RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive384

This is an archive page, last updated 25 March 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>, <382>, <383>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

How to prove natural selection

Put gun nuts on their own island with beer, guns and bullets.

Would natural selection take its course? ---Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm no gun nut, though I've shot guns at a range before and it's surprisingly fun, so it'd be a question of what beer; not for Coors or Bud Light, but give me one good German ale and one nice harsh IPA and I'd go! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's just not how natural selection works. I'm not saying it isn't a terrible idea...but you'd have to call the whole phenomena something else. ShabiDOO 02:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually think that's called "hunting season" in some locales. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. They would all be dead.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 03:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and natural selection needs reproduction.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

And time. Natural selection would require a lot of generations. Hence, it seems a fairly pointless experiment unless you work in reality TV in which case you can claim anything is an "experiment". --Annanoon (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen natural selection be compared to the competition in business, so natural selection does not necessarily need to entail long periods of time to be what it is (although businesses arent really natural).UraniumSpoon (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends on how you are using the words. In business you are really talking about "survival of the fittest". Which means that only the fittest survive (no surprise there). But Natural Selection is really about the "reproduction of the fittest". In other words in Natural Selection the "the fittest" (in some way) both survive and have offspring which carry the appropriate survival traits.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There would have to be females of the species, and sufficient availability of resources for the gun nuts to survive long enough to evolve (and sufficient of them to survive to be a viable-reproductive community). This would include (theoretical) 'bullet-seed-plants', resources for making gunpowder (would sulphur require an active volcano?) and 'gun repair facilities.' Bows and arrows are probably more viable (human hair bow-strings, and bamboo arrows - which, unlike modern bullets, can be used more than once). Anna Livia (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the "bullet seed plants" just like the real world then: competition for resources, tests of fitness, sexual reproduction. And if you were able to wait out the many generations you would, in fact, see natural selection acting.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So… the people who are better able to use firearms would tend to control the available resources, with the accompanying effects on reproductive fitness. What’s the point of this deer-camp-on-an-island scenario, again? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Put me on a island with bikepaths, a never-ending source of falafel, tomato juice and plenty of other women. We will never procreate, but we'll have a hell of a time. Though I'm not sure that proves anything either way. UninspiringNickname (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Friends r nice

Hey so I’m having a shithouse time rn but my best friend is letting me stay over and get stoned with him. And just. He’s so kind to me. Basically, friends are Cool. Please tell me about your!!!! Beautiful!!! Friends!!!! 💝 ASELA^ཊལྐ 💝 09:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont have many IRL friends as a result of Lockdown, but I've found quite a few nice people on Discord, who basically breadpilled me into Socialism. UraniumSpoon (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

All of the clothes I'm wearing now, apart from my underpants, are cast offs given to me by my old Taiwanese friend from university that I visit every Chinese New Year. Spud (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

im living rent free in the centre of london. on the top that they/me mate/flatmate/landlord keeps offering buy me stuff, if i need anything i usually refuse unless its an emergency or such like(got a new coat from asos. less than 30 quid - i try not to take the piss). wont by me drugs though. hes not even trying to fuck me - did that years ago. for free. id even feel guilty about it if not for the fact hes on benefits and has only ever worked 1 job ever and briefly before getting signed off sick for years. neither of us are quite sure why he gets the (two seperate) benefits he gets.enough to have several grand saved up in the bank from it. hes no scamming them either. he fills in the forms, occasionally has an assessment interview and thats what he gets. every murmur in parliament about welfare and reviews and cost cutting, i think they gonna drop him down this time. its coming. he gets too much. then he gets a pay increase.

not a friend, but a complete stranger helped me of tight spot. an underground worker. id thought i had more money on me oyster, now found it spent and some distance from home. (i was in mudchute, needed to get to waterloo) nothing in bank either. contemplating is that walkable? which direction is it? the worker, saw my consternation and gave me his oyster card and he took mine (neither were registeed) just enough on there for one journey.

it was 'only' a couple of quid, but i didnt ask him for anything - i wasnt begging or anything, but holy fuck i was grateful. the distance was eminently walkable, but it would have a loooooong fucking walk. goes a bit beyond customer service when the staff start handing out tickets. i know it werent much, but he didnt have to give me shit. all i asked was which way is the river?

on reflection, i could have called a friend to transfer cash to my account. but still would have preferred the long trek to going on the scrounge. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have many friends and 4 girlfriends. Yes friends are cool. Ace^{Simple Maze} 21:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential draft

I'm giving serious thought to making a draft on the SCP Foundation. Should I do it? Gamers Against Weed (Over 9000 Members Worldwide!) 14:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

I can’t see how the SCP foundation is relevant to our mission. Christopher (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat relevant because it's had some cultural impact. It's an massive shared-fiction project that now has two movies and a slew of video games. Besides, RW has an article on Slender Man. ^{— Unsigned, by: IRonMan / talk / contribs}

Cultural impact does not necessarily translate into missionality at RationalWiki. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Should then the Slender Man page be deleted? Amarty (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You have read the mission statement, right? Crank ideas, pseudoscience? But if you think it should be tagged then give it a shot.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... then should I do an essay or a Fun article on it? Gamers Against Weed (Over 9000 Members Worldwide!) 14:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Even funspace needs a solid gimmick. Maybe the voice of a credulous rube who believes it's all real leaked documents? I dunno if that would actually be funny. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I just think that at least a draft, even if it won't ever be a full-blown article, would lend to it more than an essay. Gamers Against Weed (Over 9000 Members Worldwide!) (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't make drafts unless you think they can be full blown articles. Your userspace and the essayspace are more fit for not exactly missional content. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

K... after looking at Circular Reasoning's essay on SJWiki, I think I could make an essay on the SCP Foundation work. I first have to finish my essay on Trump. Gamers Against Weed (Over 9000 Members Worldwide!) (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but 3008 may be my favorite. I visited an Ikea for the first time after reading it, and can definitely see the horror potential. Those places are massive. Artificius (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@IRonMan Sounds great. And might I add that that essay might not fully represent my current views; see the talkpage discussion for more specific details of which parts of it I do and don't stand by (some have even been retracted), which I think is way more interesting than an essay about an obscure wiki project that hasn't been edited in years and whose views might not be fully agreed with by most social justice activists, especially their "health at every size" woo and their hostility towards not only "allies" who legitimately try to act as some kind of superhero/whiteknight but also those who actually care about social justice issues. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 18:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Texas COVID

Well, Texas (and Mississippi) is ending all COVID restrictions, including our state-wide mask mandate, next Wednesday on March 10th (which is also International Mario Day for anyone who cares). I know some people will hate this, but honestly as long as we keep the vaccinations steady we should be fine (vaccinating the most vulnerable groups first has had a tremendous impact IMO). Aaronmichael5 22:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The mask mandate costs no money, there's no good reason to get rid of that for another month or so until the numbers go down much further... CorruptUser 22:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

When new variants arise (when not if) in Texas, that most dangerous concern would be a vaccine resistant variant. They are vaccinating so slowly, that the opportunity for the disease to mutate increases significantly.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser There is one good reason. Pandering. It helps those GOP politicians buy back in with the parts of their base who hate being inconvenienced by the lockdowns and/or buy into conspiracy theories. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

And pissing off the rest of their base too. While Reps are much more likely than Dems to go maskless, it's still a majority for Reps and probably would've been higher if Dr Cheeto had been seen wearing the mask and promoting it. Bear in mind the link doesn't control for region so it's not a perfect talking point; it's much more important for someone in NYC to wear a mask than someone in rural Montana. Sometimes a leader has to, y'know, lead. CorruptUser 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That "rest" is a minority in the GOP. To put it bluntly, they don't matter from a strategic standpoint. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No? The majority of Republicans always wear the masks when out, read the link. I don't get the sense that more anti-Maskers would vote Democrat if forced to wear a mask than pro-maskers would vote Democrat if not forced to wear a mask. CorruptUser 21:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser You did read about the bombs in both party headquarters back in January right? That's what happens if they aren't pandered to. They try to kill you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, where does it say the majority of Republicans are out and about, and how do you know they aren't doing so due to mask mandates they they'll abadandon the moment they think they can get away with it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"How many of the Democrats are only just barely going along with the mask mandate but are demanding its removal?" Anyone can play that stupid game and you know it, the only data we have is how many people are complying with the mandate. More Dems than Reps, but it's pretty clear that the majority of Reps are still complying with the mandates and that removing the mandates isn't going to win over the other side.

As for how dangerous the Reps are when not pandered to, the Capitol Hill riot is the result of not taking them seriously. The police tend to be more sympathetic to the Right than the Left for reasons, and so there weren't nearly enough officers on the Hill, nor were the officers threatening or tear-gassing the protesters the way they would had the rally been mostly Left-wing weirdos. Had the Capitol Hill had as much security as, say, they did during the BLM rallies and been treated in a similar manner, the traitors protestors would not have charged the Capitol building, and if they did, they would've been turned into hamburger-meat by all the bullets.CorruptUser 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"(which is also International Mario Day for anyone who cares)"
March has got it really bad for Mario, isn't it. They could'a made it March 11. Or just not at all, how 'bout that? Mario's already getting his overpriced ROM collection and his somewhat fun NES competitive game and that Game & Watch thing removed at the end of this month. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

'Random page' question

If anyone has nothing better to do: if one clicked repeatedly on RW's 'Random Page' (with the current number of pages) how many clicks would be required before all pages had been seen (even if some pages are seen more than once)? Anna Livia (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that you can view one page every two seconds, and assuming you'd never get a repeat page when clicking Random page, it would take about 4.2 hours, given that the wiki stats says that there are 7415 content pages. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 01:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Surprised there are so few content pages given the Wiki's thoroughness when it comes to internet commentators. Smaller world than I thought, I guess. Elli (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you do get repeat pages at typical rate, expected time is about 40 hours. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I have seen, nobody really likes those types of article here. You would have a better chance of finding discussions on internet commentators off-site. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

But probably most people will find 'an article to edit' after only a few clicks.

Another way of idly spending time - the longest single-page-visit blue-link chain that can be found on RW (given that there are presently 3 orphan pages, and there will be some self-contained cross linking groups). Anna Livia (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If the selection is truly random, there is no finite number of clicks that would guarantee seeing every page. More clicks moves the chance of that asymptotically towards 100% (at least after you’ve clicked enough to actually have a chance of seeing every page), but there’s always the possibility that the next random page won’t be one you haven’t seen before. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fundie school poll

Seems like that the West Coast Baptist College is in first place.

Who wants to take a crack at making the article? --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see anything that makes this particular school stand out as worthy of an individual article here. It is really missional to document all these generic fundie schools? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Flashbacks

I had a flashback to when I was younger earlier today. Mike threatened to have my mom arrested and me thrown into foster care. He was a narcissist, he also raised me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to experience that.Evilatheistheathen (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That little troll is all talk and no action. Unsurprisingly most of them are, with only a few exceptions concerning the most sociopathic and the most resourceful ones out there. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77 Not the same Mike I’m assuming... Christopher (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the same Mike. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that though, having one of your relatives being horrible is such a hardship. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm really sorry this happened to you. Amarty (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That's horrible Oxy. I'm sorry this happened to you. Really. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 18:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fight for $15

This is going to be more of a rant, but this is basically the only forum where I will get any sort of pushback or logical analysis of my feelings: From other liberals I basically hearing three things:

• The Biden administration isn't serious about raising the minimum since they removed it from the Covid relief bill.
• The Biden administration isn't serious about raising the minimum wage since they won't overrule the Senate Parliamentarian.
• The Biden administration is breaking a campaign promise by negotiating the minimum wage with Moderate Dems and amenable GOP.

I find all three of these statements exhausting and filled with frustrating half-truths. Taken together, it seems that those most to the left are whole sale attacking the administration because they would even entertain negotiation. I agree, the minimum wage needs to be increased, and there are serious policies being discussed by Manchin (D-WV) and Romney (R-UT)[1] that would increase the wage more slowly but then tie it inflation. Why is it that several liberals seem willing to torpedo good policy because it doesn't fit exactly with their catchy phrase, and abandon a willing policy partner for some bollocks political purity. More people support a higher minimum wage, but are more supportive of $11 than $15. They can literally deliver Americans a raise, but won't get out of their own way.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No matter how high you set the minimum wage, it won't be applied to people working under the table... I'm more in favor of UBI than a minimum wage, but that's me. CorruptUser 00:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Any leftist should want to abolish capitalism rather than reforming it. Of course I support a minimum wage increase, but the problem is systemic (wage labour). Minimum wage laws are only a patch on a wound, in my opinion. Amarty (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an extremely broad use of "leftist" as though the world is divided into two tribes and those in one tribe "what you call leftists" should all behave in a certain way. Two questions I have for you and try to answer them both. 1. Who are leftists? 2. What would you replace with capitalism (please be very specific).ShabiDOO 09:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Shabidoo, I am not sure why the aggression. I just don't believe capitalism allows for a fair and just society. I am not opposed to liberals on most things. Amarty (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that saying "all people in this large arbitrary group should agree with me" isn't agressive. It is. Especially when you cannot follow through with your argument. So just tel us Amarty...what would you replace capitalism with after it is dismantled? Do you have an answer? If so I'm quite interested, would love to hear it. Please be specific. ShabiDOO 09:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I would replace it with an egalitarian system where wage labour doesn't exist and we all live and share things that people need, equally. Amarty (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

So...communism? ShabiDOO 12:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If you wanna call that communism, socialism, etc., the label is not important to me. Do you disagree that wage labour is just inherently unfair? Amarty (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly say there is little logic in the exponential difference in salary scales for many jobs and that someone making 1000 times more than another in a company is insane. But Amarty...you claim that all on the left should look to the dismantling of capitalism but that is a ridiculously dangerous thing to do without a clear plan which I don't think you have. Considering the disasterous failures to implement this system in the past...how would yours be different and why would it work? So what is the plan? Try to be specific with a few actual details. ShabiDOO 15:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

They were talking about economical leftists, hence the Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, etc. There are other types of leftists such as Progressives who oppose Conservative Traditionalists, or Radicalism which is the opposite of Reactionarism. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that Social Democracy would normally be regarded as being on the left. I suspect that we are going to see No True Leftist coming up soon.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It gets tiresome to elect Democrats on the Lesser of Two Evils ticket and watch them wimp out in office. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Social democracy is economically center-left, socially Liberal and very much opposed to autocracy. So yes, you are correct, it is part of the left. But I do agree with the assertion that the Democrats in the United States are nothing more than status-quo neocons pretending to support the well-being of the US citizen. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Being a center-left, Social Democrat from the great continent of Europe I will take your word for it. :-)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

“but the problem is systemic (wage labour)” What is the “problem” with wage labor per se, and how would you propose fixing it? Moving people to salaries instead? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No not this guy again. Ignore them, @Amarty. They're a sealion. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Oxyaena, do you mind explaining what a sealion is? I am not too familiar with the term. Are people in here always this aggressive or did I say something offensive? Amarty (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bob I think it depends on what we define as the "center". Communism is in theory as Left-Wing as you could get, but in practice every Communist country was rebranded Feudalism, with different names for King (Chairman), Noble (Party Member), and Peasant (Worker). In theory, property was owned by all, but when the property's use and the fruits of labor is decided for all by just the senior party members, well, that's basically Nobility with a new name. All historical Communist countries collapsed into the Feudal system regardless of how they started, and it's highly probable that Communism itself is unworkable. So would Communist Russia/China of the 1960s truly be "Left" as they pretend they are, or are they just a far-Right group pretending to be Left-Wing? Horseshoe theory and all...

But anyway, the US is actually "far Left" when compared to the globe when it comes to things like "Welfare", "Pollution Controls", "Worker's Rights", etc. Even when restricted to "rich" countries, Workers Rights and Pollution Controls are an absolute joke in South Africa, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Mid-East, Japan still hasn't figured out how to integrate women into the workforce (if you think sexual harassment in the US is bad...), and really, the sum-total of European countries that are to the Left of the US are still fewer people than the US itself. CorruptUser 19:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I would certainly agree that in order to define "left" you would need to decide what you were left of, but I'm not sure why you tagged me in your answer. Which point of mine were you responding to?

To respond to your point about the US being "far left" - I would guess that citizens of The Socialist Republic of America would be better placed to answer, though I must admit that it seems to be an unusual description. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just ignore all of those EU member states with universal healthcare and right-wing parties which actually acknowledge AGW and all those other things your response completely omits...-Flandres (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

By Canadian or Western European standards the US Democratic party is right of centre and American labour rights and welfare funding is absolutely cruelly low. The total population of Germany, France, Spain, Scandanavia, Italy, Netherland, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Portugal is the same as the US. Even some relatively poor Eastern European countries have better funded social programs, pollution controls and labour rights than most US states do. I imagine CorruptUsers is being blatantly ridiculously obscenely sarcastic but I cannot tell. ShabiDOO 20:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Universal Healthcare is as much as social issue as it is an economic one. In practice, yes, the US is far to the right compared to the EU on that one. In terms of other economic, labor, and environmental issues, on paper most EU countries are much, much better, sure, but in practice... The US and EU are all over the place in terms of gender equality in the workplace and politically. The US does lag behind much of Europe in terms of environmental performance, but isn't exactly outside the range for the EU. Affirmative Action and other Minority Rights workplace issues are quite a bit different as well...CorruptUser 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Most Western European countries have strong labour protections protecting workers so they are not easily disposable as they are in most US states where you can be let go with the snap of a finger. You have to be well compensated if laid off and to be fired with cause requires an extremely good reason. Minimum wage is high in most countries compared with the cost of living. Maternity leave is far more generous than the US and most countries have paternity leave. Most countries have generous sick leave with a few countries having unlimited sick leave with generous support from the government if you become chronically ill. Most Western European countries have generous programs to help the disabled work and will even pay for university education while you are unemployed. Unemployment is also generous in most countries and when that runs out is replaced with welfare programs far more generous than the US. Unionisation is generally at a higher rate. Every Western EU countries have strong laws about discrimination and being fired based on race, gender or sexuality (the last one many US states do not have). How on Earth someone could say the US has better labour protections and conditions than Western Europe is beyond me. The sky must also be green. ShabiDOO 21:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Those rules don't apply if the person is working under the table though, which seems to be ubiquitous in Greece, Spain and Italy. The US has one of the smallest "shadow" economies, with only Switzerland being smaller. Spain and Italy's shadow economies are 3 times the size proportionately, and Greece nearly 4 times. Again, officially the EU has more protections than the US, but in practice... CorruptUser 21:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrupt that's an intellectually dishonest trick. I could quote the dismal labour protections of say, Alabama and then discredit the majority of US states that aren't so bad...which would be a ridiculous thing to do. In any case it's a terrible argument. Most people choose to participate in the shadow economy and don't do so out of desperation. I worked in the Spanish shadow economy to avoid a specific kind of tax which was financially heavily burdensome and yet even then, I could still fall back on government social services that aren't offered in the United States if I lost my job including assistance with raising a child and a form of unemployment. I also didn't know a single other person who did work in the shadow market but only people in different classes and industries who enjoyed strong job protection and generous services. Just try, I know it's hard, to admit that your country is behind on many social programs (just as other EU countries are behind in other ways where the US is ahead). Economically, militarily and technologically the US is more advanced in many ways. In terms of Labour rights you are far behind in many other ways and it is utterly baffling to other western countries why you have such cruel policies (and we won't even get into health care, non-existent protections for the disabled, homeless and those suffering other problems in many states). Instead of seeing it as an avenue of "oh yeah well you guys" you should see it as a "the US could catch up and even do better than the EU (which is true) so why don't we"? ShabiDOO 09:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Reading the "other Wiki", it seems like the terminology of "left" and "right" evolved out of French politics. As the general concept of "left" vs "right" from this lens is between safety nets and equality (left) vs promotion of capitalism (right), it is fairly clear that from this framing, Europe is certainly more "left" than the USA as a general rule, although this of course obscures many details. (Yes, some countries tend to have more rules avoidance. Some don't.) The European and US meaning of "left" and "right" seem similar enough where direct comparison is possible. But, to give an example of where terms can differ, in the US, "liberal" tends to be both a snarl word and a self-identification directed at those seeking social justice, equality, or enhanced safety nets. Where in my experience, in Europe, typically "liberal" is used as a snarl word and a self-identification for laissez-faire capitalists. Who knows how the political neologisms and tribes have evolved in other nations, it is fair to guess that "left" and "right" might not even apply over in Asia, South America, etc. It is fair to note that a lot of places in the world have neither competitive capitalism or safety nets and equality, of course. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that the terms are really pretty vague and subjective. There are in fact multiple political and social spectra and individuals and institutions can be at different (or even contradictory) points on different ones. But the terms do serve as a generalized shorthand for positions.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I feel the need to draw this back to the idea of whether it is fair to discard out of hand the idea to increase the minimum wage to $11 an hour in an attempt to get $15 an hour, an idea not all Senate Democrats agree with or has a chance in hell getting support from the GOP in general.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't even a $15 increase not help that much by the time it was phased in gradually anyway?-Flandres (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, I think people should look at things systemically and see that all the patchworks are nice and I advocate for them, but the ultimate goal should be to remove capitalism and replace it with a system that makes possibly everyone happy. Amarty (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Shabi, lots of things. First, yes, I'll concede that the EU generally has much better protections for the majority of workers and usually a better welfare system. Second, I take issue with you implying that I'm cherry-picking, if you read the link it's a lot more countries than just those three, and those three alone make up more than 1/4 of the EU population. CorruptUser 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I clearly referred to Western Europe, not Europe as a whole. I don't think Slovenia's labour protections is at the level of California or Rhode Island. In any case, I could play the same game, for example 12 states in the US don't have any laws on maternity leave (which represents a considerable portion of the US). In other words they can only rely on the US maternity leave laws which are pretty meagre to begin with. Does that mean that because 12 states have no rules that we can dismiss the value of the maternity leave laws in the other countries? Would that make the US's more generous maternity leave than in say, Pakistan...not particularly impressive? That's ridiculous. Of course not just in the aggregate but in the high numbers of people who have maternity leave it is of a much higher level than in Pakistan even though in a few states they don't have extra benefits.

Participation in the shadow economy in Mediterranean countries is by mostly choice. It is more advantageous for them do to so than to work in a contract job with the full protections, and even if you do work in the shadow economy you still have a lot more social programs to fall back on than in many US states with few social programs at all. So yeah, you are doing the equivalent of this system with far more labour protections isn't on the aggregate better because it isn't perfectly and comprehensively implemented. That's silly. I don't think any comparing of systems could live up to such standards. It reminds me of Americans who are fiercely resistant to health care by saying things like: "Yeah Canada has health care for all but...pfff...people with some specific problems end up going to the US for treatment so...yeah...not that great is it"? ShabiDOO 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

New Evangelion trailer

https://youtu.be/YyGCwm3Fo8o

Evangelion 3.0+1.0: Thrice Upon a Time. I can't wait. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Damn right. Now if we could just compel Japan to make late UC Gundam stuff and keep Tomino on his meds long enough for some of the characters to be alive at the end of production. Hell, I'd settle just for an F91 OVA. Iron Mask Carazzo tearing open a mobile suit's cockpit with his bare albeit heavily modified hands was awesome. Artificius (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, F91 was originally supposed to be a full-on series, Sunrise just axed that in favor of Victory. I would watch a full F91 anime...-Flandres (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I loved how they continued the visual indication of the villainous factions’ willingness if not outright pathological need to adapt to space and beyond their humanity to one of its more logical conclusions with the Rafflesia: the abandonment of bilateral symmetry. Zeon experimented with cyborgs in Thunderbolt Gundam, most of their mobile suits have only one central eye, many don’t have legs or arms, and they cranked out cyber-newtypes like a psychotic PEZ dispenser. By the time of F91, our main villain is a cybernetic cyber-newtype piloting a radially symmetrical mobile armor (that probably could not land on Earth more than once) with hundreds or thousands of tentacles. Artificius (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Is porn really that damaging or addictive?

https://truthaboutporn.org/study/

So I got into it with someone about NoFap and they wouldn't accept it was BS. I got sent the link above but the more that I look at the links it seems more like porn consumption is a symptom of something else and not a cause of anything.Machina (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. Excessive porn viewing is a part of a disorder known as "compulsive sexual behavior"; this is considered an impulse control disorder, a broad category of obsessive activities that includes excessive internet usage, compulsive shopping, pyromania, and others. Compulsive pornographic viewing can be harmful, in the same way that spending all your waking life playing a MMORPG can be harmful, too. The Mayo Clinic and NCH have better pages on compulsive sexual behavior. Truthaboutporn.org's parent organization is strongly influenced by its Mormon background, so it's going to have a moralizing tilt whose purpose is to demonize porn more than to promote scientific viewpoints. "Your mileage may vary" on whether moral arguments like this help you out of an addiction or not, great if so. But there is a much fuller range of treatment options, and moralizing tit-tats probably won't work for everyone. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR: It is harmless. Like most things, abuse can be dangerous for something that is otherwise harmless. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with NoFap is it's also psuedoscience. It doesn't make you less effective or inspired to, ahem, clear the pipes so to speak, since the inspiration is already there. I mean, if you want to clear said pipes, and the only way you allow yourself to do that is into a living breathing human, yeah, NoFap will probably encourage people to harbor in any port during a storm. But NoFap is rooted in PUA lore. I've had live encounters when I've not been into it and stopped, I've had live encounters where the other person has not been into it, and you know what I do? I just stop. It's canon that Ben Shapiro can't get his doctor wife wet, what a terrible way to make children. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your question displays a bias. It should be, "Is porn damaging or addictive?". In moderation, no. Taken to extremes, yes. But you could say this about any activity: religion, practicing sport, dieting, internet use, gaming or whatever.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

NoFap is less about discipline, and more about control. If you occasionally release yourself, your less likely to buy into the bollocks that your pleasure should be directly connected to some admirable shite about procreation. Also it denigrates sex work, and women who engage in it. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was about self-control? I have a friend from college who swears by no-fap, he claims the unresolved tension helps him become more productive in his work. Me, personally, I've had to do some, *ahem*, personal things in regards to masturbation and whatnot and gave up masturbation for days at a time, but that's because I need to train my body to actually be capable of healthy sexual intercourse. CorruptUser 17:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Greatest human fears

I've been thinking the past few days about what I and people in general seem to be truly afraid of, and I decided to express a few of my ideas here. This isn't going to be a well planned or rigorously systematic analysis, since I just now decided to type this and am not 100% sure how to explain it. Anyways, I think our greatest fear is having our humanness compromised. One of the things you learn when studying cultural stories and ideas, like mythology, is that they reflect deeper individual and societal ideas that are sometimes invisible on the surface level. I think having one's humanness compromised is a fear that can be seen at the root of many common anxieties today. In the past, this idea have have manifested as fear of the supernatural invasion of the body by spirits. I'm sure there are countless other examples, but that suffices for now. Today, I think fear-mongering about 'microchips' or 'DNA alterations' (in the COVID vaccine, to select a current example) express the fear of having ones bodily integrity corrupted, and thus having their humanness compromised. I don't really want to spew out a number of examples, even though I'm sure I could think of more (you guys can probably do that thinking on your own). I think this fear stems from a desire for structure and identity, and fear of chaos/disarray. This also may reflect the idea that an individuals humanity is their greatest possession, since at a fundamental level, 'human' is the only thing we are certain we are. I think the fear of that 'humanity' being damaged stems from the fact that our humanness is how we navigate reality, and having our humanness damaged means the very lens by which reality is visible and available to us has been tainted. This isn't as much as I'd like to write, but I think this suffices for now. I hope I get some interesting feedback. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little bit on the old side. Getting close to 70 in fact.

I'm not afraid of death - but the process of dying looks pretty unpleasant! So is the prospect of mental decline and the loss of identity which this might entail. Which seems to fit with your point.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I think fear of aging and death are generally more related to our fear of impermanence (which is something I should've mentioned in the main post, now that I think of it), but I can understand why you'd bring that up. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

So, to tie both of you guys' posts together, a loss of identity is the underlying fear of humanity.-Flandres (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Flandres Which is rather tragic, isn't it? Since everything is always in a process of becoming something else, including our bodies and minds. We all will eventually have to stare our impermanence in the face. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I smell new Rationalwiki article

https://youtu.be/-A27TEbmLNU

I know that this is from an EAS YouTube channel. The video talks about this crazy right wing channel that uses fear to indoctrinate young people into following right wing BS. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I need suggestions

I need to come up with a EAS scenario for a birthday special on my YouTube channel.

Going to 27 years old on the 28th of this month.

I am out of ideas right now. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Uncontrolled proliferation of SCP-871 Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Going with the SCP theme, how about a mass outbreak of SCP-3312? Rockford the Roe (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Do that fog that turns people inside out or the chicken heart that never stops growing. Both of them where from a old horror radio show called Lights Out. Jakester499 (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Going with SCP-871. Guess what @DuceMoosolini? I will give a shout out in the video. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/b4PAeWoBYaw The video is here. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID pandemic and handicapped people

https://youtu.be/biERGyeXAI4

Seems that in the UK a disability advocacy group is running a vaccination clinic for mentally disabled people and their families.

I am glad that there are caring people out there who are helping disadvantaged people. Good job UK. Be careful of conspiracy theorists who try to take advantage of those who are vulnerable to manipulation. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 17:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to not be liked no matter what you do?

Just wondering because that seems to be my own experience. I've read the books and followed the social skills guides but friends don't seem to stick, well assuming I even get to that point. Are some people just beyond any sort of help?Machina (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As the song goes, "You see, you can't please everyone. So you got to please yourself." Bongolian (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know you in person so I'll just do everything even if you already have this all down...

1) Hygiene. No one likes being around someone that smells, and if you must have a "logical" reason, quite simply, evolution killed off the people who got too close to those who were covered in filth. Brush your teeth daily, and while it might not seem like a big deal, keep your hair/beard neatly trimmed.

2) Clothes. As stupid as it sounds, good clothes show the world you have the few minutes to spare on your appearance. Don't wear ratty clothing, even if it's just "a small hole". It's also tough, since expensive, but if you have patience you can find the occasional good thing at a consignment shop or thrift store. It's ok if it's a tad out of style, but it must be in decent shape.

3) Be useful. You need to add something to people's lives beyond a presence. Everyone wants to stay in touch with the guy who they can depend on, whether that's due to some special skill or can take them to the airport. If you know your way around cars, your friends will ask you about car stuff. If you have a pickup truck, everyone and their mother will keep in touch for moving things. If you are great at home repair, people will ask for advice on home maintenance. Find something and learn it well. Note: Do not, I repeat, DO NOT be the "Computer Guy".

4) Make people feel special. This may be the hardest, but is also the most important. It's something few people can do well, but if you can, well, you will need nothing else in life. People remember how they feel around you, and if they feel good around you, they want to be around you more. It's something that every politician has mastered; when they enter the room and talk to you, they make you feel like the most important person on Earth. It's going to be little things like small but seemingly genuine compliments, noticing improvements and praising people, and so forth. CorruptUser 06:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like good advice. What is it with 'the computer guy'? I once read the book How to Make Friends and Influence People and found it to be a total waste of time unless perhaps one wants to sell shit. The contrast between your advice, CorruptUser, and the that book is that being earnest about making people feel special is important, most people can detect fakery and that book is all about fakery. Bongolian (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No it is not possible. You are trying to be friends with people who are not reliable to be friends with AND/OR you need to develop certain social skills. There is no reason you cannot maintain a friendship with someone. ShabiDOO 11:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bongolian. Because being "the computer guy" means you get to spend an hour over the phone trying to explain how to use a basic computer function with your grandmother who actively fights you on how to use a computer in spite of calling you for help, other members of your family insisting you work many hours for free building them some stupid website because they think all computers are toys and therefore you must be having fun all while fighting you on web design, oh and then calling you up at 2 am to fix their website when they inevitably screw it up, you get to do an untold number of godawful projects for other friends and family and get no respect for it. Just don't bother. If you are good with computers, whenever someone asks you if you are good with computers, always say "I'm good enough that I charge money". If people pay you, they respect your work more and don't bother you with stupid shit, and chances are their request was some stupid shit they aren't willing to pay for. I'm not the computer guy in my family (luckily that's my uncle, followed by my dad), but when I get requests I just tell people to download Opera and uBlock Origin first. If they don't do that, I won't help further. CorruptUser 14:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No. It's not possible to be a person no one likes when you're trying to be decent and kind and tolerable. No amount of having weird quirks or having unattractive qualities will drive every single person away. It's very possible for some people to never like you. Easy, in fact. And it's much harder to make friends as an adult. Especially post social-media. There's still options. (Post COVID only) join an in-person interest group, go do things, if you're bad at it, it's a learning experience, and there's always someone who likes showing the newbies the ropes. Join an exercise group, especially, as everyone there is doing it because other people make an unpleasant task less unpleasant. Make active time in your schedule for socializing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

im not sure im friends with anyone because they are 'useful' to me. that might serve as an introduction, but it doesnt maintain a friendship. clothing and personal hygiene - these are first impression things not the foundations of a beautiful friendship. can you talk to each other? can you relax around people, are they relaxed around you? pick up enough cues to be able to tell someone dislikes you and able to know what jsnt your own paranoia. can you just chill?

you can google for a billion different tricks and rules on what you are supposed to do - 'be yourself' for example. all things easier said than done. its all experience and enough self confidence to not assume the worst and put up all kinds of barriers you dont even know you are doing. if you are relaxed around people they'll be like the wise around you. nervous or tense around people, you'll make them tense. unless they are arseholes people will usually make allowances for the nerves of new aquaintances to put them at ease (or they equally awkward, with both parties thinking the other hates them), but there are limits to peoples patience early on. an established relationship might warrant putting some work in, but passing acquaintences will likely remain so if they are a little too much work early on. you might find small groups takes the pressure off or you might not.

as said, experience and self confidence. be at ease with yourself enough that you are not crushed that someone you barely know hasnt become a soul mate. there arent any short cuts, but a 'hey hows it going?' on whats app can work wonders. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Really? Would you be willing to drive your friends to the airport? If they lost their home, could they couch-surf for a few days? Do you offer to make them dinner? Are you able to dog-sit their border collie if they have to go out of town for a few days? Because those are all very useful things that friends do for each other. It's not the main reason friendships form, but just see how long you keep someone around who can't be relied on for anything while still insisting you do stuff for them. Nobody likes a mooch.

Clothes are a first impressions thing, but hygiene is not. Your friends won't mind seeing a scraggly beard, but they absolutely won't put up with bad breath and old sweat if they have to deal with that every time they visit you. CorruptUser 15:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel that's kinda become a hyper-fixation of the discussion. There are all sorts of flaws you can have that, in extremis, will drive people away. Smelling bad, sure. But also being argumentative(hello about one third of this wiki), constantly talking too loud, being demanding, failing to control your pets, there's all sorts of ways you can be positively infuriating if you don't make an effort to get along. Keep yourself clean, but I think there's no reason to think Machina has some unshowered stink aura. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's more of a general thing. I know one guy who's trying to be everyone's friend, let's call him "Jason", but no one can stand him. His body odor isn't terrible, but Jason is disliked by everyone. His home is filthy, he leaves fish out for a couple of days and the place reeks. There's dirty dishes left in the sink for a week so they rot. His home is a death trap due to poor maintenance; seriously, how hard is it to use a screwdriver and tighten up the door handles whenever they get a bit too loose? His car is a stinky wreck and he's incredibly disorganized, when he asked me to help him move there was no space in his car because the backseat and trunk was filled with random garbage so I don't know how he expected to move anything. I started emptying out his trunk of trash and found rotten vegetables from months prior, it was just beyond gross. Jason was moving because the owner found out about how filthy the place was that they decided to "move back in" and not renew the lease, but Jason doesn't seem to realize this. Now Jason thinks he can quit his job and become a landlord instead, buying a house and using AirBnB to rent it out, not understanding that AirBnB has a rating system that will let everyone else know just how much of a disaster anything he owns is, and if he decides to rent traditionally what kind of tenant is going to put up with a landlord that can't even do basic repairs? And just how much profit does he think landlords get per month? Not enough to live on yourself from just one house, otherwise the tenant would just get a mortgage and buy the place themselves.

Oh, and Jason is an anti-masker to boot. And does nothing to help others, but is always asking for help for his stuff. CorruptUser 16:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

there are a whole manner of reasons for someones poor life choices, disagreeable habits, or general shambolic lifesyle. mental issues, learning difficulties, substance abuse issues, a history of homelessness, a traumatic event or the loss of a loved can all contribute to ones own neglect or state of crisis. things creep up slowly, you put things off, putting up with a situations not so bad to begin with, but you find you gotten used to the squalor at the same rate it has worsened. you see news stories about hoarders or drug addicts in truly awful living spaces that no sane person would put up with had it not just gradually happened around them, with no 'intervention'. we can look at these people disgust, shame them for their failings, listing all their shortcomings in our judgement. we would never turn out like these creatures. often they'd thought that themselves at one point.

maybe if friends were around before things had progressed to whatever the current situation has, it would be easier to guide such a character to stop doing something, make a habit to do something else. maybe they tried but were pushed away. i couldnt blame anyone for an unwillingness to engage with apparently troubled individuals it can put you in a difficult situation you might not be equipped to deal with.

i dont want to comment on his guys specific situation, i dont know enough details. all i can say i hope the relevent social services are aware of them as it seems they may be required. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The guy was making something like $70+k/yr. Lack of money was never his problem. Jason does have one other friend, but that's also someone no one else seems to like.

As for the general case, no one in the world will care why you are a trainwreck in the shape of a human, and that's the harsh truth of this world. It's so harsh because we, society, have all been lying to you all this time, and the Great Lie of society has been getting bigger and nastier. We aren't inclusive, we aren't tolerant, we are judgemental, and worst of all we won't tell someone why we don't like them. We've created a world where no one is allowed to tell someone why they don't like them; go to a job interview and when you get passed over, the hiring manager used to be able to tell you exactly what you did wrong, but today, to protect themselves from lawsuits it's policy to just say "we decided to go with another candidate" even if the job opening is still posted 2 months later. We've been trained to avoid conflict at all costs, even the slightest hint of confrontational behavior is generally shunned, but the result is a world where no one can tell you what it is that you do wrong. CorruptUser 18:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no one recipee to making and keeping friends. Best advice is to watch out for selfish/useless/toxic people (which can be a little difficult as they may seem charming at first which also means not "fully" trusting people too quickly but you should develop this as you get olders). Other general rules of thumb are to reciprocate in a relationship with anyone (try to give as much as they are giving if you want it to develop and if you think it's worth it and don't give notably more than they are willing (this includes listening, helping, caring, favours, suggesting things etc). If you give a fraction of what they do the friendship might fizzle out. If you give way more then they will probably take you for granted. Don't overwhelm a developing friend with your problems, clinginess, eagerness and realise and respect their boundaries and try to pick up on non-verbalised social cues as those are non-verbally defined (if you are oblivious to most social cues you can learn about them through family and acquaintances). My worst friendships were usually the casual university friends or ex-pat friends who were a total fucking ball to party with but disappeared when you needed the slightest favour and a few charming people who turned out to be total douches a couple months into the friendships. I have generally found as you get older or leave easy to meet people environments like younger working places or school you have to put more effort into meeting people. This includes clubs, sports, couchsurfing, meetup.com events and going to not that interesting things people suggest you go to as you may meet others. I would say that for every group of people I suggest we meet up, get their number to have drinks or go do something with, have an impromptu party with, invite over to dinner and so on...maybe 5% turn into real friendships. So for every long term meaningful friend there were 19 people whose attempts to befriend turned into acquaintances, party-friends or usually never saw them again. Unless you have an insanely magnetic personality, are lucky, have a hyper social parter or are connected...that means you have to put notable effort into making sustainable meaningful friendships and get over it if that bothers you cause nobody is going to to that work for you. ShabiDOO 19:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If nobody likes you, it is a bad sign. It's sorta true people will take a liking to you despite yourself if you are a humane person. The question is, do you even realize that people like you, despite being distracted by metaphysical questions? It may be difficult to find friends that are like the friends of childhood. But those are not the kind of friends you probably need. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok a lot to process so I'll keep it short. IT's not clothes or hygiene (I mostly go in shorts and t shirt since I walk a lot or go to the gym and sneakers). I'll dress up a little more around company. And I can promise you people DO forget how you made them feel, it happens to me all the time. The being useful part doesn't work either since it just leads to you being used, which is also my case.

Confidence does not work either. People tend to stop messaging or wanting to hang up rather quickly as well when they see I don't need much to have fun. In short, I live a "boring life". It's quite but I like it, even if it's lonely. But I can assure you it is possible to have no one like you when you're trying to be kind, tolerate, and easy to be around. YOu know why? Because that is the default. IT's the background noise in day to day. I've joined groups, done things, but it leads nowhere. EVERY, SINGLE, TIME. I'm even a ghost in my own house, people don't know if im in or out or even see my walk by. The only time people notice is when you don't do something for them, that's it. Trust me it is quite possible because that is my reality. I'm decent, kind, and easy in public but no one wants to talk or if they do they don't want to stay. IT's just something I need to get used to I guess.Machina (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's just it, you don't know how the other person feels around you, so you don't know if they actually enjoyed being around you. If you have a problem in somewhere else, no one will tell you. We've created a society where, to avoid offending anyone, we absolutely fuck over anyone who doesn't know why they don't fit in.

As for being "boring", if you spend all your free time watching TV, you could try organizing a "bad movie night" every Thursday or something along those lines, once the pandemic ends of course. You don't always have to host it, though you will have to host the first few. Again, this is more a general thing and not specific to any person, but the host should make sure the place is clean and provide plenty of snacks and drinks. CorruptUser 14:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't know if it helps any, but a lot of Discords I'm in have started hosting movie nights (can't attend them myself since timezones mean it's overwhelmingly US focused or not movies I'm interested in). You could consider joining in on one of those. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 14:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A shit ton of people form new meaningful friendships around the world every day. I've had no problem developing one or more meaningful long term friendships in several countries spanning most classes and genders/sexualities as well as covering a few very divergent cultures. If you live in a modern open society and your friendships aren't working out then you are almost certainly need to change you approach/outlook. There is no reason you have to be lonely. ShabiDOO 14:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Except there is. IT's not my approach or outlook it's just me. No one is interested and no one wants to stay. I have accepted that I am a ghost after failing miserably for years. I have hosted before and did everything right but no one wanted to come again after that. Yes there are tons who make friends but there are also those who are doomed to be alone no matter what they do. I'm just one of those unlucky few who are. That is the reason I am lonely so there clearly is one. People just don't want to be around me even though I haven't done anything to them.

And yes I do know they didn't like me, it's pretty obvious from their interactions and body language. People aren't as covert with their dislikes as they want to admit.Machina (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Machina you aren't a magical being who is incapable of making friends no matter what you do. Put in the effort of meeting lots of people, think thoughtfully about how you approach people, learn from your failures and a friendship will arrive. Put in the work, be patient and adapt to the extent you are comfortable. Also...consider dealing with the rest of your life problems (they are usually interconnected). ShabiDOO 00:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well apparently I am magical like that, yay.... Like I said, I've done all that for over 15 years and every attempt fails no matter the approach. So that's it, it's clear it's just me. When you change everything else and nothing works the only thing left is you.Machina (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I came across this video. Perhaps it will be helpful.

Ariel31459 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No...there is no reason you cannot make friends. Put move effort into it. Stop with the defeatist and pessimistic nonsense. ShabiDOO 20:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, at least watch the video, it's only six minutes.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ariel I don't care for some of this guy's videos because he often makes lots of broad sweeping claims that over simplify things (for example his claim about insomnia). Machina didn't ask for an alternative to friendship (for example this videos strange answer to issues via art). There are ways to be more direct and honest with people without hurting them, expressing your inner problems without overwhelming people and connecting with people who have a different way of thinking. If forming friendships are important, than putting a serious amount of effort into meeting people and developing friendships is the answer (and that may include therapy). Going "it just won't for for me" and hiding in the world of art isn't the answer for someone who is lonely and craves connections with people (though obviously art is helpful to everyone in many ways). ShabiDOO 21:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Machina, I like you. And the problem is, it's not by any metric you would accept my feelings as "liking" you, partly because parasocial relationships are easy, but partly because I think I get what you're talking about when you're talking about it. I am always willing to engage with you, I care about what you have to say, and I honestly appreciate it when you engage. But on the occasions that you frustrate me, or anyone, I would say that your criteria for how I'm supposed to like you doesn't override my actualization of liking a person, enjoying their contributions, and interpreting the relationship. It is different from yours, and I know it's hard to put into practice. You have all the power when it boils down to who you like and don't like. So does everybody else. People generally say things that they want to hear. I think you're right to rely on yourself, but thinking just because nobody wants to hear what you want to say or appreciate what you do means they don't like you is an ass take. But you're also right, that's a hard way to go. I don't maintain relationships well. I tend to drop off the map. But people just kinda forget I exist for a while, they don't dislike me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Shabi you’re wrong here for reasons I’m tired of explaining. The reality is that despite all my efforts no one likes me no matter my approach or time invested so that’s it then. I give up. As I said if you try different ways and nothing changes the then problem is you. People just don’t want me at all and that’s ok.Machina (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that is? You can’t really believe it’s ok, you’re clearly upset about it now and have been depressed for years from what I remember, loneliness can’t be helping that. You can’t be alone for your whole life.

I can’t and won’t diagnose you, but if you’ve just never been able to make friends you may be autistic, in which case you could talk to other autistic people, you’re on an atheist/skeptic wiki so you’re already halfway there.

The sad reality is no one likes someone who’s miserable all the time, is it possible people can tell you’re unhappy and avoid you for that reason? If that’s the case, you’re trapped in a cycle with misery feeding loneliness and loneliness feeding misery that’s very hard to escape from, but it’s not impossible. I’m sure you’ve heard all the advice about antidepressants or more exercise before.

Sorry if I’m being a bit blunt here. As someone who is autistic, it’s a reason a lot of people don’t like me. Christopher (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm high functioning yes, but no one can tell I am unhappy. I mask it very well. I've tried social groups for people on the spectrum but I don't fit in there. The people in those groups are far worse off than I am. It's not the autism part because I've seen other people on the spectrum have people like and befriend them. Yes I am sad about it but I know there is nothing I can do.Machina (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

'no one can tell I am unhappy' i can almost guarantee people will be picking up something that will make them at least wary. you absolutely positive there isnt anything, consider taking up poker. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Bluffing in a card game is a bit different from faking being happy in reality. I can fake happy, I can't bluff in poker. But it's easier in reality. But suffice to say there is nothing I give off that would lead people to think I am unhappy. That I guarantee.Machina (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Be like Ace. Ace has many friends and many enemies but no one who actively dislikes him (In RL I mean - I am sure many people on RW do not like Ace). Ace^{Simple Maze} 03:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Ace has excellent hygiene, is well dressed and willing to drop anything to come to the aid of someone in need (a weird trait for a committed misanthrope). Ace^{Simple Maze} 03:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Machina Damn dude. If I knew who you are and where to find you right now (obviously, don't share personal information out to strangers on the internet, but bear with me) I would definitely try to be your friend and if it doesn't work out, at least tell you exactly why. It can't be that hard, if you are as advertised a decent human being. There's bound to be something you like that I can try to get into. Maybe you just are living in a community that makes it especially hard to form good friendships and you just need a change of scenery or to meet way different people than what's around you. Don't rule friendship out completely! 92.233.196.50 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Spam phone call in california thing

I've recently stumbled across this video from 2 months ago about an alleged YouTube comment that posted a phone number that if called would spam call you 100's of times.

https://youtu.be/gFmrr4f6XkU?list=PLjiPh7vdm10Le0TNck05xY-B2SdpTPTls

As odd as that may be, what I found even weirder is the fact that I cannot find any sources of this at all, this is the only thing that I could find where it's been talked about. The fact that the title is just a vague clickbait doesn't help in looking into information about this in addition to the fact that the guy cites no bloody sources so I have no clue where he got this information from.

Alright, no biggie, I'm just gonna use the key information in the video to try and find more info on this.

I've made a long ass post that I lost, and it took forever to write so I'll give the bottom line:

---

I've search the alleged phone number and found that, yes, at one point it was registered in California

I've searched all the titles and body texts of the 4chan and reddit posts and found nothing at all.

I've searched all the URLs in the video (5:34) (8:43) ( (tinyurl and imgur) and found nothing.

I've searched key info about time, place, amount of calls reported etc. and found nothing.

I've searched the alleged YouTube channel (5:56) that posted the supposed phone number, only found 2 channels: one that admits he is not the guy and another that was made in 2020, 2 years after this all apparently happened.

I reversed image search both the images from 4chan (4:16) and reddit (11:23): the 4chan image is from news paper articles and the reddit image is a edited stock photo, both predate this whole situation

I found the user that commented on the alleged reddit thread (12:02). I could only look at their comments of a max from 5 months ago and I messaged them to ask about it.

---

Well, why I find this odd is because there's seemingly photographic proof of this yet after extensive research I have not found one thing to confirm that any of this happened, if I'm honest I'm just quite confued about this, what do you guys make of it?--WMS (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the main schtick of this guy is "get rich quick on social media". In the immortal words of Bea Arthur, this guy is clearly a bullshit artist. If you can't quickly verify the story, therefore, I'd throw it into bullshit pile. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, it never ceases to shock me that people just make up bullshit for no reason. Can't belive this guy has such a following despite producing such bullshit.--WMS (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Pedophiles and the death penalty

This REALLY pisses a lot of conservatives off, and possibly even a few liberals as well, but it's true: I think this whole idea of "Every pedo deserves to die instantly" is just wrong. Like I'm sorry, it's wrong, period. I'm 100% anti-death penalty, I'm literally as against it as you can get (I actually used to be pro-death penalty long ago though, fun fact), and, much to the chagrin of conservatives, this circumstance is no exception. I have two major flaws with this argument.

1. Criminals can rehabilitate. Many of them don't, obviously, but that doesn't mean none of them do. 2. What if someone is falsely accused of pedophile-related crimes and is then killed for it?

Of course these two arguments can be used against any death penalty-related circumstance, not just this one. But anyway, it seems like basic common sense, but go to literally any YouTube video of some pedophile getting sentenced and pretty much every comment calls for said convict to be killed slowly, brutally, etc. I just never see myself agreeing with it, like, I don't even fully know why sometimes, I just don't. I've tried to explained this to my (way too conservative) brother in the past, and I've come to discover there's literally no arguing with him on it. He basically acts like I think all pedophiles are innocent and should go free, which is NOT true of course, I've never said they were innocent, I just don't think they deserve the death penalty. But it's like with at least some people these days, you say that, and bam: next thing you know you're some "pedophile apologist", which is false.

Sometimes I feel like literally the only person on the planet who feels this way. Like... idk, is something really wrong with me or something or is it just my imagination? I'm all for putting them in prison for life (as a maximum), sure, but the death penalty? No, it's an ludicrous, outdated form of punishment that can't be phased out soon enough. Aaronmichael5 05:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean *Only person in America. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 08:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Or you could like, y'know, actually spend money on possible criminal's mental health before they commit a crime and get themselves killed/put in jail, in the form of mental health facilities, which have actually been proven to prevent crime much more effectively than the police.UraniumSpoon (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What study are you referring to? I doubt it was as conclusive as a proof, although the idea that it would have some positive effect seems obvious. I also don’t think you can assume a reduction in the number of robberies means less pedophilia. Christopher (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Many sex offender type crimes are mental health type issues, and there is some studies suggesting that at least certain types of pedophilia are treatable (a few may not be, but my "bird's eye" impression is that the scope for studying this phenomenon is not as well studied as it could be). There is an "ick" factor to pedophilia particularly among right-wing authoritarian types and such "ick factor" has led to a moral panic of sorts. Not just in the US (20 years ago one of Britain's tabloids famously attempted to doxx suspected pedophiles, with rather poor results of course) but the US has famously punitive sex offender laws. In attempting to Google on just how effective they are, to be honest I'm not finding a whole lot of articles or papers on whether or not they work (suggesting that this isn't the point I guess). Rather, I'm finding more articles such as this on how sex offender laws are over-applied to ridiculous situations. Seems like, as in drugs and other "moral" issues, America's Puritan section of society has a tendency to focus on not solving the problem, but "punishing evil" and burning witches etc. "Every pedo deserves to die!!!", eh? Tell that to the teenage girl charged with child pornography for voluntarily sexting with friends (one of *many* cases I've heard about in this vein over the last several years). Too many Americans are angry and dumb. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm one of the more conservative users on this site (against universal healthcare, abortion, and drug legalization), and I'm strongly against the death penalty-it frankly saddens me to see that this is a political non-issue that receives absolutely no attention. The government shouldn't be able to kill their own citizens, and I believe the death penalty is fundamentally immoral. Putting aside my religious justifications for this, there's the simple fact that killing someone for their crimes lets the executioners indulge in hatred, falsely believing that this tit-for-tat punishment accomplishes anything. The death penalty doesn't reduce crimes, and only provides an outlet to encourage and promote our most repugnant instincts. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So IveBeenFrank, you have no problem with the government standing by while those without healthcare pointlessly die because they cannot afford treatment but you are outraged when they actually pointlessly kill criminals. Does the active/passive distinction really honestly make a notable difference in the outcome? ShabiDOO 11:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

See, this is why I don't like talking about healthcare. When I say I'm against universal healthcare, people assume that I must be against ANY form of government-provided healthcare. I strongly support free care for those who can't afford it, or other measures to lower the cost and increase the availability of quality healthcare to those who previously didn't have access to it because of its rather prohibitive cost. That's different than universal healthcare - I don't think that those who can reasonably pay for private insurance and healthcare should be subsidized or supported by the government in this way. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm generally against the death penalty. Coming to horrific folk, like rapists and pedophiles, I believe that although their deeds are evil, they should not be executed, because:

1 - this would become an excuse to start using the death penalty elsewhere

2 - The "innocent sentenced to death" problem, if the convict turns out to be innocent

3 - Bloodthirstiness is a bad thing that should not be encouraged

So yes, although they deserve it, they should not receive it, for the simple reason that the death penalty itself is bad. Meow^Purr 13:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Many (perhaps most) pedophiles do not act on their impulses. Taken literally the idea that all pedophiles should be executed is patently unfair whether you are in favour of the death penalty or not. If punishment is appropriate it should be for actions which have actually be carried out.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

yes but paedophiles really are worse than hitler and can therefore be used to justify the most draconian punishments one might otherwise be struggling to justify. if you not completely for the death of all such people then you might as well be a paedo yourself. any argument to the contrary will just confirm it thus i can avoid uncomfortable conversations about racial inequality, class and poverty when im trying to be tough on crime. because paedophiles. you can start warming up the the electric chair.

also works for complaining about muslims while pretending you arnt just a bigot. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Life fact: anytime someone uses the term "Worse than Hitler", it's pretty much a mathematical guarantee that they're wrong. Aaronmichael504:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

your maths is shit. anytime someone uses the term "Worse than Hitler" its almost never intended as a factual statement or earnest judgement. it doesnt usually need pointing out intentional hyperbole is hyperbole. here the point being made is that hitler is seen as the 'benchmark of evil' in the western world and thus worse than hitler is like the most evil thing ever. the idea of "Every pedo deserves to die instantly" mentioned in the op makes paedophiles literally the phrase 'worse than hitler'. thats how it is unironically being used. its about shutting down the argument not inviting discussion on how society should treat an almost universally loathed class of criminal. there is no discussion to be had. paedophiles are being held up as the most dispicable, vile, most evil creatures imaginable. literally 'worse than hitler' it is implied anything less than wanting their immediate deaths makes one suspect. the only argument that would be acceptable to someone with this view would involve declaring death is too good for them and then go on to describe in lurid detail the kind of torture that would be applicable. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree w/ aaron. I'm strongly against the death penalty, and anyway, life in prison is a more poignant punishment for child molestors. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 16:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As a "conservative", I oppose the death penalty because I actually am a vindictive bastard and think locking a child molester in a building filled with dangerously violent abused children-turned-adults who've been looking for any excuse to enact a number of revenge fantasies is enough for even the most heinous of child abusers. Perhaps too much, even. You don't need to make it worse. CorruptUser 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm...debatable. It's not just the moral ramifications of capital punishment. I still think that dropping the soap in front of Tyrone from Cell Block C is a most appropriate punishment for destroying children's lives. But I understand if you disagree. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 21:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I strongly disagree with people who think that prison rape is okay. Considering that most people are in prison due to minor drug offenses, and rape especially affects vulnerable populations like transgender prisoners, and especially considering that guards are responsible for a lot of the rape that goes on. I don't see how you can argue that the death penalty is brutal but think that it's okay for people to get raped. Plutocow (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if you think someone "deserves" to be raped, 1) most prisoners will be released at some point, and I personally feel much less comfortable knowing that the person next to me on the subway platform has been brutally tortured/rapd for the past 10 years and thus is much more likely to snap, 2) rapists tend to not bother with things like protection, and again, the guy next to be on the subway platform having Hep-C or other diseases puts me at further risk if he were to snap and start biting me, 3) holy crap I don't think I should have to say this but "enjoying that someone else suffers" is a serious flaw, sure I do it too, I just said so in my last post, but I admit it's a terrible vice and would never encourage anyone else to take pleasure in the suffering of others, and definitely wouldn't try to promote myself as being "good" based on how much extra I want other people to suffer. CorruptUser 21:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah... got it. Thanks. P.S. I actually said "Tyrone from Cell Block C" simply because I've never used it before. Also, the country should probably more actively pursue prison reform. I may enjoy laughing at the subject, but I don't seriously condone prison rape. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 23:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan of prison sexual violence. I however do support capital punishment, on the grounds that we use it rarely and in very specific cases, including pedophilia. In it's current form, capital punishment targets black and brown communities, and many times is a permanent solution to social safety net issues that are unaddressed in the US. Thing is, it's used so frequently, it really seems to have lost it's effect as a deterrent.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mm. At least Jared Fogle still gets free footlongs in prison. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent for the simple reason that nobody ever thinks consequences will ever happen to them. Same reason so many people don't give a shit about COVID. I'm the protagonist of life, so nothing really bad will happen to me, and if it does, I'll just bounce back! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention the proven effect of escalation. If someone thinks they're going to die if they get hauled in, why the fuck would they surrender peacefully? Why not go out in a blaze of glory, taking as many people with them as possible? That sort of thing appeals to their ego and psyche far more than "maybe my shit lawyer will get me off." And that's without going into the disproportionate demographic representation on death row, or the potentially dubious evidence that got them there. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The Burger King Oof of 2021

I'm sure most of you have heard by now, but Burger King just committed possibly one of the biggest fails in social media history My real quick take on this: In kind of, sort of Burger King's defense I think I get what they were trying to say. It's just that whoever wrote that Tweet CLEARLY didn't think things through before hitting "send". The result: the marketing scheme couldn't have backfired more spectacularly. Either that, or perhaps in the UK they aren't as aware of this "women should be in the kitchen making mah SANDWICH!!" thing like in the US (this was posted to UK Burger King's account apparently). Aaronmichael5 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is talking about Burger King. That person probably got a bonus. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely great example of viral marketing, whichever marketing genius did that undoubtedly hit the mark. Any press is good press as they say (regardless of how insensitive). PhoxyDude (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Man, I could go for a Whopper. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The BBC writer may not have known that there used to be a hamburger chain called Burger Queen. It died more than twenty years ago, but somebody is probably still sitting on the trademark. All of the local ones turned into Dairy Queens, which is defs still around, so it might be them. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Funny

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rbH_NpAVQ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.244.242.213 / talk} 22:15, 2 March 2021(UTC)

Who's your favorite troll?

Because for whatever reason Unclescrooge and TAOB aren't banned, despite not being useful editors in the slightest, so it came to me the thought that maybe some people like them both.

There are actually two trolls I personally found half-funny, the brother of Tim Pool and BG Kumbi. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm dating myself, but I found the crowd that continuously bothered all the new age kooks, charlatans, scam artists, and buffoons in alt.astrology on usenet 20 years ago to be hilarious. One of the surviving artifacts of this drama is found here and is just as entertaining now as it was then. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mine is that one BoN who has a personal grudge against me, often vandalizing Fun:Cat and reverting constructive edits without explanation just because they're mine- and then whining about how I'm an autocrat censoring their freeze-peach. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 22:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Does Catgrrl count as a troll or just as a bad poster? GeeJayK (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mine was Logic boy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I dunno if I would say I *liked* him, but watching Gutless Raven could be very funny sometimes-his arrogance, his "Look at me! I'm a genius, really!" style of speaking, his utter lack of self-awareness...-Flandres (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bill Maher is a pretty funny troll.UncleKrampus (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My favorite troll is Cally/Dentara Rast, who won EVE. None of the trolls from this wiki even come close the average EVE troll. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No love for Ben Shapiro? CorruptUser 00:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I like weev, but for what he did, not what he now believes. Gamers Against Weed (Over 9000 Members Worldwide!) (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Was I a good troll back in the day? Jakester499 (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Vol'Jin. Kencolt (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

On this wiki, Catgrrl is probably the one that is the most amusing that we haven't banned yet. Nobs if we count those that have been banned already. He's funnier than Ken imo. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think CG's funny; she's just annoying IMO, and along with a certain someone who loves to defend her, is a prime example of why commies are hated: defending despotic regimes like China because mUh iDeOlOgY, constant, unprovoked ad-hominem attacks, making false charges against all users she doesn't like (usually for being even the tiniest bit right of Vaush), casting sweeping generalizations over entire classes and then refusing to back them up, sharing us libs' hatred of the far-right only to then become even more incensed by the overall existence of considerably less-dangerous "enemies" like liberals (whom she loves to blame everything on), etc. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 07:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I like Ken more since his history of this site cracks me up and I use his little sayings (On behalf on christendom, I declare victory! Ole, ole, ole!; Get off the Titanic. The SS RationalWiki is going down.; Gentlemen of a certian website that begins with an R!) in my life. Rockford the Roe (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Going to a funeral this week

It's a confusing situation. I still have to go. The clothes I wore to my grandpa's funeral last year are still ready.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYAoWuwPZn4

I really both want to go and don't want to go. But I have to go, there's no question. Normally I'd overshare, but that's unacceptable in this situation. I don't have a good way to offload this. I'm not in a hole or anything, but I really need to not be the toughest guy in the room for a second. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So... don't be the toughest guy. You are allowed to cry at a funeral. Even manly men are allowed to cry; it's whining that's forbidden by the Man Code. In fact there are times when it's required of manly men to cry, e.g., the endings of Saving Private Ryan or The Iron Giant, birth of their daughter, their daughter's wedding, death of a close family member, friend or dog, looking at the painting "Reflections", hearing about the death of Steve Irwin, etc. CorruptUser 14:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And conversely, don't be fake about it. If you don't feel like the wailing Irishwoman, don't force it. Whatever makes you feel best is right for you, and know everyone else there with you is doing it their way too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

RIP Aronmichael5 05:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Funeral was fine but strange. I would have specified my relation to the deceased and to the people I went with, but I wasn't comfortable doing that, as the circumstances and relationships were unusual, but the family is pretty forward about everything that happened. I was her manager at work, her dad asked for some specific yet vaguely described people from work to be there, and the most I want to say about that is the day she didn't show up was a really sad and confusing day. After the service, knowing that even if I feel like a bad warden, like I could have encouraged her more or been more attentive or noticed something that could have helped somebody intervene, it's kind of what everybody there was grappling with too. She was a good kid, quiet except for when she was with one guy that she really liked working with, but she worked hard, got along with everybody and had a good sense of humor (by which I mean we got her to laugh out loud a few times while she was listening in on us warehouse guys joking). I can't tell you what would have caused her to do what she did. I talked to my family, and it was kinda local big news, and they asked me a ton of questions, and I just said, honestly, "I don't know." But that's OK, I don't think I'm supposed to know. At least, I have to accept that I didn't know her like that. Whether I agree with that or not isn't exactly important. I can deal with it. I was less there for myself than for everyone else there, but I think I did get something out of it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Chinese court backs publisher of textbook calling homosexuality 'psychological disorder'

According to the court it's not a factual error, but a “perceptual difference”. Source

I find repulsive how some tankies and leftists I know still support the Chinese government. These people have no moral to complain about how a considerable part of the right in Europe and in the Americas disragard the human rights. GeeJayK (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just committing this to memory as one of the many examples to bring up when some conservative acts like China is the literal embodiment of everything to the left of Joe Manchin. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think homophobia is just like racism (ie. it's not always a conservative thing , even though there's a strong correlation). In fact I think that's truth to any form of bigotry. Criticism towards the Chinese Government should be based on their authoritarianism and total disrespect for the human rights. Conservativism and progressivism are secondary problems in a country where you can go to jail if to criticize the government. GeeJayK (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

According to tankies, homophobia and imperialism are fine when you do it with a red flag. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Tankies are people who hate the world they live in, and want to bring it crashing down. To this end, they will swerve left, right, top, down - anything to achieve their end. The current enemy of liberal democracy is China (or rather, the CCP), which is why they ally with it - ideology doesn't matter to them. Meow^Purr 05:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy Mar10

Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy March 10! I know people are gonna say this is just marketing stunt, but I don't care, I'm not going to buy anything today anyway. I just want to celebrate the video game franchise that provided quality entertainment and played a big role in my identity, in spite of all that corporate crap. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo corporate sucks ass, but Mario is great. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you trust Russian/Chinese COVID vaccines?

My grandparents just got vaccinated with Sputnik-V. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 17:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, Russia and China's equivalents of the FDA are absolute jokes. CorruptUser 17:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't trust Russia or China. While Trump dropped the ball on containing COVID, China also helped in covering it up. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I've heard and read, the Russian vaccine specifically was reported to be rushed and potentially unsafe. I don't know enough about the PRC's vaccine program to speak on it. In any case, I'm relying less on whether the program belongs to X country or Y country and more on the reports the reliability and safety of the vaccine programs, as well as information on distribution (which the US botched, and is still botching up to some degree). ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC)If the choice is to be infected with Covid or take Sputnik-V/Sinovax, I would take the inoculation.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC, EC)Sputnik received a positive review from The Lancet in February which I would certainly trust. I don't know about the Chinese one.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's why I would vaccinate with Sputnik-V if it's my turn. But my country (Switzerland) didn't order them - yet. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 18:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If I get vaccinated, I'll just take the Pfizer one. I don't exactly trust the PRC. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Pfizer isn't 100% save. But it is one of the safest ones, besides Moderna and Sputnik-V. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would guess that the Russian and Chinese vaccines are likely safe but that the efficacy could easily have been overstated for propaganda purposes. Regarding efficacy of the other available vaccines, efficacy of 85% vs. 95% probably isn't a difference that matters in this situation because the testing was done testing was sometimes done in different time-frames with different mixes of variants in the populations. For now, most people won't get a choice about which vaccine to take, so it's best to just take what's available. Bongolian (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not trust Russia nor their vaccine. The US already has a working vaccine as far as I recall. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I would go with the science as published in the Lancet.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I heard one of the peer reviewers of the Russian Lancet paper speak on the BBC. He confirmed that he vouched for the paper and reviewed the raw data presented to the reviewers. When pressed by the interviewer though, he confirmed that they couldn't verify whether or not the raw data were fudged. Given that Russia has a recent history of cheating very stealthily on sports drug tests for propaganda purposes, that does give me concerns. Bongolian (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I was suspicious of both until recently, but the Lancet article and successful phase III trials made me somewhat more trusting of the Russian one. I still suspect the Chinese one - continues to be very shady, Phase III wasn't convincing, and efficacy is horrible. Anyway, I don't need to bother - we have the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines here. Meow^Purr 04:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

US has J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, all perfectly capable of ending the pandemic if everyone takes them before the virus can mutate. The only one I am legit concerned about is AstraZeneca, both because it showed a much lower efficacy against the variant identified in South Africa, and because the media blowing that story up has increased hesitancy in many groups in Europe.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There have been two great controversies surrounding the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab. The claim that it was totally ineffective with over 65’s (a rumour spread predominantly by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron) and the claim that it doesn’t work with mutations (e.g the South Africa variant). The claim that its ineffective for over 65's has been pretty much debunked and both France and Germany have U-turned and now recommend it for older people. [2] [3] (I have my suspicions as to why Merkel and Macron were so against it, but we won’t go into them now). The second fear was it is less effective against the South Africa variant, and to be fair there is data that supports this. But its still effective against the UK variant, which is far more transmissible than the South Africa variant (and apparently could become the most dominant global variant). Pfizer and Moderna look like they're good vaccines, and, unless you’re in South Africa itself, I’d encourage people to take the AstraZeneca vaccine too. --RWRW (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Denmark and Norway just suspended it's use as well[4] which is very concerning, and likely continue to drive misinformation. We need every tool available to beat this.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

We don’t need every tool when it comes to vaccines. If one vaccine is less effective, production of that vaccine should be phased out and replaced with more of another. Christopher (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem is AstraZeneca is far cheaper to produce and easier to distribute. If it was phased out then global rollout would probably slow down, pathing the way for more variants. --RWRW (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Effective doesn't necessarily enter into it if the purpose is to avoid hospitalization and death. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Frogs like to play with their food

https://youtu.be/wxH0dCblrws

Reminds me when I fed my salamanders live fish. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to point at one of my favourite fun pages. Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone got any recommendations on books to do with critical thinking/not giving into bullshit?

As the title says, I just want to expand my analytical knowledge.--WMS (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan is a good read. Bongolian (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A classic of course. But somewhat more up to date would be the The skeptics guide book.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID denialism: the security blanket of conspiracy theorists

Each time I hear or see COVID denialism talking points I keep thinking of it as a security blanket. These people refuse to accept reality and personal responsibility. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

They also refuse to acknowledge that their entire ethos is simultaneously that they are the helpless victims of unstoppable vast shadowy forces that have been operating since the beginning of time, and also always about to destroy the vast shadowy forces who are super-easy to find because of the way they bend their elbows or some other such nonsense. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Personal Responsibility" was always a concept that applied to other people, not themselves. The real crisis is of personal sacrifice. Many people (mostly in the West), have no concept of sacrificing for the public good. Most of the people who made those sacrifices during the Flu of 1918, Great Depression and WWII have died. Their children and grand-children grew up in a world where no sacrifice was necessary, and those less off were demonized. Among the reasons that East/South East Asian and West African nations have seemingly managed this pandemic more effectively is the recent memory of SARS as well as Ebola and AIDS. My biggest fear is that, especially in America, we will learn nothing from this, make no changes culturally, institutionally, or physically to lower our risk against the next pandemic.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, the worst kind of COVID denialism (the kind of which is often hysterically over-emotional and light on actual facts) typically is some mix of toxic, often superficial machismo culture and/or lack of trust in authority, and I don't think it's a coincidence that what probably are the two worst hit countries (US and Brazil) have both in spades. The US in addition has a lot of paranoid style / conspiracy culture which helps fuel the misinformation (a Brazilian would have to chime in if there is something similar there, I'm guessing there is). Sometimes there is some legitimate fuck-ups that may trigger doubts -- for instance, a Guardian article on vaccine scepticism in France cites over-preparation for the 2009 swine flu along with French doctors misusing a diabetic drug as a weight loss prescription (leading to 500-2000 deaths) as large causes for current doubts in France. Fast-tracked vaccines have caused fuck-ups before (in 1976 for instance) so if one was merely wary, I think that's quite understandable. The worst kind of COVID denialism tends to step beyond reasonable doubt though. Incidentally, anti-masking was a thing in the US in 1918, so no, don't expect too much cultural changes, unfortunately. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Brazilian here, I confirm there is a conspiracy culture just like the US. We even got our own famous extraterrestrial appearance (ET de Varginha). After a long period of no strong far-right influence on our politics, figures like Olavo de Carvalho started translating the far-right stuff from the US to Brazilian audiences and uniting them, much like Trump did, but over a longer time. The result is that Brazil nowadays is very similar to the US, except we are much poorer. Every new fad/conspiracy/bullshit that emerges on the US, a couple of months later it will be common in Brazil. 201.27.188.183 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Super straight and Super gay

I saw a bunch of posts in regard to this phenomenon and wondered if anyone on here can explain it to me?Machina (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So... I'm guessing this refers to people who are 0 or 6 on the Kinsey Scale. Basically, most people if in the right situation, would pursue someone of the same gender, or opposite gender as the case may be. E.g., stick someone in prison for 5 years, see just how "straight" they actually are, 0's (exclusively heterosexual) are actually not as common as people would have you believe. Same with 6's. In the words of my gay college friend who would take home "straight" guys and occasionally a girl, "when drunk enough, a hole is a hole". CorruptUser 03:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

#superstraight was trendin on twatter yesterday. Apparently it's about cis people who refuse to date trans people. Avida Dollars^{her again} 08:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So, nothing new? Just the same old transphobes acting like transphobes. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly, this was in response to someone claiming something to the effect that straight people were by definition attracted to trans[people of opposite sex]. It references CorruptUser's mention of Kinsey 0 being a minority to construct "just heterosexual vis-à-vis biological sex" as a minority sexual identity group. It's intended by people who generally don't buy intersectional identity politics as a legitimate concept as an attack on its ideological underpinnings: either Kinsey 0 people are acknowledged as a sexual minority group and all that that entails (e.g. a flag and a letter in the extended acronym that usually starts with LGB...), or it's acknowledged that not all conceptual identity groups are legitimate, and that groups actually have to justify themselves to others if they want acknowledgement. Looks like Kinsey 6 got added at some point to round it out. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know enough about them to say they in particular transphobes, but not dating a trans person doesn't make someone a transphobe. Or at least not more so than the typical person. Something like 97% of cis men and women refuse to consider dating a trans person, and even 87% of gay men would refuse to date a trans person. Heck, even 50% of bisexual, intersex or "queer" refuse to consider dating trans.CorruptUser 14:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Not wanting to date someone of the same sex is called "Heterosexuality", not wanting to date someone of the opposite sex is called "Homosexuality", not wanting to date a trans person because they are transgender is called "Transphobia". Your statistics only prove that transphobia is more rooted into society than homophobia, racism or sexism which are still virulent but pretty much pushed aside when compared to transphobia. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Many black women refuse to date non-black men. That in itself doesn't make them racist. CorruptUser 14:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are prejudiced and likely racist, and the same goes the other way around when white supremacists categorically refuse to date POC only because they're not white. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gay men refuse to date women, that doesn’t make them sexist. Christopher (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes them homosexual, there's a difference between sexual preference and refusing to date someone because they are trans, imagine if someone refused to date you because you are autistic, how would that feel? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you date drug addicts, AIDS sufferers, those with Down Syndrome, or Scientologists, or are you a bigot? CorruptUser 15:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah right, take the most extreme examples imaginable, add in the Nazis, the Pedophiles, the Necrophiles, etc. I would never date drug addicts nor scientologists and there's nothing wrong with that, unless you somehow think otherwise. You can date people who have aids without getting it yourself, it's no longer the 18's century where the disease is both deadly and untreatable, and yeah you are prejudiced if you are scared of them. I saw a documentary regarding aids at school and in that documentary a bunch of kids left a swimming pool just because one of their classmates has the illness. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone rejects you for any reason you’re going to be upset, doesn’t mean they’re in the wrong for rejecting you. Every interaction, positive or negative, people have with me is “because I’m autistic”, if I wasn’t autistic I’d be a completely different person. Not a great example.

What is the difference between sexual “preference” (often a homophobic term, although that wasn’t your intent here, I understand you speak English as a second language, orientation is more accurate) and refusing to date someone for being trans? Christopher (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no sexual orientation called "Transexuality" because being trans is binary, it is not completely different from being a boy or a girl. Trans women are women (You likely heard that one plenty of times) and the only reason you won't date them is because they either went through the process of a sex reassignment surgery or not and either way it is always a bother for you. This is why this is prejudiced to refuse to date a trans person only because they are transgender. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I’m still not following your logic, what’s wrong with deciding (not) to date someone based on whether they’ve had sex reassignment surgery? How is it different from deciding based on any other criteria?

If you have decided it’s wrong, what are you going to do about it? It’s a heavy accusation but it seems you don’t think that people should be able to refuse to date or have sex with someone for whatever reason, without feeling pressured to do something they don’t want to do. Christopher (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I am unable to make my point any clearer, so I suggest you read this in its integrality: https://medium.com/@QSE/when-you-say-i-would-never-date-a-trans-person-its-transphobic-here-s-why-aa6fdcf59aca MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Because you don’t have a point. People don’t date others for any number of reasons. Calling these out all the time would be nonsense because then everything would be a form of phobia or something. It isn’t transphobia to not want to date a trans person, otherwise everything would be phobia. Medium isn’t a source either. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1700:1c80:5190:ecf1:7eee:bc1e:6890 / talk}

If you don't date someone because they are ugly or their sex doesn't match your sexual orientation, that's fine, but to say that you don't want to date trans people just because they are trans is transphobic. I will reiterate what I said earlier: Not wanting to date someone of the same sex is called "Heterosexuality", not wanting to date someone of the opposite sex is called "Homosexuality" and not wanting to date a trans person because they are trans is called "Transphobia". The person who wrote the post on Medium was saying the same exact thing I was trying to say, so I will use that, not as a source, but as a point. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

[EC]I agree with the BoN (who, to be clear, wasn’t me, be more careful with unsigned templates please). No amount of insisting that a dick is feminine will rewire a lesbian’s or straight man’s brain to be attracted to it or the person it’s attached to (the comparison to strapons makes no sense, most people aren’t into that and that should be respected). Even if someone refuses to date a trans person for entirely arbitrary reasons, there’s nothing wrong that; people refuse to date each other for arbitrary reasons all the time.

Transphobic people would refuse to date trans people because they’re trans (which is still ok, do you want them to date trans people?), but that doesn’t mean anyone who refuses for that reason is transphobic. Christopher (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not read the post on Medium, it should have taken you at least an hour to finish it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Was that a sincere accusation or an insult to my intelligence? I read the whole thing, it wasn’t very long. Christopher (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Must have been very quick about it because the whole point of the post flew over your head. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The latter then. It didn’t fly over my head, I understood the arguments and had heard them before, I just didn’t find it convincing. Christopher (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The point seemed to be trying to cram in as much jargon as possible. That said, all it does is make me relieved that I've never dated and never want to change it. No one has a right to be found good looking and worthy of anyone's attention, and conversely there's nothing wrong with two people of the age who find each other worth it. Why worry about what anyone else does? I'd turn down anyone who ever asked me on a date (talk about things that'll never happen!), so what phobic am I? Easy to see how trying to label the arbitrary nature of these things gets out of hand very quickly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow you're all so fucking stupid. All of you. Each and every one of you. #SuperStraight is an attempt to mask bigoted dating preferences. Like, that's it. Responding with the equivalent of "but would you want a racist to date you if you're black" misses the point that these people are pushing these bigoting positions and trying to appropriate LGBT+ language/spaces/whathaveyou. Everyone trying to explain that is also stupid, by the way. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Having actually looked at the hashtag, I think you’ve missed the point. No one is trying to mask or appropriate anything. Insincerely appropriating social justice language is rarely about pretending to be marginalised, it’s about getting a reaction, it’s trolling (https://reddit.com/r/loveforlandlords is another example). Based on your comment, they’ve succeeded. Christopher (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Christopher, you are so incredibly nihilistic and apathetic that it is genuinely wince-worthy to look at. Reminder you were also defending people using the R-word. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not nihilistic because I’m less invested in internet arguments than you. No one needs a reminder of old inconsequential drama. Stop taking things so personally, this feud you think you have with me is entirely one-sided. Christopher (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Simply declining from dating a transgender person doesn't make you a transphobe. People have the right to date who they want, and to ignore Riley Dennis's BS. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither of you get it. Yes, it's a minor bunch of bullshit. Yes, it'll (hopefully) be forgotten in a week or so. No, it's not just trolling. Don't mistake me for someone who overvalues social media posts. However, You Christopher missed the main underlying argument, and that, not the hashtag/propaganda bullshit, is what annoyed me. Similarly, MarioSuperstar77 making a bigger deal out of this than it is also irked me. To recap, I'm not annoyed at the trolling/propaganda, I'm annoyed at both of you for your piss poor discussion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IRonMan no one gives a shit about Riley Dennis, and honestly you're the first to bring her up. And this is the level of discourse that annoyed me in the first place. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I only talked about transphobia in general, I don't care about that #superstraight shit campaign of 4chan. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)i loathe conversations like these where its all broad hypotheticals that misses all the nuance of such refusals in the world. as with most things to do with how people deal with people, there is no line that can be drawn where all on one side is prejudiced while on the other side the enlightened sit. the real answer is depends. there are a myriad reasons why someone might not date someone of particular type, be it race or gender identity, or anything, that have little to do with prejudice. plenty that are about prejudice, but its usually clear when it is something like that.

is it really prejudice if a particular class of person doesnt turn you on? no it isnt. different strokes for different folk. is it prejudice that a particular class of person doesnt turn you on, and you go out your way to make sure everyone knows they dont do it for you, maybe thats where any prejudice shows itself. log on to grindr and there used to be loads of folk declaring they are not into asians for. fine if asian guys arnt for them. an explicit declaration of not being into asians, less so. same if its white guys or black guys that get a special mention of not being into.

there is a lot of racial stereotyping around sex that can play a part here. if you are doing the stereotyping then the prejudice lies with you if using that as the basis of not dating a particular ethnicity. if its you being stereotyped then its not your prejudice that makes you not wanna date ethnicities not your own but other peoples. black guys who only date black guys? maybe they wanna be treated as a human being and not just someones racist sex fantasy of a black brute and bbc. maybe an asian guy only into other asian guys is sick of older white gents looking for a submissive house boy?

i dare say something similar goes on with straight folk not dating particular races, or exclusively their own race. i imagine where communities are homogenous and you are surrounded by your race and culture, you might feel you wouldnt have much in common with someone from another community, or be wary of the flack biracial couples can receive. is that prejudice?

with trans as a reason for not dating, with straight folk its pretty obvious why a straight guy might not be inclined to date a transwoman. even if everything else is working for them, if a guy cant get past issues with the genitalia when it comes to it, probably best not let it come to it in the first place. if they view trans women as being 'easier' than cis women, then its a statement on what they see as sign of their masculinity. alphas like them only fuck cis women. trans are the betas not the 'real' men. that would be a bigoted reason for not dating people. theres more going on with gay guys and trans folk than with straight men. some gay men like 'men' - their ideals of masculinity that transwomen just dont meet. then there are the gay men who actually dislike transwomen. this usually down to homophobic abuse that label gay men as nancy boys or sissies. as a reaction to that some guys get hypermasculine themselves, or they see fem guys or crossdressers and transwomen as confirming homophobic abuse about effeminacy. they blame them for homophobes seeing them as poofs and not 'real' men. you seeing less often these days but its still there.

but with all of this, its coms down to what you mean by a 'refusal'? how and when it is made says a lot. a polite 'you are just not my type' is how it manifests itself, doesnt really matter if their reasons are super racist or prejudiced. it doesnt tell you anymore and you shouldnt really require more from someone knocking you back. if you get knocked back with a 'i dont date...' that might require some clarification. its done with slur then you are in no doubt. you should be in no doubt if a 'refusal' is preemptive, that someone loudly declares they are not into x, so no gets any ideas or prevent all enquiry so no refusal needs to be made - likely no good reason that is necessary to do, and even then only likely to appear on some dating profile. if they announce such things on twitter or something, then clearly bigots. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Better than I could have done. Thanks for clearing it up. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 17:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the above, some people want to have children, and therefore restrict their dating options to people they might hypothetically have children with. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And the conversation devolves back to superficial stupidity... This is why we can't have nice things... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Keep on crying. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gloating over the conversation turning unproductive is a very immature and idiotic thing to do. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie @IRonMan Feel free to revert this collapse. I just felt that my dumb comment made this already unproductive discussion even more uncivil. GeeJayK (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thing is the posts on social media tend to be from troll account calling other people out when no one on the thread is saying anything of the sort. It's almost every day and it's annoying. They keep trying to call people bigots or transphobic when they keep dredging things up. The general reply is that if you don't have the parts I'm looking for I'm not interested. That's it, but they take that to be transphobic.Machina (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Really, Intruding moralized politics into strangers' sexual tastes and preferences violates the 'mind your own business' principle upon which acceptance of non-heteronormatve sexualities rests. It invites exactly this kind of backlash. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This whole thing was started by 4chan users, and quickly co-opted by terfs. This was started to create a rift in the LGBT community, these monikers shouldn't exist. A man who dates a trans man is as gay as a man who dates a cis man; "Gay" isn't a quantifiable thing you can measure, and BS like this is actively an attempt to make transphobia #woke. PhoxyDude (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty obviously dumb, I made a joke when everyone was scared that Biden would open womens' sports to men that I could probably start competing in mens' sports if I just identified as "super-masculine" and started taking testosterone to do it. It's dishonest, the joke is not that clever, anyone can make it, and everyone who takes it to a serious point should feel bad for either not getting a joke, or not getting what a joke is supposed to illicit. Here's a better one. I'm so straight, I don't leave the bar until ALL the girls are scared of me. Original. Gift. Take it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm So Straight-I'm So Gay

On the topic of "super" straight or gay or whatever is supposed to be a concern-troll turned real thing, for the benefit of people not understanding what sexual orientation means, let's just, I dunno, take it back? Better jokes have always embarrassed and quieted 4chan.

I'm so straight... the last time I saw a dick, I had to take the mirror out of my bathroom.

The jokes obviously don't have to be awesome, but if you can't tell why being yourself but identifying as being "super" anything is kinda laughable, you're not gonna be good at jokes. And if you think the super-straight or super-gay thing is funny enough on its own, you're probably not good at jokes. But hey, that's OK, the problem is people wanting you to fall victim to their bad jokes. Better jokes are ones that understand and, by non-sequitur, conflate your understanding with your not quite getting it, without being so smug about getting it.

I'm so straight... I can't look a girl in the eye unless she can tell me exactly which scent of AXE I'm clouded in.

vs

I'm so straight... I won't look a girl in the eye unless she can tell me exactly which scent of AXE I'm clouded in.

The actualization is important. It's kind of why one works as an in-joke and the other is just pointlessly mean. I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference, but maybe that's just me. It helps that I wrote them and English is my first language, I guess. But it's a difference between "can" and "will" as verbs, and that's more important to look out for than anyone who says "super" is an important adjective. I know it's fun to just put a descriptive adjective in front of an absurd noun to talk about something that's actually in front of you. Millenials started it, Gen Z did it something wild, like with the who would win meme. Calling, say, a leaky bag a drippy boy is fun slang for everyone, and calming in redirecting attention to a situation where the bag leaking is not good. What anger do you have to have to see the phrase "super straight" and have to identify as for or against it? We got a "bad joke" on our hands here? Probably a lot of stiffy bois laughing at their own jokes so they don't have to accept what they can't control. I understand it's a joke that encourages invalidation of a real thing. If anyone can name it something more fun than a "bad joke," believe me, I'm in. But "people not being able to take a joke" is really bad justification for "not being able to tell a joke." A joke really is a lot easier when it's so concise anyone could tell it, and it's a lot easier when it's so pared down anyone could give you the answer.

Why did the world's straightest man take the mirror out of his bathroom?

Because he saw a dick.

It's the same joke. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

wat Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 14:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. I got off the topic so hard because I would rather be polemic about how a joke works than worry about people working themselves up into a tizzy over a bad joke. It's my bad, truly, but y'all prioritize some confusing shit sometimes. A bad take couched as a joke needs to see the light of what a joke can be. I do know people who say "it's all made up anyway, there are two genders and that's real" and if they'd stop to consider the whole of what they're saying, that's the exact bad take. But I can't drive my head against that wall. If I can help them laugh at the ideas, we don't have to argue to a pointless end. If you ask me, yeah, it's kinda all made up, but it's not unprecedented and it's not in anyone's place to just be a dick to somebody to see what they'll do. So who is joking just to be a dick to somebody to see what they'll do?

One guy I talk to and respect, he loves it (the super straight troll dumb joke,) I've known him since high school, he is the best trash talker I've ever met. It's somehow in him, I don't like to play games with him because he just, really casually upsets people as he plays, it's part of his competitive style, and it's wildly effective to the point I feel like the game is broken. He was a successful competitive Halo player before he could drive, before competitive gaming was a thing. I witnessed him keep a scammer on speakerphone for over a week just to make fun of him in front of everyone, and that's an ability and a style of comedy I don't get, but it was beautiful. He's a natural at it. I don't think pissing people off is funny in and of itself. But we swing with the bat we hit home runs with, and well, we know what we're bound to do with the blade, itself. But he knows I think it's bum shit to trash talk. And we're still friends. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Landlord (music)

I fucking love David Rovics. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Deadass "I Remember Warsaw" makes me cry every time I listen to it. PhoxyDude (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was this recorded? It looks like Christiania but I know it probably isn't... Get ready, it's... (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

I've had a terrible month, and now a long time friend of mine just told me we had to go our separate ways. I think I need some time..... a lot of time, to myself. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for everything. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't the most civil with you too in a couple of cases. Guess I just couldn't bring myself to forgive you for that ATIM/Talk:MMT incident. GeeJayK (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Do what you need to do for you, Oxy. Best wishes. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Can't wait to get the COVID vaccine

Been extremely paranoid for the past year. At least more paranoid than I normally would be. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, if you get Moderna the first one will just be a sore arm; it's the second one that gets you the next day. Plan to take at least the following day off from doing anything, I didn't and had one of the hardest days of work I've ever had. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't wait to get it either. Grandma and Grandpa each got both doses, now soon me and my parents will. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 17:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My oldest brother cannot get the vaccine due to having a history of negative reactions to vaccines. When he got the flu shot he was sick for a week. Probably allergies to the vaccine ingredients. At least it is an actual medical reason. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My employers were generous enough to provide us with the Moderna vaccine. I haven't gotten my second dose yet but I can say that while I felt fine with my first dose, a number of my colleagues reported feeling quite under the weather for a few days-Hastur! (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a story floating around about a 39 year old from Utah who died after taking the covid vaccine. As tragic as that situation is, really hope it doesn't scare people off from taking it. Even if this was directly caused by the vaccine (we're still unsure it was or not), far less will die from this vaccine vs COVID itself. But expect this to make the front lines of anti-vax websites everywhere. Aaronmichael5 21:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

i want this fucking pandemic to be over already so you bet my ass i'll be getting that vaccine БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 02:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But don't you know what happens when the pandemic ends? That's when the pandemic begins. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I work with disabled adults, they ask me about the safety of vaccines. Because they deserve an honest answer, I tell them it's extremely rare that people have bad reactions but that rare doesn't mean never; when I was growing up my neighbor's dad had a really bad allergic reaction to the tetanus shot, he ended up having to spend the night in the hospital and they told him he could never get it again. But I tell them, that's a reason for him not to get the tetanus shot, not for you not to get it, risk is always relative and we sure know what COVID can do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Swiss Burqa Ban

Well, looks like Switzerland is showing the world how tolerant it really is. Note that the Swiss are hardly the only European country to have a ban on Burqas; France does as well, but does so against all religious clothing and unlike the Swiss, doesn't make minarets illegal. We'll see how this plays out... CorruptUser 21:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Even though I am an atheist, I think that the ban is stupid. If a person is religious then let them make their own choice. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem is burqas cover people's faces along with their entire bodies, which isn't so desirable in a population notable for having potential terrorists. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of divided on this one. On one hand, the burqa really isn't a good thing - it's often forced, it's patriarchial, it's meant for another climate and, like Duce said, it could be a problem in identifying terror. On the other hand, a burqa ban raises the question of why a liberal democracy is dictating dress codes to its people. Meow^Purr 01:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just dropping in to point out that Muslims don't have a monopoly on terrorism, and that here in America at least your more likely to get killed by an Incel or Neo-Nazi than a Muslim fundy. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a useless if not intellectually dishonest observation without comparing to relative population sizes, though. White people make up 75% of the US population while Muslims make up 1% of the population, so it'd make sense if White radicals committed 75% of all terrorist activity in the US and Muslim radicals 1%. Of course, given that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks, Islamist or Far Right, have been committed by men, perhaps we should be asking if we need to prohibit males from entering the country...CorruptUser 04:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, maybe the statistics is true if it was relative to Europe, but the US has far more far-right terrorist attacks than it warrants to. Your comparison between men and women committing terrorist acts is disingenuous as fuck. Maybe ask yourself why they happen in the first place. The brain of a person assigned male is different to that of a person assigned female, moreover cis boys are more likely to get bullied at school than cis girls. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

as far as i am aware, in the uk, only a tiny fraction of muslims wear a burka or niqab. less than 1% of muslim women (muslims make up about 5% of the population)[5]. i can find no evidence of women being forced to wear them in the uk. if there is no coercion involved i see no compelling reason for banning this item of clothing. the only coercion involved seems to be from these laws forbidding the things. the terrorism angle is literally dogshit. burkas have played no part in any terrorist act in the west, certainly not in the uk - perpetrators have been quite happy to show their face.

in the uk, some places like in court or at airports, veils are required to be removed for obvious reasons. anything more than this merely inflames tensions far beyond the tiny fraction of muslim women directly effected by any bans.

i also note that of late there has been a concerted effort to more get people to wear face coverings AMassiveGay (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser You're weirdly defensive over what amounts to a footnote. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No, just mildly annoyed whenever someone brings up comparisons without adjusting (or adjusting incorrectly) for population. As for the OT, the Burqa ban is just stupid. Like Gay said, for every Muslim woman in a Burqa there's several dozen in a Bikini... CorruptUser 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser As far as I know the stats reported on here accounted for population. These are generally the same sources that point out that you're unlikely to get caught in a terrorist attack in the first place. If you have data that contests those sources, please show me. Seriously, I don't like incorrect stats that don't account for demographic makeup either. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 05:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Those stats don't, but here's an article with some data. As of 2018, Far Right terrorists killed 109 compared to Jihadists' 104, but again, this ignores that Muslims make up a much, much smaller percent of the population. You could argue that the risk of terrorism is overblown or that the overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't trying to kill you, but saying "White Radicals killed more!!!" isn't a solid argument. CorruptUser 05:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

not a solid argument for what though? in a thread dealing with islamophobic laws banning an item of clothing specific to muslim women but only by a small fraction of them, laws that give expression to islamophobia in wider society, defended with vague and unsupported fears and entirely bogus concerns around terrorism that plays into the notion of muslims as a suspect people, i think it actually rather necessary to say 'white radicals killed more' or as was more the point in gc's original post, muslims dont have a monopoly on violence, yet they are the target of discriminatory laws. i do recommend folk look at the link cory provided. its interesting reading and theres more going on than a numbers game. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised the US does not have a ban on this, but in all seriousness, I can understand why someone would want to ban burqas, I just think it's silly and only advances islamophobia. Think of that like Brexit which was supported by many people for multiple reasons, but is ultimately more damageful than anything else. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As a swiss, I voted for it, but saying it‘s Islamophobic is nonsense because the Quran itself says don't hide your face and hands. And Muslim countries banned it as well. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 12:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not say you were islamophobic, I said it only advances islamophobia because those who are into islamophobia will think that the majority of Switzerland is on their side. The white supremacists in the US came out of the woodwork when Trump was elected. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Some people fighting for equality and justice are stuck in a quagmire here. On the one hand gender equality is important and to pretend as though some form of pressure to dress modestly and even cover the face isn't involved in at the very least some of the cases is ridiculous. I lived in Iran for half a year and I lost count of the number of girls from even progressive families who felt coerced into dressing modestly even in situations where others weren't (private gatherings, parties, isolated places) and how many female friends I had in Canada who took off their modest clothing when they were sure their parents (or even male family members such as cousins or brothers) wouldn't be there to see it. Coercion is an undeniable problem when it comes to "choice" in religious modestly which only women have to suffer. On the other hand in Western Europe we live in open societies where freedom of religion and freedom of choice is supposed to be a right (which most people agree with). It makes how to vote in such a referendum a very difficult question to answer and I don't believe that there is an obviously correct one when two conflicting goals of social justice are so present: the the partial coercion of a marginalised group to sustain their marginalisation vs. the religious rights and choices of a marginalised group.

It obviously hurts the cause that the referendum was spearheaded by a clearly bigoted group and that there has already been a ban on minarets which was atrocious. But people shouldn't vote against something they might agree with just because it was proposed by a stupid person nor against something because the disagree with a vaguely related law. Some western European governments are also fairly silent on the problems of Islamic radicalisation, even though there are beheadings, explosions, car attacks, shootings and assassinations on a near monthly basis in Western Europe. While this is no reason to vote for something it may explain why some did, when the Swiss see the French president actually taking measures to take on extremism (pretty terrible ones but something) or the Belgian Prime Minister actually admitting islamic extremism is a problem and something has to be done...while their own government avoids the issue (because it is a really really difficult issue) some may see it as the only way they can affect change (even if it is a bad way). Government silence, government inaction (on both islamophobia, inequality of Muslims communities as well as extremism) always makes things worse. Of all the terrible things to happen to muslim communities in Europe, I would say prohibiting 30 women (at least a few of whom are very likely coerced) from the most extreme form of subjugation (the face covering) is the lowest on the list. The minaret ban was far more outrageous. Governments doing little about islamophobia and inequality is outrageous. ShabiDOO 12:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As if any of this justifies the oppression Muslims face on a routine basis in European countries. Macron's "steps" against "extremism" are nothing more than a crackdown on ethnic minorities in France. Why not ask Muslim women themselves what they think of the burka and stop pretending they have no agency? Have you ever wondered why radicalization is so common in Muslim communities? It's more complicated, far more complicated, than "Islam bad." I love how "action" is cynically taken on Muslim communities while the problems that lead to alienation and radicalization in the first place are ignored or even exacerbated, all the while the far right get a pass to terrorize Muslims as they please. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean pretend they have no agency? I lived in a Muslim country where numerous female friends routinely complained having to wear modest clothing (even in places where the government couldn't penalise them for doing so) and in two western countries where female muslim friends habitually took their modest clothing off the moment they were away from their family (various ages from teenagers to adults). Perhaps consider not-pretending as though coercion doesn't routinely happen against women in "traditional" and orthodox religious families. I've noticed justice advocates seem to put religion at a higher level than gender equality when conflicts arise. Why? Ignoring coercion against women, even in marginalised religious communities is fucking ridiculous. ShabiDOO 14:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you read the works of post-colonial feminists on the subject. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't think we can pass off burkas as simply "religious garments." Looking at how they've been used in the countries that mandate them, it's patently obvious that such outfits are designed as a form of social control over women. These garments, at least in such a religious context, are by definition sexist. Burkas aren't yamakas, or hijabs, or niqabs, or chadurs: they seek to hide and erase all aspects of a woman's body over an unusual interpretation of a few lines in the Quran. They are in no way necessary for Islamic worship, and when they are used in such contexts, they send a blatantly sexist message that women must not be seen, and that their very bodies are sinful, unpure, and unfit for the gaze of their male superiors. Are these values really worth defending, seeing as they're more extreme versions of those espoused by the far-right? IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank@Shabidoo While I don't disagree with your assessments on the role of the Burqa in Islamic society, I'd like to argue that "Burqa Bans" are actually counterproductive to the goal of changing Muslim culture in predominantly non-Muslim countries. It creates a backlash effect where the majority of that community, already facing external sociopolitical threats, lumps you in with their existing enemies. They also feel that their culture is being "stripped away by force", and as a result may cling ever tighter to it. "So what is a better method GC?" you may now be asking. Quite simply, deescalation of the sociopolitical climate. By opposing discriminatory laws you can buy trust and favor with that community, which can then translate into inner-community change over time. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank Excellent point - fundamentalist Islamism is basically conservapedia in a different garb. Meow^Purr 14:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Actually think about what the numbers mean. Rounding for simplicity, both White and Muslim terrorists killed 100 people each over 20 years, but there are 2,500,000 Muslims and 250,000,000 White people in the US. That means that a Muslim American is 100 times as likely to commit a terrorist act as a White person. "White Nationalists kill more" is the wrong way to look at it. Instead, look at it in terms of the whole, because 100 times a really small number is still small. 100 murders from terrorism over 20 years from 2,500,000 people amounts to a per capita of .2, compared to the US's average murder rate of 6 per capita. I can't seem to find the actual stats of "murders by religious background", but let's assume it's just 6.2 vs 6. Now consider that Muslims make up a disproportionate number of doctors. In other words, allowing Muslims into the US (at least, Uni-Educated Muslims) is more likely to save your life than end it. CorruptUser 15:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that this news happened at the same time that Joko Widodo of Indonesia issued a decree ordering public schools to respect religious freedom and prohibited schools from requiring females to wear the jilbab. It's a pretty rare news cycle where I'm more on the side of Joko Widodo than a European country, but here we are. The burqa is as ridiculous as IveBeenFrank describes, but banning it to me is counterproductive. Obviously there's enough Islamaphobia in Switzerland where a very slim majority don't agree with me, but from my perspective, I don't see how burqa bans really does anything to address Islamic extremism and terrorism. To frame using another group of extremists, would anyone in the US think that a national ban on the Confederate flag would do anything to solve white nationalist extremism? It's not like Germany's extensive laws forbidding Nazi imagery have not stopped (cough) "alternatives" (cough) from popping up, either. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, banning the flag does limit White Nationalism to some extent. The idea behind making various forms of speech "unacceptable" in public is that it causes the next generation to believe that holding the "unacceptable" ideas makes them a bad person, and over time, fewer and fewer people would become White Nationalists than if the symbols were out in the open, even if the ban pisses off current White Nationalists more and thus causes a bit more violence right now. The problem is that if you give the government/public the ability to ban things they don't like, well, that's literally the origin story of the society in Fahrenheit 451. CorruptUser 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Almost no one in Switzerland wears the burqa, and only 30 people wear the niqab. Is it really necessary to ban something that is really a nonissue, @Kevlarstar, @Shabidoo, @Meow — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, only very few people in Switzerland wear full-face veils. It’s mostly tourists who wear them. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 16:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anybody voted for the face covering law as a measure to combat radicalism or Islamisation (who thinks a burka ban will suddenly bring an end of bombings?) but to address what they see as the most publicly visible symbol of the religious dehumanisation of women (which they find highly offensive). Be it an Islamophobic response or one of actual concern for some women they believe to be coerced...it's the one way they can voice their concern in a country where the government does virtually nothing to deal with extremism (neither dealing with inequality and Islamophobia that can lead to extremism nor dealing with the importation of extremism from Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan/Pakistan). And it's obvious why many governments don't do much as they often pay a political price regardless of what they do. Funding job programs for Muslim communities rile up far-right idiots who frame it as immigrants getting all the money. Deporting radicalised muslim clerics or even publically saying some sects of islam is a problem is framed as an islamophobic and racist response. For coalition partners it is costly to do anything regarding Islam. Islam is a particular problem because there are many many marginalised grops in Western Europe, some who face as difficult or even worse problems than Muslims (black Europeans, trans people etc) and they don't become radicalised and set neighbourhoods on fire or behead people over their grievances. Obviously marinalisation is the largest factor in radicalisation but it cannot be reduced simply to a problem of marginalisation and issues within Muslim communities such as women's rights, homophobia and radicalism cannot be ignored as "just a marginalised group" issue. For political parties though, silence is the wisest action. Commenting or doing anything about any of these issues brings too much grief for many parties. Unfortunately when the government does nothing about either issue, it is bad for literally everyone. ShabiDOO 17:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

My take: I don't think that there needs to be a law banning burqas, infringing on religious freedom and whatnot. However, I think that Muslim women have a right to choose if they want to wear it or not, and not get flak for it from radical Muslims or Neo-Nazi douchebags. I also think it's important to recognize that, yes, the burqa is dehumanizing. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The Swiss banished that kid a few years back because he wouldn't shake a female teacher's hand. As long as the person isn't a citizen, the Swiss are within their rights to refuse entry regardless of how dickish the reason. Maybe burqas could be technically legal for citizens, but are grounds for preventing you from receiving citizenship or renewing your visa? But then what prevents the slope from slipping, and being a union member can prevent entry? Being vegan? Owning a rap album? CorruptUser 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shabi (since you edited)

Islamic terrorists have killed about 700 people in the EU in the past 20 years, and there were an estimated 20 million Muslims in the EU. That's... actually around the same terrorism/death rate as the US, assuming the numbers are correct. I think it's safe to say "for every 1,000,000 Muslims in a Western country, there will be 2 additional deaths from terrorism each year". Not exactly a lot, much less than the overall murder rates, but definitely more than other groups for this particular cause of death. CorruptUser 20:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In the European Union all terrorist attacks that have killed at least 10 people since the year 2000 were Jihaddist (two of them killing around 200 people). In the last five years there have been over 100 attacks, most of them fatal with the UK and France taking the worst of it. No other marginalised groups in the EU in the last 20 years (black Europeans, Jews, LGTBQ+, Gypsies etc) have participated in any likewise ideologically driven fatal terrorism (though they they have certainly suffered from fatal hate crimes). Terrorist events have also happened in countries or cities with minuscule Muslim populations. While there is no doubt that islamophobia and marginalisation is behind most terrorism and that very little (if anything) is done about it in many Western European countries, marginalisation cannot possibly be the full explanation nor dealing with marginalisation be the sole solution to Jihaddism in Europe and it is ridiculous to ignore this and not address it. ShabiDOO 23:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I was going to reply with Anders Breivik, but I had to double check and technically Norway isn't in the EU... CorruptUser 01:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As an ex-Muslim woman, I have to question the savior mentality of Western liberals and their generalization of third world women as powerless victims with no agency. It's quite frankly extremely offensive. — Oxyaena ^Harass 00:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably wording should be chosen more carefully, because Islam is varied. Full face coverings are by and large only associated with very fundamentalist strains of Islam such as Salafism and Wahhabism -- strains which also often are the strains associated with the violence Westerners worry about. (The fundamentalism of these groups is such that they may violently hate other forms of Islam too.) Although hijab is required by law in a few countries, I cannot Google any nation that actually require full face covering. In fact, a couple of Islam countries (Tunisia and Morocco) actually burn full face coverings, for a combination of security reason and as a way of resisting the spread of extremist Islam ideology. On the other hand, two nations in particular (Iran and Saudi Arabia) actually have "morality police" that (sometimes ridiculously) enforces hijab oriented dress codes, making it more of a legitimate agency question for women in these nations in particular. The last Islam country I visited was Malaysia. Hijabs (in the local lore, tudong) were common but not omnipresent. I never saw a full face covering. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Tunisia and Morocco ban burkas as well for security reasons makes me feel further vindicated in the belief that France and Switzerland did nothing wrong with those policies. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 04:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC):

Algeria and Chad banned them as well, while Uzbekistan and Tajikistan even banned Hijabs. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 08:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, the Saudi-Arabian prince uplifted the mandatory hijab, probably because of tourists. Kevlarstar ^Ping! 08:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the Morality Police lost a lot of influence in the country after they forced a bunch of girls to stay in a burning building rather than *gasp* live with the shame of people having seen their hair. Even hardliners thought that was too much, because every Islamic scholar not completely insane understands that short of murder/bestiality/apostasy, staying alive is more important than following all the minor rules. CorruptUser 14:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Did they? Bin Salman is still pretty hardline fundamentalist, and his reputation as a reformist is... Nuanced at best. several reforms have been criticized as hijacking the efforts of activists who's risked their lives to push for these issues for years. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That happened close to 20 years ago, before MBS was of age. There was a huge amount of outrage in KSA over that, and one of the prior Crown Princes placed all girls' schools under the administration of the state instead of the various hardline clerics as a result. They've had their powers slowly curtailed over time, and in 2016 (soon after another girl died due to the religious police), MBS actually curtailed their ability to detain people, instead they are only allowed to report crimes to the police. CorruptUser 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Of tangential relevance

The teacher who got beheaded in France by terrorists after a girl complained that he kicked her out of the classroom while showing an offensive cartoon actually did nothing wrong; the girl who accused him admitted in court that she made up the story. Fucking outrageous. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, he was beheaded bc he showed the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, which he did, not that he singled out the Muslim kids to leave, which he did not. To me, the answer of course is to take away the power the cartoons have over people... by plastering them on so many billboards that discussing the cartoons is no longer seen as controversial.

I think we should also ask why the cartoons are such a big deal, when back in the summer of 2001, South Park had Mohammed on the show as a goofy superhero with fire powers and no one complained a bit. The answer is that 1) Muslim leaders see exactly what has happened in the Western World in terms of all the cartoons making fun of Jesus, that jokes and humor are the means by which "Holy" institutions are able to be scrutinized and eventually torn down, and rather correctly believe that if no one is able to make jokes about Mohammed, then Muslims are much less likely to become secular or even *gasp* non-religious, and 2) they saw in the aftermath of Jyllands-Posten that Western societies could be intimidated into avoiding even suggesting there's anything about Mohammed that could be joked about. If we truly care about secularizing the Islamic world and ensuring that Islamic terrorism is "just a phase" and not a permanent fixture, we need people to be able to criticize the religion without risking death, and that means, yes, doing our best to ensure that it's safe to make a cartoon about the guy. CorruptUser 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo isn't my cup of tea. Just looking at some of their issues, they seem to strive for absolute offensiveness, disregarding any attempts at moderately clever satire or sharp wit in favor of shock value, a trend that's unfortunately been in vogue for the past 20-30 years, but has only increased in severity thanks to Internet edgelords. I do believe you can criticize Islam, and I in no way believe those terrorists were justified in massacring the journalists involved with such a cartoon, but merely that intelligent criticism should be preferred, and is in many ways necessary: if we keep treating Islam as some ridiculous thing to be mocked without ever getting into why, we're doing ourselves and the fundamentalists a disservice. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A curious and common notion at this wiki is that religions can be productively criticized. Too often the effect of such efforts is imminent mortality.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying it's impossible to have a discussion explaining the negative effects of wearing a burqa? Or that all religions are true? Or that no member of any religion is wrong about anything in any way? I hope this doesn't come off as aggressive, but as a Christian myself, there is a great deal I disagree with members of my broader religion, and those of different religions. I believe that these differences can be discussed, and that some greater learning on the true nature of God and ourselves can be discovered. And then there's versions of faith that are just plain wrong: I've encountered enough young-Earth creationists for a lifetime. IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think UncleKrampus is saying that too often in human history, the response to criticism of religion has been an argumentum ad baculum approach. Chalk that up as yet another good reason for keeping church and state separate, it increases the chance that productive criticism and discussion is possible. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a note; Charlie Hebdo criticizes Christianity in the exact same way they mocked Islam. That's their nature, French caricaturists - they like to mock many things, especially religious stuff. One might like or dislike it, but it is a sign that the country is free - and freedom should certainly be upheld. Meow^Purr 02:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Religious ideas do not equal race, sex, gender or sexuality. They are totally different categories. Religious ideas are an ideology, a world view and therefore is absolutely free game to even over the top obscene ideological ridicule. If you can parody the shit out of Communism or Christianity you should be able to parody the shit out of any other world view or ideology including Islam including ridiculing the fuck out of their sacred ideas or their prophet. I don't care how bad taste or provocative that ridicule is. Fuck people who have even the slightest sympathy or even passively justify or sympathise with those who wanted to murder or hurt the journalists in Charlie Hebdo or those who would want to shut down such publications. I remember many people framing the post-Hebo debate as "not a one about free speech". As though a group of people warning a news paper not to publish a cartoon of their prophet and then murdering them after they went ahead and published those cartoons as in any way not a blatant "case of free speech". Ridiculing an ideology is not dehumanising a person. Dehumanising someone for being a member of a group is what is dehumanising. It is an important distinction and is something a notable number of justice advocates fail to recognise. This makes singling out and advocating against the most toxic elements of religion a very difficult task for those who fight against all forms of marginalisation. ShabiDOO 09:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kevlarstar ^Ping! 09:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism and parody are all well and good, but that's not what Charlie Hebdo does. They just draw cartoons with Muhammed on the toilet. Not a lot of meaning there, or any attempt to mock Islam on it's actual ideology. Instead, they act like some 15-year-olds on 4chan, and ask "How can I offend the most people with a drawing that has absolutely no meaning other than 'Fuck you!!!!!1'?". Now I'm not saying they should be censored, merley that they shouldn't be upheld for doing the complicated and difficult work of satirizing and decomposing an authoritarian ideology. We can have satire that digs deep into the flaws of Islam, it's possible. We don't just have to settle for the outrageous and offensive, like Muhammed on the toilet. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that even most of their satire is noble or even good (though certainly not all of it is their prophet depicted in grotesque settings). Again though...a cartoon of Jesus or Marx sitting on the toilet wouldn't garner such outrage, nor were they threatened with death by other belief systems (including marginalised ones) which was actually the point of many of the cartoons. You tell us we cannot make fun of your prophet in a shocking way with threats of violence if we do? Well here is our most undignified cartoon we can imagine...fuck you very much we will draw what we like. You have to actually read their paper to get their merciless lampooning of everything. Before they were murdered by Jihaddists sales were going down and I don't think anybody in the intellectual world were quoting many of their articles or looking to them as a bastion of even useful satire. But their point, many of the times was...no set of ideas or revered figures or sacred objects are free of even low-brow ridicule. And they shouldn't be. Religious ideological outrage does not deserve any higher sympathy than ideological outrage or the outrage of cranks, woo meisters or charlatans. ShabiDOO 11:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I simply mean to say that we need some high-quality, biting satire to show why fundamentalist Islam is wrong: it's more intellectually honest for the creators and the consumers, and it may just help those trapped in fundamentalism to break out, to convert into something that can coexist with a modern free society. Charlie Hebdo won't cut it. IveBeenFrank (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh I couldn't agree more. There ought to be high level satire only it's dangerous to do so. Even middle-brow satire is hard to get published. South Park did a satire based on how dangerous it is to even discuss depicting Mohammed...and their episode was predictably censored (for fear of the television studios and a fear that was quite justified). Not that South Park is high brow satire but they totally had a point, everyone in town was shifty-eyed worried that even putting Mohammed in a bear costume could get their town bombed. In the mean time even fairly low-grade or positive depictions of Mohommed in Scandinavia involved people worrying for their lives (and buildings firebombed). So, you have to be rather fearless to do any satire. Is this entirely a question of marginalisation? Mostly but hardly entirely. You don't see people of other marginalised or ideologies blowing up buildings for even mild satire (or even positive representations done in ways they don't like) of their most dear beliefs). This is clearly a serious problem that again, most European government don't want to touch with a ten foot pole. ShabiDOO 12:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Meow^Purr 12:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Charlie hebdo mocking christianity is not the same as charlie hebdo mocking islam. one is people from the same culture laughing at themselves, the other is people from one culture laughing at the another. whats its more its people of a culture that has, to much of the world that peoples being at laughed at reside, invaded, colonised, bombed and destablised, propped up illiberal regimes, toppled democratic governments, pitted neighbour against neighbour. in france and the western world, the people laughing at you are the people who actively discriminate against you.

since the ottoman empire collapsed, the christian west (france and britain) moved into the middle and the parts of north africa where they werent already, and the christian west (now primarily led by the us) hasnt really left since then. much of francophone africa still has the french asserting its dominance over its former possessions. oil and the cold war has kept western powers from decolonising completely. with all the wars and repressive regimes directly funded by the west, where some of those regimes would stone to death any budding satirist, and democracy has not exactly been encouraged by the west, why are we surprised that western satire of islam inflames the muslim world? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's bullshit AMassiveGay. You are conflating a marginalized group with the set of ideas that the marginalized group believes in. They aren't mocking the entirety of the Muslim world or attacking people for being Muslims. They are mocking the ideas of Islam and the most toxic elements of that religion. Religious ideas are not the same as race, class, gender or sexuality. Distinguish the two or doom our society to coexisting with a group of people having an untouchable set of ideas. ShabiDOO 11:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

AMassiveGay, that idea - that Muslims and non-white communities are different - are exactly what has led to Trump and Farage. They use the exact same terms - that "we" are different from "them", that they are the "other", etc. If we want a more tolerant world, then every worldview must be open to equal scrutiny and debate. Meow^Purr 13:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@shabidoo - whats bullshit in saying someones message is going to be received differently depending on whos saying it and who is they are saying it to? the likes of charlie hebdo mocking christ and them mocking mohammed are just not the same. they are not going to be received in the same way by different communities, it is just ridiculous to pretend other wise. this doesnt make ideas untouchable, but if you want to get a message across and you dont consider the audience it wont be received the way you want.

i gave some reasoning for why this might be so concerning the muslim world, who i might add are very much defined by the set of ideas that they believe in. a shared religious belief is core to muslim communities and how they are perceived by others. we have seen how social media works and we have seen how fundamentalists have exploited a sense of solidarity between muslims across the globe.

@meow - thats complete fucking dogshit that bares no relation to what i have said or the point i was making AMassiveGay (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't give a shit how precious they think their prophet is. He generated and still represents a set of ideas, some of them re-fucking-diculous, dangerous and EXTREMELY offensive including to we LGTBQ+ people. The fact that far-right-assholes discuss them in ways that go beyond discussing the set of ideas and instead attacking them for being a member of a group is irrelevant. That doesn't make their set of ideas or symbols suddenly totally taboo and beyond critique and ridicule. Charlie Hebdo were absolutely right to respond a segment of the believers of a fucking ridiculous religion threatening them with violence if they depicted their symbol of their ridiculous beliefs in a way they didn't like by doing so which they had every right to do and in doing so broke a stupid taboo. No set of ideas (not race, gender, sexuality) nor the precious symbols of those ideas are off-topic from any debate. It is their choice to believe stupid shit and revere a prophet who has nothing but contempt for women, gay people and non-believers. ShabiDOO 17:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

seems like preaching to converted to me, achieving nothing but a circling of the wagons shutting down any kind of debate. the fundamentalists and crazy and/or dangerous beliefs wont go away because we scored some zingers. they feed of the suspicion and distrust. they will remain while many muslim countries and their governments prevent any questioning of authority what so ever and wont change while we in the west sell them arms and efforts to bring democracy to the middle east have involved war and drone strikes and rank hypocrisy. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm fully aware of historical and contemporary terrible foreign policy and atrocities commit ed by both the West towards countries with Muslim majorities and Muslim governments towards non-Muslim countries and their own religious minorities within those countries. They are awful. I marched in ant-war protests in London. I volunteered in a Palestinian refugee camp. I always vote for parties with platforms that address Islamophobia and are against arms-sales to tyrannical governments, and I call out Islamophobia when I hear it (actual Islamophobia not criticism of the set of religious ideas). I am aware of how disastrous Western adventures in the middle east has been (as I've said many times, the result of the American second conflict in the Gulf resulted in oil profits for American companies and horror in the Middle EAst and the train station I live next to being blown up). I am aware that systemic prejudice against mainly muslim people in France has led to horrible discrimination, second class citizenship and avoidable riots in Paris. I also volunteer for an anti-female genital mutilation organisation and when I lived and travelled in Muslim countries I studied their languages (with varying success), their religious customs, appreciated their cultural differences, hid my homosexuality in fear for my life and kept my mouth shut while I saw and heard highly offensive things. All of this is entirely irrelevant to whether we should draw cartoons about any religion or set of ideas and whether or not we should fear for our lives doing so. Be it wise/constructive/helpful or not to draw these cartoons is also irrelevant. ShabiDOO 16:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Gay, every criticism you have of what Christians have to done to Muslims can also be applied to what Muslims have done to everyone in "their" lands. Most of those countries were Christian-Majority before the Arab Conquests, and Colonialism, where the conquerors brought their families and civilians in to seize the best farmland for themselves and treated the locals as second-class citizens at best, definitely was a thing in the countries conquered at this time.

Shabi, don't forget absolute contempt for adoption. It's actually the most controversial part of the Quran, Surah 33 I believe. Basically, Mohammed had 4 wives. He also had a slave that he adopted, Zayid, and at this time adoption meant Zayid was for all legal purposes Mo's son. One of Mohammed's followers had died in battle, so Mo gave the widow, Zaynab, to Zayid. Then one day Mohammed accidentally entered Zayid's house unannounced, and accidentally saw Zaynab in a state of undress. It was at this moment that Allah decided to tell Mohammed several things. First, that Zaynab was to be Mohammed's wife. Second, that the limit of 4 wives didn't apply to Mohammed, because it's the will of Allah. Third, that this was not incest, Zaynab was not Mo's daughter-in-law, because adoptions aren't a thing. And that's why adoptions aren't really a thing in Islam. It's hugely controversial in the Muslim world, because it's almost as if Mohammed is making stuff up as he goes along and screwing people (literally) based on his own personal desires, but we all know that can't be the case, it's just a test of faith because Mohammed is without flaws. CorruptUser 17:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no end to bullshit in that religion and any other religion. The only difference is, Bhuddists don't take their symbols so neurotically seriously that a small number of people would set fire to a city if someone say, shoved a Bhudda statue up their ass, nor would Spanish gypsies or a group of American transgendered people go murder an office of journalists for saying far more vile things than Charlie Hebdo did (which right wing assholes do in Spain and the US every day anyways). It's not up to us to make religious symbols taboo because a small set of people are driven to levels of violent lunacy when people criticise or even low-brow taunt them. They are bloody ideas. Terrible, offensive and even dangerous ones. I certainly wish Charlie Hebdo were less over the top with their cartoons but I stand by their right to ridicule a set of ideas and the sacred symbol of those ideas as much as they please. ShabiDOO 17:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just collecting these signs, ainchya? CorruptUser 17:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@cory - the point was that the recent history of western involvement indicates a power imbalance and malign influence on the region that gives the dynamics between west and islam as being antagonistic to say the least. thus any criticism from the west, be it 'satire' or what have you is far from neutral AMassiveGay (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Incels

Does noone else notice the fact that most or all incel-related pages on RW are written by the same individual, who is an incel himself? They have had very little oversight outside of minor grammatical changes etc, and contain remarkable misinformation and a highly biased viewpoint. talk:incel Kauri0.o (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

He has since ragequit. Feel free to improve our articles. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 20:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Blackpill was written entirely by the user in question, and is an absolutely terrible article. Its central premise (the definition of “the blackpill” it uses) is a complete fabrication. I’ll nominate it for deletion at some point. Christopher (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a problem with wikispace-one POV pusher can do a lot if nobody has the background knowledge to refute them. I have encountered similar problems editing Wikipedia.-Flandres (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Most of the articles are purely based on his perception and personal experience in the incel community, and I don't deem these anecdotes as evidence. GeeJayK (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. For now they should probably be flagged with some sort of banner. I previously tried to instate the "Missional" banner on the incel page but maybe this was the wrong banner.

I agree the Blackpill should not exist, though at a quick skim it isn't even that bad; at least that author did have a critical view of them. But a lot of that information should probably be merged with an article on the incel community. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see now that a lot has changed in this space over the last month or so. I saw no notable change to Incel and assumed the same was true elsewhere, my bad. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a definition of "black pill" in the Manosphere glossary that might be all that is needed. The only thing of note these days from my point of view is that the term has sort of drifted and als become a generic 4Chan edgelord "insult". We don't need a full article, IMHO.

Some of the information in the blackpill article though is a nice retort to the "Chad Thundercock" style relationship stereotypes that also plague the chans. Currently we have media criticism in the manosphere article, but that's it. Adding more scientific/psychological/sociological criticism of manosphere bullshit to the article (some of which could be copied from the Blackpill article if cleaned up significantly) doesn't sound like a bad idea. Perhaps we could eventually add this to incel as well, but the incel article needs a *lot* more work. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I know we have a to-do list but, it doesn't seem to have an "Articles requiring updates" section. Over the weekend I may take a crack at rewriting some of them. Though no guarantees because if the weather stays this nice (it's like 55F/13C or warmer in upstate NY right now) I will be busy hiking. PhoxyDude (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks mate, there is a section RationalWiki:To_do_list#Articles_requiring_attention under which there is "Articles requiring updates". Tbh I don't know how to edit Categories. I will also be busy hiking this weekend :) Kauri0.o (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wow, its hidden under the references. I didn't even notice it in the little navigation text. Thanks! PhoxyDude (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The {{Revise}} template might be appropriate. Bongolian (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd also recommend rewriting BreadTube- bigly. All its editorializing needs to die in a fire, as it does not represent the views or stated mission of most of us. Those YouTubers' anti-altright thing is the only reason I'm not reviving its AFD right now. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 17:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm game for helping if someone wants to point me in the direction of the articles in need? Get ready, it's... (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A few of the articles as implied above are; incel (for major revision), blackpill (for deletion), breadtube (for major revision), Draft:Involuntary_Celibacy (for deletion), love-shy.com (for major revision or deletion), Sexual_revolution_caused_incels_hypothesis (for deletion).

These should all be added to the RW to-do list and their corresponding categories. As per above I don't know how to do this, and also don't have time to head a bunch of AFD's. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Draft:Involuntary Celibacy should be deleted. It looks like an interesting and missional sociological phenomenon to me. GeeJayK (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss that on the talk. I'd personally argue it is a coatrack and should be headed under "sexual frustration" or similar, but there are other valid reasons why it should not exist. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Got another video in the works

It involves a gang going around and stealing COVID-19 vaccinations from pharmacies and trucks transporting the vaccines. The endgame is simple: sell the vaccines for extremely high prices. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That's half the plot of the third man. Though it's penicillin that Harry lime has been pinching AMassiveGay (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of that show. As for my antagonist in the EAS scenario is a fictional gang. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

philistine AMassiveGay (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That theme was covered a little in the latest South Park episode. There's nothing wrong with doing something similar to what they did. Just try to do it better than them. ShabiDOO 08:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I was inspired by South Park. I saw the Vaccination Special--Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What did you think of it? ShabiDOO 15:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have finished it but South Park Studios had too many ads. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

South Park was spectacular until four seasons ago or so (when they started doing season long story arcs). There have been a few good espiodes here and there but nothing like the hysterical laugh out loud moments and occasional brilliant social commentary as before. The pandemic special was disappointing for me. I thought the vaccination espisode had a few very funny moments but was otherwise meh. You didn't miss much if you didn't see the end. However a story about people stealing and selling vaccines is a great idea. A great ironic element might be people who were vaccine skeptics doing it to fund their vaccine skeptic activism fuckery! ShabiDOO 17:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Il6F7EuNgE0sHLzbp80Qvzs6VGgzbHJUf8VAVTz8Ug/edit?usp=sharing I have a script for voice actors. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I applaud Cressida Dick.

The news about her being asked to resign for her handling of the attempted "vigil" is absolutely ludicrous! A horde of narcissistic morons gather, simultaneously increasing the spread of this lethal virus, and have the absolute nerve to ask, a role model for women if there ever was one, to resign. And guess what? - the police did their job! Could the police have handled it better? - yes of course! But these armchair experts think they no better. They're incapable of having the maturity to realise that they can effectively protest in other - safer and more effective ways. P.s. Completely in agreement with the sentiment of LGM's essay on mobile phone footage being an unreliable source for criticising the police. Leucippus^Talk 21:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

So, about those NFTs

For those that don't know, Nunfungeable Tokens are basically the crypto equivalent of certificates of authenticity. In theory, you're supposed to use them on newly created works with the artist's permission to mutually benefit from inserting works in the blockchain. But in actuality, it's used to basically resell artwork and profit out of it while the earth gets nuked by the lack of energy efficiency these blockchains have. It looks and operates like a Ponzi scheme. I really want ethereum to crash already because it's the reason why GPU prices are so high plus the fact that it's libertarian nonsense. Could there be a block-on-sight policy when someone eventually tokenizes wiki edits? Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 15:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support block on sight. It's basically a form of spamming. Bongolian (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

seen this acronym before, first time ive ended up finding out what it means. was like 40% sure it meant “new fucking thing”. nothing else to add except that the whole blockchain power thing, gives me a whole new argument for the legalisation of drugs I guess. didn’t really need one though so it sucks. 2001:8004:1301:2EDD:6515:F48E:A9CC:17A2 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A relative of mine made a small fortune buying NVIDIA stock a few years ago and I recently bought Corsair. "Etherium causing the GPU prices to skyrocket" wouldn't be bad for my family... except I don't think that's what's happening. Instead, I think Bitcoin et al is causing GPUs to come down in price, not up, due to efficiencies of scale and all but guaranteeing that even the crappiest of GPUs gets sold to some mining operation somewhere; e.g., if the GPU that gets 100 FPS only costs $100, then the GPU that gets only 25 FPS is absolute garbage to a gamer but worth $25 to the miner. It's still a loss for the manufacturer, but a smaller loss, so they might as well mass produce everything. Likewise, if the GPU that gets 100 FPS is $100, the GPU that gets 150 FPS is only worth $150 to a miner but the gamer may be paying $400 for it, so mining has no impact here. CorruptUser 16:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Got a Kindle today

It's freakin' amazing. The pages look like actual book pages, when the brightness isn't too high, that is. A definite recommend for anyone who reads books. Aaronmichael5 00:40, 14 march 2021 (UTC)

I also have a Kindle. Shit's great.Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 23:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm kinda on the older side, my eyes don't work so good no more, and these days it seems like paperbacks prices get bigger while typefaces get smaller. My kindle has nice visible type, the books tend to be cheaper, and there's more than a few features added also. And if you join the "Unlimited" program, well, that's kinda like a fee-based library with access to a kajillion books at no extra cost, which I like too. Not a bad investment, Amazon or no. Kencolt (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I, on my third Kindle I think. (One broke down after a few years and I lost another). I use it a lot.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone else have strange memories of personal racial experiences?

I remember, when I was maybe seven, being at the beach with my father. We were standing knee deep in the sea when I noticed a group of very dark skinned boys walking towards us along the beach. Never having seen the like before, I remember saying to my father "look at them!" or so I thought. Because my father replied, "don't use that word!" It was some years later that I realized which word I must have used. To this day I don't remember learning it, or having heard it until much later. Peculiar.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

My buddy and I were tabletop tweens in a wargaming store. We were wandering from aisle to aisle and looking through some sourcebooks when I noticed that he had been looking behind him. We got over to the tables to run a 500-pt game of 40k and he asked me: “Did you notice that guy following me?” “No.” “The store worker.” “…Yeah, he was following us.” “No, not us, me.” “Why was he following you?” He waved up and down his face in pain (maybe humiliation? ...or pity) and it took me about four years to get that he’d meant that he was black and being profiled, and a shameful but short amount of time more to get that the worker was probably racist. About twenty years of cynical BS later I realized I could have pocketed half the pewter shit we were looking at while he was running interference and facepalmed. Nerdy afterthought: Trazyn would have approved if he'd been in the lore yet. Artificius (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

When I was a kid one of my neighbors was a KKK member. This neighbor was the nicest person you could meet and for a while we didn't know that the neighbor was in the Klan. Truly disturbing thought. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not an old memory, more like an oddity. In a relatively recent apartment, my landlord was apparently incredibly racist, he even openly said there needed to be some sort of pandemic to wipe out all the extra people in India and China (wonder if he'd reconsider that wish now), but was actually otherwise nice to me. At least he wasn't blatantly antisemitic too, odd that he wasn't. I didn't really have much of a choice, there weren't any other good options in the area, so just had to grit my teeth and deal with it. CorruptUser 06:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I was having a debate over the popular misconceptions about the battle of marathon with a guy who I knew was a Libertarian-ish Trump-supporting dude, but he also new a fair amount about ancient history and I thought this topic would not be that "political" to him. He first got weirdly personally invested in the exchange, and by the end he was talking explicitly about the battle between culturally superior individualist westerners versus barbarous Orientals and their inferior, static mode of civilization. In then got even weirder when he started going on about how the Persians were white but failed to beat the Greeks because they practiced race-mixing and how "we are being forced by the militant left into a modern marathon." I knew he was conservative but not THAT kind of conservative.-Flandres (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What is it with White supremacists with fetishizing the history of peoples who, by their standards, wouldn't be pure whites? (Except the Scandinavians, but even that's debatable once you consider migration through Siberia.) IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, has this guy ever heard of the Spartans, one of the major forces behind Ancient Greek philosophy and culture? They weren't individualist in any construction of the term. Nor were the Athenians, for that matter: Plato, for example, wasn't all that keen on individual freedoms and a focus on the self. Not to mention that for a guy how claims to know a lot about history, his understanding of the basic principles of this time period were flawed:

1. There was no conception of race, or even national identity, nor were there enough variations in skin tone among communicating cultures for even an informal definition of the term. Thus, "race-mixing" in that society would be the equivalent (minus the nationalism) of a Czech marrying a Slovak: not really different races. Not to mention that race is unscientific by its very nature: one learns more about race from how cultures define it than anything about it that can be derived through scientific means.
2. "Orientals" just makes me laugh, considering that nearly everything happening in the Western side of the world was centered around the Levant and the Fertile Crescent. The Greeks were somewhat distant and isolated-in fact, there was virtually nobody to the west of them.
3. Calling the Achaemenids static is also funny, because their whole method of rule was based on adapting and accommodating local traditions and customs to support a somewhat centralized rule. It was constantly changing, and had the potential to be quite dynamic. Also, the Spartans had a very static civilization-nothing changed there for nearly 400 years, even as Ancient Greece reached its zenith.
4. Once again, the fascist perception of victory as evidence of cultural superiority returns. The truth is, the Achaemenids were spread thin when they invaded Greece, and by that time had lost their battle-hardened experience and skill they gained when they were constantly in combat as their civilization rose. They simply had too much territory to manage, that they couldn't devote all their troops to one continuous theatre without facing uprisings elsewhere. In the end, that's why Xerxes pulled out of the conflict, not because the Greeks inflicted some decisive defeat. Alexander's story is different, however, but by that time the Achaemenids had declined severely, for reasons other than their defeat by the Greeks.
5. I'm continually shocked by the levels of ignorance in this man's statement. It's truly astonishing. I guess fractal wrongness really exists. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem with making the Greco-Persian wars the Enuma Elish of western civilization. Suddenly you can not divest the historical record from a forcibly imposed ideological narrative made much later in much later terms that even the victorious Athenians would not have used at the time. Heck, the Persians did not even consider it significant-Artaphernes remained within royal favor afterward.-Flandres (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I kind of lost my shit once when a friend who was otherwise very well read shared a meme that insisted the Romans fell because of their cultural perversion (he was clearly comparing America to the same). "How do you draw any moral lessons from the death of a state that existed for nearly two thousand years?" Artificius (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank True, the Achaemenids were a great civilization. They were recovering from their decline, actually - they had barely finished some civil wars when Alexander attacked. They still had a very good chance, but Alex happened to be one of the greatest generals in history, so that was that. One more, puzzling fact is that when Philip II was threatening Greece, Athens asked for Artaxerxes III's help, but this usually shrewd emperor chose not to intervene. That was one epic diplomatic fail. Meow^Purr 14:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, remember Macedon (or as the Persians called them, the "Yauna Takabara") was not that important a kingdom till Philip came along. It was poorly centralized, and prone to struggles among the barons. I suppose it is the same arrogance all old powers show for rising ones. It would make an awesome PoD if you are into alternate history stuff though.-Flandres (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

In the second grade we had a kid join our class from the reservation. The teacher told us all that he might believe something different and look a little different, but we had to respect that. I remember a lot of kids wouldn't talk to him because he was "an indian" and I remember he told me a story about how the dinosaurs died, and I told him he was wrong. He said the last dinosaur came into the world and looked around, and there were no other dinosaurs, so it went back into it's mother's stomach and that's how the dinosaurs died. I mean, I was the "Santa is a lie" kid, so I told him "nothing can go back in its mother's stomach" or something like that. But it was the first time I really saw people, even if we were dumbass little kids, refuse to talk to somebody because they were different. I was different the whole time, too. I'm unbaptized. My parents must really be irresponsible, throwing my immortal soul out there to figure it out myself. At least that's what I hear if I admit it to people my parents' age. But otherwise, it's always been "he's so polite, so well behaved, so respectful." Like, yeah, I've seen how y'all treat people who aren't your team. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

To me, there is barely any difference between ethnic groups. Not enough difference between ethnic groups to note. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I am Asian but people at my middle school swore up and down that I was a Mexican. Was very annoying and almost made me racist against actual Mexicans. 71.208.x.x (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Eggs, there's minimal genetic/physical differences between ethnic groups. However, there are huge cultural differences, and while it's not "woke" to say so, cultures aren't always equal. "What music do you prefer" or "what spices do you add to your food" are basically unimportant differences, I'm talking things like "how much do you value education", "how acceptable is homosexuality or other non-standard behaviors", "how do you raise the children" or "how do you resolve disputes" are very important differences. It's not entirely objective as to which is better, but it's not entirely subjective either. If you don't think cultures can be better than one another, well, ask yourself a simple question. Do you believe that American Culture (or whatever culture you are in) can be improved? If "yes", "improved" implies that your ideal American culture is better than the current culture, ergo, cultures can be better or worse than one another. If "no", well, then don't complain about anything or waste time trying to change things, because you don't think any change will be an improvement. CorruptUser 14:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

double x IP, I had a good friend from middle school through my early adult years. He is half Pilipino, his dad is the whitest of Irish I've ever met (and in the top spot for funniest navy guy I've ever met), and this Filipino friend of mine gets clocked as Mexican constantly. He was one of my best friends, his search for Asian culture made me comfortable with my prior experience with anime (I saw Akira on the Sci-Fi channel when I was like, 7, you tell me the first person you meet who says "I saw that" isn't your friend) and he and his brothers basically taught me fighting games, which are my favorite games today. I met a lot of Chinese and Korean people through him. I know one Laotian girl, she married a friend of mine, her parents were pretty hardcore racist Laotian. But back on my experience, fresh out of dropping out of college, I made a few friends at my call-center job. One girl asked another "what's the worst Latino to be?" And I was fucking gobsmacked, but the girl thought about it, honestly, it wasn't even surprising to her, and said "Well... Nobody wants to be from El Salvador." Not only are you not Mexican, a lot of "Mexicans" aren't from Mexico. It's as if you have to spend time with a person, rather than guessing about their name or skin color. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cory, did you spend time with people? I absolutely hate doing that now, I get it. Scout some memories. Have you or have you not seen a black person?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 05:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, quite a bit actually, and since you seem to be upset about my stance on culture... Black culture has a lot going for it, they do punch above their weight in terms of contributing to American culture in general, there's quite a few flaws too, some of those flaws are self-inflicted, most inflicted by others. Overall, more good than bad. CorruptUser 06:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And your weight is to talk about it. Do it prescriptively, it's a cold wasteland. I do like what you're saying. Same team. But I would suggest dropping your own narrative as the only way to approach the issue. I can't tell you how to do it. I can just kinda see that you're not into the broader perspective thing. And that's alright, I ain't mad at ya. If I had perfect answers the world would get along a little better. It's always tough. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the whole "holding your tongue to avoid offending people" thing. It's one thing to hold your tongue in front of others in terms getting along in public, just nod along and smile, but this whole idea that truth and reality have to be altered to avoid offending people is, well, it's just downright Orwellian. As for others being right, eh, I always love to hear other people's personal experiences, don't know what gave you the idea otherwise. I also don't know where you got the idea that I think there's only My Truth and nothing else. Sure, I think many others are wrong, but that doesn't mean I believe there is only one right. CorruptUser 06:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's good. I do think you're a little wrong in this was supposed to be about strange and personal racial experiences, but if you've seen anything I've posted, woof, I can't fault you for a digression. But the strange thing is, when people FEEL like they have to "hold their tongue." that kinda indicates something.... society isn't exactly cool with. I don't think you should have to hold your tongue, but hey, I also think it's strange that you would feel like you have to hold your tongue. So, pot calling kettle black. What is it, exactly, that makes a racial experience strange to you? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking another crack at learning Koine Greek and I found this song about the Greek alphabet

https://youtu.be/ac29qW_hrDU

This Greek alphabet song is so freaking catchy. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've got one for Hindi, that's basically the Hindi version of Dora. It's also pretty catchy, even though I can barely understand it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eofyx2okzV4 --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Very nice, but that apparently only covers the initial vowels. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 22:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhino That Thinks It's A Goat

VerminWiki (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not important to RationalWiki at all, but this is just adorable.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I need a favo(u)r

I just started a draft on Christian nationalism and how it affects politics and culture in a negative way. I don't have much free time to work on this, so I am asking some of you to give me ideas on what I could talk about, which sources I should cite, and if you have questions on what I'm working on. I may not reply to everyone, but I will try. Thanks.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 17:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I recently ported a custom recovery to my phone

I have a burner around me that I use to test-monkey some advanced Android stuff. I was disappointed that it doesn't have any official support from the developers of OrangeFox, so I decided to build it myself. If any of you have a Moto X Pure/Style lying around, you can grab a eng build on my GitHub. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Novel Writing Update 3: Zombies, lots of zombies

My zombie plague is going to be a hybrid bioweapon developed in secret by the Russians during the height of the Cold War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorabies https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/parasites-want-invade-your-brain/#:~:text=4%20Parasites%20That%20Want%20To%20Invade%20Your%20Brain,3%20Pork%20Tapeworm.%20...%204%20Toxoplasma%20Gondii.%20

I am thinking of having two Varicellovirus pathogens and brain parasite genome integrated into a virus particle. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What if the plague was SCP-008? I'm actually working on an essay about the Foundation right now. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 11:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there are enough SCP-008 tales. I like RZ's original idea better. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 19:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To make the zombie outbreak more fun, a planned city ran by rich Libertarians who make cash off the poor while crying about government regulations. Bet you can see how that goes. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And perhaps also a 'vampire-generating' equivalent/the vampires emerge from the shadows (as they are immortal and such parasites are even more 'not in their interests'). Anna Livia (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The vampire viral strain might work into an idea I am formulating. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There should be a place in the novel where there's an infectious outbreak on a plane while it's in the air. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and what if there's a city nearby the Libertarian city that's basically become an enormous garrison for a volunteer defense force? Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 00:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That could work. I intend on making a Human Resistance group in the story. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of rising tensions between various factions in the city, but yeah. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 14:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I can add different factions in the story. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 when you say the city is "run by" rich libertarians, what kind of power do they have? Mayorship? Town council? Lots of lower level positions? Are they recently elected or are they a local perennial party of power? Is your crooked cop connected to them? What keeps a higher authority like a governor from subverting them with a state of emergency? Are they fighting that power? Maybe those details don't matter, but I'm personally immediately attracted to questions of "Why are the powerful who they are?" in stories. It's a big part of what makes a song of fire and ice so compelling is that the powerful are constrained by the implicit and explicit rules their position entails. And it's a big part of how Harry Potter falls flat on its face for an older reader. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thinking a City council sort of government. As for my corrupt cop, not sure. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Made a thumbnail for my upcoming video: Need some input

EAS scenario thumbnail

I bet that my video will come out nicely. Thanks to discord I now can get voice actors for videos. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Desperately needs to have larger text, preferably with some black outlines on the words, those of us with cheap shitty monitors (or are colorblind) would have trouble making out the words. PhoxyDude (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You should definitely put work into finding a good font. here is a source for completely free fonts (even for commercial use). Be very thoughtful with which ones you use. Having a goofy yellow font is usually not a great idea. ShabiDOO 15:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that... comic sans...? — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Graphic design is seriously hard. Another problem: those two stock photos have different relative scaling and it shows so much more than just one of them being stretched. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove the unreadable text, that can go into the video's title. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Time to get hammered in celebration of the death of Irelands patron saint. Fortunately tomorrow's a day off for me, though I guess I need to be sober enough to operate an impact drill sometime in the afternoon. That's a worry for tomorrow though. Tonight I'm going to drown myself in whiskey and Guinness. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 16:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence that we're back to normal

There's been a mass shooting in Atlanta. In other words, we are closer to becoming the way we were before the pandemic: always at fear of getting shot in the face. Think this is unusual? Think again, cause this is America.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah, murders and such were part of the pandemic-era. Remember all the protesters that got shot by right-wing nuts? CorruptUser 15:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

True, but I'm talking about mass shootings, which occurred at a far lower frequency compared to the pre-pandemic era. Also, I'm not saying that this is a good thing, I'm just pointing out that we are slowly but gradually returning to normal.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to call bullshit on this, but Wikipedia says there were 6 mass shootings in 2020, but 18 in 2019 and 19 in 2018. Why have you forsaken me, Wikipedia? CorruptUser 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I imagined being quarantined with most public gatherings closed is very inconvenient if your goal is to kill a whole bunch of people...-Flandres (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I heard it was actually 3 separate shootings with combined 8 deaths. The first one had 5 victims, 4 of whom died so I guess that counts as a mass shooting. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really, just go to any Walmart and there's tons of people. Ironically, the cause of mass shootings is coverage of mass shootings; the goal is notoriety, not death count itself. The shooters want to know that they will make the news even if they don't live to see it, that their name is said by others even as a curse, that people will still talk about them decades later. Of course, no one wants to be known as the "Walmart Assassin", that doesn't get you enough infamy. Schools are an easy choice for being in the news for longer, but it's still overplayed. But this leads to an interesting conclusion; the way to get the most news coverage ever for a mass shooting would be to target the news people themselves... CorruptUser 16:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Eh, added Herostratic Fame to the Mass shooting page...CorruptUser 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that per the summary mass shootings spiked from the usual 3-6 a year rate to 14-22 in the Donald Trump era. For all we can hope, maybe the new "norm" is declining to this previous still way-too-high level. It's not surprising that the perpetrator in this most recent case is a Southern Baptist who seems to be motivated by anti-pornography / "sexual addiction" concerns (first impression is that someone of the NoFap crowd, a crowd heavily fueled by religious shame of sexuality, going towards its most extreme end). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So... I learned a new word for what I described. Or set of words, really. "Media contagion".CorruptUser 14:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian elections- talk about a major fiasco

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/middle-east/israel-us-asked-abbas-to-delay-or-cancel-palestinian-elections-report-662195/amp

So far Fatah is giving Hamas a major advantage. Fatah is in the midst of an internal conflict while Hamas seems to have a concrete plan for unity between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Fatah needs to get its act together and fast.

I am interested in the outcome of this nightmare of an election. This makes the US 2020 Election look like a walk in the park. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hamas's "concrete plan" is basically "absorb and/or exterminate Fatah members", don't kid yourself. They are Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood), their primary goal has always been and always will be the displacement of all culture and institutions in the Islamic world with a single Islamist one, their secondary goal is the re-conquest of "former" Islamic territories (Israel for now, but eventually Kashmir and Spain), and if they get enough backing their Kickstarter stretch goal is the displacement of all non-Islamist institutions in the non-Muslim world as well. The only real difference between Hamas and the rest of the Ikhwan is that Hamas doesn't pretend to be non-violent. That and for Hamas, it's a toss-up whether turning Palestinian areas into Islamist hellholes or conquering Israel is the higher priority. Hamas doesn't build schools and hospitals because they are "nice", they do so because they want to be the only institution. CorruptUser 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't say Hamas was good by any means. I said the Fatah should get its act together before it is too late. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

European AstraZeneca suspensions

Am I the only one to be outraged by this? According to most reports I have seen the incidence of blood clotting issues after receiving the AZ vaccine are similar to instances of the problem in the general population. Furthermore the problems occur at the same rate in populations vaccinated with other vaccines. It looks like a case of mass hysteria to me brought on by a bad attack of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I am sure that some people die in car accidents after receiving the vaccine, but nobody is going to blame the vaccine. (At least I hope not.)

And it has two negative consequences 1. It slows down the already slow European vaccine roll-outs. 2. It increases the level of vaccine hesitancy which already exist in some European populations. (To say nothing of of allowing the vaccine denialists to say "I told you so"".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It reminds me of Tesla Motors getting a lot of flak for their cars catching fire... at only 1/5th the rate of gasoline powered cars. It's why I believe journalists should be penalized if they outright ignore basic statistics. CorruptUser 18:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that journalists are quite able to misreport stuff. But I'm complaining about multiple European governments taking the decision.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they were just worried that rumors about it would spread faster than facts, and it would thus increase vaccine hesitancy anyway.-Flandres (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess. But none of them have given that as a reason for suspension. And in any event there are already multiple rumors about the vaccine - from 5G to Bill Gates' Microchips. The correct course of action would be to present the facts. What they have done is totally counter-productive.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It does seem an odd reason to stop such an important vaccination program (programme?), or at the very least slow it down significantly whilst also inflaming anti-vax arguments in general. It's also odd that there's such a harsh split in advice, with countries suspending it whilst the WHO is saying "no don't do that, that's stupid", and other countries still using it, etc. I've never been anti-vax and it's even made me start wondering if someone somewhere knows something important that the rest of us don't (although I'm in the UK and 33 years old, so it'll be ~July before I'm offered one anyway). On a broader note I feel like the last 2-3 years have been a non-stop news avalanche. Everything seems really fast paced and ever-changing, and no one seems to be reflecting on older (like, last month old) news any more, so I'm sure by the start of April this will all be completely out of the news cycle and never mentioned again. Like when some countries were slamming the vaccine's use on over 65s (including Macron describing it as "quasi ineffective") - remember that? I didn't, until I read it in a brief summary of events about 5 minutes ago. It was only a month or so ago, the end of January. X Stickman (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And - after slowing down the European vaccine response and creating more vaccine hesitancy - the regulator announces there is no problem. If they were trying to screw this up they couldn't do it better.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of vaccines, how good is the Indian one? Meow^Purr 12:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A bit like the Russians they rushed it into peoples' arms before finishing the stage three trials. But the latest I read suggested they might have gotten lucky too.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

But India also produces a lot of other vaccines under licence. The AstraZenica for example.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Since there are many people with the user right "tech" here, I was wondering.

Has any of you ever had problem hosting RationalWiki? My website's subdirectories keep getting 403 forbidden errors and that's despite my best attempts at authorizing everyone to access said subdirectories via an .htaccess file. Before I contact the host to see what's the issue, I wanted to try to resolve that by myself, I went over a few dozen of websites by now and my problem is still there.

PS: I am not gonna use "Technical support" to ask this question because this issue has nothing to do with RationalWiki per say. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

.htacess wouldn't be my starting point for 403 errors. I'd check permissions flags on the files themselves. Also check the apache logs. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about switching from Windows to Ubuntu, good idea?

I installed Ubuntu on an old laptop to setup a webserver, and I kinda like it. Now I'm thinking about installing it on my main computer. Any other Linux users out there have some two cents to put in? 71.208.x.x (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Been on Ubuntu for years now - no complaints. Scream!! (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I heard that installing programs outside of a limited set from the software center app requires inputting a bunch of commands in something called the terminal. I am not very good at programming, so I stick to windows. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Make sure you use a thumb drive or a DVD, and software for burning couldn't hurt. I tried to get Fedora on a DVD with the Windows Disc Burner, but that didn't end up so well, so I would recommend IMGBurn since it actually let's the IPO be burned onto the disc properly. With a thumb drive, just remember if there are still files on it, as they will be removed. I know a thing or two because I experienced it.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It entirely depends on what you want to do with it. Do you have an old computer? Do you want to invest the time into and do you have a particular interest/need for things like hyper personalising your desktop/system, running scripts etc? ShabiDOO 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm A big fan of System76's OS, Pop!_OS. It's pretty user friendly, and its essentially ubuntu but with a few more features baked in. If you're looking for windows-like I'd Suggest Linux mint which should feel pretty familiar, and is also ubuntu based.PhoxyDude (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I agree that Ubuntu and Linux Mint are quite newbie-friendly, I'd recommend Manjaro instead because it combines the user-friendliness of Ubuntu with the nice package manager of Arch Linux. It also has separate repos from the Arch ones where packages are supposed to be a bit more stable. Another good thing is that it follows the same approach of minimal patching of programs and simple, clean configuration for system utilities. And the best thing is that you can follow the directions in the Arch Wiki (which is a great resource for info about installing and configuring software) if something breaks down in your system. Maximaman (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't play Windows games, do it. But if I were you, I'd install Fedora instead because of how less comercial it is. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 13:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I intend to install both Windows and Linux, use Linux for most matters and use Windows for stuff that requires Windows. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I did the same a few months ago. It was great. (But you might wanna use the LTS version 20.04, not 20.10, which has huge lag spikes after every restart and occasionally freezes after certain actions. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 19:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)