 2016, 2017 and 2019. Meow^Purr 03:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pushing its laws on us"? Anybody who says this shit is entirely ignorant about how the EU works and has bought the lies that the Brexit clique have force fed them. The EU is literally the most democratic political system I have ever studied (with unanimity required at some levels). Could you please explain exactly by what mechanism the evil EU passes laws so that it "forces laws" onto any countries? Do you even know how laws are passed? ShabiDOO 10:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo "Evil EU" is a bit too strong, but my wording was probably a bit idiotic so that might be deserved. More rationally, this is what I meant - Primacy of European Union law. This attracted a lot of hate, and has been used against Britain sometimes - [5]. But you're correct in saying that this was twisted far out of context by Nigel & co. Meow^Purr 12:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Every single new law the EU enacts is decided by absolute unanimity by the commission (every country must agree) decided by their elected governments, a democratically elected parliament AND a council made by ministers from directly elected governments. Not a single law is ever, ever, ever imposed on an EU country. A policy may be imposed...but that only happens after every single country AGREES IN ADVANCE to the mechanisms of how that policy is formed (with many other mechanisms in place to help shape and even challenge that policy). It is literally impossible for the EU to impose a law on another EU country. So...I don't understand what you mean by choosing between two evils. Either leaving the EU or having laws imposed on the UK. Because laws were never ever ever imposed on the UK. There was only one evil: sacrificing UK prosperity, labour protections, environmental protections, social program protections, freedom of movements (like to retire in the Mediterranean or work in another country), great collective trade deal bargaining, internal markets as well as the integrity of the United Kingdom (i.e. Scotland) etc all to help the narrow interests of a small band of policy makers, the illusion of sovereignty and racism towards Polish people. The Brexit campaign was pure manipulative dishonest evil. ShabiDOO 13:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

all arguments for brexit that centred around sovereignty or democratic short falls were all dogshit that didnt bear any scrutiny. they are just vague allusions of worthy causes to give the pretense of principled opposition to the eu. no one gave a shit about issues of sovereignty before or else they'd have looked into further and saw that it was bullshit. democratic principles cant have been that high on the agenda either for the same reason and because most people didnt bother to vote in eu elections or could name their mep.

before immigrants from the starting arriving, all the eu was to people was stories in the paper about straight bananas and ridiculous regulations. all made up bullshit, but all news on the eu was negative. it was all dross but negative dross. suspicion was how people viewed if they thought anything of it all.

immigration is when people could first see something as a direct result of the eu and only became an issue with recession and austerity had people competing for services continually cut back, underfunded and privatised. then suddenly theres a referendum and we are expected to have an opinion on something most knew little about but suspicious of from years of negative press. luckily vote leave were on hand to tell us bout sovereignty which had nothing to do with gold rings and the elitist byzantine bureaucracy interfering with british laws and way of life, with immigration visible enough to really focus nagging suspicion into staunch opposition, and something something dunkirk spirit of the blitz. someone probably mentioned agincourt too.

it didnt help that the pro eu remain camp where fucking atrocious at making a case that was always going to be an uphill strggle, and was led by the cunt behind all the austerity. brexit was about punching that public school boy twat in his shiny fat face as it was anything else. its no coincidence that those hit hardest from austerity all went for leave. old etonians bookend brexit. public schools are a fucking cancer of entitlement in this country. we need an article on those places AMassiveGay (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Toxic masculinity and domestic violence

Considering that in almost every country men showing emotions is seen as unmanly with the exception of anger- would it be unreasonable to say that being forced not to show emotions fuels abuse?

If men are only allowed to show anger and nothing else then that would be a catalyst for someone to be abusive? What I am trying to ask is if the culture was to shift to it being socially acceptable for men to show emotions, would domestic violence cases drop? I am not a psychologist so that is why I am asking. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Men are allowed more emotions than "anger". Men are even allowed to cry, just, for only good reasons; dog died, last game of your football career, child born/married, watching Saving Private Ryan, the first ten minutes of Up (but only allowed to watch Up with a kid), etc. CorruptUser 04:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Awareness of toxic masculinity is key. I got a friend who watches anime, which generally mixes toxic manhood with the ability to be emotional. We played his copy of Mortal Kombat for literally a couple hours, then I got to pick the movie. I said "Grave of the Fireflies, but you gotta understand I'm gonna cry a lot" and he was like "I gotta see this." And he got it, without me doing much but apologizing for him seeing me cry, by the end of the movie, he understood why I cried every time the protagonist tried to take it all on his own. I think he got why, he hasn't treated me like a crybaby or anything since then. At the time I really needed a dude to play a fighting game with me and watch top tier anime, and I hoped that through my actions I could share that. I didn't say much about masculinity, it wasn't exactly a topic. We're still bona fide classic men, after all. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Once upon a time I was a submariner. While I was in that world I encountered a sea dad who never wasted a moment in demonstrating how fucking awesome he was at being a man. Most of my sea stories are too petty to mention ever, and some are shameful because I fucked up. But the ones I remember are fucking mental, guy was making my choice of pulped or unpulped orange juice a proxy for being a man. In my weakness, I once exploited a chink in the armor I saw in a moment of contrition, and said: “YEAH, I USED TO THINK YOU SUCKED *TOO,* BUT THEN I REALIZED YOU HAD BEEN RAPED.”

There’s nothing for what happened after that. I felt good because he had nothing and devolved to a broken man for about ten seconds, I felt smart for five years before I realized how many of us (man and woman) have suffered the shit (so far I’m not one of them), I stopped being a submariner because I broke down myself (different story).

Thing is that broken fucktard is par for the course. If you ever find yourself in his company, work your way up, humor and ignore him. I couldn’t, but I think I see the way up, around and through him if you speak his language. I hate him still because he inflicts his shit on the rest of us, and it’s not because it’s better for the submarine or greater US Navy community. He just hates life. Artificius (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't the case that in almost every single country that men showing emotions is seen as unmanly. In most Mediterranean countries its common for men to express both up and down emotions a whole lot more than in say Northern Europe or North America. Its extremely uncommon for anyone in Spain to show hostility or anger in public and men express their emotions a lot more easily (including warmth an friendliness between strangers). In many Muslim countries (Iran or Egypt for example), men express a lot of tenderness between one another (they even hold hands while they walk down the street as friends), share their inner feelings easily and express their down emotions quite frequently (though they do it a lot less in front of women though still more than I usually see in Europe or North America. Phillippino men are also a lot more expressive of their emotions as well as Moroccans. Even within a country there can be an enormous difference in expression of emotions. For example in Spain and Italy people in the south can openly weep a lot more frequently, are huggy and touchy and express exaggerated delight at seeing one another. In Iran, the difference between the Persian centre and the more Arab southern coast was absolutely shocking ranging from extreme welcomeness and expressive greetings and farwells to near hostile greetings and near emotionless expressions (though admittedly there is no such thing as an emotionless expressions). ShabiDOO 09:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Over here, showing extreme emotions in general is... discouraged? Like it just gets you side eyes from people and is seen as impolite/like a jackass. Most dutch ppl are too polite to outright give you shit for it, but from what I can tell there is not a huge difference in expectations here when it comes to men or women when it comes to that. You just don't express emotions around here unless it's someone you're friends with. I know toxic masculinity exists, and especially the silly ways it can exhibit itself (no part of me will ever forget the time I learned that some men literally don't wipe their ass because it's seen as being "weak for a man"). That said, it's important to keep in mind that what makes this behavior toxic (over merely being a case of sexist expectations we place on men) is the complete lack of a healthy outlet that leads to stupid shit. Masculinity in and of itself is something that is fairly neutral-ish, it's just that when someone doesn't have a healthy way to deal with those expectations (ie. someone who doesn't feel safe talking about their insecurities to anyone in their life, which results in an overt adherence to trying to be the dominant one in all relationships) that masculinity turns toxic.

In a sense, you could probably also flip it on it's head, given how we as a society for ages have placed expectations on women to be subservient, looking good and being highly emotional, which has resulted in a lot of stereotypical elements being placed on women. Yet it would be stupid to say that every woman who is emotional, looks pretty or prefers being the sub in the relationship is therefore a case of "toxic feminity". Rather it's when there is no healthy way to deal with that (unhealthy ways being expected to be emotional all the time, never being allowed to look a littly scruffy in the morning or imposing the subservient stuff on other people) that this starts to become toxic.

So... where I'm going with this in the end I suppose is that you should judge it case by case. Just because people repress their emotions near universally doesn't necessarily make it a case of toxic masculinity, nor does a desire for women to be conventionally attractive automatically translate to toxic feminity. It's only when those things start to come at the cost of healthy outlets for the other end of those things when it turns toxic. So personally I would say that it's not necessarily abusive to be expected to not show emotions, but if there's no healthy outlet for it, it might be. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 As a woman, and not wanting to be unkind... my initial reaction is hmmmm. I could expand on this, but I'd take time, and I'd have to understand your reasoning better (yes, I'm probably assuming things, which I shouldn't), so I won't go past the hmmmm at this point. I know this probably makes little sense to you, sorry!

@Shabidoo, are you Spanish? You don't have to answer, of course, just plain curiosity :-) UninspiringNickname (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually an insane mix of French-Canadian, Scottish, Welsh and Spanish (born in Germany). I've lived in all of those countries and did my education in Belgium. I'm actually thinking of moving to Scotland (as the situation in Spain per COVID is absolutely abysmal and it would be fun to live in an English speaking country). ShabiDOO 23:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's a variegated and interesting life experience for sure!! I'm, huh, not Spanish, but live rather nearby. I'd say I've seen spanish men express their anger in public (especially outside Galiza), more so than my own countrymen - but then again I haven't had much experience outside of Iberia, and the plural of anecdotes isn't data. Oh, you think Spain has it bad? :p Might I convince you to move westward and feel the true pain? :/ (joking, obviously. dark humour is all we have left at this point. being number one in new cases and deaths per 100,000 pax per fortnight in the world will do that to you...) UninspiringNickname (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

An answer to the question? Yes. Personal experience. Father figure. Emotional pain. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything obviously wrong or inappropriate with the original questions. Surely, it is at least plausible, that repressed emotions could lead to outbursts of abusive behaviour i.e., taking out your anger on someone else. Shabidoo's points about masculinity in Latin countries seem to neglect that 'sensitive emotions' like being affectionate are still frowned upon there. I believe, that the classical western-image of masculinity - in northern Europe, Britain, and America, of the 'strong silent type', who' s cool-headed, probably originated from hunter-gather culture, not the agrarian cultures of Mesopotomia and southern Europe. I was raised on John Wayne and James Bond movies, and as a child, there was something undeniably attractive about the classical conception of masculinity, of course minus the sexism, misogyny, and toxicity. A good example of what I mean by 'classical masculinity' is the character of 'Don Draper' in the tv series 'Mad Men', a lot of men still find this ideal of masculinity appealing: drinking whiskey and lighting-up a cigarette after a hard days work, womanising, being athletic - and all the while, keeping your cool (not Latin camp machismo); staying in control. I must admit that I still find the ideal highly appealing; undeniably congenial...and I'm sure that's the way lots of other straight guys feel. However, what makes talking about masculinity so difficult, is the idiot MGTOW types who make an already difficult topic even more difficult to address. Leucippus 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh nothing wrong or inappropriate. I just said I was here to witness it first hand. My dad didn't express too much emotion. He got a lot of frustration at work. He later would take out his anger on us. I don't know anything about how he was raised. Only time I ever saw him cry was during my grandma's funeral but never cried when he realized his words inflicted so much pain on me emotionally I had to inflict on myself physical. You might think this concept of masculinity is just for western, but I think Chinese attitudes to emotional expression is also emphasis on repression for men, too, iirc, so it didn't help. My brother also had to experience and witness such things and he had extra pressure on emotional expression, but getting out of this relationship with my dad opened his eyes to the harm of toxic masculinity affecting him too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Being born in the 1990's and living in a area with a lot of conservatives, that was and still is the predominant culture. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "latin cultures". If you are referring to Latin-American cultures, they are not the same as Spanish and they are also very diverse (it spans two continents). Men show affection to one another in Spain all the time (they are touchy, huggy, can compliment one another in general (including on their clothes and appearance)) and are quick to support one another in times of trouble. That isn't to say there isn't a great deal of sexism in the country (as with everywhere) and that there isn't a problem with toxic masculinity (the rate of men killing their girlfriends/wives is shockingly high). But I am simply replying to the claim that in just about every country it is frowned upon for men to show emotion or affection. This is clearly untrue. In many countries that I have personally lived in or visited I have experienced the opposite (remember the whole Egyptian and Iranian men holding hands as they walk down the street). Egypt and Iran are still countries with a fierce degree of toxic masculinity and misogyny. Nor is "not showing emotion" a particularly western thing. I found men in Syria, Taiwan and the UAE to express even less emotion than in North America or Northern Europe. In any case...the most serious problems with toxic masculinity isn't a lack of showing emotion, it is violence, discrimination, derision, insults, sexual assault/harassment and exclusion. While a lack of affection and toxic-masculinity may over lap they are certainly not mutually required nor mutually exclusive by any means. ShabiDOO 11:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that this idea that "crying = feminine = bad" might be in my dad's Indian culture, but I'm not sure. On one hand, men in those Hindustani Bollywood dramas cry all the time (about as often as the women and children do), but on the other my dad once told me that he was taught such ideas in school, and he mostly seemed to parrot them. Maybe the toxic masculinity might've been brought to India by the Brits or something, like how homophobia was brought by the Islamic and Christian missionaries? (But I'm no expert...) --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 22:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/making-sense-chaos/202009/nfl-losses-are-associated-increased-domestic-violence I don't think it's a bad take to wonder if American men and their limited emotional outlets are nasty. Adult temper tantrums are never ok. Being angry is a thing. Being disappointed is a thing. Every stage of grief, denial anger bargaining sadness, and I think grief is limited to just a broad idea, is absolutely OK if it's not a temper tantrum. Adult temper tantrums are never OK. I mean, if I'm feeling mean against a guy in a game, I will intentionally grief them to force them into a tantrum. I don't do it anymore, I honestly believe it's a damaging tactic that carries weight outside of the game, but it works. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that as for just simple crying (but not temper tantrums though, as yes, those are legitimately immature), that is a natural human emotional response, and is the body's way of releasing sadness (and sometimes also anger, relief, nostalgia, sleepiness, or really extreme happiness), and that men have just as much of a right to cry when it is warranted as women do. Also, crying has helped me invoke empathy in others, which is why we get sad; for instance, it is the reason why I once inadvertently had my entire fifth grade class, including even some assholes who otherwise hated me, rally against a bully masquerading as my friend who kept being verbally and emotionally (but luckily not physically) abusive towards me, claiming he was doing such because he can't stand it when others cry. (And on a less serious note, it can also help people slow down and obsess over the weight of life's problems.) --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 01:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment Day 2

It seems increasingly likely that Trump will escape conviction for inciting the mob the desecrated the Capitol building. But the House Impeachment managers seem intent on making that vote as painful as possible. A couple videos they showed today:

• Video from the mob trying to find House Speaker Pelosi [6]
• Video of Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, basically saving Sen Romney (R-UT) from physical harm [7]
• Audio of the desperate plea for back-up from Capitol Police [8]
• Video of Ashli Babbitt being shot to death [9]

Democrats need to keep the pressure up. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

*sigh* If only the Reps realized that preventing Trumpler from ever holding public office again is actually in their interests, as he could form a third "America First" party, making all future Presidential elections blowout victories for the Dems, and cementing the latter's current power trifecta for decades to come if he loses the GOP primary to Pence/Haley/Rubio/etc.- if he's still alive and is healthy enough to run by then of course. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 03:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s in their party’s interest, but not necessarily in theirs. The GOP base still loves Trump, and most of the Senators will have their political careers combust if they cross him. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 07:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be in the interest of US politics in general. If Republicans manage to get rid of their loony fringe (which, btw, they created), this will force the Democrats to come closer to the center as well. An overall moderation would then follow - i.e. more of Biden's party would be more like him and less like Sanders and Warren. Meow^Purr 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Something I find a little depressing about this "trial" is how it's split down party lines before the evidence is presented. The assumption is that whatever evidence is presented and whatever defence is put up - all the Democrats will vote "guilty". And the vast majority of the Republican Party (for personal political interests) will vote "guilty". But surely a trial shouldn't be like that? As things stand they could easily save a lot of time and money by skipping the whole evidence/defence and thing simply move to the vote.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think at the time of impeachment, there was some thought that there was a slim chance that the Republicans would repudiate Trumpism. Once Rand Paul forced a vote on "the constitutionality" in late January, it was clear that conviction was not possible. So from my perspective, this is basically a "dog and pony show" aimed more at embarrassing the GOP and maybe peel off some voters who don't really want to be associated with the Party Of Sedition, Racism, and Kissing Trump's Ass. Those already in their respective media bubbles will not care of course (currently, the usual hard right suspects for instance already are more interested on some actress getting fired for saying dumb shit on Twitter). The GOP big donor and business class in particular seem tempting targets. Many of those type are Wall Street Journal-heads, not Qanon Batshit Crazy Seditionists, and the later crowd is not exactly good for business unless you are a fundie preacher or sham huckster. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And I would agree. It's a show trial. Neither "side" is really looking at evidence or counter evidence. Don't get me wrong - I think Trump was absolutely the culprit. But if I think that before the trial then I shouldn't be a member of the Jury.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

is impeachment by design decided by a bunch of partisan pricks who cannot look beyond their own self interest or pretend for a moment that they take justice at all seriously, or was there a time this was ever working system to deliver justice for all? why is it not done in something resembling a proper court with a jury that doesnt have to stand for election? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment is a political, not judicial, process here. Trump has the potential to be charged with judicial crimes as well in the future, where a judge and jury might very well preside. (For instance, there were many stories today about Georgia, where the law in that state prohibits "criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree". This rather appropriately fits Trump's call with Brad Raffensperger asking to "find 11,780 votes".) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The history of impeachment in the US is short. Took a seriously partisan edge after Clinton. The modern parties, especially the GOP, is singularly focused on power, so they refuse to do anything to threaten that. There have been many judges that have been impeached with bipartisan consensus. It would have been more effective in this case I think to create an Impeachment Committee, that would hear arguments and make a recommendation to the Senate about what to do. At least then it would dispel with GOP Senators having to appear to take it seriously.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Dude, impeachment was partisan back when they did it to Johnson. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, 16 presidents have been threatened with impeachment. It's just that most impeachments go nowhere...-Flandres (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ditto on the DOA impeachment threats. Did you know that mere days after Biden's inauguration, a few of those crazy Karens and Kenneths (male versions of Karens, since all the religious wackos seem to be named "Ken") in the House tried to SEE THE MANAGER impeach Biden for no good reason whatsoever? --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Texas considering requiring National Anthem at all stadium events

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-lawmakers-consider-requiring-national-anthem-publicly-funded-events-1568428 I'm pro-national anthem but I gotta admit, it sucks that this is even being considered a "law". I'm a Dallas Mavericks fan too and didn't like what Mark Cuban tried to pull yesterday. That said, I still think it's quite sad/pathetic it comes down to this. Aaronmichael5 22:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note to self, move out of Texas faster. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My family is considering moving out of Texas... to Florida lol Aaronmichael5 22:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In fariness to Texas, the NBA also required the Mavericks to do this. But it's still stupid.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We have to get out of communist Poland. But yes...where will we go? Communist Russia is the future! ShabiDOO 23:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It's always so funny when conservatives complain about "virtue-signalling" and then pull equally nonsensical performative stunts aimed at their base, like this law. The hypocrisy always makes me laugh. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what "the base" would think about the original British musician gentleman's club version. Which is all about sex, drugs, and rock and roll! (Well, since's it was written in the 1770s, it's actually about the "myrtle of Venus", "Bacchus's Vine", and the "fiddle and flute" that "no longer be mute". But it sure sounds like a much better time than old War of 1812 musings.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Movin' from Texas to Florida, eh? Time to queue the Butthole Surfers' "Moving to Florida"[10] Bongolian (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I get that it is nice to display nationality through the anthem, but... a law!? That's ludicrous! Not that it would affect me, but I hope it does not pass. Moria^. 01:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Legally speaking, I don't see how the government can't be allowed to do this, in much the same way that the government doesn't require schools to accept minorities but rather withholds funds from schools that don't comply. No organization is inherently entitled to government funding. CorruptUser 21:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? They want to require the playing of the anthem of the country that many of them fantasize about seceding from (but letting them keep Austin because election rigging) for electing an evil antifa lizard pizza pedophile socialist who wants to sniff their hair and stop the construction of the border wall that would've protected their state and jobs from the Azatlan invasion? Lol the hypocrisy --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 06:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"The Ethical Skeptic" — what to make of this site?

So googling Occam's razor has led me to this website. Among other things, they have a page that claims that using the terms "pseudoscience" or "woo" for entire fields of study is bad.

I haven't read much into it, as it's written in a fairly obtuse style with lots of jargon. Just curious what the people here would think of it. - Linneris (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I found it difficult to read beyond the straw man in his first sentence: "First, the whole deceptive shtick concealed within the marrow of critical thinking, is the implicit premise that, because one is a critical thinker, one cannot be deceived."

There may be some people who maintain that they are "critical thinkers" and that they "cannot be deceived". But I don't know any and I don't believe it's a defining charistic.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This person derides others for mockery while mocking those people. You could cut 30% of the text and improve the article. ShabiDOO 11:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Now skimming through their other articles, some things raise my "crank site" flags. Inventing their own terminology on the spot, a confrontational tone reminescent of conspiracy theorists, and most damningly so far, an article that seems to be about how vaccines cause autism. - Linneris (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just another crank with fake credentials and a Wordpress blog. Occasionally noted in other Wordpress blogs (or similar low-key sites) for COVID-19 lockdown skepticism or climate change denial. This is one of those blogs that uses a lot of words and adds a bunch of puffy so-called credentials in order to give the puffed up impression of being smart, but ends up being empty on further examination (as the second link nicely puts it, a "math student’s Adderall-addled impersonation of a philosophy professor.") Enjoy the Twitter feed and the distillation of Tucker Carlson talking points into empty word salad platitudes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Looked at their twitter, found low-grade covid denialism, low grade right-wing crankery, and retweets of shitstains like david rubin, and that's with them clearly autodeleting everything they post after one week. Quotes like "Because our mind can grasp only a small set of reality. This leaves the majority of our realm outside our bounds of reason." clarify that this person is not a skeptic at all.

They like like to feign outrage at people "falsely" claiming the mantle of science or skepticism, but sentiments like the above indicate their primary objection is that human reason might ever question their bullshit. Conclusion: absolute psycho. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait! I found a link to a page on his site. Fuck. This pretentious fuck calls an longitudinal matched pair control observational study with N=30,000, "a press release" in order to discredit its findings that vitamin supplements without a deficiency are, at best, not helpful, and at worst dangerous. He meanders about for paragraphs about methodology and how you'd get inaccurate information from self-reports, when both the controls and the experimental groups were self-reports. This moronic fucker is the antithesis of an intellectual. He calls medical researchers "Quack shills" in order to defend the integrity of the fucking supplement industry. This dumb fuck needs a page. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This site already looked shady, but this: This is interesting. They cannot get the basic facts correct, so they cherry-pick articles from other science websites. I agree with you, he needs his own article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need an article on this, though? It doesn't seem notable enough (most Google results give the website itself, its Twitter account, and what looks like cached copies on aggregators). Having an article on it on RW would simply give the website recognition it doesn't really deserve. - Linneris (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

80k followers on twitter for someone misrepresenting a topic as central to the mission as skepticism might warrant an article, to me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I could go "either way" personally. I will note that his 2014- 2015 archives are more angry and rant-y (less pseudointellectual puffery, more multi-syllable boorish behavior) skepticism opposition, which certainly fits the mission. But it is "just a Wordpress blog". Interesting to see the descent from then into the pure crankery of today. Can't prove anything, but I get a strong whiff of an engineer or another STEM type that crossed over to the woo side. I was amused by the Reddit thread in a "lockdown skepticism" subReddit where no one understood what he was posting. It never occurred to them that the reason for this might be this poster is posting incomprehensible, puffy sounding gibberish, "designed" to obscure the shakiness of the conclusions. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, the site's called the Ethical Skeptic? Funny... I could swear I was on InfoWars. En Sabah Nur (YOU CAN FIRE YOUR ARROWS FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL... BUT YOU CAN NEVER... STRIKE... GOD!!!!!) 18:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra's net worth

$150 Million fucking dollars....... Don't tell me that people are THIS gullible... Aaronmichael503:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you'd be surprised by how many of us Indian-Americans, as intelligent as we often are (except the few crazies among us who worship tRump and lose their shit when they find someone drawing erotic images of Kali on the internet) still believe Ayurveda works... It took me some convincing to tell my mother it's all hokum... --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 06:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember too that Chopra is a beneficiary of the "Oprah effect". Getting your pseudoscientific bullshit promoted on Oprah Winfrey's show seems to be a ticket to untold riches. Just ask Dr. Phil (net worth $450 million, and it's amazing we don't have a page on this guy yet) or Dr. Oz (varied online gueestimates but possibly $15-$35 million). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's true about Oz, it's rather astounding that he's worth so little from scam life. I would think that a decent hard-working cardiac surgeon who doesn't screw up his finances would be able to have a net worth of at least that amount by age 60. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is it so surprising? The Jesus and Muhammad cults combined comprise the majority of the world's population.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The surprise is that Oz's net worth is that low actually... though some sources report a net worth more like $100 million which honestly is more what you expect. Unlike some of the others, Oz is a genuine cardiothoracic surgeon, a career that pulls in half a million dollar a year salary easily in the United States. His Dr. Oz show salary was reportedly $4 million a year in 2012 (again this was according to the Internet guesstimators so "your mileage may vary"). My interpretation of this is that either Mehmet Oz has used certain vehicles to make his true net worth estimate difficult for celebrity website poking-around types to determine, or there's been some poor management. He purchased an $18 million home in 2018 in Palm Beach for what it's worth, with reportedly a 3 year $5 million dollar balloon mortgage (suggesting that the rest was paid off), so I'd buy the former more than the later, particularly considering that purchase alone implies *at least* a $13 million net worth. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to say gullible but more on people just don't have the skillset required to avoid predatory marketing. It's not their fault. I'm more angry at people and marketers enabling Deepak Chopra's snake oil and such. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link to create a draft on Dr. Phil if anyone's interested; I can't do it, got some homework to do, colleges to do research into. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Why should I care what's good for society?

OK, this is kind of a weird question, but it's been pinging around in my head for some months now, and I haven't really got any satisfactory answers. So, for context, I kind of have something like a small misanthropy, not actually against any group in particular, just a general, vague frustration with humanity, but not actual contempt or anything. And it led me to this question: Just why should I care about what benefits society? Why shouldn't I just evade taxes and shit like that? (Though I'm not old enough to pay taxes yet, as I'm still in high school.) What rational argument is there to contribute to society? Any answers would be great. (Also, this isn't just some dishonestly skeptical question, I actually do think that I should contribute to society, even if I am, on a small level, leery about it) User:IRonMan En Sabah Nur (YOU CAN FIRE YOUR ARROWS FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL... BUT YOU CAN NEVER... STRIKE... GOD!!!!!) 01:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If you piss off enough people they may try to maim and/or kill you. Aside from that no, there's not much stopping you from acting like a spoiled child. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Good point. En Sabah Nur (YOU CAN FIRE YOUR ARROWS FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL... BUT YOU CAN NEVER... STRIKE... GOD!!!!!) 18:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Because we are a social species; because our lives today are built on mass-scale cooperation. Because society is partially responsible for most of what you have today. Technology, electricity and a roof over your head are products of society. YOU are a product of society. It is also partially responsible for most of what you don't have. Can't afford health insurance? Your country probably has a shitty healthcare system. Can't afford to wax your balls? Your country needs to work on its ball-waxing policy.Kauri0.o (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Because you might one day assume a position of power in society.-Flandres (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't need a big justification to see humans as humans, even when they're all being really shitty to you. I hope you can be adult enough to know you don't always have to have the best comeback or the quickest meme response to be appreciated. You've got a pretty impressive handle on writing conventions that most high school students probably don't have have, and you're asking real people why contributing to society is important, and that's exactly it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Conventionally ethics finds a few answers to this problem. 1. When you imagine a world where no one contributes fairly to a society that works, that world is worse for everyone than one where they do. Enlightened self interest dictates that you give people enough credit to understand that they also understand this. Enlightened self interest tends to fail as a concept once free riders are considered, and you can easily see races to the bottom where you end up at that worse world. That concern has answers, but isn't answering your question. 2. Appreciation of other human beings as being like you, sharing similar wants, needs, feelings, and experiences and desire to treat others fairly as a kind of respect for universal human dignity. This seems to be the concept you are becoming disenchanted with, due to seeing counter examples in people who are not like you in some standard you have set for human behavior. Mostly you overcome those kinds of feelings by understanding that while large groups of people invariably have extremely visible people who fail to live up to your standards, have many others existing quietly and kindly and thoughtfully, at least to the best of their abilities. 3. The desire to be part of a project larger than yourself. Individuals die. But human endeavors, especially collective ones, can be a long standing testament to what those people worked to achieve. It's a rare person who can be noteworthy enough to leave a lasting impression of their own, and even those are often part of large project built on standing on the shoulders of giants. Some seek some solace that their life meant something and changed the world, and being a contributing part of a society that lasts and itself achieves something can give some measure of that solace. 4. Extremely practically oriented philosophers suggest that if you don't, your society will be defeated by an outside force that does work together and you'll lose everything you care about to their superior organization and cohesiveness.

Personally #2 and #3 are the ideas that I find the most compelling, but you're not obligated to accept any of those. Regardless, if you start acting on this ingenious idea of no one else mattering, you'll quickly discover that people don't much care for selfish pricks and you'll find yourself isolated from friends and even acquaintances much faster than you might think. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@ikanreed Thanks :) En Sabah Nur (YOU CAN FIRE YOUR ARROWS FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL... BUT YOU CAN NEVER... STRIKE... GOD!!!!!) 18:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Because:

1. If you face a few consecutive cases of unfortunately timed bad luck (and that can even happen to millionaires) you will want society to give a shit about you (and help you)
2. Societies where people don't give a shit about one another suffer from many problems like inefficient economies, high levels of crime and visible homelessness and social disruption
3. Unless you are a sociopath/psychopath it takes a great deal of energy to bury your sympathy and the nagging doubt in the back of your head and it can lead to a great deal of unhappiness
4. Your parents didn't raise you themselves and you owe your current fortune and prosperity to a great deal of people who gave a shit about you as you were growing up and now (and all those who did so before you were born to create the conditions where you can prosper)

ShabiDOO 11:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't care about anybody else, why should anybody else care about you? Avida Dollars^{her again} 14:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@OP, I'd suggest you read up on the moral development chart thingy.

For a primitive view, you should care about following Da Rulez because if you don't you will be smacked upside the head. You pay your taxes to avoid getting an audit and losing everything. You don't steal because you don't want to go to prison.

For a more advanced view, you follow the rules because it's what is expected of you. Your neighbors expect you to be a half-way decent person, and in turn, you expect the same. If you deviate too much, they won't be friends with you and the greatest threat you have in life isn't being devoured by wolves but being kicked out of the tribe. In modern day, no friends means that the moment you have a problem you can't fix on your own, whether it's a medical emergency or losing your job and not having enough money to make rent, you are basically done for. Do what people think you should do, and you are safer.

For a fully developed moral framework, you do what's right because it's right. You are nice because it makes the world better, and while the world may benefit more than you do from a particular action, the first person to benefit or be harmed by any action you knowingly take is always yourself. Before you pull the trigger on the gun, you have made the decision to pull the trigger, and you have made yourself into a person that is willing to kill someone else for whatever reason you have used to justify your actions, and this harm has been done to you before that other person gets struck by the bullet. Before you give a homeless person a coat, you have made yourself into a person that is willing to help someone in need, before that person even realizes they are going to stay a littler warmer that night. CorruptUser 19:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Perfect COVID conspiracy

COVID-19 was engineered by some Mexican farmer named Pablo Ortiz to destroy America. The virus is distributed by 5G cell towers. The masks are also useless to prevent infection because the masks slowly expose you to Gamma radiation. Once Americans are weakened then Mexico and Canada will invade so we are turned into evil Atheist liberal communists. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Canada only wants Hawaii and the Virgin islands and will give the rest to Mexico. They are less interested in turning them into "atheists" (which they will of course do) and more so in having vacation spots (without having to do a hotel quarantine when coming back). COVID and gama ray infested masks is just the easiest mechanism to realising this goal. ShabiDOO 20:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Perfect?? Hardly - where's the chemtrails and Agenda 21 fit in FFS?? Bloody amateurs.... ;) Aloysius the Gaul 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And Mexico will get back California and Texas, thus aiding in our conversion to antifa communism by preventing the Democrats and Republicans from ever winning elections again. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 03:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You fucking government plants. You don't want to acknowledge that this current threat comes not from a foreign country... but from above. THE SKRULLS! THE SKRULLS ARE AMONG US! THEYYYYYYY ARE RESPONSIBLE!! THEY ARE AMONG US AND THEY ARE POISED TO CONQUER! WAKE UP!!!!!!!!! Iron Man (Welcome to Three Portlands!) 03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And as I read all of the above, I smile, quietly, and think to myself, "All according to plan". Kencolt (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I know a joke about alternative meds

You shouldn't get the COVID-19 vaccine because "trusted" doctors want to make money from your pocket. Instead, try something natural that's made from Native Americans, who really promote this and don't criticise it at all. That'll be $250, please— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 00:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Made from Native Amer... Look, Quack Miranda Warning or not, making stuff out of people is illegal! Cripes, even fucking Andrew Jackson didn't go that far! (I think.) Kencolt (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

When you think about it, it's amazing how these conspiracy theorists used lack of evidence as evidence. "Well, uh, of COURSE doctors are making money, that means they're corrupt! Why else would they need money?! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!! Aaronmichael5 06:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That is SO OBVIOUSLY a scam that exists either because this woo-pusher is trying to exploit the Native Americans who still use their own version of TCM, or apparently Native American stuff is the latest hippie craze that they're trying to take advantage of. (Oh and also, I find the "made from" deeply disturbing... as others have said, to call that Andrew Jackson-esque would be a disservice to AJ; at least he didn't make products out of their bodies when he did those genocides!) --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 22:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Does Matthew 16:27-28 discredit the New Testament?

I added this to our page on Biblical prophecies a while ago, but a peculiar prediction is made in Matthew 16:27-28

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Does this passage alone discredit the New testament? Sure, there are apologetics devoted to explaining this but it is pretty hard to deny that this is a failed Second Coming prediction. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not. Now, we here at RW (for the most part) don't believe in the "miraculous", because we tend consider it extremely improbable. There's a reason why such phrases as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" are common around here, after all. There's really not any evidence (in the scientific sense) to say, for example, that alien spacecraft have visited our planet. The thing is, there's also no conclusive evidence that says alien spacecraft have not visited our planet-- no-one's actively proven that they have, and we cannot prove they haven't.

And the Matthew verse isn't something you can disprove. It's insanely unlikely by any skeptical or scientific standards that there's a couple-three guys who are hanging around somewhere, alive as they have been for some two millennia, waiting on ol' JC to make his big comeback and start the whole end of days thing running-- but we can't prove they aren't. The problem with miracles is that by definition they're all about saying "Fuck known science, God wants it this way", and just as you can't actually disprove God, you can't disprove His ability to screw physical laws. It's kinda what He's known for.

And as long as you can't prove that what you think is impossible is... well, impossible, people will believe it to be possible... and some will believe it to be true. That's why religion never dies, it merely is replaced by newer ones. Kencolt (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

But in the world we refer to as reality, the author of this verse probably wrote it with the intent of saying that the Second Coming would happen in the next few decades, which it did not. So if we steer away from fantastical explanations, this verse does look really dumb. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It kinda does fly in the face of the "not through works" argument that a lot of Evangelicals ascribe to. But, in context, no, it never works that way. Bible combat is difficult. Much like presenting any evidence the way a normal person would read it, there is enough done already to interpret and solidify it that there are literally people who think being a good person is bad if you don't say "for Jesus" after everything you do, and there are people who think they can take from as many people as they want because they ask God every day and God never tells them no. In between there are grifters. I do not intend to grift with the following statement. According to Exodus 33, God performed the first dunk, and it was probably awesome.

1 The LORD continued, “There is a place near Me where you are to stand upon a rock, 22 and when My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take My hand away, and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen.” In my day, we call that getting posterized. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if it was false, you would not be able to prove it because you would not know what does Jesus look like nowadays. Hell, what if I was Jesus and I came to this Earth to stop villainy. 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:294A:1C03:709D:D909 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, as one of the few Christians around here, I suppose I'll take it on. The most important thing about this verse, like most Bible verses, is the context surrounding it. In Matthew 16:16, the apostle Peter is the only one to identify Jesus as the Son of Man. While Peter is faithful, he is as deluded as anyone else with respect to the meaning of the work of Christ. I think Peter (like many others) expects Jesus to lead a successful revolution and usher in a new sovereign Israel and a theocratic empire. We see inklings of this expectation in Matthew 16:22, where Peter expresses disbelief and shock when Jesus tells his disciples that he is to die and be risen from the dead. Jesus rebukes him, and then gives a few lines, perhaps because of the blindness of his audience. Matthew 16:24-26, just before the lines in question, has Jesus telling his apostles that they must act as servants to God and to Man, for which they will gain eternal life.

It is in this context that the "Father's glory with angels" makes sense: The glory of Christ will be demonstrated by His death on the cross, the most absolute symbol of love. This glory is invisible to all but those who truly know the personality and power of God. Indeed, it is invisible to the disciples. They will see the son of Man coming in His Kingdom - but it will be at the crucifixion, where the full force of the paradox and irony that revokes the judgement mankind made against God in the Garden will be presented. It is here that Isaiah's prophecy summarized in Mark 4:11-13 takes effect:

The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!

Do the disciples really understand? No. The secret of God has indeed been given to them, but not in the form of knowledge or power that they expected. The secret of God has been given to them in person. He is staring them in the face - and yet most of His own disciples can't name him as the Son of God. They do not recognise Him because they do not know what they are looking for. They will indeed see the fulfilment of God’s promises, but it will look nothing like what they expect. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Taken at face value of course it's false. So Christians have to do all sorts of reinterpretation to get round it. But that's not unusual.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What is a bird quill made of?

I've just been wondering lately, I'm aware that feathers are made out of keratin, but what is the quill/shaft/calamus made of if anyone knows? It almost feels like plastic (I have adopted a birb recently so I'm just curious).--WMS (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that area of the feature is keratin, the same material of nails. I mean the texture between that and nails seem remarkably similar to me. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. Feathers are not produced in the same manner as mammalian fur or nails, however. There's not a recessed follicle that produces continually growing feathers from the base, but rather they develop inside a living sheath that dies from cellular apoptosis revealing the feather underneath. The resulting structure is indeed lifeless keratin, though young feathers may contain pulp caps inside the lower calamus. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, really interesting, was not aware of that, thank you for the info!

Yeah. My bird grows feathers as a sheath, and when they're ready to be feathers, the part of the sheath gets really brittle and can pop open tufts. Feathers do get blood supply when they're growing. You can see the base of those feathers being all dark red. If a feather breaks too soon on a bird, a broken blood feather, blood will come out. And blood circulation won't clot so you have to remove the feather or the bird needs to preen the feather out. But once the feather is fully developed, there won't be blood there any more. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Factoid: In olden dayes, they didn't actually have the feathers on the quill, which I think kind of sucks. Someone needs to invent a time machine and FIX THIS EGREGIOUS MISTAKE!!! (Low Energy)

I wholeheartedly agree!--WMS (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Spam emails

Have you ever had one? Particularly from weird domain names that are absolute nonsense? Generally, they tend to come from Russia or China (When it comes to being annoying, they really are the kings). This is why you should keep your email a secret if it's a professional one or one that you use to sign up on every website you visit.

PS: When I talk about spam emails here I specifically refer to the type that comes out of nowhere and generally ends up into your spam folder and is often some sort of malware. Other types of spam emails such as those that you tried to unsubscribe from, but couldn't and they are not technically spam for most email providers, so you have to manually delete them. Speaking of which, I heard that Natural News doesn't have an option to unsubscribe from their newsletter once you signed up for it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all the time. I get ones saying there's a problem with my Apple account or my PayPal account, neither of which I have. I get ones saying there have been problems with non-existent deliveries from Amazon and FedEx. I once got one of those Nigerian scam emails. You know, I'll share $100,000 with you if you give me $1,0000 first. Surprisingly, I'd had the same email address for more than 20 years before I got that and the Nigerian scam was so well known by then that hardly anyone was falling for it anymore. Spud (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For some godforsaken reason, back when AOL was pretty much the most reliable service out there, as well and a major source of makeshift Frisbees, I used to get insane amounts of spam email from Korea.

In Korean, which I cannot read.

With pictures trying to sell me things I did not recognize, except I think a fair amount of it was real estate. I have no goddam idea why these Korean companies decided a 30 year old white boy taking a second degree had decided I was prime spam fodder, but... Kencolt (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A while ago I was getting ones from someone who wanted payment in bitcoin to stop them releasing videos they claimed they had taken of me - shall we say - taking advantage of pictures of naked ladies on the internet. The claim was that they had taken the videos of me by remotely accessing the webcam on my PC.

As my webcam points at the wall this seemed to be an unlikely claim. I really had wanted to try to contact them to string them along a bit, but mails to them just bounced.

A couple of times I have also received telephone calls from "Microsoft support" claiming that I have a virus on my PC. (With the objective of selling fake antivirus obviously) You can string them along a bit by claiming to be both slightly deaf and elderly/confused and make them explain things 20 times before telling them to F-off.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I sometimes get spam emails about either some fad diet endorsed by celebrity X, or some altmed quackery about how "forget actual exercise, this will make your body RIPPED!!!!!!111!!!SHIFT1!!SHIFToneeleventyone11!!!1!. They are SO ANNOYING. I usually delete them. Also, while it technically isn't spam, my junk folder is currently flooded with emails from practically every college in America. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a buddy at work get a call that went "Is your name Logan?" His name is not, so he said "No." and the response was "...You have won the lottery." He put it on speakerphone and we all had to just stay quiet. He kept this scammer on the phone for 5 days pretending to be too confused to write a check, he ended up sending him a chicken nugget in the mail instead of a check, it was incredible. I told him to just mix up the address really bad every time he read it back to the scammer, then to tell him he sent the chicken nugget to the wrong address, but that he was sending a letter to the same address explaining the situation so the scammer could just go and ask them for the check. The scammer got so pissed, and then my buddy said "John, relax. The money is coming." in such a perfectly calming and condescending way, it was incredible. That moment is imprinted in my brain. He signed off from a call on the second day with "I love you" and the scammer said "OK, I love you too." The scammer got really mean a lot of times, but always ended calls with "OK, I love you" after that. Like, what kind of culture says "Don't play stupid with me" and also says "I love you"? It was a riot.

Occasionally a distribution group gets one at work that is the same format as Bob's. "Hello, RMA, that's a nice car you have been driving. I have seen you looking at THOSE sites at work and have captures of you from your camera. It would be a shame if I sent those pictures to your friends and family. If you dont want those pictures sent out, you must send me .01 Bitcoins. Keep this quiet or I will send everything." It's adorable, except you know it wouldn't be a tactic if it didn't successfully prey on the occasional rube. Like, man, if I'm jerkin it at work, woof, I'm in trouble. If I'm jerkin it at home, all eyes on me, I'm not paying you shit for me to be allowed to do that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ended up in a ditch today

Me and my family were driving home from the store when we hit a patch of ice. Nobody was hurt but it was a pain to get the car out. We had to get a tow truck. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A year or two ago I slid off the road due to slush. It happens... CorruptUser 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It does. A couple years ago I spun out trying to change lanes on a highway during a snowstorm, but hit nothing and no one (I knew there was a chance of that happening, so I waited until no one was anywhere near my to try), righted myself, and continued on my way Very disconcerting when it does happen, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We've had shitty road conditions all weekend here in the Dallas area (actually, Texas entirely as far as I can tell). I've seen about three cars at least spin out so far, and there's been a ton of big wrecks everywhere. My state is currently experiencing a rolling blackout as I speak. I'm online right now while our power supply lasts (it's been about an hour on and an hour off all day). Aaronmichael5 01:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Shit man, I've totaled 3 cars - completely destroyed 3 separate vehicles and crawled out completely unharmed each time. Ace^{Simple Maze} 01:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly I live out in the country where the county refuses to salt the roads. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's projected tomorrow morning will -20 Fahrenheit. That's -28 Celsius. I think you're in a colder part of this arctic tentacle than I am. Road treatments don't even work at those temperatures. My car's battery went kaput. Nothing is designed for this kind of cold, save Arctic research vessels. My car's battery is very dead, couldn't jump it with an old battery pack I borrowed because it was -8 all weekend, two other guys I work with couldn't start their cars today, two people woke up to flat tires, one guy has frozen water pipes. I eventually made it in with the help of a friend/coworker who lives next door to me but even that wasn't easy. I have a cheapo Ryobi air compressor, but I left it in my car and the battery was dead, too cold to charge. His bum battery pack has an air compressor in it, and I had that plugged in all night. It inflated one tire before it gave up, but it was enough to get us rolling. Now there are roaming power outages because it is so important to keep everyone up for most of the time that it is less important to keep everyone up all of the time. I think as far south as Texas they are doing that, but fuck, keep that phone charged. I literally got an email from my housing office that, subject line "Coled Weather" ok, cool, 'bout to be a gem, "You might notice frost on your windows. Put a blanket or towel over your windows to help insulate your apartment. We all look forward to the 30 degree weather next weekend!" Haaaa, yeah, we do, they're cute. They then sent out an email saying "We are going to be shutting water off to your building for maintenance tomorrow" and I'm like "Thanks for the heads up, guess I won't run any hot water tonight or tomorrow, hope nobody else does since you didn't suggest that." Clowns. Keep your phone charged while you can, it's your best bet for emergencies. Find gloves (I gave out work gloves today because why would you ever touch metal with your hands in -20 degree weather), tbottle some water, be ready to have a ~~late start. It's predicted to be the very last of it here, but I've seen predictions that range from -20 to -30 Fahrenheit for 7 am tomorrow, 41.25 latitude here at the tip of the worst of it. Michigan has some heat wells in the great lakes, but those are probably getting tapped. I'd expect it to stay icy for a while. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Today I was shoving the landlord's front steps because I am a nice person. The landlord knows that I shovel his front steps. I ended up falling off the steps and into the deep snow. Took me a few minutes to get out of the snow. If I fell during the summer I would have been injured. God that sucked. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not hurt. My dad slipped and fell with his snowblower and cracked his ribs, it's always more slippery under the snow. I really hate to say I called it, but I got home today and the mat in the entryway was gone, opened the door and the first floor had floor fans just blowing away in the hallway. The floor was pretty wet. It smells like a cold version of a crab boil. I haven't seen anybody in the apartment that seems to be central to the wetness in a couple months, so I hope nobody besides the building owners has to deal with that. Clowns, what did they think would happen? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What do u wanna vent about

Anything in the world. Pls have at it. 🖤 ASELA^ཊལྐ 🖤 05:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

fuck it I’ll start. So like. Why the fuck is it so hard for doctors to just call me back???? I’ve been trying to get into this therapist office since like January 1, and no matter how many emails or calls I do, it’s always “oh we have to check with someone else” and it never gets sorted out!!!! It just sucks when you’re, trying to actually feel better and put in the effort, and then things you can’t control just stand in your way. Idk. 🖤 ASELA^ཊལྐ 🖤 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done pscyh stuff a few times, once Mom ordered, twice court ordered. When you're acting wrong, you've got priority. But I can say I was never really into it when I had it. I'm really frustrated for you that you can't get it when you're ready for it, because I did see a lot of people who really benefited, and every time I just kinda got pushed through. For my own run of bad luck, I've been saving for a new... Used car. My whole plan was to buy in April since, like, August of last year. This winter hit so stupid hard, had a flat, had my battery die. Now, I've got a car I've been driving for 7 years that just this last 30 days needs a new tire and a new battery and I'm literally less than 30 days away from when shopping for a car was in my budget. Also losing one of my critical employees to a better gig, but it's so good for him I'm tryna not let it bother me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of things I dislike about human nature. I feel like if every human devoted themselves to proper understanding, we could produce a human paradise. But the hominid hunter-gatherer brain we've inherited locks us in endless cycles of tribalism and greed. I'd hesitate to refer to myself as a misanthropist, but I just wish we were better as a species than we are. We're the most intriguing phenomena in the known universe but we can't get our shit together in any lasting, significant way. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

US politics needs more than two functioning parties. While the GOP spirals toward extreme radicalization, Center-right politics is falling towards the wayside. While the Democratic party is truly a huge tent; with members as left-wing as Bernie and AOC, moderates like Pelosi and Schumer, and right-wing as Sinema and Manchin, all having a productive discussion about the value of certain policies and implementing them, the GOP includes a few moderates (Romney, Murkowski) but is dominated by what can only be described as trolls and white supremacists. Every functioning democracy on the planet has parties that dominate elections, often they are forced to form governments with smaller niche parties to pursue the most pressing issues. Besides a few (Hungary, Poland, Israel), extreme-right wing parties are denied positions of influence in governing coalitions. This must become normal in America, but parties driven only by power, and campaign finance regulations limit this chance. Radical change in the way America administers elections and manages political parties is necessary, but I'm not sure people in this country are willing to do the work that fosters responsive democracy.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's fecking raining and gray out there. I need to get on my bike and race along the sea with blue, crystal-clear skies over me (physical exercise is about the only legitimate reason you stay outdoors for more than hour). I've been in lockdown for a month, my RHR has increased by 5(!!!), and I can't even get a cup of morning coffee outdoors. I'm hating it :/ UninspiringNickname (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@RIP Pelosi is only "center" because of how far left everything has gotten. While people talk about how compared to Europe the US only has "a rightwing and a far rightwing party", the truth is that healthcare is really the only issue that the US is weird on politically. The US legalized same-sex marriage around the same time as Europe, the US legalized abortions a year after Germany and two years before France, allowed women to vote a year or two after the bulk of Europe but decades before major European countries such as France, and so forth. "Europe being a liberal paradise" is a fantasy conjured up by know-nothing college kids to try and create an appeal to popularity to make their own positions seem less radical. Heck, if you think the US has problems with racism, I have news for you; most European countries will hate you for being the wrong kind of White. If you think countries that hate people for not being the "right" kind of White are going to be super-tolerant of non-White people, I'm having a sale on bridges.

Sorry, bit of a rant there. TLDR: US is not that Right. CorruptUser 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Your mileage may vary" but as a general rule, European labor laws and human rights laws are to the "left" of the United States.

It's true that there are areas where the United States overall is further "left" than Europe. Cannabis decriminalization easily comes to mind. But due to decentralization (not a bad thing to be honest), change often is only in polarized pockets. For instance, if cannabis isn't legal in your state yet, cops still are arrestin' a-plenty. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The primary right-wing bullshit from the US is this Libertarian anti-government shit. Most Americans are align with supporting abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, decriminalization, capital punishment. But it's these fucking cunts at Fox News, fucking imbeciles in the House and Senate, and obvious fucking scam artists in the white Protestant movement that pick these little bullshit fucking arguments, and blow them up in to fucking culture wars. Fundamentally, culture war and victimization are at the center of their ideology. I don't like most Democratic members, and disagree frequently with policies, but their not the ones that are trying to actively hurt people.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "The Obscure Goat Monthly?"

A while ago, I stumbled upon a page which said that there used to be a RationalWiki news paper, called "The Obscure Goat Monthly", I haven't been able to relocate the page. Anyway my question is: what happened to the Obscure Goat Monthly? No doubt a paywall would have discouraged some of our readers, but perhaps that's a necessary sacrifice (sarc).Leucippus 14:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still here but hasn't been updated since 2016. Maybe someone can reboot it. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see that happen. It would be cool to have journalism about the wiki i.e. It could work in conjunction with the archiving process, by journaling events like Chickencoops, ATMs, significant user contributions, debates, essays, Goats etc. In short a RationalWiki newspaper for the progressive reader. Leucippus^Talk 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It should stick to the home page to increase visibility, otherwise, it will fade into irrelevancy and be ignored by everybody like it seems to have been the reason it did not do very well. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, really? Who the fuck would you want to read a summary or "newspaper article" about a fucking coop case? Ace^{Simple Maze} 22:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a challenge. But with an injection of... no an overdose of humour and skill, a readable-entertaining story could be fashioned. Indeed, a page 3 section of goats, would be more than welcome here. Ideally, I'd pursue such a project; in practice, I lack the energy. Leucippus^Talk 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a grand idea. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 00:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinion: rape is worse than murder

OK, the subject sounds weird but hear me out.

Reasons why I think rape is worse than murder (or homicide in general):

1) Rape is always a premeditated act. Unlike manslaughter (accidentally killing someone), it is pondered upon and a victim is selected.

2) The psychological and/or physical effects of rape are long-lasting. Even being tortured to death gives an avenue of escape to the victim via death. A rape victim has to live with her/his assault for the rest of her/his life.

3) Rape is simultaneously theft and assault, because the rapist is stealing the victim's integrity.

There's probably far more reasons but these are the only ones I can think of right now.

En Sabah Nur (YOU CAN FIRE YOUR ARROWS FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL... BUT YOU CAN NEVER... STRIKE... GOD!!!)(lulz)

I think your first point might depend what jurisdiction you are in and the definition of murder. In these parts manslaughter is not murder. Murder is always premeditated. Bother are HOMICIDE - which is any killing of a human being. Not going to argue the other points as those are opinion - but that one can be a matter of fact. Aloysius the Gaul 23:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aloysius the Gaul Sorry, I don't think I was clear enough when I wrote point 1. I know that manslaughter is different from murder, and that it should probably be recognized as such.

I feel like this comes down to the person. I might be traumatized by a rape, but I would much rather experience a short term traumatic event than have my existence cease to be. With therapy and positive support you can live a full life in spite of being raped, the other robs you of that by definition. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

1) Murder is by definition premeditated. Without premeditation, it's manslaughter.

2) If rape truly was a fate worse than death, no one could be raped at gunpoint as they'd prefer to be shot. In the cases of people committing suicide after a rape, note that in the overwhelming majority of cases the suicide is not the result of the rape itself, but the result of society's reaction to the rape.

3) Mugging is literally theft and assault, and if we are talking about a macho dude-bro, being mugged is a huge stain on their integrity too. CorruptUser 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Rape isn't theft, it's a form of torture. I can tell that most if not all of you have never been raped, you're way too casual and naive about what rape actually is and the kind of trauma it leaves behind. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

As a sexual assault victim I can tell you this- I would prefer someone hitting me. If you are a Male and you get sexually assaulted or raped, it is extremely unlikely for someone to believe you. Getting beaten up over something trivial is one thing; the wounds heal. Sexual assault and or rape leaves the permanent feeling of violation. --Zombie Broadcasting Dude (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, so, weird, gross, but if you really need to talk about this and you're not legislating or advocating a defendant, the answer is "both are wrong beyond an acceptable point." Which I think is pointed out well by Aloysius. If both are premeditated, the question of which is worse is not exactly correct. I brought this up before, so sorry to rely on the same case twice, but please read this scenario. I would ask if it's correct to murder a convicted sex offender for fear that he would offend again. I personally don't think it's a great idea to weigh the crimes against each other. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember that case. I would also ask whether you feel safe living in a town with a man who kills people he thinks "deserves" to die without going through any judicial process first. There's a reason we don't allow vigilantes. CorruptUser 04:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To wrench that up, it's pretty clear in the article that the murderer was acting on fear not only of the crime, but on a distrust of the judicial system to reform the rapist, who was showing signs of recidivism. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And that's not the private citizen's call to make. CorruptUser 04:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Unless they are on a jury. Just a vigilante, not a corrections officer or a cop, just a member of a community who did not think policing was sufficient to keep his community safe, I see your point as a fellow juror. Don't worry, I totally agree with your take. But there is a lot of discussion to be had here. And believe me, this is not an analogue for the impeachment because that one was so easy 9 Republicans managed to do it right. This is literally a case between rape and murder. Again, I agree with you insofar as the vigilante is dangerous. Let's give the jury a chance. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate my point, personally, I believe that there are people out there that do so much harm to society, that I could argue the world would be better off if they passed away quietly in their sleep. So why wouldn't I advocate for a private citizen to kill them? Because if we have a system where individuals can arbitrarily decide who is and is not so harmful for society that it'd be ethical to kill them, well, that applies to everyone. Do I think a radical Anarchist should be allowed to make that call, and start murdering rich people? Do I think a rich person should be allowed to kill "welfare queens"? Do I think a White Supremacist should be allowed to make that call and murder Jews? Because if I advocate for allowing me, and not the government, to decide that someone is unworthy of life, well, I'm also advocating for allowing pro-lifers to bomb abortion clinics. CorruptUser 06:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, since it's off the rails anyway, what if a police officer had done the home check, and had the same unbelievable story? That they had knocked on the door, the person had run back into their house, grabbed an unidentifiable object off of a table, and then charged back to the door and that's why the officer discharged their gun? The police officer would be sanctioned/empowered by the government to check the house and defend themselves, would that change your argument? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

People behave differently around cops, or at least they should. There's a world of difference between a random citizen breaking into your home and a police officer breaking in, the pedophile would've been justified in defending themselves in the first case but not against the cop. CorruptUser 14:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good take for probably a kind of lawful society justification, and I do like and enjoy a lawful society. I would only point out that we have a lot of evidence that lawful societies are not always put into practice as fair societies. But I'm trying to get at, with this and the original "which is worse" argument, is not a "who is justified" argument. So I'd like for you to imagine nobody has a legal or sanctioned right here, and it's simply (and more complicated as) a moral question. I don't want to turn this into a police brutality/ineffectuality conversation, that's not fair to the original question. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is keen on jumping in, and I think we totally get the argument, CorrupUser. Like I said, gross. Lemme try and reset the whole fucking deal.

If there is always a subtext of brutality and intent to murder, and there is always a subtext of brutality and intent to rape, how do we internally deal with the murder of a confirmed rapist? GRANTING STATE SANCTIONED MURDER AS NOT PART OF THE ARGUMENT, criminey, deep breath.

Is there anyone who has anything to say about the active murderer murdering the prior convicted and likely potential rapist other than the murderer was not a cop when he did the murdering? I hope you can kinda get how fucking unnecessary that would normally be. It's my fault for not asking the question correctly. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there any problem with allowing a rapist to be murdered to prevent rape? Is there any problem with allowing a murderer to be raped to prevent murder?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of arguing with you... just remember it's the internet, nothing matters here.

Killing a person to prevent a rape, murder, or other serious bodily harm is an acceptable legal defense for homicide. The question is when the person is not in the process of attacking someone else. Killing someone who is in the process of raping your daughter is justified in just about any jurisdiction. Killing someone who is breaking into your home and could rape your daughter would fall under the Castle Doctrine if it exists in your jurisdiction. Breaking into the home of a convicted rapist because he might rape your daughter at some future date? I'm not shedding any tears, but even convicted felons have protections under the law. CorruptUser 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)