RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive390

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 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>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <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>
, (new)(back)

El Salvador Bitcoin[edit]

Ok, what do we think the real reason is El Salvador now declares Bitcoin to be legal tender? So far, the two best reasons I can come up with is that a number of government leaders have huge "investments" in bitcoin that lost a small fortune recently so they are trying to pump it back up, or a number of criminal gangs do enough business in Bitcoin that they are able to pressure the government into making it easier to spend their ill-gotten gains. CorruptUser 13:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think they have some special state-approved Bitcoin trading app, so it's probably due to kickbacks from the app people. --Annanoon (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Reading around, I gather the motivation is some mix of this.
A) El Salvador doesn't have their own currency, they rely on the US dollar.
B) Their leader, Nayib Bukele, is becoming more authoritarian and human rights violating of late (though for now it seems that he's very popular in his country). Relations with the US haven't been the best - in May, the US named five of Bukele's ministers as corrupt and diverted funds away from government groups to civil society groups. So the reliance on the dollar might sting a bit at the moment.
C) Roughly 20% of the El Salvador economy is remittances. Bitcoin could, in theory, reduce transfer fees some (assuming you actually trust today's Bitcoin exchanges, which I don't see it as wise to do so...)
D) The El Salvador economy is down in the dumps thanks to COVID-19, so they are looking for "alternatives" to attract investment.
E) Bukele tries to project an image of "digital hipness" online and of course types like that are also going to be attracted to Bitcoin.
F) El Salvador has a high level of corruption and it is natural for crooks to be attracted to Bitcoin. :p PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
There's also the fact that apparently 70% of Salvadorans "do not have access to traditional financial services". This bight just be the best option for them all things considered. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-bitcoin-elsalvador-legal-tender-20210609-krdkpbtafza7vcutlpen4b6jwu-story.html Jake Holmesyell at me 17:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It currently costs about $70 per transaction, which are not borne by the person trading the bitcoin/satoshi itself, but have to be borne by someone. It seems this is calculated by taking the total number of transactions done and dividing it by the miners' total costs. Question; if either half the bitcoin miners just "gave up" or the number of bitcoin transactions made in a day doubles, would bitcoin be mined at the same speed? I understand that the "difficulty" of mining is dynamic, so my question really becomes "if everyone adopts bitcoin and uses it to purchase a dozen things a day, but the same amount of computers mine the coin, would the total cost of processing the blockchain change at all?" CorruptUser 17:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This may be s stupid question - but do people actually buy stuff with bitcoin? I mean on a regular basis. I would have thought that it would be impossible to use a currency which is both highly volatile and which has an enormous unit value. But I know next to nothing about it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
"President" Bukele, as @PanGalacticGargleBlaster correctly notes is a budding authoritarian and also a tech-savvy millennial. He's doing this whole fucking thing for the meme's, even though it's terrible economic policy.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@bob, sort of. The price is measured in dollars, not bitcoins, and the bitcoins are sold by the retailer as soon as the transaction goes through, with the retailer potentially gaining or losing money in those few minutes. Tesla was a bit different, in that they kept the bitcoins, but if you wanted a refund Tesla could actually choose whether to give you the sale price or the bitcoins in return, so obviously they were screwing over their customers. But by law, Tesla has to give people 3 days to cancel their orders if they so choose. So if someone bought a Tesla in bitcoin, and the price of Bitcoin plummeted, they'd keep the order and Tesla would be screwed. If the price of bitcoin spiked, the order would be cancelled and Tesla could only screw the customer on the $2500 deposit. So everyone was screwing everyone, but Tesla was being screwed harder, so Musk said "fuck this" and dropped Bitcoin. As the ability to fuck over car companies was part of why Bitcoin was so valuable, the value of Bitcoin crashed. CorruptUser 19:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually... going to add this to the BC article... CorruptUser 19:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@bob bitcoin has essentially convinced people that is Gold 2.0(or digital gold, or transferrable gold, or whatever new euphemism for gold they are using these days). Its treated as a store value not really meant to be spent and is highly speculative(to put it midly). People’s greed are being exploited in this entire cryptocurrency space to be honest.SensaurC-137 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Back from the bitcoin article. What amazes me is that I keep getting conflicting answers as to when Tesla bought all those coins. Some say end of 2020, others say February, though most say January. Tesla announced that they sold some coins but Musk absolutely insists they never sold any. Just, what the fuck. CorruptUser 19:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
obviously he just trying to manipulate the market. Wish he’d drop the whole Dogecoin fiasco already. It’s obvious he just trying to troll the financial institutions.SensaurC-137 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Getting off topic for this thread but someone who understands this might want to put it the Elon Musk page too.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. CorruptUser 15:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Le Goatze[edit]

2021-06-09 14.16.09.png

Something I made. VerminWiki (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh, didn't know they had goats in Minecraft now. Pretty cool work. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
They just added them in! I was so happy when they announced that, and thought, "wait till RW hears about this". Also in that update that just came out last week, they made MC more accessible to colorblind folks, a la Jeb and that George guy on YT. --Goatspeed. In science we trust🇺🇸CircularREmail2.gifasoning🇺🇸🇺🇸-->Prototype lab 04:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Woof, my mind went somewhere else when i saw that title. Revolverman (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
YOU CAN MILK THE GOATS! VerminWiki (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought you said "goatse" at first, lol. SawDem8 H8 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Got a draft about Orania started[edit]

Orania, South Africa (Updated: Now in main space)

It is in draft space and I could use extra sets of hands. --Boterham (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Black Egypt stuff[edit]

Escapism: Destructive Distraction or Necessary Relief Valve?[edit]

In these frankly depressing times, I find myself day dreaming and reading more and more escapist media instead of trying to keep current with the events of the world or philosophy. Do people think this is unhealthy, or just a coping mechanism? Do fantasies eventually overtake ones perception of the world, or are people effective at keeping them a fantasy? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Like many things it's going to be the dose makes the poison. It depends on how much fantasy, pornography or alcohol is "too much". I would suggest that if you are sufficiently self-aware to ask the question than you are probably OK. But - like John Snow - I know nothing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

New video on Richard Lenski evolution project[edit]

Youtube channel Veritasium has posted a spanking new video interviewing Lenski on his ecoli project. Not sure where to post this but CP Main Page Right might be a good idea. FartyMcFart (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sLAQvEH-M FartyMcFart (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You could put a link here: Lenski affair#External links. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs

Lifejackets on passenger boats[edit]

Should all passenger boats have lifejackets for passengers, or should boats in certain waters be exempt? If so then which ones? What about waters that are calm, inland, and less than 1.5 metres deep which I'll call Category A? In addition to Category A waters, what about waters that are not Category A, but calm, inland, and less than 20 metres deep which I shall Category B? Where lifejackets are not provided should alternative flotation devices i.e. lifebuoys, and/or buoyant apparatus be provided in case of an emergency e.g. a vessel rapidly sinking or burning resulting an immediate evacuation being necessary without the opportunity to carry out a dry-shod evacuation i.e. an evacuation directly to shore or an attending vessel? Should liferafts be provided as well or instead of those flotation devices in Category B waters? How many alternative flotation devices and/or liferafts should be carried, should there just be enough for 10% of passengers in Category A waters, or should they provide for 100% of passengers in any event? How many are needed in Category B waters and which type? Should there be liferafts for at least 100% of passengers, just liferafts for a certain percentage (say 50%) of passengers with the other flotation devices made available for everyone else? Or just 100% of the other flotation devices without liferafts? Or something else? Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason behind the question? All boats should have lifejackets for the same reason all cars should have seatbelts even if only being driven in "safe" areas. Because sometimes, things happen. CorruptUser 14:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to think of any good reason why a boat shouldn't have life-jackets. I used to go canoeing with hard drinking lumberjack style Canadian woodsmen and they think you're a stupid asshole if you are "too cool" to wear a life jacket. Why wouldn't a boat have at least as many as passengers? ShabiDOO 15:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Some time in 2014 my 250 lb nephew fall out of a canoe while I was rowing in the middle of a lake in Maine. I spent what felt like half an hour bent over the side of the boat with a friend holding me down as I was trying to hoist my nephew back on board so he didn't drown (nephew couldn't swim). The canoe took on a lot of water in the process and by the time we got him back onboard we weren't able to move very quickly at all from the extra water weight and drag. It started to grow dark as we were bailing water out of the canoe, but luckily a motor boat came by and was able to give us a tug out of the lake. If it wasn't for that gentleman my nephew may very well have drowned. Life jackets would have really been handy in that situation! MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You were on a canoe in Maine but didn't have a life jacket on? Your nephew couldn't swim but went on a canoe and didn't wear a life jacket? Look, I'm glad your nephew lived, but, umm, don't fuck around with safety rules in the future, ok? CorruptUser 18:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Enough flotation devices for about 300% of pax numbers - 150% lifejackets at a rate of 1 per adult person capacity plus extra for infants, children or other-abled, and then 150% "out of water" devices - boats, inflatables, rafts. I work in aviation - the issue in aviation is life jackets are not required unless outside a certain distance from land - but it is almost trivially easy to land in water over most of the world - almost everywhere is within gliding distance of a lake or river, and often water is the flattest surface around and the only place some sort of controlled landing can take place - but life jackets are not "required" and people drown because of that! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Really? That's very interesting. Thanks.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
When did that last happen? How often? Maybe I could ask about that. ;) Harry Potter (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5: One very long escort mission[edit]

Escort missions are highly annoying missions where you keep an NPC alive while impairing what you can do to defend yourself and probably gobble up healing items.

As for Resident Evil 5 you get a partner by the name of Sheva Alomar. In the cut scenes Sheva is shown to be a badass but for the actual gameplay she easily gets killed thus causing a game over. Sheva also gobbles up healing items and ammo. Resident Evil 5 is a decent game with the exception of your partner who is a ball and chain.

Not sure how many games are out there in which have a similar issue. --Boterham (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RE 4 with Ashley. She was a hindrance since she could block doorways and couldn't defend herself. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
At least with RE4 you are not stuck with her 100% of the time. --Boterham (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

BLM Legacy[edit]

I figure the SB is the better place for this topic.

So... I don't think BLM has been a net positive for society. Here's what I see...

The Good

  • Ensured that a couple of cops were brought to justice
  • Has made the police more self-conscious about brutalization
  • Increased awareness around police brutality

The Bad

  • Police now refusing to do their jobs, Freddie Gray effect appears to be very real and very, very bad
  • Spread of COVID (yes, I believe that the protests did spread COVID; I thought it was a necessary evil at the time but, well, that's thing about omelets and broken eggs; "where is the omelet")
  • Destruction of property and businesses in the middle of a recession, will lead to "white flight" and impoversh numerous Black families

As for the Freddie Gray effect, well, after he was killed in a police clusterfuck, the Baltimore police arrested about 3/5th's (heh) as many people as they used to, and the murder rate jumped by 100 people per year. I don't know how many people killed through crime is equivalent to one killed by incompetent/malicious police, it'd definitely more than 1 for 1 but I don't think it's as high as 100's a year for 1 every few years.

I know something needed to be done to end police brutality, especially as it's suspiciously applied more often against Black people; I believe there was a good chance that if Michael Brown had been born Michael White he'd still be alive. But I just don't know what should've been done instead. Thoughts?CorruptUser 20:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If cops won't do their jobs because they might be held accountable for misdeeds, fire them on the spot. If the entire department won't work, dissolve it. At that point it's merely childish tantrums that drain city and county budgets. Replace as needed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Except that won’t actually happen, police unions wouldn’t allow it and no politician would try to make them. Lots of people talk about politics like they’re discussing what a benevolent dictator would do in a particular situation, ignoring that those in power are neither of those things. There is no easy fix to police brutality in the Unites States or anywhere else, and there’s not much else for regular people to do about it other than protest, people will continue to protest even if they don’t achieve anything systemic. Christopher (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Even then, there's a question of how accountable. Everyone fucks up in their job, no exceptions. The problem is when you have people who don't own up to their mistakes, which is my biggest problem with the police right now. The guy who refuses to admit a mistake is your worst employee, who will always fuck up the hardest even if they fuck up less often. CorruptUser 20:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, I think we all agree the police have a serious problem with accountability. But in terms of fixing it, I think we've made things worse. I don't believe BLM has resulted an omelet that justifies all the eggs broken. And I don't know what we should do going forward... Ugh, why can't life be simple? Life should be like a 80's Saturday Morning cartoon; there's the Bad Guy over there, you have a sword right here, now solve all your problems with violence in 22 minutes. CorruptUser 20:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think BLM is only a continuation of racial tensions that's been going on for decades. Any consequences here are merely extensions of the protests decades ago and I don't believe they're particularly unique to BLM. I think BLM is a net positive and I think its message is valid and should continue spreading. Spread of COVID is only short term relatively speaking. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
A short term thing which killed 600,000 Americans and leaves another 2,000,000 or so with some form of disability. Obviously the majority of those deaths weren't the fault of BLM, but I would expect that some of those deaths could've been avoided if the protests hadn't occurred and spread the virus before we had a vaccine ready to go. Even if it's only 1 in 20, that's still 30,000 people, much less if you consider that they tended to have a lower life expectancy to start with but still. Far more than have been killed than due to police incompetence. CorruptUser 22:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There are two other bad legacies to BLM. Research indicates that riots cause many people to become more conservative.[1] After a rash of riots, Richard Nixon campaigned as a law and order candidate and it helped him get elected.[2] Presently, there is no proof that the co-founder of BLM used BLM money to finance a spending spree on luxury houses (taxes have not been filed yet), but she did resign after her spending spree came out in the press.[3] Supadaman0 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


The general gist I would say on what can be done to improve the American police force would revolve on the following:
A) Better training. Compared to European police force training, the amount of training American police forces get is pathetic.
B) Better community engagement, de-emphasizing "warrior cop" type attitudes (fuck you, Dave Grossman) with a focus on improving community safety.
America is a relatively masochistic society, with ingrained racism creating (often unintended) cognitive bias in the police force, and an often immature attitude towards firearms. These don't help matters with police, unfortunately.
I kind of see BLM as an "it is what it is". It did, briefly, give a little pop in awareness to the police brutality issue. What I haven't seen is good data on BLM support by age. I suspect that younger people might be more supportive and maybe it will shape their worldview in the long run some. After all the 1960s American civil rights movement was also unpopular in its time (in 1966, Martin Luther King was viewed negatively by 63% of Americans compared to 33% positive) yet in the long run its hard to say nothing changed from that. The true positive impact of the BLM protests may not be known for a while.
Likewise, I do wonder if the cognitive bias / racism bit might slowly decline in some areas as America grows multicultural. We are far away from solving that issue, but we are also far away from 1960. So that might (slowly) help. ​PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk)
I'm not denying the protests and riots contributed to the pandemic but I also don't see this as particularly damaging to BLM's messaging or its relevancy? I'm not seeing many people use COVID as a strike against BLM and if they do, it's chalked up to just timing and that COVID also contributed to kindling the fire for the protests by exposing the huge weaknesses in American healthcare and employment that black people are disproportionately affected by. It's really, really disingenuous to compare COVID's numbers to police brutality numbers, I'm not sure why you brought this up. Of course a pandemic would kill more people. Police brutality's issue isn't sheer numbers but proportion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The positives of BLM must include this: for once, a leftish movement that at least at the outset was aimed at changing the behaviors of police departments and judges -- in other words, things that politics is actually good for -- rather than tearing down statues and similar forms of tribal territorial marking. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the protests contributed to the pandemic? Lots of people wearing masks outdoors (admittedly bandanas rather than surgical masks) aren't going to spread too much virus, and a lot of the protests were more or less socially distanced. --Annanoon (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The evidence is... weird. The counties with protests ended up with a COVID rate 20% higher than counties without the protests, but the protests happened in denser areas too so the case rate would've been slightly higher regardless. The main reason that the protests didn't cause a more massive increase seems to be because they caused everyone else to stay home. CorruptUser 12:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I’d like to add that BLM’s goal was not only to confront and raise awareness about police brutality but also to “uplift” a disenfranchised blacks across the U.S(and even around the world in the case of George Floyd). I believe that much of BLM’s legacy will be remembered something akin to the Black Panther Party whereas they’ve had positive implications in some areas but can become a little tribalistic which has been problematic to say the least. I think it is also important to note that BLM is culmination and result of what happens when you continue marginalize and oppress a community of people for too long. Far too often I hear the arguments of BLM being “too extreme” with their methods or that they “dont approach it in the right way” while overlooking that when your community are the victims of constant police brutality and harassment some are gonna take direct actionSensaurC-137 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario is spot on, that this movement isn't any different from the Civil Rights movement from the 50/60's or Black Liberation movement from the 70/80's. The primary difference is social media that has made communication and solidarity easier. Civil Rights leaders needed to meet in secret in Black businesses and churches. Black Liberation leaders needed to meet behind armed security. Now you just need a Facebook group and a trending Twitter topic. I think it needs to be stressed the BLM is not the first movement that pushed for major institutional reforms. Besides the general whitewashing (pun intended) of the demands of people like Martin Luther King Jr, the movements lost momentum often times because their leaders were killed by state actors. @CorruptUser I also question the logic behind "Police now refusing to do their jobs". Since when is it their job to execute people? When is it their job to harass people? When is it their job to beat people with impunity? At each stage of the fight for Black freedom, there is a period of readjusting where institutions recognize a new way of doing things is required for demonstrations, in addition to a level of fatigue from mostly white allies who are only willing to push so far. We have reached that point now with policing now. The old ways, seemingly unchanged in any real way since the Civil War, must be addressed. Public safety needs reimagined.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The police aren't simply refusing to brutalize petty criminals. They are retiring early or quitting, or cutting back on arrests. In Baltimore, after Freddie Gray was killed in a colossal police screw up, the police stopped making arrests unless they really had to, and the number of murders jumped up by 100 per year, making Baltimore technically more dangerous than Venezuela. CorruptUser 20:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
They also are significantly killing less people according to one study. And not every study has found evidence of the "Ferguson effectWikipedia" you are talking about. So meh. Sociology is complex and it will take time to see what the effect is long-term. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Never referenced the "Ferguson Effect", rather, I referenced Freddie Gray. There's a difference. Note that the linked article is 5 years old, it's better to look at the arrest rate and murder rate in Baltimore since then. It is not pretty. Also, I was wrong; Baltimore arrests plummeted by 60%, not 40%, from 40,000 to 18,000/yr. CorruptUser 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

GOP has created a Russian Talking Point[edit]

Resident crazy person Rep. Paul Gosar,[4] Rep> Louie Gohmert[5] and others have been downplaying the severity of the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot. Additionally they have claimed that the 400 individuals charged are being persecuted and Ashli Babbitt, a raving Q-Lunatic was executed. Now that idea has been used to equivocate worse behavior by authoritarians Lukashenko and Putin, in separate statements from Sergey Lavrov[6] and Putin himself[7] twice.[8] Pretty great that Russian propaganda and Conservative opinions are a flat circle. RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Putin's been loving the sheeple on the populist right for a fairly long time for playful manipulative propaganda reasons, and the sheeple have been loving them back (because the trolls provide them the simple message of hating "others" that they've been looking for, of course). Which is why RT is fundamentally not terribly different from OANN or Infowars in the United States these days. Many other European right-wing populists have bromances with Putin as well, for similar reasons. It's also one area you will see noticeable conflict in more mainstream conservative media, as neocon/Reagan era conservatives aren't exactly fond of the ol' USSR. The bromance with Putin is one of the few parts of the Trump cult Fox News will sometimes frown at for instance. Russia's troll army is not above tickling the naive left movements in Europe and the US, but my sense is that they find the populist right easier marks. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(I am not a proponent of "sacred" geometry) Sacred Geometry Debunk[edit]

What are yer thoughts about this bullshit: This Got a debunk? — Unsigned, by: NiciesMan / talk / contribs 16 June 2021 23:49

Who do you expect to watch the whole 2 hours of this? I skipped a few minutes in and watched a few minutes, and the guy is going on and on about how the same numbers crop up in measurements of space and time, and if you treat them as concatenations of digits, the digits add up to multiples of 9! None of this is surprising, though, and none of it requires appeal to any form of sacredness to explain. Unsurprisingly, if you compare numbers obtained by multiplying variations on 12 and 60, you'll tend to get similar-looking numbers. As for these things always adding up to 9, this is a property of multiples of 9. Take literally any whole number multiple of 9. Add up the values of the digits. The number you get will be a multiple of 9. For instance, from pressing random keys on my keyboard, 9 * 1457931 = 13121379. 1 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 9 = 27 = 3 * 9. Now, 60 is already a multiple of 3, so you just need another factor that is a multiple of 3 to get a product whose digits sum to a multiple of 9 (for instance, 12). But why do 12s and 60s come up so much? Well, 12 happens to be a pretty nice number: it has lots of factors, more than any smaller positive number. A base 60 number system was used by ancient Sumer and ancient Babylon, and this feature has persisted in areas of inquiry of interest to ancient peoples. 60, as it happens, also has more factors than any smaller positive number. It's worth noting that some of the tricks used already in the first five minutes depend on the use of a base-10 number system. In short, it is not worth watching the whole video to debunk it, because it is already apparent within the first few minutes that what is being observed is that people tend to reuse the same numbers over and over again (imagine how inconvenient it would be to switch between base-10, base-16, base-12, base-8, base-2, etc., when you can just orient all your artificial systems to base-10 and always have nice numbers), and that small numbers, as it happens, factor into a lot of big numbers. None of this is particularly exciting, certainly none of it requires appeal to any sacredness or mysterious properties of the numbers involved. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 03:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What about the bullshit related to the diameter of the earth and the pyramids? ----~~NiciesMan

Sometimes, once a particular tradition of unit-measurements has been invented it is convenient to adopt it generally and there is nothing sacred about it - and consider the complexity of pre-metric systems generally (if wire costs (UK pre-1971) 2d per inch, how much does '2 furlongs, 3 chains and 2 rods' cost?) Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't find a reliable source for his tropics-diameter claim. As for the pyramids, note that he chooses just one, and ignores the others. Note his crankery about the Sphinx, a claim not endorsed by actual historians, but supported by believers in Atlantis. Note his constant rounding of everything as it is convenient. A sphere with the same surface area of the Earth would be closer to 7917 miles in diameter, which is not an insignificant difference from 7920 given that he's accounting for the difference between the equatorial and polar diameter. His 43,200 number is unsurprising, given that it is equal to 60 * 60 * 12. Note that all of these mysterious totally-not-coincidences require you to use particular systems of measurement. If you a different system of measurement (meters, radians, etc), it all falls apart. You know what's really easy, if you bother to take the time? Finding a relationship between two things that involves the number 43,200, when you allow yourself the choice of any objects to "investigate", any system of measurement, rounding as you please, any number or variety of intermediary transformations, etc. I could go into more detail, dig a little deeper, debunk more harshly, but what for? I am not interested in spending as much time responding to this guy's nonsense, as he spent creating it. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fun with side effects[edit]

Went to the primary care doc today and my weight was brought up due to being overweight for years. I started to gain weight from initially starting on Seroquel. The diagnosis at the time when I started was Paranoid Schizophrenia. Then my mental health symptoms got worse requiring me to have my medicine switched to include an antidepressant. Then weight gain got worse. When I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, my meds were changed again several times. All my medicine has the side effect of rapid weight gain.

I started to change my diet much more but weight loss will likely be much slower. --Boterham (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that sucks, yeah antipsychotics sure could be better as meds. I was on 300mg Seroquel XR for 3 years for bipolar 2 and BPD and got lucky in only gaining a few pounds, but the sedation was so intense I basically slept those years away, and the occasional akathisia was truly awful. May your diet modifications help. Managing them quetiapine sugar cravings is a task in itself! Effervescent Bubble (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Is empathy just lying to yourself?[edit]

Because you aren’t the other person, you don’t really feel their pain or understand it. It’s based on your personal history. If you never have been without then it’s hard to have empathy for the poor because you don’t know what it’s like to go hungry for days. Even if terms of death everyone is different so saying you feel someone’s pain is a lie. Reminds me of a phrase how we are all fundamentally alone in our struggles, other people can wave on the beach and throw a life like but they aren’t swimming with us in the midst of the storm (or something along those lines).Machina (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that empathy does not involve past experience of a kind is already implicit in the distinction between empathy and sympathy. Second, that the particular details of various forms of pain are different for different people does not indicate that there is no element of shared experience or understanding. Your particular loss of a loved one and my experiences of losing loved ones will have distinctive features, but that does not mean that they have nothing in common. Furthermore, if I, say, witness somebody burn themselves, I might not experience the same physical sensation, but that does not mean that I cannot, in some sense, appreciate and understand their pain, even if I have never been burned before. Empathy is a sort of feeling or attitude, not a proposition; it cannot be true or false. Since lying is generally taken to have some aspect of falsehood, it is difficult to see what you mean by saying that empathy is lying to yourself. Lying to yourself about what? The way you feel? Perhaps you think that people are lying to themselves because you think that they believe they feel exactly the same as those they empathize with? In that case, let me assure you that nobody, when they say "I feel your pain" to somebody who has just lost a loved one, having not recently lost anybody themselves, means "I feel exactly the same emotions that you feel, in equal intensity". 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It depends on whether you’re running updated drivers enabling “Theory of Mind.” If you are, then you’re likely capable of “empathy” for another person, a projection and abstraction from your own experience in similar states as you understand it and which if you’re being honest could be flawed (it’s always an orphaned project or WIP, never done, like balancing a set of MMO classes). It’s usually disabled if you figure everyone is thinking like you, and this is unfortunately the factory default of most humans (the manufacturer really didn’t want us playing with this setting, ToM uses a lot of memory and processing power if it’s turned on and this often led to us getting eaten/distracted by things other than food, procreation, and sleep, so we have to make do with user-defined exceptions [Buddhism has some useful built-in tools for managing this, but it rightly has its detractors and is pretty old]).
A high degree of correlation in experience between the two parties enables empathy’s badass grandma, “sympathy.” The only truly objective version of this state was achieved by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading with assistance from [his lovely wife: header not found], but deferred memory shared between elder couples has suggested when one of the two is rendered inoperable before the other that it’s a pervasive operating state among humans, likely primates, possibly eukaryotes if "My Octopus Teacher" is to be believed [citation needed] (try not to be moved when you see it playing with fish then rush and cuddle its projected/likely "friend," the camera man and documentarian recording its brief existence like a Tolkien elf).
There are human units in the population who lack Theory of Mind, and they’re basically power gamers: their achievements are unrivaled and they're fiercely competitive. They’re often mistaken and correlated with units with corrupted/outdated drivers, and while there may be a degree of overlap between the two [citation needed], their respective communities have a high degree of independence if not outright disdain for each other (one is frequently concerned with debugging and troubleshooting, the other seeks exploits). Artificius (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Machina In psychology empathy describes two similar yet distinct things. Emotional empathy, which is what most people think of when they hear the word. This helps humans form emotional connections with each other. There's also cognitive empathy, which let's someone understand things from another person's perspective. Cognitive empathy doesn't necessarily require emotional empathy, merely an understanding of another's perspective. Both of these functions are part of the psychological bedrock of human society. So to answer your question in short, no, empathy isn't just lying to yourself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That still sounds like lying though since you are making assumptions about their perspective. You don't really know you are guessing. I've lost loved ones before but I don't understand how people cry about it. Death is inevitable. Same with people breaking up, I've broken up before and just moved on so I don't understand how people get so messed up. Same how people can get so enraptured by their "love" they commit some heinous stuff. It would be stupid and arrogant to presume any sort of empathy because I don't understand their feelings or position, because I'm not them and wouldn't behave as such. So yes, empathy is lying to yourself. A useful lie but still a lie.Machina (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
if you are trying for stoic acceptance or a stiff upper lip, you've not quite pulled it off coming across emotionally stunted instead. its you who does not understand why people cry over death. its you who does not understand why the end of a romance can cause people pain. its you who does not understand the feelings of others or positions. you openly admit this. but somehow, despite this stated lack of understanding, you declare that we lie to ourselves if we say we can empathise. empathy is a lie but you are able to know we are lying to ourselves. no. you say empathy is a lie because you yourself are unable (or unwillingly) to empathise. but is only a lie for you. you cannot declare no one else is capable of empathy because you, as you have already stated, do not understand the feelings and emotions of others and do not try to. how can you presume to know what others can understand based only on your own inability to understand?
empathy is not unerring. it is not a certainty of knowing exactly how someone feels about something, it does not require that we must feel as they do. it is not presuming to know how someone else is feeling or insisting someone feels a particular thing. it is a willingness to understand what drives other people via a shared sense of humanity. it requires us to engage with one another. to listen and learn. it can fail us when we stop seeing our foes as people enabling all kinds of cruelty to be inflicted, and it can fail us just by being so disconnected from anothers reality that we cannot relate easily.
seems that finding ways to not engage with people and dismissing their views and experiences as lies and delusion to justify not doing so does not give someone much capacity to empathise. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Frankly, it sort of just sounds like you don't have empathy. Your argument appears to be something like this:
P1: Empathy involves an understanding of another's perspective.
P2: I cannot understand another's perspective.
C1: Therefore, empathy is a lie to oneself.
However, a better conclusion would be "C1*: I do not have empathy." Note, first, that because you are drawing only on your own experience, your conclusion is not generalizable to other people. Second, that one is able to have empathy does not imply that one is able to have empathy for all people in all situations. It is possible, for instance, for somebody to feel empathy toward a person who has lost a loved one, but feel no empathy toward somebody who commits murder in response to a breakup. If they told themselves, in the latter case, that they did feel empathy toward the murderer, then they would be lying to themselves. That one has not felt empathy in some cases is not a proof against empathy even for that person; though I think most could understand why people cry at the loss of a loved one.
"You are making assumptions about their perspective. You don't really know you are guessing". I'm assuming the latter is meant to be "You don't really know: you are guessing". Suppose that it is true that I am making assumptions about their perspective, and that this is a necessary component of empathy. So what? Does it follow that, because I am making assumptions, my conclusions must be unreasonable? In pretty much any context, some assumptions are reasonable, while others are ridiculous. Losing a loved one tends to involve grief and grieving, and so it is reasonable to think that somebody who has lost a loved one will be grieving. It would not be reasonable to assume that they are excited, elated, joyous, etc. Furthermore, one does not need to have lost a loved one oneself in order to know this. However, it is questionable how much one really needs to assume. If I see somebody who has lost a loved one, and they are crying, shall we say: "you cannot say that they are sad, that is merely an assumption and therefore unjustified"? People express their perspectives. Additionally, it is not clear that even those assumptions that we might need to make are assumptions in the ordinary sense. Empathy, as a feeling or attitude, does not seem to require any conscious or intellectual reflection. Rather, it is an automatic response. Often, one does not even need to know that somebody has lost a loved one to perceive that they are grieving, and one can feel empathy for them even without knowing such details. Young children can feel such empathy, and express it, though they have almost no life experience.
That empathy refers to something can be seen if we consider possible rejections of empathy. We can imagine somebody who feels that their experience is so singular, that to feel empathy for them is impossible; only sympathy, involving a kind of shared experience, is possible. Suppose that my friend has just been turned down for a date by Alice, whom he had a crush on, and I have said to him, say, "I know the feeling". Consider two possible responses:
R1: Do you? Have you ever been turned down by your crush?
R2: Do you? Have you ever been turned down by Alice?
R2 points out an obvious distinction between my experiences and my friend's, but it nonetheless seems like a lousy complaint, because it points to a feature that is not salient to empathy or sympathy. It is not important to either of these that I have at any point held any view about Alice. Supposing that I have never had a crush on anybody, it would seem reasonable to think that I could not extend sympathy, and so R1 would be a plausible rejection of my empathy if my friend feels that only sympathy is possible in his case. R2, however, points to something insignificant; it implicitly presents a reason to reject my empathy, but the reason is a bad one. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 14:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It also sounds like a misuse of the term "lie". To lie is to intentionally deceive. When you do that unintentionally, it's called a mistake. As to how you infer what someone's thinking or where they're coming from, generally this involves comparing what they've experienced with memories, expressions, tone, inflection, personal history and other comparative experiences. Cognitive empathy specifically also requires a good deal of formal logic. I really don't know how to explain it better. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I always thought that empathy was tied in to mirror neurons but maybe that's to mechanistic.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The dictionary definition says it’s to understand and share the feelings of another, so even by that definition you’re still lying to yourself about understanding how they feel and sharing that feeling. Empathy also backfires as well when you let it cloud your judgment, and it can often be the root of vengeance as well. It’s not useful for seeing people as people, for that you need to be rid of it. Only though that do you see there are no enemies or allies, just people. I never said people weren’t capable of it just that it’s a lie we tell ourselves. I can’t say I understand their pain or share it but comfort is given all the same. Empathy would just get in the way of that. I don’t need to lie to myself to care what happens to them.Machina (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So, here's your problem machina: Some folks are uncertain of their own minds; they fail to understand that they understand as well as is humanly possible. Understand? Not understanding is not the problem you have taken it for.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SC and Arizona death row[edit]

In Arizona and South Carolina, they're instating gas chambers as execution methods. It's absolutely horrific and disgusting. In SC, the method is completely untested, and in AZ, they're planning to use actual Zyklon B. None of this is right, despite claims that it's "more humane" than firing squad. You know what's more humane? Not killing people. This shouldn't even be allowed to happen. Jake Holmesyell at me 23:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is it being "untested in SC" an issue? Would the system perform differently there than somewhere else? Personally I'm not against the death penalty per se - but I think it needs a much better justice system and a "no doubt at all" burden of proof under such a better system (as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt). Zyklon B - so what? So it got used by those who shall not be mentioned to kill millions of those who shall not be forgotten - that's not particularly important in context IMO. I get that you don't want the death penalty but that the nazi's used it is irrelevant as to whether it is useful as a killer. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
AZ was using HCN gas (the active ingredient in Zyklon B) as recently as 1999. The comparison is perhaps a useful rhetorical point, but would it be better if they wanted to use some other gas? Well, perhaps it would be more humane (simple asphyxiants can kill you before you even realize you are dying; I'm not sure about HCN), but that would not seem to interest you anyway. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 12:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the some governments has decided that executing their own citizens under some circumstances it a good idea. Arguing about the best way of doing this kinda misses the point.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You think that is a problem. Others do not. And if arguing about the method misses the point why is the method part of the argument against it? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The argument the anti-execution crowd often makes is that there is absolutely no humane way to kill someone. Even "humane" methods fail to remove the absolute worst part of dying; the whole fear around it. If someone were to offer you the choice between being hung until dead or just being hit with an instant-death ray, the second option is an improvement but not exactly enough of one that you'd be thrilled that someone was offering it to you at all. Executions are a form of psychological torture, no exceptions. That said, I am not against executions existing, but as I mentioned, they should require something similar to a parole board. CorruptUser 21:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I'm against executions barring the most extreme circumstances. I think it should work similar to parole. To get paroled early, the convict needs to have shown they are remorseful for their actions. Perhaps inmates should only remain on death row if they have not shown remorse for their actions, though with some mechanism for people to maintain innocence. E.g., if a convict has been bragging about the murder to other inmates, that demonstrates lack of remorse, execution can proceed. The convict maintains innocence, but does not demonstrate any sympathy for the victim's family, execution can proceed. The convict demonstrates remorse and empathy, the execution gets delayed and perhaps eventually the sentence gets permanently knocked down to life without parole. CorruptUser 14:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Bob here -- the point I was getting at by saying noting that it's untested is that they have no idea how effective the gas they're using will be in execution, and what it will actually feel like. An article I read likened it to human experimentation, which it sort of is. Also, I find the Zyklon B detail to be pretty significant in context, mostly because despite the fact that we as a society have deemed the Holocaust to be a horrific tragedy that should not be repeated, we ourselves are resorting to similar methods and allowing it to happen. When Zyklon B was used in German camps, it was a crime against humanity, yet using it against American prisoners is A-OK now. Jake Holmesyell at me 15:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The difference being that death row inmates were convicted of having committed the murder of another human being, whereas the people in the gas chambers were convicted of the crime of existing. "Why" matters more than "what" when it comes to ethics. CorruptUser 16:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
That is true, but I don't really feel like you can defend the ethics of killing, no matter who it is. If taking a human life is a punishable offense, why do we give other people the right to do the same thing? Jake Holmesyell at me 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Taking property, kidnapping and imprisonment are also punishable offenses, but it's also something the government does. We give government the ability to do these things. Why? Because we want to, that's the only Why we really need, because ultimately, Right and Wrong are whatever we want them to be.
Optimistic Nihilist here. Life has no inherent meaning, but that doesn't mean life is without any meaning, because we have the ability to give whatever meaning we want to life. Same with Morals and Ethical Nihilism; I don't believe actions are inherently Moral or Immoral, but Bad things are Bad because we decide they are. CorruptUser 18:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed it boggles my mind that people can find a crime so abhorrent that it requires a penalty...which is as abhorrent as the crime itself (murdering a murderer). Capital punishment is murder. Murdering someone because they murdered someone makes little sense to me. It's about as logical as the state gauging out someone's eye because they damanged someone else's eye during a bar fight. Or the state having a citizen rape someone who committed a rape. While those punishments seem ridiculously absurd for most people, the state murdering a citizen doesn't. This is reflective of a countries approach to justice and the penal system. Those which look to rehabilitation and crime prevention seem to have much healthier societies, less recidivism and a much much lower prison population. Those which see justice as some sort of tribal retaliation, just desert, pay back, suffering the pain you inflicted taking satisfaction in the bastard rotting in a living-hell seem to have enormous prison populations, high levels of violence, and enormous policing and prison cost and a less healthy society. Blood lust for the death penalty seem to go hand in hand with the ideology of a merciless tribalistic retributive tough on crime justice system. Ironically, support for the death penalty in the West is highest in the United States. The country where in some states there is enormous levels of paranoia that the government wants to take your guns away, control your life and limit your liberties and attack your freedoms. And yet they seem to fully support the government being able to murder you...to take away your very right to life. It's puzzling. ShabiDOO 18:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I also view prisons themselves as abhorrent. "Kidnapping" someone for years, to me, is more depraved an act than stealing a car. Yet, we imprison car thieves, and I believe this is necessary.
As I've said, I don't oppose the death penalty existing, I oppose its overuse. CorruptUser 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Prisons *are* abhorrent and in the United States we’re certainly engaged in their overuse, but I draw a qualitative line between it and the death penalty, the former is a necessary evil while the latter is not. There’s no possibility of redress if it turns out an innocent man was railroaded and murdered by the state, and it should therefore be reserved as Aloysius the Gaul said for cases “beyond all doubt,” not just “reasonable doubt.” This is also an impossible standard: we’ve all seen cases beyond reasonable doubt, but it’s an inherently subjective judgement and often changes over time, therefore there's always some doubt. If someone fails a polygraph and society later deems polygraphs inadmissible or a witness didn’t see what they claimed (or believed) they saw, or an aggressive and career-minded DA with a 90% conviction rate caves to pressure from a mayor up for reelection and has a confession beaten out of an unpopular suspect by a bigoted police force, we can certainly have doubt about the suspect’s guilt, especially as these facts percolate to the surface over time and long after the trial and sentencing. And we’re entering an era of deep-faked video: we’ll need expert witnesses to testify to the authenticity of incriminating footage soon enough. I’d rather nine guilty men spend the remainder of their lives in prison on the state dime than one innocent be wrongfully executed: it’s wrong, and it squanders the state’s legitimacy besides. Artificius (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Raisi is now the President of Iran[edit]

Shit is about to go down. Monet Ye 07:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

How? Does the president of Iran suddenly have actual power? Funny how the west only cares who the president of Iran is if he's somebody likely to say stupid crap, like Ahmadinejad. Did anybody ever see much of anything written about the president of Iran for the last 8 years? It's almost like... Like the west knows the Iranian president isn't important, but likes spicy soundbites for propaganda purpose, and so ignores him if he's somewhat moderate... Dendlai (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The president of Iran actually has quite a bit of power. Not as much as the Ayatollah, but still. Also, Fuck... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
A fundamentalist religious conservative as president of a theocratic state? I see no cause for concern. As these types of comments are often taken literally I should mention that this is nor my real opinion. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the status quo. To paraphrase a disaffected Iranian non-voter, when a country has a supreme leader there is no point in voting. Raisi's actual powers are overstated because most of them can be overruled by the Ayatollah. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Not really status quo, Rouhani was much more moderate. With Raisi, the conflict with USA/Israel will escalate. But surprisingly, there are many muslim countries who are backing the US (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Indonesia, Egypt), probably because of their hatred of Shia muslims. Monet Ye 08:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Vindication. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Does breakfast jumpstart your metabolism[edit]

I’ve seen a few articles saying it does and some saying it doesn’t. What’s the truth?Machina (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your blood sugar is low in the morning, eating breakfast raises it. When you have higher blood sugar, you have more energy and your body uses more energy. CorruptUser 17:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You ain't eaten in 8 hours or so, your body has been busy doing it's night time sleepy thing. You need sustenance. Have some toast, bitta fruit and a coffee (it'll be the jump start your bowel needs. and the only "jump start" that is needed)Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I would say that "jump start" is a pretty bad phrase. Because your metabolism has by no means "stopped" so it does not need restarting. But will you have more calories in your system if you have had something to eat in the morning? Well, duh!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani[edit]

Watching Fear City on netflix - a doco about the fbi taking down thew mafia i n 1980s new york. its funny to see giuliani and not see a clown. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm from the part of Connecticut that's closer to New York than the rest of New England; I'm of the age where my first memory of Giuliani was explicitly rooting for the Yankees in the Subway Series (being a Yankee fan I supported that!), and my second was 9/11. For anyone who knew him at all before or after it's hard to imagine him any other way, but for someone like me it's difficult to process just how he went from my first memories to... whatever he's doing now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The lesson about far-right nutjobs such as Giuliani is that the public will put up with anyone as long as the place is safe and people are making a bit of money. CorruptUser 05:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There's been an argument made that Giuliani hasn't changed much but that certain people's perception of him changed.[9] Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The movie Day After Tomorrow: What it does not mention (I am applying logic to movies)[edit]

After most countries in the northern hemisphere are destroyed by massive storms followed by freezing over along with millions of refugees going south, the movie ends with astronauts saying how clear the skies looked due to pollutants being flushed out by the storms. Here is what the movie fails to address (again, I am applying logic to movies):

  • Food shortages brought by both destruction of farm land, extinction of many plants and too many refugees.
  • Shortage of both medical supplies and medical professionals.
  • Shortage of clean drinking water.
  • Lack of transportation.
  • Fuel shortages.
  • Damage to infrastructure caused by the storms.
  • Massive ethnic tensions.
  • Most communication systems would be catastrophically damaged by storms.
  • Disease outbreaks due to overcrowding and lack of medical supplies.
  • Almost certain economic collapse due to major economic centers being destroyed and most currencies likely becoming worthless.
  • Sharp increases in criminal activity due to overcrowding, lack of essential supplies, crumbling economy and ethnic tensions.
  • Mass extinction due to rapid climate change which would cause further shortages in food supplies.
  • Shortages of raw materials due to many sources of iron, copper among other metals being frozen over.

Anything I miss? --Boterham (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add to The Day After Tomorrow, which is stubby. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The best part of the movie were all the Americans illegally immigrating into Mexico. CorruptUser 22:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bongolian Just did. --Boterham (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Bongolian (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Does RW support Anarchy[edit]

I'm curious as to whether RW supports Anarchy in addition to other leftists ideologies or is supposed to be entirely apolitical? Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism. RationalWiki, the website, is critical of Anarchism. Individual editers may be proponents of it, however. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The wiki has no official political stance either right or left. Our mission is:

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I find proponents of anarchism unable to come up with answers to how they would effectively deal with difficult problems such as how the state would protect children from child abuse (and remove children from abusive or neglectful parents) or manage something like citizens who have been unjustly incarcerated in other countries. Answers tend to be evasive, conflict with their own general principles or are extremely vague like "the community would handle it". I cannot embrace any ideaology whose answer to difficult questions are: It will just work out. I don't expect a 5000 page policy document but some explanation of the mechanism behind how things are decided and enforced in practice are necessary. I find these answers impossible to find. I don't think most mbers here take anarchy very seriously. ShabiDOO 12:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Anarchism. The ideology is anarchism, with the desired end state being called anarchy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The anarchism article wasn't very critical of anarchism until a few months ago :P. Our more hardcore anarchists have been beaten with a rubber hose moved on. CorruptUser 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
More than likely they're too drunk these days to log on. Oh the drama from those days, I do miss the drama and the egos and.. Oh wait, no I don't miss the egos and whatever. It's so much more peaceful now. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The wikiverse-in-general has to be considered as well as RW-in-particular (and all other 'themed' wikis) - from each according to their skills and interests, to each according to their questions (whether sensible or otherwise). Anna Livia (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
RW does not support any particular political ideology. We have had contributors from a wide range of political ideologies. If there is any political ideology that RW encapsulates, it is anti-authoritarianism and anti-fundamentalism. See RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
But are we fundamentalist in our approach to anti-fundamentalism? Paradox of tolerance. CorruptUser 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Isn't that a false paradox though? I can be liberal in thought and deeds, but will gladly punch a fascist in the mouth. There should never be a tolerance of intolerance. The notion is deliberately divisive and is brought up to deflect from the initial group that is reprehensibly intolerant. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a case for allowing expressions of intolerance to be in the open, because at least they can be seen and interacted with appropriately. Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In some cases, I grant you, but come on. Two groups protesting, one side wants to outlaw and kill gays/women/blacks/browns/and thing that they do not identify, and the other group opposes it, but must do so in a 'tolerant and civil manner'. Where do you suppose tolerating the intolerance of others fits in there? In Europe we outlaw it. Hate speech is abhorrent. giving it a platform like you see regularly in the USA, has allowed it to grow and fester and destroy discourse in public platforms. Granted those same abhorrent ideologies are growing in Europe, see that fucking headcase Viktor Orban, or Marine Le Pen, or any other purulent "free speech" hate monger gaining power and strength in recent times (a big fuck you to Jim Dowson, might I add.) These individuals to not want to engage or join a peaceful discourse they want to destroy, dehumanise and kill anything the see as different to them or threatening to their mythic history. (we seem to gotten off topic here, sorry.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
A fair bit of fundamentalists tend to be intolerant. So, no, it's not a big derailment. Incidentally, ironically, tolerance tends to be a pretty strong pillar in most of the core text of the religions that these fundies are warping. So, I don't think it's a terribly "fundamentalist" to point out to the fundamentalists that they are not as "literalist" as they think, nor is it fundamentalist to remind them that things like spewing hatred of xxx in online comment forums kinda are violating the various versions of the Golden Rule many religions have a wee bit, eh? It's not dogmatic, it's just recognizing they are violating their own dogma. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn't mean to get us down this road, but since we are here...
No leader has ever restricted the ability of others to do what the leader wanted them to; Rights are about what you don't want people to do. That's what's so thorny about hate speech laws. Sure, we'd love for assholes to shut up, but if they can't say nasty things we might not really have free speech at all. CorruptUser 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
That is the radical American approach to free speech. And it is pretty uniquely American in the free world. I am not aware of any other country that doesn't curb speech nor where a majority of the population finds that controversial (including France where liberty is part of their national history and identity). I should say whatever shit I want or I don't have free speech. That is a ridiculous sentiment. Americans are prohibited from saying all sorts of things (or at least will pay a legal/civil price for it) of which none of it is controversial. There are libel laws, copyright laws, laws against saying things that incite crimes, cause a disturbance, reveal classified information, go against national security, use insulting language in contempt of court (this is not an exhaustive list). Especially the stuff about inciting crimes...right? Hate narratives is a brain virus. It serves no purpose except to hurt and maintain inequality. These words can fester and make life intolerable for marginalised people, undeniably leads to violence, discrimination and inequality. Each country has to decide for themselves what the limit is. For some countries you have to say something truly dehumanising and offensive to get fined (or possibly imprisoned) in others the bar is set low and randomly calling a stranger "a stupid fucking fat faggot" is intolerable, serves no purpose except to inflict verbal violence and dehumanise someone and is comparable to physically assaulting someone (that can certainly be the subjective experience for the victim). So while for many Americans numerous constraints against free speech seem like no-braininess, even vicious harmful hate speech which perpetuates inequality and even leads to violence...is simply something that should be allowed because otherwise it simply constricts free speech (which isn't totally free anyways) beyond a magical line that somehow de-legitimises free speech at all. I'm not sure why but each country to their own. I find it hard to understand why people think it's reasonable to draw the line after libel but before vicious hate speech. I would say dehumanising a person because of their race is just as bad as potentially ruining someone's reputation. And the argument that prohibiting hate speech will somehow lead to governments censoring everything is ridiculous. There have been some form of hate speech laws for decades now in some countries and the government isn't stomping all over all the rest of their citizens rights, limiting political dissent or coming up with vocabulary lists. In fact in Spain, even after introducing hate speech laws they are in the process of removing other laws which limit speech (which would demonstrate the opposite of the arguments that controlling some speech creates a slippery slope). ShabiDOO 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I find that line of thinking to be absurd. It fails to account for the realities of defamation, misinformation, indirect incitement, and actual criminal conspiracy. I can't just run around threatening to hurt people, and bigots can't just run around shouting slurs. It's that simple. Would an idealized land of free speech be nice? Sure I guess. But so too would be a world without the need to enforce laws (anarchism), or a world without crime, or a world of complete social cooperation (communism). However, such pure idealism isn't possible due to the practical realities of society. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't disagree with you, but there are no simple answers. I just feel it's too dangerous to let the government decide what is and is not Hate Speech without a clearly defined process. Take any hate speech statement, and replace the targeted group with "Scientologists". "Scientologists control the media!" "Scientologists are terrorists!" Perhaps take a "true" statement about Scientologists, then replace "Scientologist" with "Homosexual", or perhaps "Muslim" or "Jew". Should the legality change in any of these cases, and why? CorruptUser 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

transparency and accountability are always needed in government, even though many don't really care (Again the USA.) and since Shabi wrote,"including France where liberty is part of their national history and identity" (I'm not picking on you or having a go.In fact I agree with what you wrote.) it's easy to forget that the very same can be said about that great land of freedom and liberty, The US of A. Those ideals of freedom and liberty only apply, or applied to white men. to quote Jason Stanely's 'How Fascism Works' In ..(his).. famous speech, entitled “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?,” Douglass calls out the hypocrisy of a country that practices human slavery while celebrating the ideal of liberty. Americans in the nineteenth century, including those who lived in the South, regarded their land as a beacon of liberty. How is this possible, Douglass asked, when it was built by the labor of enslaved Africans and a native population whose land rights and often rights to life were thoroughly ignored? So, how do you proscribe hate speech? Do you prohibit incitement? Do you target meaning? I'm sure it is something that can fill tomes of academia text and debates, but unlike debating the hideousness of Nietzsche's core philosophies, (something which Robert Newman does with such beauty in his Half-Full Philosophy Hour https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000n5yz/episodes/guide) these people don't care about civil discourse. These people want to dehumanise anything that is different from them and essentially kill it, be that someone with differnt skin, faith, culture, sexual orientation, different gender expression etc, they see these people as less than human and therefore not worthy of any civility or even life. And you've seen this rhetoric in the States, that utter scumbag driving his car into a crowd ffs. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
At the University of Wisconsin, someone actually tried to get an English professor sanctioned for hate speech for... wait for it... going over how Geoffrey Chaucer used the word niggardly. For people (generic, not directed at anyone) who claim to dislike the prison-industrial complex, hate speech laws are a fine way to create a lot more police interactions that have at least some potential to evolve into use of deadly force, all because someone's feelz got hurt super bad. And of course, no one ever seems to remember how it'll affect those of us who can't keep up with the latest fads on Things That Grievously Hurt Peoples' Feelz, It's a hard enough time remembering to say a proper goodbye at family gatherings (I know it sounds ridiculous, but perhaps the Irish in me is just extra strong!), there's no way I'm keeping track of the latest turnings of the euphemism treadmill (and it applies to me, I'm afflicted with a form of The Big A and have no desire to fuck with the name Asperger's syndrome). Seriously, a bunch of people unironically pulled the race card out over Steve Martin for King Tut because it was somehow hateful towards... well someone, apparently, it's not really clear who. I want no part of hugging the tar baby that is "hate speech laws". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
That example of misunderstanding a word and wanting to sanction is nothing new (mob attacks and property damage over the job title https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society ). But since we are talking American Universities, isn't there currently outcry amongst the supposed 'free-speech' brigade over the teaching of Critical Race Theory? Of course it's disingenuous to condemn 'Critical Race Theory' and to avoid it's subject, Racism. (see the wonderful The Nib https://thenib.com/thinking-critically/) Quite similar to the obfuscation with that idiotic term Jordan Peterson and his ilk have trotted out, Cultural Marxism. Sounds scary, especially to those unwilling to find out what it means, but in every argument Peterson and his ilk have made about the evils of 'cultural marxism' do yourself a favour and simply replace it with equality. The true meaning of his outrage, and in fact the quite fascistic stance of his ideology is apparent. And he would indeed deserve a punch in the mouth. (not in the slightest bit sorry about that.) But in this context, from misunderstanding of the word niggardly, to job title and the 'evils' of critical race theory and vacuous threat of Cultural Marxism, these examples are not hate speech. They are misunderstandings of words either deliberate or through poor education and/or reasoning. And that would include Steve Martin, but since I haven't seen it I can't comment. But the ECRI does have an outline here https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/hate-speech-and-violence Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I also oppose any of the silly bans on CRT; I don't happen to agree with all of it, but that's no reason to ban it. Thankfully the laws purporting to ban it are so ridiculously overbroad they don't stand a chance of holding up in court. Especially if you don't agree with it, the very real issues it raises force you to come up with something better, and that's exactly how people should approach arguments. Also, the iconic Steve Martin video is here, I don't think it's possible to keep a straight face while watching it. While it was mostly college kids who bitched about the saxophone player imitating blackface (no, seriously, I really wish I was making this up), as we've seen college kids end up becoming members of the workforce who bring this idiocy with them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
That King Tut skit is very funny. Seems those you claim are outraged over it are missing the point entirely. Musically it reminds me of Frank Zappa, who if memory calls was on SNL around the same time and was never asked back again. But that would be more over personality clashes. Frank was rather anti drug, and SNL by this period was heading into or was deeply riddled with cocaine especially in the writers room. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I would say that anyone offended by King Tut needs to pull their head out of their ass and figure out what real racism actually looks like. But I'd also like evidence that this is nothing more than a handful of college lefty idiots. Google seems to suggest that there were a few articles about this subject in 2017, some of them from classic nutpicking media sources like the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. In contrast, Republicans are taking this Critical Race Theory thing (in itself a previously obscure lefty piece of academia circulating primarily around lefty legal analysis circles) and actually crafting legislation banning teaching this in schools, even though no grade-level teacher ever taught it, and most Republicans don't even know what the fuck it is. It seems like, in America, there is a much larger base of people this sort of legislative shit plays well with: idiotic racists who think college is infested with purported atheist Marxist fascist professors that will indoctrinate you with EVIL THOUGHTS!!!. Does this compare with lefties from the dumb "we're outraged by a 40 year old comedy skit" crowd? Well, please let me know when Democrats start drafting legislation to outlaw wild and crazy guys from comedy circuits. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Ironically, waving around CRT as a bogeyman gives it a much wider audience and a sort of cachet it wouldn't have had otherwise. Do we even have CRT as part of another article anywhere? I don't really see it as anything more than a lone sentence anywhere. CorruptUser 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, CRT is an academic hardline for black activism. Much of it goes without saying: black complaints should be heard; blacks should not be blamed for problems stemming from social history; laws can be structurally biased against people of color. On the other hand, some of it sounds neurotic and denialist; white people are always expressing racism in some way; all laws are racist in some way. The reification fallacy is strong in CRT: because problems exist somewhere, they must exist everywhere, and people of color are always at a disadvantage. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
But then you get (admittedly obscure) nutjobs who declare that preferring thin women is racist, when someone should've slapped them upside the head for being so stupid. Similarly, it's becoming more and more mainstream in the LBGT community to view people who won't date trans* as bigots, never mind that thinking you are entitled to sex with others is literally the exact line of thought the anti Rape-Culture folks have been working to eliminate. CorruptUser 19:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
One can't change a person's mind about who they want to date by calling them a bigot. as a matter of fact, one can't change anyone's mind about anything that way. It's mostly kids who do that, I think. They'll learn, in time. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
In my experience, no- though ancom brigading did cause us mods quite a bit of grief a few months ago, chiefly due to JD and Oxy making it easier for them to abuse our site with random ideological demotions that exploited a bureaucratic loophole in our CS. Indeed, I once even had to sysrevoke one of the passionate brigadeers to stop those people from demote-warring with Twodots and I against the will of the mob- all without even trying to hide their intentions. Not to mention the childish drama from that MS77 person over site politics, of all things, who once even went so far as to compare me to TAOB over a chicken coop thread, and then repeatedly cite the unnecessary coop I'd long since retracted in their whining about Christopher's overall existence- which didn't sit well with me AT ALL.
That being said, we do have some more benign leftist editors like GC and Asela. --Goatspeed. In science we trust🇺🇸CircularREmail2.gifasoning🇺🇸🇺🇸-->Prototype lab 23:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how left GC really is. He's at least center-left, but I don't get the sense that he's far-left. Maybe a Soc-Dem? CorruptUser 04:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right --Goatspeed. In science we trust🇺🇸CircularREmail2.gifasoning🇺🇸🇺🇸-->Prototype lab 07:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
As one of the “nice anarchists” here lmao, I feel like I should just say the reason why I’m an anarchist and some form of anti-capitalist. I don’t necessarily think a stateless/non-capitalist society be perfect. I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t pretend to. I also recognise that these forms of society are probably, let’s say, somewhat impractical with the world as it is now. However, I have run into many problems both in my own life and through my uni studies that I think genuinely cannot be solved if either capitalism or the state continue to exist. I’m not Big Brained enough to run through a whole detailed plan for a hypothetical future, so my vision for society is basically just, “a world that can solve issues inherent to the state and capitalism”. Ppl here don’t seem to mind, however. My guess is that it’s because I don’t feel smart enough to Debate My Beliefs, so I mostly just keep it to myself unless it’s either: relevant, easy for me to defend, and/or uncontroversial on RW. Also I avoid conflict as much as possible. Hope that helps 💗 ASELAនិយាយ 💗 12:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry about being Big Brained enough to solve it, so long as you understand that no one person is Big Brained enough to solve it. The best you can do is create a system where there's an ability to patch obvious holes, which is the entire point behind Democracy, and when the Democracy itself has holes a motivated citizenry can fix those holes through ballot initiatives and or with state conventions, even if it seems to take forever. That's why RCV is finally being used in New York City's Mayoral election, and hopefully it will catch on for all major elections. Capitalism has a huge number of flaws, and the entire premise behind Keynesian economics is to plug in those holes to save Capitalism from itself, but again, John M Keynes was smart and had great ideas but he himself didn't know everything and nothing he said should ever be taken as gospel. CorruptUser 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's a very biased retelling of events, Circular, but I'm not gonna reopen old wounds. I'll just say about MS77 that they were a good editor, and I'm sad to have seen them leave. Oxyaena Harass 08:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m a bit biased with regards to MS77 as he hated me. All I’ll say is that since leaving RW he’s become active on KiwiFarms promoting his troll wiki, imo that plus the fact he admitted to only joining RW because of his obsession with Mikemikev proves he was here to cause trouble. Christopher (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't expecting that. Huh. Oxyaena Harass 09:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Learning the difference between skepticism and conspiracy/paranoid thinking[edit]

Dont know if this has been discussed already but i like to know the difference between applying proper skepticism and if there is ever point where it becomes paranoid thinking. At times I find that i tend to always “look for flaws” or sometimes questioning “what if” when im thinking to myself. There are also times where i may come across news stories, hear claims from people in casual conversation, or when im researching something online and sometimes internally question the validity of what im hearing or reading. Just want to know at what point does skepticism becomes paranoid thinking (if any) and how would i apply the difference when receiving and collecting information in the future.(Yes i have read both RW on skepticism and paranoia)SensaurC-137 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Skepticism involves tailoring one's beliefs, and one's confidence in those beliefs, to the available evidence. One doubts claims in the light of evidence, and of background knowledge. Paranoia involves doubt of a dogmatic character, characteristically granting improbable explanations outsized influence over one's thought. "Sure, all evidence suggests that 2 + 2 = 4, but surely it is possible that I've miscalculated every time. Perhaps I am even being made to mess up, by a cabal of lizardmen! Why, it seems just as likely that I would get 4 if there were some powerful cabal of influential lizardmen deceiving me, as if it were the true answer! Maybe it is even the work of Satan himself!" What separates this doubt from skeptical doubt? Well, it fails to account for the full range of evidence, and it fails to evaluate the prior probabilities of the various hypotheses involved. It is irrational to lose all confidence in the truth of something, because it is possible to imagine some improbable scenario in which it is false. Obviously, I am making use of the most extreme example as an illustration; one does not need to be so extreme to become irrational. "So, what is a reasonable level of doubt?" Well, there is no concise answer. If you find yourself doubting strong scientific consensus, you have almost certainly gone beyond skepticism (which is, at root, an empirical enterprise). In practice, knowing the difference is something of an intuitive exercise, and there are really other, subtler issues that are more likely to plague you in your efforts to be reasonable. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is perhaps an illustrative example of what distinguishes dogmatic doubt from skeptical doubt. My initial hypothesis is that Dave is in this room with me. Having formed this hypothesis, I take a look around the room, and produce this evidence: I do not see Dave in this room. A rational person, in this situation, would revise their hypothesis, deciding that Dave is probably not in this room with me. The paranoiac, on the other hand, is unlikely to make this inference. They might consider such alternative hypotheses as (in order of increasing absurdity): Dave is hidden behind some object in the room, my senses have deceived me, and I did not see Dave even though he was in plain sight, or Dave is in the room, but he has turned himself invisible. All three of these hypotheses are supported by the evidence. But if they are supported by the evidence, what makes them (especially the latter two) irrational?
My preferred approach to explain this is to put things in terms of possible worlds. Initially, before looking around the room, I compare the set of all possible worlds, and I determine that the set of possible worlds in which Dave is in the room is larger than the set of possible worlds in which Dave is not in the room, which is what motivates my initial hypothesis. After I look around the room, the evidence I gain eliminates some of the possible worlds I started with. Namely, any world in which I see Dave in this room has become impossible. Under certain, reasonable assumptions (most notably, that my senses are reliable sources of information), the set of worlds where I see Dave in the room contains more worlds where Dave is in the room than where he is not. Consequently, the set of possible worlds in which Dave is in the room shrinks more than the set of possible worlds in which Dave isn't in the room. If the difference is big enough (and it should be, if my senses are reliable), then after accounting for the evidence, there are more possible worlds left in which Dave isn't in the room than in which he is, and the reasonable conclusion is that Dave is not in the room.
Here is the subtle point. If Dave were invisible, then I wouldn't see him even if he were in the room. Consequently, my evidence eliminates none of the possible worlds in which Dave is in the room and is invisible. Since I have the same number of possible worlds with an invisible Dave, but fewer total possible worlds, the share of worlds with invisible Dave has increased as a proportion of all possible worlds (in other words, it has become more likely). What makes this an unreasonable conclusion is that Dave has to be in the room to be invisible and in the room. The increased probability of in the room and invisible cannot make up for the overall lost probability of in the room at all. No matter what, my failure to see Dave in the room should make me less confident that Dave is in the room. If the room has a lot of sight-obstructing stuff, the evidence might be weak enough that I still think he is more likely there than not, but the evidence should still push me in the same direction.
The takeaway from this is that a piece of evidence can be both evidence against a hypothesis H and for a hypothesis G that entails H (in my example, against the hypothesis that Dave is in the room and for the hypothesis that Dave is in the room and is invisible). Paranoia tends to involve taking the increased probability of G as reason not to give up one's confidence in H (or even to become more confident in H: consider "the lack of evidence is evidence of the coverup" type thinking): this is a fallacy. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@SensaurC-137@Serene I strongly advise against using possible worlds to distinguish between scepticism and paranoid thinking. For example, Serene states: “Initially, before looking around the room, I compare the set of all possible worlds”, this presupposes that we can compare possible worlds. To compare possible worlds we need identity criteria i.e. we should be able to say that everything is identical with itself. Serene’s example relies on the assumption that we can compare actual “Dave” with each possible Dave, and this requires that each ‘possible Dave’ = ‘actual Dave’; without this assumption we cannot make sense of who we are talking about in each possible world. Indeed, we should be able to substitute an identical for another identical whilst preserving the truth value of a given sentence. However, the substitutivity of identicals fails for possible entities. If actual Dave is not in the room and possible Dave is, then the substitutivity of identicals fails. ‘Dave is identical to Dave’ is false!? This failure of identity undermines our understanding of who, or what, we are even talking about.
Moreover, when Serene says that she is “comparing possible worlds”, in order to do this, she needs to quantify over possible worlds I.e. form sentences of the form ‘there are “possible worlds” or ‘all “possible worlds”. However, ‘possible worlds’ do not occur in a referential context, such as ‘there are electrons’, because possible worlds don’t refer to anything (empirical evidence can neither confirm nor falsify possible worlds, ersatz or concrete). Since the term ‘possible world’ doesn’t refer to anything, it must instead occur in the metalanguage of some formal system, where it is mentioned—not used. Thus the term ‘possible world’ is instead being quantified over in a quotational context viz. ‘there are “possible worlds”’; it is tantamount to saying ‘there are names that don’t refer to anything’. Using possible worlds amounts to just naming empty names.Thus possible worlds are part of the empty class, alongside: Pegasus, the round square, the Russell class, etc. Fortunately, ‘possible worlds’ can be paraphrased into an extensional language where they don’t occur.
In conclusion, possible worlds which aren’t suitable for the working scientist and her standards of clarity and precision; let alone the sceptic who wishes to disentangle the wheat of scepticism from the chaff of paranoia. LeucippusTalk 17:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to really add to that response but you (Sensaur) might want to read confirmation bias as well. You should ask yourself if you are challenging certain statements because they challenge your beliefs or because you really want more information. (Though it's entirely possible that you are already familiar with this idea.)
You might also want to read Pseudoskepticism which talks about skepticism when it is incorrectly used.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Both responses are appreciated. I always try to stay aware of my own confirmation biases though like most people I can be susceptible to emotional pleas at times. It mainly when weeding out and determining what bad or misinformation is where i guess i have trouble at. conspiracy theories and woo can have half-truths that i could be swayed by in any given circumstance. Simply put, i don’t like being misleadSensaurC-137 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I honestly think that there may sometimes be a demarcation problem in conspiracy theories in the same way that it can exist between science and pseudoscience. Clearly there are many real conspiracies in the world and clearly there are many conspiracy theories. In most cases it is pretty clear if it real or not. The world is not flat, Covid is not caused by 5G and there is no secret group of pedophile hunters led by Donald Trump. On the other hand there have been real conspiracies to commit fraud, commit terrorist acts and undermine governments. Typically the questions are: how many people need to be involved and what is being gained? If the alleged conspiracy requires hundreds of thousands of people and it's not clear who gains what - then it's going to be in "conspiracy theory" repertory.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Trump definitely isn't leading the hunt for pedophile world leaders, but there definitely are quite a few pedophiles and other sexual predators in powerful positions that have been hushing everything up. We only found out recently that Bill Gates was forced out of MicroSoft for sexual misconduct, if there was no divorce that secret would've been taken to the grave. Bill Clinton was accused of misconduct by numerous women before Lewinsky, one of whom alleged rape, so Clinton being tied to Epstein doesn't exactly instill confidence. Prince Andrew is a twat, and I think the royal family has been covering up some of his activities. The only truly ridiculous thing about the "pedophile ring" theory is the idea that Trump would be the one to take them down, because what, as an experienced predator himself he knows all their tricks? CorruptUser 18:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree that pedophiles exist and that some of them will be powerful. But as I said: "there is no secret group of pedophile hunters led by Donald Trump" . It's utter conspiracy nuttiness put about by Qanon.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
So... we agree on everything? CorruptUser 19:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently. I honestly wasn't sure what your point was.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, that was one of his campaign arguments, albeit applied to a different subject. Wouldn’t be surprised to hear his supporters use the same logic here. Artificius (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
My point is, that while the QAnon weirdos are twisted, there are kernels of truth in their whole "Satan-worshipping baby-rapers are running everything" brain-tumor lunacy. In other news, I'm finally comfortable with "brain-tumor" being my go-to insult for people now that "retarded" is a no-no word. CorruptUser 23:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The biggest kernel here is how much QAnon itself was run by "Satan-worshipping baby-rapers" -- well, maybe not quite that far, but the yahoos that ran 8chan (home of the "official Q drops") had a pretty solid reputation for allowing questionable child-exploitation-oriented material on their site. Other than that, the rich and famous are people, not some cartoon-ish stereotype, and it's not surprising that a few of them have various issues, just like everyone else. That really isn't the underlying issue anyways with the QAnon crowd, at any rate. It's basically a bunch of probably-not-the-best-and-brightest people fearful of change, getting involved in a quasi-cult-like online movement dedicated to letting them know that People Different Than You Are Evil For Some Reason, and spewing shit at perceived enemies accordingly. (And I do mean shitty ideas. Whoever first trolled QAnon with that fuckin' HST Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas adrenochrome-meets-the-blood libel nonsense deserves some kind of "nice trollin', man, but you're not helping" kind of award...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the rich and famous get away with stuff for so long that "I might suffer consequences" is not a deterrent for them. If a rich person has a dark desire, society isn't what will stop them. The rich and poor are very similar when it comes to crime, drugs and sex, because they either lose nothing or have nothing to lose. It's the various working and middle classes that are obsessed with obeying laws and not getting into trouble. CorruptUser 04:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
So your point is rich people have it easier under all circumstances? It's certainly true, but not very profound.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The famous rich actually might have more problems than the mere middle class in some respects due to constantly being in the media spotlight. Leaving "dark desires" aside, let's just take some kinks and recreational chemistry. Jerry Falwell Jr. for instance clearly liked to party and also engage in cuckold fetish type stuff. Elon Musk made headlines merely for smoking pot on Joe Rogan's podcast. Whether it matters or not depends on what media rep you've staked. I don't think too many people gave a shit about Musk smoking pot, because no one who is not a moral nanny cares about pot anymore, and it fits with Musk's rep. On the other hand, booze n' cuckolding did not exactly fit with Falwell Jr.'s image as president of Liberty University, and it hurt him bad.
None of this applies, of course, to the less famous rich. But who's fault is that? In my experience, in America, certain "middle classes that are obsessed with obeying laws and not getting into trouble" tend to over-obsess on making sure that the poor and minorities don't get too uppity and downplay those "in kind" that get in trouble, for tribal reasons alone. They'll happily ignore their Matt Gaetz / Roy Moore types with true "dark desires" and focus on making sure those "welfare recipients" are "drug tested" because reasons. QAnon is frankly a mess in part because of this sort of viewpoint, a whole lot of ignorance on how the world works. Sure, I could direct the Qs to actual, legitimate conspiracies that affected the world, such as the Libor scandalWikipedia. Would that affect their stupid, angry babbles? Most likely not. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the very existence of the MeToo movement proves that the famous rich could get away with numerous sexual assaults and other horrible shit, at least until recently, and I don't know how we'd be able to determine if famous or non-famous got away with more... CorruptUser 05:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
One of the factors is when you allow what should be mutually exclusive thoughts to enter your thinking process. Either it was planted nuclear devices that destroyed the Twin Towers, or the planes were holograms and it was a Jewish space laser. Since a lot of the evil douchebags don’t even believe their own claptrap they allow the community hive mind to take control to let the marks to be conned fired up long enough to make donations. When confirmation bias shifts from stumbling on something wrong that sounds reasonable to thinking you’re edgy and cool for being part of some grand movement that will make the world a better place, you’re now paranoid. In the meantime you’re doing a bang up job making the world a worse place. Good a decent people not wanting to be in health care because it’s just not worth the aggravation of being harassed because social media is basically allowing monetized harassment.Antigem (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


The majority of conspiracy theories only exist to establish an "in" and "out" group, not because the people themselves believe it. CorruptUser 18:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Leucippus I am not trying to use them so formally, more as an informal way to reify probabilities, and thereby to avoid discussing probabilities with more abstract language, which I felt would bog down the presentation. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 22:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Serene Good. Your use of possible worlds, as an expository tool, does achieve the desired result—a cogent inductive argument. Bayesian subjectivist probability (I.e. probability as degree of belief) seems the best approach for resolving your thought-experiment. LeucippusTalk 23:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with that. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 12:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Bob M R.e. your comment on a “demarcation problem” for conspiracy theories: I think that demarcation is too simplistic — an all or nothing distinction. There will be no place to draw a sharp line between genuine conspiracies and delusive ones. What separates them is a matter of gradation. Popper’s “Demarcation problem” is unscientific—drawn up from outside of science, from a philosophical vantage point. The lack of resolution on the demarcation problem speaks volumes as to traditional philosophies redundancy. LeucippusTalk 16:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The demarcation problem talks about the difficulty of deciding how and where to draw a clear line between pseudoscience and science - or even if it possible to draw a clear line between the two. (That's why it's called a "problem".) Obviously most things are clearly one thing or the other but - like most issues in the world there is a continuum.
If I understand you correctly you are taking the same stance. So I'm not sure why you would take issue with my comment.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
My point is that there is no “problem” to begin with and that the “problem” can be dissolved. It’s this focus on a clear separating-line that causes the problem in the first place. Moreover, this “problem” doesn’t arise within science e.g. there is no scientific field that has discovered demarcating distinctions as real phenomena. The demarcation problem arises from philosophical concerns which are both uninteresting and irrelevant to ongoing science. Pseudoscience and its ilk are simply useless for working scientists, since they’re claims cannot be translated into well-formed scientific language. LeucippusTalk 20:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Growing support for Palestine among the general population, several countries and the Democratic Party- How will this affect Geopolitics?[edit]

For those who known me on the wiki for a while, you know that I support a free and independent Palestine. Anyways with newer generations pushing for governments to actively work for a two-state solution, how will governments respond? Thanks to Trump, the bigotry of the Republican Party and evangelicals support for Israel is starting to falter. Support for Palestine has noticeably grown in the Democratic Party and it is putting pressure on Biden relating to his current Israeli policy.

As a realist, I know that a two-state solution won't happen anytime soon. I cannot say how likely a confederation similar to Bosnia and Herzegovina would work out (one country that acts as two countries). --Boterham (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I know very little about the politics of Palestine. Israel seems to really dislike the Gaza strip. What interest do they have in keeping Palestine part of Israel? Is there like a big port or something? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Eh, it's only a slight change over the past few years. CorruptUser 02:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
All I want is the luxury of being able not to care about Israel or Palestine, because I do not actually care about Israel or Palestine. Unfortunately, in the USA, this is a luxury denied me. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Only growing support for palestine within israel would have significant effect AMassiveGay (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There are three realistic solutions for the conflict:

One democratic state (Isratin) Likely, a civil war would break out.

One State (Israel) Palestinians either stay as equal citizens or they get deported to Jordan/Egypt.

Two/three-state solution (the most realistic one) Israel and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza): West Bank would be secular while Gaza has Sharia

The one-state (Palestine) is unrealistic, Israel would rather exterminate Palestine than allowing itself to be destroyed. Monet Ye 08:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

the two state solution is dead and has been dead for awhile. it will take a hell of a lot of effort to revive. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult, but it is the most realistic one, the others would likely result in a civil war. Monet Ye 08:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

not really though, thats arse. it would not look too much different than it does now. just reduce 'palestine' to even more of rump state than it is now, then officially annex the west bank. note that 'solution' is not the same as a 'good or just outcome'AMassiveGay (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, Israel (and other middle eastern countries) should leave West Bank/Gaza. Monet Ye 15:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What about Israel disengage from the West Bank in exchange for an agreement which allows them to invade, and occupy the Gaza Strip in exchange, or failing that in exchange for Palestine agreeing to withdraw its claims to the Gaza Strip and allow Israel to hands the Gaza Strip back to Egypt (which occupied Gaza before the 1967 war)? Or what Israel returns the West Bank to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt in exchange for peace? Also how would it be decided that Palestinians stay as equal citizens or get deported in the event that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are absorbed into Israel proper? I doubt that Israel would absorb Gaza unilaterally, it makes no sense in my opinion. Harry Potter (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Neither side is willing to give up any fraction of Jerusalem, and the rest of the country is a mess as well. Most Palestinian groups have outright stated that the want all of Israel, and that the return to the '67 borders is just a stepping stone on that path rather than the end-goal itself. The Israelis used to be better in this regard, but not for a while. In theory, the settlements were expanded specifically so that they could be exchanged for a peace deal (e.g., return to '80 borders instead of '67 or whatever), but as Gaza more or less proved that a "land for peace" deal would never actually work, the Israelis have basically given up on the idea of the two-state solution and no longer seem to have intentions of anything other than slowly chipping away at the WB piece by piece. CorruptUser 17:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Some its leaders would absorb Gaza unilaterally if they could. The problem from their perspective is the Palestinians themselves: Israeli nationalists would see them deported or worse (don’t want them becoming citizens, this would dilute their authority within the Israeli state), but the surrounding Arabic states won’t let them out and look down on them considerably, and see them as a useful and persistent thorn in Israel’s side besides. The Palestinians themselves are basically caught between a rock and a hard place: it took a shit ton of protests just to get access to Egyptian hospitals without a visa. They’re not allowed to emigrate, as Egypt among others remains “committed to the Palestinian identity” of the refugees. In the long run, I figure it’s probably going to be a one-state solution, with all the unfortunate implications that enjoins. Artificius (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Israel did have a "fair" solution to this and other problems decades ago; restrict franchise to only those who join the military and pay taxes. This would also deal with the Ultra-Orthodox problem, who practically control the K'nesset and force other Israelis to abide by the Ultra-Orthodox's laws in spite of paying 0 taxes nor serving in the army. Ironically, this would shift the power more towards the Druze, whose religion basically requires them to join their country's military, but regardless, it would allow Israel to annex anything it wanted and grant residency to everyone without having to worry about shifting power of government towards people who want to end Israel. CorruptUser 18:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the Haredim, the overbearing mother of the Jewish state. “We kept the religion alive for a thousand years and it’s time for us to contribute, you say?” “Ma, I’m just saying things are getting a bit tight-” “And whose fault is that? It’s Friday night and you’re about to go clubbing with that shiksa tramp, Jordan!” “Ma…” “Ugh, just go. I can’t even look at you.” Later at the UN: “…Holy shit, how did she do that?” Artificius (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Haredim and Hassidim weren't a thing until around the beginning of the 20th century. Israel turned a blind eye to them because there were only a few hundred at first, but more immigrated and then they all had 8+ kids each. CorruptUser 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Shh, that's not what she's saying... Artificius (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Off Topic on Nature of Citizenship[edit]

Followup and off topic. From my own POV, I'm only weakly in favor universal suffrage/enfranchisement. Immanuel Kant felt the right to vote should be only for those who contributed to society as they'd have the vested interest in ensuring society's functioning, though he didn't believe women could ever vote. Yes he died a virgin, how did you know? Anyway, I understand his view, but who gets to decide what "productive" is? Originally, suffrage was for landowning White men, which is a problem because it ignores that 1) land itself is not a prerequisite for being a productive member of society, 2) non-White people are capable of being productive, and 3) women are capable of being productive as well. Restricting the right to vote to only those with money is also an issue, because poor people can absolutely be productive, and then there's the whole problem of why people might be poor especially if they don't have the ability to vote for better labor laws. Disabled people might contribute less, but some became disabled because they contributed, such as workplace accidents or casualties of war, and it'd be a horrible society that'd deny the vote to a disabled firefighter. Then there's felony disenfranchisement, which is its own issue. So really, letting everyone vote is the least awful system given what society is capable of. CorruptUser 18:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Meant to respond to this allegedly derailed train of thought yesterday. Never knew they’d flirted with the Heinlein (Starship Troopers) model of government. Were they willing to take everyone who volunteered so long as said volunteers were willing to endure some bullshit for the state in pursuit of enfranchisement? ‘Cause that’s the thing that’d make it work (or not): if anyone’s barred entry to Federal service, it slowly saps the legitimacy of the government and the two-tiered society in question (the citizen/civilian dichotomy) along with any pretense of meritocracy is slowly eroded.
I’ve long been a fan of Kant (probably because of my autism), but he certainly had some flawed opinions (probably because of his autism [and the human condition, self-deprecation aside]). Sorry to read he got caught up in the elites of his time (all societies develop hierarchies; the question is whether they’re bullshit. I acknowledge that with the fullness of time they all become such [please see the history of the Janissaries for a similar military-dominated hierarchy failing.).
For anyone else reading, I wanted to emphasize that "military-dominated" is here used as a catch-all for theoretically being willing to catch a bullet for the country you were born in or want to join being a condition of enfranchisement. Heinlein went to pains in the novel with the protagonist's monologues (stilted as hell) to establish that "Federal service" does not equal "military." ~90% of folks who volunteered for federal service were assigned clerical duties and other shit needed to run the state, keep the lights on, what have you. But you certainly didn't have a choice: if they thought you were hale and hearty, your ass gets to go fight bugs while somebody else builds the ships you need (with no OSHA standards!). Artificius (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Artificius I'm friendly to Heinlein's view, but "civil service" isn't necessarily the best use of someone's talents. We'd have fewer surgeons available if they have to spend 4 years working civil service before beginning medical school. Some people establish businesses, acquire education and training, or create art, all of which contributes to society without having to work directly for the government. For me, a better system would be similar to the interviews that resident aliens have to go through to become citizens, but I'm afraid of it being abused in the obvious fashions, which is why I don't think we are ready to get rid of automatic enfranchisment. CorruptUser 04:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Call me naïve, but internships as a medical apprentice in the government's employ work pretty well too. Knew a lot of "docs" who went on to become RNs and one doctor when they got out. Could we think of it as extremely shitty vocational school? I'm not ready to get rid of automatic franchise either by the way: I can just see problems with it. In Israel the bellicose foreign policy is at least partly a function of citizens who've never served, they're rightly afraid of going the other way and enfranchising a bunch of folks who won't have Israel's best interests at heart, and our (assuming you're also American, which is a stretch here) own issues with natural born citizens (and recruitable population) are hamstringing us left and right. Four or five years to become a citizen is plenty of time to correct the obesity epidemic on the back end. Artificius (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, America. But Israel's concerns about enfranchising Palestinians via a One State Solution or Right of Return would mostly disappear if only those who've served could vote. While Israeli Arabs don't have the same vision for Israel as Israeli Jews (then again, Israeli Jews don't have the same vision as Israeli Jews), it's hard to make a case that the people joining the army are outright hostile to their country. At worst, you'd get a large swath of voters who are demanding equal rights, rather than dissolution of the state. The real remaining question has to do with the "Jewish Refuge" part of Israel, and whether the Israeli Arabs would still accept that.
As you said, the foreign policy is being written in part by those who send someone else's kids to the front lines, or expanding settlements and demanding someone else's kids have to patrol the settlements. If all the Ultra-Orthodox had to serve, the settlements would be much, much less popular. In fact the settlements aren't even popular in the first place. Plus, the constant wars in Lebanon and Gaza would also look a bit different if the Ultra-Orthodox either had to fight them or weren't able to vote for them in the first place. CorruptUser 15:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
hasnt every pm of israel been some kind of war hero, or least served in the military and seen action? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
its wishful thinking if you think having to fight in any wars is going to cut much ice. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The politicians empowered by the bellicose electorate are incidental, their power is derived from the jerks who elect them. Like most prominent leaders of young nations, it’s easy to believe the Israeli prime ministers are veterans (not doing research/Google-fu to dispute or confirm your assertion because I’m drunk and listening to Disney shit, refuse to spoil this buzz, please feel free to kick my ass rhetorically). There is a great difference of opinion in any body of people if you quiz them, what I think Cory’s and mine point is that a tour of service – whether it’s shooting people who just don’t want to be displaced (bad, I know), building shit for your countrymen (does countryfolk play?), or serving in any capacity for the greater good of the society you live in – is a positive act of buying into the future of that society. Conferring citizenship on folk who want that society gone - your anarchists, your Nationalists, your libertarians, your Communists, your Arab nationalists or "ultra-orthodox" if you’re Israel – is self-defeating. If the assholes who empowered Bibi were forced to serve and see people bleed and die for a renewed Holy land, they might not be so quick to (the other guy’s) sword. Automatic citizenship can be seen as a problem in that context, like normal red blood cells near the equator (the choice is between sickle-cell anemia and malaria when the ultra-orthodox vote). Artificius (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
they have national service in israel. exemptions for the ultra orthodox ended in 2014. its a fantasy if you think it would stop people going to war AMassiveGay (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
its apparently dificult to find work win israel if dont have 'full military service'AMassiveGay (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
IIRC, the current rule is there's a 6 month extension for anyone in a Yeshiva, that can be re-extended indefinitely. The Yeshiva exemption was ruled unconstitutional and repealed multiple times, yet it still exists. The ultra-orthodox women are exempted entirely. Laws or not, the majority of Haredi and Chassidic Jews get exempted one way or another. CorruptUser 14:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


I really wish so-called skeptics were actually fair in their skepticism. Be skeptical of conspiracy theories, sure, but one should also be skeptical of official narratives. It's a credulous lot who only apply skepticism to things unfamiliar to them. Spot (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

examples pleaseAMassiveGay (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. One big part of skepticism is that we should base beliefs on the quality of available evidence - whether this be an official narrative or not. So if our editor can provide evidence of the "skeptical movement" failing to do this then that would be very important.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The 'skeptical' movement of the early 21st century has turned out to have put on a pedestal some really unlikable and repugnant individuals. Namely, Richard Dawkins,Stephen Pinker, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss. What started with stated good intentions quickly turned into a parade of deplorables. All now "Free Speech" mavens, while some are also embroiled in allegations of sexual harassment. See here for a quick look at some questionable folk Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Completely agree, the so called “new atheists” and the other figures you’ve mentioned, have left unpleasant associations with the labels ‘atheist’ and ‘skeptic’ (even though they make up but a fraction of the atheist and sceptic demographic). All of the above figures have been at pains in showing how scientistic, Procrustean, and downright unsophisticated they are. For the atheists and sceptics of days gone (e.g. The Vienna Circle, The Warsaw logicians at the turn of the 20th century, and The Centre for Skeptical Inquiry), scepticism and atheism were largely implicit—and where explicit, they had no need for the simplistic labels and silly logos (that red A atrocity, for instance), worn as tribalistic badges of honour by Dawkins et al.
@Cardinal Chang The figures you mentioned (in particular Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris) were at their best when they were kissing Hitchens’ sophist arse. The highlight for me came during the first meeting of the new atheists at Hitchens apartment, when Dennett misunderstood Hitchens’ comment about “extirpating” something benign, as “exterminating religion”, which Dennett proceeded to gleefully assent to—this being characteristic of their sycophantic reverence of Hitchens. LeucippusTalk 22:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree with Leucippus that the labels "atheist" and "skeptic" are at best cringe worthy. People commonly name their children "Christian" and "Christene", but who names their child "Atheist"? Nobody does. Full Nelson (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Dow plunges on news of global wut? shortage. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
In trying to find the essay by John Gray about Dawkins' and Harris' atheism as nothing of the sort but more akin the 19th Century Russian Nihilism similar to characters described by Dostoyevsky in, quite aptly in this context, The Idiot, I came across this Long Read from him in The Guardian (Although considering where John's viewpoint is now post Brexit I doubt he'll be writing anything new for The Guardian, he no longer does a Point of View for Radio 4 either. Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────International Journal for The Psychology of Religion study: "anti-atheist prejudice is not confined either to dominantly religious countries or to religious individuals, but rather appears to be a robust judgment about atheists."[10]

The new atheists confirmed a lot of the preexisting stereotypes that many people had. Fuller Nelson (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello obvious troll. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
So, when ken created a series of socks themed around the phrase "full nelson..." was he referring to the wrestling move or the Rule 34 tag? It could be either knowing him...-Flandres (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Well this is an hilarious selection of complaints about people in the skeptical movement. Skepticism is about apportioning your belief to the evidence. It's about critical thinking and avoiding cognitive biases. It's not about putting people on pedestals. Many of the strongest criticisms of some of the people mentioned above have come from within the movement - it is easy to think of organisations where this does not happen.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

the whole putting people on pedestals thing does not sound to me like 'one should also be skeptical of official narratives' that the op mentioned. difficult to say because they didnt specify any examples of their complaint. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
No, the thread has gone wildly off track and now has little to do with the initial post. (For which, as you point out, no evidence has been presented.) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
There has been enormous skepticism of official government narratives emanating from the former US government administration. But I doubt that is the implied source material. I have no idea what Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss have to do with the question as they are in no sense official narrators, just famous public intellectuals. Now you can take them or leave them, but either way, it would not affect the weight of their reputations.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
That was my fault, seen the name "Spot" in red, took it as a bad faith question and went with it. Sorry. Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Angular momentum is not conserved!!!1!one[edit]

Or so this guy claims. This guy has been going around for nearly a decade around several social media sites going on and on and on about how conservation of angular momentum doesn't exist based on his highly scientific experiment of him swinging a ball on a string around. Obviously not article material as the dude is a total nobody (if very persistent), but worth a chuckle (especially if you find out his particular debating style). 主要行事月 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The mathematics of rotating things can apparently be very complex even for experts. I recently came across the case of Eric Laithwaite, a leading British engineer who claimed to have discovered a failure of conservation of energy in a gyroscope, but was found to have used inaccurate approximations in his calculations, persisted in claiming he'd found something real, and basically his career came to an end.[14] --Annanoon (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Angular momentum includes both orbital momentum (what that guy is talking about, one object moving in a circle around a point external to itself) and rotational momentum (an object spinning around its center of mass). The total is what is conserved, not either individually. Orbital momentum conservation alone would produce the disagreement he identifies, but rotational momentum increases as the string's length is reduced and the ball spins faster, and this eats up much of the rotational energy. Just another overly simplified model producing bad results. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Are there any scientific explanations for accurate “out of body experiences” when on the operating table?[edit]

A lot of people seem to use the supposed fact that people claim remember vividly what was happening during a life saving surgery with surprisingly detail as “proof” of afterlife. I was just wondering if there have been any more coherent explanations as to why this happens. I read the skeptoid episode about near death experiences and apparently, as an experiment, cards were placed in the operation room to check the out of body memory of the patient and no one was ever aware of them. That should be telling, but what I find odd is people claiming what was happening during the surgery and it actually being accurate. So, are there any more scientific theories about this rather than jumping the shark and saying “afterlife”?

Skeptoid episode in question also: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4261–WMS (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that brains do weird things when they are under that kind of extreme stress and that in some cases that will take you to something which is profound to you. Be it Muslim Christian or whatever. Here is a report about someone who went to the Star Trek Universe as his near death experience.
With regards to the "hidden cards" experiments my understanding is that they haven't worked. But I don't have a link.
It's all pretty unconvincing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a strange kindness that evolution accidentally gave us. When your brain starts dying, it accidentally releases a flood of serotonin, the "feel-happy" chemical in your brain, creating what is essentially the best orgasm you've had combined with all the cocaine. The brain often processes this as a bright white light, which would explain "heaven". CorruptUser 16:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to point this out, but even if there wasn't a scientific explanation for OOEs, it still wouldn't be evidence for the supernatural. That would require evidence on the theists' part. Remember "I don't know" is always a valid option if no viable alternatives exist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It is possible to trigger out of body experiences with certain "recreational pharmaceuticals"; moreso than the classic serotonin acting psychedelics, ketamine and others in the "dissociative" class such as dextromethorphan or methoxetamine seem prone to the phenomenon. These drugs work on the GABA systemWikipedia in the brain -- they are NMDA antagonistsWikipedia. One phenomenon of this class seems to be to increase glutamate levels; this is anti-depressive in nature and is one of the things people are looking into to develop new anti-depression medication with. Googling some news in this direction led to a not even year old article about how a team of scientists simulated an out of body experience on a person who suffered from epilepsy via electricity alone after observing brain patterns of mice on ketamine.
None of this is conclusive of anything by any means, but initial data suggests that the mechanism certainly isn't supernatural in origin. Rather, it's something that has evolved in our brain for an as yet unknown reason. We're nowhere near the answer to why, but we're a wee bit closer to the answer to how. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Brace for the McAfee conspiracy theories[edit]

John McAfee was found dead in his Spanish prison cell just hours before authorities there approved him to be extradited to the US to face tax evasion charges. They say he committed suicide, but in 2019, McAfee said that he thought the government was getting ready to kill him and got a tattoo on his arm saying "$WHACKD" to show that if he dies it wasn't because he killed himself. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I already protected the article. I don't expect that to stop them, just slow them down. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Are we sure that's McAfee's body and not some elaborate plot involving a number of Hollywood prop designers and one particularly attractive pig? CorruptUser 20:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
That tweet I linked already has Clinton body count people swarming it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The Clintons brazenly killed Jeffrey Epstein and now they have killed John McAfee. They have a lot of chutzpah. Who are they going to kill next? Donald J. Trump? If they kill Trump, you heard it here first.Brozozo (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for that? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It was a joke. Maybe my dark humor is a bit too dry for you. For example, Donald Trump is protected by the secret service.Brozozo (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear. Don't unlock the page about him for a while, there's going to be a literal locust swarm of conspiracy theorists purporting that he was somehow murdered.~April 21:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
What will certainly be interesting is how Conservapedia responds to this, namely RobSmith. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
He's... blocked. CorruptUser 21:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm referring to how RobSmith may react on Conservapedia, not on RationalWiki. Perhaps I should've specified that initially to avoid confusion. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It's hilarious how a vile piece of shit like Macafee and Epstein for that matter, seem to get a whole raft of half wits and the gullible chiming on about a conspiracy and yet never seem to have any clues about real conspiracies involving a government and murder. By way of example, look at the Daniel Morgan case in the UK, murdered 34 years ago, repeatedly investigated and the case collapses, it involves Southern Investigations (of the News of the World phone hacking scandal.) and now also has the head of the Metropolitan Police under constrain and investigation. But, hey where's the fun in that when a vile piece of shit dies in a prison cell. Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
There's more shit, because of course there is... Always more fucking shit... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Qanon has managed to incorporate pretty much everything conspiracy related-the faithful also share demographics with the kookier libertarians and crypto fans like McAfee. It makes sense some have incorporated his death into their mythos.
Remember when Qanon was just a face saving means of explaining the Mueller investigation?-Flandres (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I remember when this crap was just another anti-Hillary conspiracy theory back in 2015-2016... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────McAfee snuck back into the US, impersonated a guard and strangled Epstein. 'Epstein' in prison turned out to be an impersonator. The real Epstein snuck into Spain and impersonated a guard to strangle McAfee. There. I just turned the conspiracy up to eleven.Wikipedia Bongolian (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Imma be real here, I 100% think that McAfee killed himself but set this shit up to make himself look like a martyr. The Q post all but confirmed it for me. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems plausible given his great desire for fucking people over (murder, rape, pump-and-dump, tax evasion). Bongolian (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It also gives him a sort of "infamy" I guess-he was always the sort of guy who liked attention grabbing stunts. Rather than get a functionally life sentence for financial crimes (given his age) he gets to make himself a sort of legend.-Flandres (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This seems plausible because McAfee is peak technogrifter. His ego doesn't even escape him in death. Theace (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Something disturbing about the Michigan special education system[edit]

Several years ago me and my mom were picking up my brother from the glorified hamster wheel run by incompetent bureaucrats special needs school he went to.

Now here is the disturbing part. As the students were either waiting for family to pick them up or getting on the bus, I struck up a conversation with one of the students. I don't remember exactly how the topic of civil rights came up but I mentioned that he had the same civil rights as everyone else, he was surprised and he responded, "I have civil rights"?

Obvious to me that there are plenty in the special education system who intentionally keep the idea of civil rights aware from mentally challenged people.

Another disturbing thing I came across (from the same school): one time I was at the store and a class from the school is being taught to shop. There was this one person in the class who I had interactions with a few different times. He is non-verbal and has a profound learning disability. I merely said hi; the one teacher rudely tells me "He doesn't talk".

As for the second one, you can say hi to somebody even if they cannot talk. Non-verbal people have their ways of communication and this person being a special needs teacher obviously would know that. --Boterham (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

anti vax scum[edit]

my nephew was given an anti vax leaflet handed out to him by some fucking anti vaxxer sack of shit out side his fucking school. no fucking shame. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I often wonder wonder how the anti-vax brigade feel about polio (which has a 95% asymptomatic rate.) or tetanus. Do they think polio wasn't all that bad? Or that tetanus is something you can merely walk off? Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I've encountered a fair few loons who'll flat out deny germ theory, and argue that the eradication of smallpox and polio can be explained by higher living standards (better nutrition & sanitation, etc). If they start hyphenating dis-ease, that's usually your signal to buckle up tight and prepare for the crazy. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The anti-vax conspiracy brigade are generally not affected by such things as evidence. Once they get into that mindset it's difficult to get them out - every piece of data is simply used to show that it's what "they" want you to think. A couple of weeks ago I was in a local cemetery and I met a guy who works there. He maintained that, as he personally had not had a lot of extra work recently, the pandemic did not exist. I had graphs about the death rate in India on my phone. He told me they were fake. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vax part 2[edit]

There is a difference between 'anti-vaxers per se (perhaps 'that' image on the Wikipedia page on smallpox with 'do you want your kid to look like that?' is a counter-argument) and 'the hesitant and similar (the AZ vaccine and women in a certain age group etc, there being alternatives) etc' (they are willing but cautious). Anna Livia (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh please, "the hesitant" is just a cover for anti-vaxxer. It's one thing to be hesitant about the COVID vaccines when they first came out because there was no time for any safety studies to be performed, but we know how safe the MMRV, DTaP, Gardasil, etc, vaccines are. Anyone refusing to get their kid vaccinated against Diphtheria is effectively committing child abuse. CorruptUser 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser It's actually not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
kids arent even being vaccinated where i am and no decision has made yet to do so. amongst the bullshit in the leaflet handed to my nephew, and i repeat - outside of a school, its telling them they are about to be vaxxed as they are already doing in manchester. they are not and they have not in manchester either. it pure lies designed to scare kids with a threat of the government coming to force to them to make dangerously unsafe medicine, and then to work on their parents and family with that fear - 'i dont want you take that nasty poison grandma'. this is not hesitancy this is vile and dangerous scaremongering from cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Any links or contact deets on the leaflet? Various options for inflicting some (legal & non-violent) RL consequences on these mooks, and I'm game. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
not personally seen it but i am told its 'safer to wait'. cant seem to find it on line. i dont believe its full of skulls or overtly dom laden imagery or language. there is a twitter hashtag. not my nephews school btw, they are at all over and not just these cunts. some have been quite aggressive, not letting kids pass unless they take a leaflet. there are go fund me campaigns set up for the safer to wait pricks. i couldnt find anything on the legality of distributing leaflets outside of a school specifically. i would hope is school is dealing with thatAMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. So it's a niche hashtag that seems to have started here, and then got its first signal boost from Anna Brees (both 11th May). I don't know much about her, other than occasionally seeing her name crop up in the looniverse, but the hashtag never really gained any traction on Twitter (generally < 10 Tweets/day & from accounts getting fuckall interaction). If peeps are getting motivated to fundraise, print & distribute leaflets, then it's probably happening in Facebook groups or on Telegram. I'll have a look tomorrow. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Facebook? You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. You must be cautious. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree Facebook is worse than the other social media/tech companies, but they're all rotters: coddling hives of Nazis, vacuuming up and monetizing personal information, break it first to profit from negative externalities then reluctantly try to fix it when forced to, tax dodging on monumental scales, soulless CEOs who feign moral character. Bongolian (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed (x2). I'm a sucker for internet safaris, though. Nothing quite like the sight of cranks and loons dreaming big and stupid in their natural habitat. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
CorruptUser: We really shouldn't be antagonizing the vaccine hesitant. They're laypeople confused by the media, which we all understand is very confusing for a lot of people and generally support vaccines but have these second thoughts. I asked my mom who did everything she can to vaccinate me if she'd get pause at all the misinformation and I wasn't there to tell her about it, and she admitted she'd hesitate, even a little. Like calling someone like her (which means a lot of people like her) anti-vax and worthy of disrespect isn't doing any good. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, like many things things it's going to be a continuum - with the virulent committed Antivaxers at one end and with the "I want it yesterday!" (IWIY) people at the other end. Almost everyone here (including me) is going to be on or close to the IWIY side. But we don't need to demonize those who don't fully share our well-grounded enthusiasm.
On the other hand the committed Antivaxers really are terrible people.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Much of the seriously worst bile should be reserved for the anti-vaxx promoters. Some of them, like Jenny McCarthy types, are merely ignorant people who should stick with what they know and shut the fuck up about topics they have zero clues about, or at least throw their vapid energy into a cause with more evidence (there's a few minor studies that link air pollution and autism, for instance, so if you're going to go all activist about something, why not go in the direction of something that hasn't yet been thoroughly discredited, and actually would be of benefit even if the link ends up being bunk?) Others, like Tucker Carlson types or many in the fundie preacher direction, are sleazeballs who are preying on ignorance and fear, and in the case of NaturalNews/Infowars/Jim Bakker types, trying to profit off of this ignorance and fear by selling snake oil bullshit. They are scum, almost the lowest of the low, eight circle of hell type demons. Unfortunately the too-often-quasi-apocalyptic prose they spew attracts too many people, which is the issue with certain segments of the anti-vaxx crowd. It ends up becoming an almost cultish religious thing and at that point it is difficult to change minds. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Have a read through the CCDH report, on that link hae a read through the campaigns and the COVID menus at the top of the page. A veritable who's who of shitheads making money out of the scared and vulnerable. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


Ha, it seems that I have been included in a recent pointless poll. Good grief. How am I more likely to have done the evil deed than the angry goat? It's simply preposterous! Preposterous I say!Crazymantis91 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

no you havent. log out and look againAMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
It's the {{USERNAME}} template, Anonymous user. Not really sure if I should or should not continue creating polls with that template. CorruptUser 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Whoops! My mistake. Crazymantis91 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Personal opinion? You shouldn't. The damn thing is annoying, and the joke's old. Kencolt (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The tuna in Subway's tuna fish sandwiches are not actually tuna[edit]


This begs the question: what is the chicken, beef and turkey made of? Do I want to know? --Boterham (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That's actually old news. The Daily Fail had a piece on it in January.[16] You can tune a piano, but you can't tune a fish. Bongolian (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that the claim in this case is on... shaky... ground (cook anything and you denature the DNA behind usefulness), lots of things have decidedly misleading names. Rocky Mountain oysters contain nothing of the sort (and anecdotally, are a real pain to prepare and relatively unremarkable in flavor), same with Susquehanna turkeys (and hog maws can also be used in maw and chitterlings; even though I'm a white New Englander I've made both, they're high maintenance but quite tasty). Also, as a side note, the original Subway is within walking distance of me (though no one in his right mind would ever walk there without a death wish), and my grandfather (who's lived around here his whole life) said the quality when it opened... was very different. According to him, unsurprisingly if depressingly, it's recognizable by name, location, and general sandwich appearance only. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I will say that even if Subway is right (and they might be because that DNA test is shaky), the best case scenario is kind of "bottom grade". Subway's official ingredients list lists the ingredients as "flaked tuna in brine (tuna, water, salt)". The chain claims to use only skipjack and yellowfin tuna -- that's expected, this is the more plentiful tuna currently, so it's pretty cheap. Flaked tuna however is pretty low on the "canned tuna" totem pole... it's the tuna leftovers on a fish after processing is done for the "solid" and "chunk" varieties. Google seems to suggests that most of the "flaked tuna" you find for sale in a grocery store is actually sold for cats. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Who goes to Subway for a tuna sandwich anyway? If I’m going out, I want something good like the meatball marinara. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Me. And if it's not actually tuna, then fine, one less meat in my diet I can enjoy. Hope the chicken, beef, and turkey aren't actually dead animal and just taste like them.

The food fraud investigation comes on the heels of a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California suing the sandwich chain for fraud, with the plaintiffs alleging they were lied to and "tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing."

Boy if these people think this is the only case of lacking ingredients maybe they should look into the Ocean Spray juice, wonderberry juice that is 100% juice but uses a lot of apple/grape/pear juice as sweeteners, the avocado flavored guacamole, "whole wheat" bread colored with molasses, etc. Only peanut butter, iirc has to actually contain a significant percentage of peanuts if it wants to call itself such. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned this in the WIGO talk (because this was a WIGO entry), but Insider Edition also sent samples to a lab that wasn't anonymous (the NYT article referenced by Fox here said the lab requested it not be named), and found that it was tuna. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how tuna works. I am violently allergic to any fish, so it can't affect me anyways. But my understanding is that 'tuna' is a commerce label that applies to a wide variety of fishes in the mackerel family, and that the label applies to several different genera and all the species they contain. Not sure what DNA tests will tell you in that context. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin is going to prison for 22 and a half years.[edit]

Too bad the sentence is not more due to the cruelty to George Floyd but at least he might become currency among the other inmates. --Boterham (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As a cop, maybe, but in prison everyone forms into a gang by race, the Aryan Brotherhood might be willing to take him in. CorruptUser 02:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
pretty sure they dont put convicted coppers in with the dangerous prisoners. like they dont with sex offenders. and and prison rape is not something to 'hope' happens to someone. 22 and half years was the sentence - not to be raped and/or murdered. its that sentiment why the us prison system is abhorrent and prevents any meaningful reform.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Most sex offenders aren't segregrated from the rest of the prison. As for cops, it will vary, but I don't about Minnesota in particular. CorruptUser 20:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
While I am certainly happy he has been imprisoned and I don't feel sorry for him that he will lose some liberties and have plenty of time to think about it...I am rather aghast when people (especially people who care about social justice) take satisfaction in things like pointless suffering such as being raped. Hoping he rots in hell and suffers terribly for years is a very unhealthy and toxic way to look at justice and social change. It makes no sense to me to on one hand ask society to be more caring, to consider the difficulties in people's lives (especially the marginalised and those outside our social and cultural bubble) and encourage progress, inclusivity, greater respect and dignity for other people...and on the other hand crying out for a human beings blood and take satisfaction in a person being prison raped over years (regardless of how reprehensible their crimes were). How you treat prisoners and the people you despise the most is a fairly good barometer of the health of your society (and I would venture to guess the likelihood that progress is likely). ShabiDOO 01:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a remark involving 'chauvinist' to be made here.
He did not react with humanity towards George Floyd's statement about being choked - so there is a reaction 'that something similar only more so be done to him.' (One reading of 'An eye for an eye' is that no more should be done to whoever injured you than was done to you.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
there is a reaction but it should be ignored for its barbarity.
'The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert.' MLK AMassiveGay (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't he still have federal charges to face anyways? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
What I was referring to is described by [17] and [18]. Anna Livia (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
As for "eye for an eye" being wrong, I have to respectfully disagree. How many crooks, mostly racists would not feel any remorse for what they did and would do again and again despite any efforts of trying to reform them? --Boterham (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thats a claim that requires some statistics or something to be valid. norway recidivism and rehab AMassiveGay (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Illiberal Left[edit]

So, apparently, there really is such a thing where someone goes so far left as to outright reject Liberal Democracy. Marxists and some anarchists oppose Liberal Democracy because they can't understand why the vast majority of people do not want their particular system "bourgeois democracy" promotes the interests of the middle and upper middle class over the underclasses.

To me, when you oppose Liberal Democracy, you are almost by definition anti-Liberal. Would anyone be too upset if I added this into the Illiberal Left article? CorruptUser 19:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

With citations, sure, and perspective. I honestly can't think of any examples on the American left, for instance, at the moment -- I do think that an illiberal left here exists, but is very tiny and powerless, largely limited to moaning on social media. The current article's perspective in other words is fairly correct from an American political viewpoint. Most current illiberal left examples I can think of immediately are Marxist-oriented strongmen in Latin America (eg Hugo Chávez and Nicolás MaduroWikipedia), or the old school Communists that haven't mutated into kleptocracies like Russia or authoritarian capitalism "socialist market economies" like China. (Examples of the remaining Commie old school would be Cuba and North Korea). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know Liberalism isn't essential to democracy, it's just the most common form of democratic republicanism at the moment. If a new form of democracy were to emerge, opposed to liberalism, would it be de facto bad? Personally, I think it would depend on why it's opposed to liberalism, and what it proposes to try to fix what it perceives as errors. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, you could honestly make a pretty excellent critique of Liberalism as it is currently implemented-it's not like everyone who criticizes liberalism is an unreconstructed Leninist or something. Indeed, the wealthy do have a hideously disproportionate influence over the nominally egalitarian/democratic politics of say, the USA (which is pretty liberal by the original definition).
I would be okay with that being mentioned in the article...so long as a certain nuance is captured.-Flandres (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
First I define liberal as that center-center left part, in the U.S. as those that support Biden, Hillary for their policy, maybe Resistance types and would defend Biden. I'm not really liberal, more accurate would be democratic socialist. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
"Liberalism" is a 17th/18th century idea that everyone is equal before the law, liberty to do as one pleases is the most essential of human rights, and that governments are only legitimate so long as the public at large agrees to said government. How this principle should actually be applied is... complicated... for obvious reasons. This was practically a treasonous suggestion in a society where the Aristocracy and the Plebs had vastly different rights and privileges, and it took societies quite a long time since them to realize that different racial backgrounds or the presence of a uterus should not preclude someone from the same rights as everyone else. A "Liberal Democracy" is a system of government that is based around these principles, though the definition is also a bit fuzzy.
Communists and some (but not all) anarchists oppose Liberalism and Liberal Democracy, because of what they see as inequities that arise as the result of the freedoms enshrined by Liberalism. One of the essential freedoms of Liberalism is property, the US Constitution in the original draft had "Life, Liberty, and Property" listed before "property" became "pursuit of happiness", but "Life, Liberty, and/or Property" is mentioned in several amendments. And when oppose Liberalism, you are literally, "illiberal". CorruptUser 21:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser That is indeed my point. If I was to start a new political ideology derived from but opposed to the way property (for example) is enshrined in Liberal ideals, that would make me (in that instance) illiberal. whether this is good or bad would be dependent on contributing factors. If I were to go the USSR route and declare that since the state is communal, that all property should belong to the state, it might be safe to argue that I would be a more than a bit unreasonable. On the other hand, if I were to expand and increase the nuance of property law in a way that's incompatible with the existing Liberal property law, that might be more reasonable (depending on the exact details in question, law is complicated) but it would still be illiberal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that if something is illiberal and good, it would still count as illiberal, and if derived from thought on the left, would be fair game to put in an article on the illiberal left. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 21:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
So we are agreed then? That technically, a Left-wing ideology that opposes Property (most forms of Communism, Socialism, Anarchism), Consent of the Governed (Dictatorship or One-Party State), or Equal Protection (not sure which Left-wingers oppose this) would qualify as "Illiberal Left"? CorruptUser 21:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure, so long as you don't use it to construct strawmen. That is my main concern here, personally.
On that note, are you going to use that to claim anybody left of you in a political argument is a psychotic bloodsucking red fascist? Because that sounds like where you are heading with this.-Flandres (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Does it? Cory in this case seems to be arguing the opposite in fact, at least from where I sit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm just taking his previous history into account. Also, that tends to happen to me whenever I get into a poltical argument and I hear something like "Liberalism equals equality-" it tends to be an excuse to say something like "if you oppose liberalism, or just criticize it enough, you obviously hate human rights" or something. Needless to say, I will be happy to be proven wrong!-Flandres (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This argument presumes that liberals are champions of social justice when history shows that, more often than not, they will side with oligarchs over the people. Just from a US perspective:Hillary, as StateSec, overthrew the democratic gov of Honduras, Biden is a drug warrior and has championed laws that destroyed communities and expanded mass incarceration; and Obama enboldened Dubya's authoritarian programs. All three are liberals, and so was the entirety of the GOP before the Tea Party. Much like with Marxism, there is a huge discrepancy between what liberals claim to stand for and the reality of their ideology in practise. And yes there is always nuance and material conditions, but let's not pretend that the history of liberalism is not filled with self-righteous hypocrisy. Tuxer (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
We also shouldn't forget the branches and sub-branches within Liberalism, as well as the mutations cause by politicking. I know American politics is overly fond of black/white thinking (it's one of the reasons I despise it) but most ideology have a number of branches and sub-branches, both good and bad. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of constitutional democracies that are not liberal. Russia and Iran, for example. But, if you want an accurate vote count also, usually (not always) that calls for a liberal (non-authoritarian) government to begin with. When you have a binary system like in the US, naturally the elected government will not generally represent all the ideological concerns of a majority. The idea that such a thing is even possible has long been the stuff of utopian novels and other such leisure time activities.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding GCs notion of a democracy that is incompatible with Liberalism: Prima facie it seems that the only tenet of traditional liberalism that would be sensible for an illiberal ideology to modify or reject is the tenet of “private property” (e.g. as GC gives with the example of “expanding and increasing the nuance of property law”), since rejecting the tenets of “all are equal before the law” and “governments are only legitimate so long as the people at large agree to their rule” (is, I will assume) insensible to most users here. I remain sceptical as to whether the modification of property law, in the way GC describes, will be incompatible with liberalism, since (and this is assuming we are not taking the radical option of rejecting liberal law outright) the proposed expansion will be based upon and use the resources of existing liberal law i.e. it will simply reform existing law by expanding its reach, and thus, I don’t see it as being “incompatible” with liberalism, rather I see it as continuous with it. LeucippusTalk 23:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tuxer You are changing the definition of "Liberal". A "Liberal" in US politics just means "Left-Wing", but in an Academic setting it means "someone who views equal protections of the law, consent of the governed, and the right to do what you want" as being the ultimate goals of having government. A person who wants to force their government on others against the general public's wishes, even if that government protected equal rights and allowed a large degree of autonomy, would not be a true Liberal. A person who supported a tiered citizenry (i.e., Aristocracy, racial hierarchy, second-class citizenship) while also allowing individual autonomy and having broad support would not be a true Liberal. A person who has broad support and had equal rights but suppressed individual autonomy would not be a true Liberal.
It's also not a "binary", as the newspeak would describe it today, as someone in the 18th century who wanted to eliminate the special privileges of the Aristocracy would be "more Liberal" than the average person, but "less Liberal" than the person in the 19th century who wanted to remove the privileges of the Aristocracy but wanted to retain race-based slavery. Someone who wants to decriminalize drugs is "more Liberal" than someone who wants stricter drug laws. Someone who wants to ease restrictions on firearms would actually be "more Liberal", even though that goes against what the common person thinks a "Liberal" is.
It's always going to be a thorny issue of when one of these three tenets conflicts with the others. The overwhelming majority of the public opposed Interracial Marriage, but legalizing this protected individual autonomy and arguably extended equal protections. In more recent issues, we've had questions, e.g., "should a private bakery be allowed to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake"? The baker has the right to individual autonomy, but the gay men should have equal access to services, so what do we do? We've always had questions like this, and have always needed to balance one need against another. The issue is when you have far-Left people who put a vague definition of "Equality" so far above and beyond the other two tenets of Liberalism that they don't care that they have to compromise individual autonomy or the consent of the governed in order to get there. CorruptUser 23:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Leucippus I was referencing the Marxist notion of private property vs collective property & personal property. Last I checked (to be fair it's been over a year since I checked) that theory, since it does away with private property and proposes its own system, was considered Illiberal since it rejected the notion of said private property. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I never quite got the distinction. Is private property just business stuff? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Under the current law, Things like your workplace, your toothbrush, and your house are private property. As I understand the Marxist idea, it calls for making a distinction between things like your workplace (communal property) and things like your house and toothbrush (personal property). That being said, as I understand property law, that Marxist idea would be difficult to implement, if not impossible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention the related idea of all "means of production" being owned collectively owned by the workers who run them. Basically, every factory should be owned by workers in that factory, every farm by the farmers, etc. The inherent flaw is that it seems that few if any anarchist or socialist actually believes what they claim to; none seem to be extolling the virtues of private laws firm where all the lawyers are partners, or doctor-owned clinics, even though these are literally cases of workers running their own business without a hierarchy, and being provably more productive than the doctors employed by hospitals or lawyers in a more corporate setting. Heck, there were farmers who owned their own farms in Soviet Russia, they were the Kulaks, and Stalin had them slaughtered for being a threat to his Communist vision.CorruptUser 01:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Made some changes. Pheel phree to phix. CorruptUser 05:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I do think there is a real problem with an 'illiberal left'. The basic problem is that some varieties of 'leftism' broadly defined have become one of the vessels into which the old Puritan and 'non-conformist' dudgeon has been poured. It turns into another variety of theology: your status as one of the Elect comes from your willingness to repeat the right slogans with the right amount of inner commitment. Correct doctrine embodied in correct slogans is what makes you a good person, and if you question the slogans that makes you bad. 'Critical race theory' of the Robin Di Angelo variety isn't even what I would call a leftist project, given its integration into corporate life. It remains a gospel of despair; accept its tenets and it becomes impossible to imagine a society that ever moves past its indelible racism, and I'm not sure who that's supposed to help. 'Feminism' generates a lot of weird drama; plug the phrase 'what should a feminist wear?' into your favorite search engine and the problem will be fairly obvious. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 11:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Take for example ubiquitous twat Ben Shapiro. He has done nothing worse than "be an asshole". He has committed no crimes nor violated anyone else's rights. His big "break" was when he went on some show no one cared about, was sat next to a trans woman, and due to an argument he ended up misgendering the trans woman. She put her hand on his shoulder and threatened to put him in an ambulance, yet everyone else in the room seemed fine with this. The woman continued to threaten him off camera, and Ben needed security escort to his car. No charges were ever filed against the woman, in spite of being on camera and being criminal intimidation.
Shapiro's civil rights were violated that day, so much so that I think he forgot to mention his wife was a doctor. Where was the ACLU, who once fought to let the Klan march in a neighborhood that wanted them gone? Where was the criticism from the left in how the woman acted? I don't think people should take Shapiro seriously. I also don't feel too sorry for him either. But I also don't believe people should be threatened with violence for saying something offensive, because if something is only a Right when people do what we want them to, it isn't a Right in the first place.CorruptUser 14:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I'm sorry, but what? The Kulaks were feudal land owners, not the the actual farmers. I mean, Stalin's regime conflated the two heavily to justify the Holodomor, but still. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
To the the Shapiro example, you do realize the difference between free speech and hate speech right? Further, why do you think that woman went to those extremes? Because she just hates liberty? Or maybe because she realized it was the only way she was going to get Shapiro to behave himself and cease his performative bigotry. The core problem with your argument is you've abstracted these things beyond context. Ben Shapiro engaged in performative cruelty, and someone decided he wasn't going to listen if they asked him nicely to stop. this, in context, is a bit different from someone walking up to him unprovoked and threatening to hurt Shapiro if he ever dared misgender a trans person. In the latter situation, Shapiro has done nothing immediate to warrant such behavior, while in the former he is actively trying to provoke a response. (which she gave him, thus generating sympathy where none was warranted. If you hadn't figured it out already, I think that's a bad thing.) Should she have threatened him? No. Were his rights infringed? If you mean his constitutional rights, no. If you mean his "right" to spout hate speech (which free speech advocates are weirdly obsessed with defending, which actually is quite naive.) then yes, I suppose his "rights" were infringed upon. But in that sense, doesn't the trans woman have the "right" to not be harassed? Especially in a climate where that kind of harassment was and still is quite normalized? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is the event in question. CorruptUser 15:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I know what incident you're referring to. You don't have to link it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Calling an argument or statement you find repulsively disagreeable "hate speech" is a rhetorical move. The conversation should end there even though nobody has changed their mind. Just getting people to shut up is good for a personal sense of tranquility, but may have aggravating consequences. I recall the absurdity of the scene in blazing saddles where the black actor holds a gun to his own head to get out of a tough situation. The bad news is, many people see it that way today with respect to claims of harm to some minority groups. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
"Calling an argument or statement you find repulsively disagreeable "hate speech" is a rhetorical move." I'm going to be honest, I was originally tempted to just toss slurs at you to see whether you'd call me out on it. But then I realized you're using double standards. Deliberate misgendering of trans and non-binary people is in fact a form of hate speech, per hate speech laws, and the material affect such behavior has on their intended victims, which is consistent with hate speech. Whether you accept the reality of that or not is ultimately your problem. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Of course you are begging the question, "what hate speech laws?" The USA has no such laws, as you already know. I am not personally having a "problem." A description of reality is never anyone's problem. I do care about accuracy though. I think what most people believe in America is: being impolite cannot be construed as a crime. And I tend to be polite with polite people. I would not invite you to fantasize about my physical presence. On the other hand such controversies are often taken on as social amusements in a way I can often appreciate. UncleKrampus (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You know other countries exist right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
You know Shapiro was speaking in the USA, right?UncleKrampus (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
And? Are you saying we should sit in a bubble and never compare anything to anything? Have you ever wondered why Shapiro never tried to debate these things in other countries? (Hint: it's because he's full of shit and engages in hate speech.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
And allowable speech varies in other countries. In China any criticism of the CPC will get you disappeared. In Russia, criticizing Putin will get you shot or poisoned, whichever is most convenient for the dear leader. In North Korea you get the wood chipper. Lots of people don't want to go to those places. And your point would be...?UncleKrampus (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
It is silly to give the illusion that it is absolute free speech or totalitarianism. There is an enormous gulf in-between. Not even America has 100% absolute free speech (not even close). While America has a far more radical idea of free speech than other democracies there are many limitations. Americans have no problem with libel, copyright, causing a panic, deceptive marketing laws (to name just a few) which all curtail free speech. And yet a notable number of Americans think that hate speech is some sacred right that should not be touched. Hate speech is a mind virus that spreads irrational bullshit that can lead to violence and harmful discrimination against marginalised people. It is just as dangerous and destructive as libel or fraud and yet Americans don't fight libel laws and yet are fiercely resistant to hate speech laws. This idea that curtailing hate speech will lead to a slippery slope is bullshit, it hasn't happened in other countries (just as libel laws in American haven't led to the government stamping out political criticism). Most democracies limit hate speech (to wildly varying degrees) and it is a net good for the vulnerable marginalised people who face an increasing uphill battle with unregulated social media, growing hostile media channels and governments who aren't committing the resources to and passing laws necessary to truly bring about equality. Mind viruses are not some benign force that simply have to compete in "a world of ideas" where truth and progress will ultimately win on their own. LMAO. ShabiDOO 21:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. That would be silly. On the other hand, it is not a slippery slope argument to declare that if the government may decide what can be said, it will always choose to decide in it's own best interests. The best examples are the dictators, as I have already indicated. According to American law "Individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character." Perhaps misgendering might be interpreted in that way eventually. It is right and just to abjure hatefulness. It is simply not allowable, in America, to make such questions matters of criminal law. Despite apocryphal narratives about mind viruses I suppose the constitution of knowledge can not be effectively mandated by law. UncleKrampus (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I certainly would not want a 'hate speech' doctrine in US free speech law. The concept seems intolerably vague for me. The endless conflation of mere words with violence, that comes from the passionately committed of all flavors, certainly is not encouraging. And the problem with vague exceptions to freedom of speech is that partisan authorities will enforce them according to their own predilections. Insisting on non-discrimination against LGBTQ people somehow turned into discrimination against 'Christians'. Make a hate speech law, and expect it to be wielded exactly this way over large areas of the country. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The "words are violence" meme is a sinister post hoc justification. You are allowed to use wield different tools in self defense than you would normally. I can't punch you simply for being annoying, but if your words are now classified as violence, suddenly I'm punching you in "self defense". Anyone else who disagrees with me must also be wrong, and I am within my rights to "defend myself" against them too. CorruptUser 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I really didn't want to go here but it seems you're intent on misunderstanding the problem. I want you to defend Kiwi farms. After all words are just words... Aren't they? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
"Free Speech" doesn't include doxxing, I know it, you know it, I know that you know that I know it. You are being disingenuous.
Even if we ignore the doxxing part, there's a world of difference between standing in a public park spouting nonsense, and breaking into someone's living room to start screaming at them. Or calling them dozens of times a night with a robocaller. Or calling people they work with or are in relationships with, pretending to be a mistress or something similar. Libel, slander, harassment, and other related laws exist for a reason, and I don't think I've ever given the impression that I'm so much of a "freeze-peach" absolutist that I think it's ok to, for example, mail a bunch of letters with someone's face on it saying "Pedophile moving to your neighborhood!!!". From what I understand, KiwiFarms does the internet equivalent of that, so they can fuck themselves with the dildo from Se7en. CorruptUser 04:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser "...if something is only a Right when people do what we want them to, it isn't a Right in the first place." They speak their vile minds. Rights only exist if we contrast them against the worst person in the room. Ergo, hate speech laws infringe on free speech. Ergo, KiwiFarms is engaging in free speech. Defend KiwiFarms. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At least 30 countries (many with long standing traditions of liberty and democracy) have hate speech laws and hate speech is defined in those laws and interpreted so by their justice system. So no...hate speech in all those jurisdictions is not nebulous. That's just an excuse to avoid addressing the issue. You are grasping for straws to justify protecting the right of people to spout hate even considering the serious harm it causes marginalised people. And if you don't think that hate speech leads to violence and systemic discrimination then you are ignorant and deluded. This is often a position made by people who have never remotely suffered the kind of harms that hate speech cause. It's easy to dismiss it because it is some distant phenomena (especially when you are unaware of the sheer numbers of people who suffer because of it). Having said that...America isn't my country so you can make your own laws however you like, protect hate mongerers and allow the marginalised to suffer. I'd never consider living there knowing people can sling hate at me with impunity and that I can be bullied and verbally discriminated against with no legal cost. ShabiDOO 13:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

But it's not some distant phenomena for me. I'm ethnically Jewish (religiously I'm somewhere between "apatheism" and "optimistic nihilism"), I've had to deal with insults and other bullshit my entire life, I see the garbage on virtually every website's comments sections and whatnot, which is why my answer to someone complaining about low level hate speech is "welcome to my world, now grow up". Being targeted for abuse is a very real threat, perhaps nowhere near as high as a trans woman with a TikTok about vegan cooking, or whatever TikTok is used for, but much higher than some random Irish Catholic Straight White Male. Heck, if I were to make a TikTok or Instagram or whatever I'd have to assume I'd get a bunch of hate speech because that's what every Jewish podcaster and whatnot has to just suck it up and get used to. You somehow seem to think that somehow I believe that direct harassment should protected by "free speech", that revealing someone's social security number or constantly calling a person's friends should be legal. No. Someone posting a nasty youtube video with bullshit about the Khazar Myth is disgusting, but shouldn't be banned, but someone posting a nasty youtube video with death threats against a group, shouldn't be protected by free speech laws. CorruptUser 14:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön "'Critical race theory' of the Robin Di Angelo variety isn't even what I would call a leftist project, given its integration into corporate life." A basic check reveals this to be utter nonsense. Di Angelo is not affiliated with CRT, nor does she promote it. She promotes feel good seminars designed to appeal to liberal sensibilities without addressing the underlying problem of racist foundations to our current social, economic, political, and legal system. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Then Corrupt user, based on what you've said, I don't think you really understand how hate speech laws in most countries work. ShabiDOO 14:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser As far as I can see, you're applying your core principles inconsistently. The core principles being that if the worst among us cannot speak without consequence, this is an infringement on the rights of all. Hitchens argued much the same at one point. However. I notice you seem to draw the line only at direct incitement, and not the rhetoric that leads up to that point. This view is in conflict with the fact that when people hold something to be true, they generally act on it. See also the January 6th insurrection attempt. See also covid and and vaccine denialists. In both of these cited examples, people engaged in speech before they engaged in deed, speech that was supposedly protected by the legal and philosophical principles behind the first amendment. Simply put, that speech led to those events. If we must reject liberalism in order to avoid such tragedy, so be it. No sacred cows, as the skeptic saying goes. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Without legal consequence, it gets murkier when it comes to personal relationships and jobs and so forth, but I'm fine with employers getting rid of assholes. I'm reminded of a doctor who said she would kill any Jew on her operating table, and was promptly fired. I don't know if that's a free speech issue, but it's certainly a malpractice issue and the hospital had every financial responsibility to toss that doctor out the door. Just imagine if an old Jewish man died on her operating table, even if she really did do her best to save him, Pfizer's stock price would tumble as every attorney in the state would have permanent erections.CorruptUser 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I, for one, am confident the United States will always elect a very stable genius to head the executive branch, and said genius will responsibly target the kind of hate everyone here wants. Because of course, hate speech laws will only ever be used against the people who politically correct types lose their collective shit about... seriously, if you think Germany has less of a Nazi problem, you really need to look at AfD and get back to me on that. Don't hug that tar baby, just let people speak. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The Far-right/essentially fascist portions of the GOP have WAY more influence than the AfD. If that was your silver bullet, you would best give up now.
Also, the "hate speech leads to authoritarian muzzling of descent" thing has been refuted in this very thread! Try harder kiddo.-Flandres (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Refuted in your head, perhaps, but I find it thoroughly unconvincing. I get that it's cool to want to ban things that hurt your feelz, I guess I'm sorry the law doesn't work that way. Wondering how the Civil Rights movement was going to work if people with massive butthurt got to control what's hate speech, nothing here answers that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Strawman noted. Failure to respond to these points noted. "Ban things that hurt your feelz" is a rather inept (and American) way to sum up hate speech laws. I'll let you discover that on your own though...if you can. I cannot force the blind to see, after all!-Flandres (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
To the beautiful and the wise, the mirror always lies. I know how you'll likely interpret it, but it has more than one meaning (and it does somewhat depend on who's standing in front of the mirror). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, you failed to prove hate speech laws lead to authoritarianism outside of your private dreamland when they have, in the overwhelming majority of cases, not done so. The absurdity of that has been pointed out here by others. Bad/irrelevant references don't hide that, dear.-Flandres (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
"Remember, something is only a "Right" when someone is allowed to do something you don't want them to do. In recent years, increasing numbers of people have been "deplatformed" or disinvited to speaking events because they espoused a different viewpoint." This, as I see it, is your thesis. I'm going to be honest, it's a shit thesis. I'm accused of wanting to micromanage people and violate their autonomy, even as you rail against voluntary business transactions. Do you not read TOSs and other legal agreements? Every public event has them these days, as does every website or application. Would you compel private entities to host Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro? I wouldn't and I'm one of those leftists you say doesn't actually believe in what they say they believe in. This entire thread has been you three attempting to avoid the existential threat of reality simply not working the way you want it to, as I and others point this fact out. Is this not a skeptic site? Should we not be critical of even the views we support? Especially the views we support? I am so utterly uncompelled by your thesis and your selective application of it, on top of your blind faith in Liberalism, that I'm almost at a loss for words. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!?!?! WHERE DID ANYONE FUCKING CALL FOR THAT!?!??! SHOW ME THE FUCKING DIFS!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
You seem open to persuasion... no one said it, but it's the fundamental premise. You have to think that a responsible person will decide what constitutes "hate speech", and I sure don't trust anyone to decide that for me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Gods save me from fucking Americans... You people and your childish obsession with opposing hate speech laws, laws that fucking exist in other fucking democratic countries, you're more fucking illiberal than I am... Jesus fucking Christ, is it really such a burden to give up the ability to say slurs without good reason and to harass others? HOW IS THE WORLD FUCKING MADE BETTER BY ALLOWING HATE SPEECH TO FUCKING POISON SOCIETY?!!?!?!? CAN ONE OF YOU FUCKING DIPSHITS PLEASE FUCKING EXPLAIN THIS TO ME?!??!?! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather know who the Nazis in the room are. Daryl DavisWikipedia has converted literally hundreds of KKK members just by talking to them, I know he has preternatural patience, but I think that's at least worth something; the documentary on him is Accidental Courtesy, there are many other videos of his speeches. And from watching him speak, I've learned not to shut off when people complain about The Big A and at least tried to engage, sometimes I even make some headway. I actually live a short drive away from where the KKK makes its robes, (said manufacturer is located in Shelton, it's a truly bizarre place and the gateway to the ValleyWikipedia; you have to go there to understand) and regularly have to venture up that way, so this is based on firsthand observations to a degree; I sometimes forget how easy it is to brush off if you're exposed to it enough, basically everyone around here just laughs at them and gets on with their lives since the KKK has zero influence on this region. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Pointing out that there are still problems in a few countries with hate speech laws does not invalidate the efficacy of these laws. Do you think things in Germany would be better without them? Are you that silly? People saying shit that makes you afraid to leave your house and creates an atmosphere that makes it difficult to get a job is a lot worse than just "hurting your feelings". You are either an uncaring person disinterested in the problems others face or yo are wilfully ignorant of how destructive hate-speech is for marginalised people. Consider, just for one second, that when a gay top tier professional athlete comes out of the closet (like our recent NFL player) it is Earth shattering news (meanwhile hundreds of gay NFL players remain in the closet afraid which obviously harms their mental health and affects their game). This is in the 21st century. One single player of hundreds out of the closet. Get a fucking clue! ShabiDOO 03:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I have The Big A, you figure out how good I am with empathizing. I didn't get a choice in that matter, it just is; goodness knows my life would be much better with that understanding, but I have to make do with what I've got. I've been exposed to plenty of nastiness as a result, and I consider it my job to open up and explain myself, because how the hell else would anyone understand what I'm thinking? Since it's my nature to view it in my terms, I'd happily discuss the Judge Rotenburg Center with any comers, and I know they're out there. Hell, I've talked to people involved in Autism Speaks; I'm no fan of them, but (like Stephen Mark Shore, who I've also met) I'd rather work to change their message so they can do some good instead. Although it may sound sarcastic, I'm glad to hear your arguments, since I honestly wouldn't have ever thought of them on my own; I despise the idea of shocking people, and you made me think hard about how I'd be internally consistent on having to speak to a proponent of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I have fucking autism too. I still understand basic civics! Look. The fucking bare fucking minimum is Canada's Canadian Human Rights ActWikipedia. Last I checked, Canada hadn't turned into 1984. Can we please get our heads out of our asses and do the bare minimum, thus proving my base worldview (humans are stupid and deserve to wipe themselves out) wrong? It doesn't even require you to do anything radical. Just join the rest of the fucking free world already! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I actually read 1984, and came away wondering why Burmese Days wasn't the far more popular book. That said, I don't have an issue with justifying my humanity as needed, and consider it the price of being human. I also won't stop anyone from arguing otherwise; reasonable people can disagree, and so can a reasonable person and I. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you ever read what you right? You're saying "reasonable people" can disagree on basic fucking human rights. Do you have any idea how fucking insane you sound? None of your thesis is based in reason, it's based in "I personally, have not suffered that much so it must be fine" anecdotal evidence. There's hate crimes occurring as we speak, hate crimes preceded by hate speech, and your solution is "nah, I'm not suffering so it should be fine"!?!? ARE YOU FUCKING DELUSIONAL!?!?! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just to remind you, I gave you an example of hard policy which would address the issue, and your response is "lol whatever it's not hurting me". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Does self-deprecating humor have no meaning to you, or did the last part of the sentence not register? Enough other people laugh at me that adding myself to the chorus won't kill me at this point. And yeah, people obviously can and do disagree on such things; just because it shouldn't be that way, and I don't want it to be that way, doesn't make it that way. I don't like that such bilge is still out there, but I'd rather talk it out than use potentially deadly force to silence them; for supposedly anti-carceral people there sure seems to be a strong sentiment towards punitive punishment on this issue that cuts so close to your (generic you) sacred cows. Davis' basic premise (which he expresses better than I could, and which makes plenty of sense to me) is that when two enemies are talking, they aren't fighting, and it's better to at least keep them at the table. He's certainly got more robes in his closet than me, so he seems to be doing something right, and it starts with just talking. Though humility was never my strong point, I'm as likely as anyone to be so full of what is right that I can't see what is good or true; it may not be the only right way to do it, but it sure does work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a natural consequence of implementing a law, there's always a chance that enforcing it will lead to a deadly encounter. How many traffic stops and marijuana busts end up escalating into violence? Same thing here. Always something I try to think about when considering whether or not something should be illegal. That's all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Leftist memes and free speech[edit]

@CorruptUser Recently there's been a controversy on the online left regarding the "eat the rich" meme. A prominent personality said she was made uncomfortable by it, prompting some rather harsh backlash. Rather than focusing on the backlash however, I'd like to focus on the meme itself and it's role in society. If the right to free speech requires the contrast between the acceptable and unacceptable, should we, on those grounds, tolerate the propagation of the meme in question? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t literally mean eat the rich though. For me, I only get uncomfortable when people start joking about historical atrocities like Mao purging the landlords or Stalin starving the kulaks and stuff. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
"Eat the rich" is also a call to action, which puts it in a different category. I don't think a reasonable person would seriously consider this advocating for murder/cannibalism, so no, I don't think it should be banned.
I'm not completely convinced misgendering or saying "trans women are men" rises to the level of "Hate Speech", because it's fairly common to both believe that trans women have the same inner dialogue and innate value of human life that all other humans have, while simultaneously defining "woman" to only include cis women. Is it offensive speech? Of course it's offensive. But that's just it, if something ceases to be a right the moment it offends someone else, it was never a right to begin with.
Consider this. Many Christians do not believe Mormons are really Christian. Should saying "Mormons aren't real Christians" be banned? It's something incredibly offensive to Mormons, obviously. What about saying "Messianic Jews are just Christians in disguise"? Or "a hotdog on a bun is not a sandwich?" CorruptUser 17:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I'm going to ignore your asides, as they aren't relevant to my inquiry at the moment. I'd like you to focus on laying out how banning or penalizing "eat the rich" isn't illiberal, because from where I sit you're being inconsistent in your standards. I'd also like to note that because I don't put free speech on a pedestal and treat it as a sacred cow, I can oppose "eat the rich" with no inconsistent use of standards. @DuceMoosolini it's also used by tankies as a call for violence against the wealthy. I really shouldn't need to point out why that's probably a bad thing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it should be banned, so long as no reasonable person is viewing it as serious call to action of violence. CorruptUser 17:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser The problem is that it's a covert call to action. For someone who already dislikes the rich, it may be easier to sway them into calls for violence. As such calls spread, they will translate into action. We can see how similar rhetoric translated into action in the January 6th insurrection attempt. It could be argued, and indeed has been argued, that the rhetoric about election fraud, in combination with the demonization of the democratic process and the Democratic Party, ultimately led to such results. To be clear, there's no magical shield that prevents liberals or leftists from falling prey to such propaganda, after all, that is how propaganda works. The best defense we have is critical thinking, but unfortunately most people tend to use such skills selectively. (I'm better than average, but I still fall prey to such errors.) To that end there are certain ideas and positions I feel are actively harmful to society, and should be censored. Such as conspiracy theories regarding covid and vaccines, calls to violence, hate speech, etc. They're harmful to the ecosystem of social discourse, and as such should, in my opinion, be excised. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ergo, eat the rich..... but in Minecraft. Oxyaena Harass 20:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment of GC’s point about censorship: censorship is often portrayed as being antithetical to liberal values—as being something only authoritarians would use. Liberalism, however, is an elastic notion; on the one hand it’s a flexible ideology that can stretch free speech to accommodate just about any view (e.g. Ben Shapiro, anti-lockdown protests, Mormons refusing blood transfusions etc); on the other hand, this elasticity reduces freedom of speech to mere dogma—granted thoughtlessly to pretty much anyone. I needn’t remind users here of a certain corvid (corpsefucker, I believe his handle was) who tried to argue, with liberal niceties, for the legalisation of necrophilia! This is why I find it ironic, that liberalism (which one would think is a moderate ideology) has a certain radicalism to it—stretching itself inelegantly like contortionist, not ballerina, to cater to all. A moderate would perhaps employ freedom of speech, not as trivial dogma, but as a concept that has constraints, capable of allowing censorship as well as freedom. P.s. GC’s worries regarding the “eat the rich” meme are, quite frankly, risible—a Poe, if I ever saw one.LeucippusTalk
Eat the Rich is actually a rather funny film (the 1987 one) that takes the slogan literally,[19] starring Lemmy of Mötörhead with a cameo by Paul McCartney (rich but not eaten), and the appropriately named Nosher Powell. Bongolian (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
“Starring Lemmy of Mötörhead”—interested ... “with a cameo by Paul McCartney”—sold! Ideal romantic movie. Who should I bring? Linda!? No, no, she’ll force me to buy her cookbook. (scratches head). Who then? Think! think dammit! Yes, an upper bourgeoisie girl who likes seeing rich people being cannibalised. Sandy the hooker it is. LeucippusTalk 19:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Actual fake news from Wikipedia![edit]

In WP's article on Jack P. F. GremillionWikipedia, they put him in "Category:Activists for African-American civil rights." Here's what the Equal Justice Initiative says about his record:

As Louisiana’s attorney general from 1956 to 1971, Jack Gremillion played prominently in state efforts to resist desegregation. After a federal judge ordered New Orleans public schools desegregated, Gremillion drafted a new law giving the state legislature exclusive authority to determine schools’ racial composition. In response, a panel of three federal judges declared the state law unconstitutional, ordered state officials to cease interfering with integration, and restored control of desegregation to the school board. Gremillion famously was held in contempt of court for calling the federal court a “den of iniquity," and he successfully used litigation to bar the NAACP from operating in Louisiana for a period. Gremillion's tenure as attorney general ended in 1972 when he was convicted of federal perjury charges and sentenced to three years in prison.

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It's already noted that this article is bad.
A problem with Wikipedia is that you'll have far more people editing something nerdy, controversial, or scientific vs. history on minor politicians like this, not even notable enough for traditional encyclopedias like Britannica, that was apparently copied wholesale from a Who's Who in 1968 (or was simply completely unsourced, can't tell). To do real justice to this article, you'd probably have to go to a Louisiana library and dust off some local state history books. There aren't many articles on him on the Interwebs, and none of the few have made it to this article:
A) He's probably made the most news (NY Times) for getting convicted of perjury for some financial shenanigans in 1971, which led him to babble John F. Kennedy conspiracy theories to the NY Times for some reason. At any rate, one senses that some dusty books on the Earl Long years would have some interesting material on this guy.
B) The aforementioned school desegregation resistance you mention (along with attempting to shut down the local NAACP), which is documented here and in Time.
C) A quote from Earl LongWikipedia, repeated here and elsewhere: "If you want to hide something from Jack Gremillion, put it in a lawbook." Apparently relations were (sarc) really warm here. (/sarc)
D) Finally, Gremillion may have a wee bit of a connection with a New Orleans crime boss Carlos MarcelloWikipedia per a Dallas magazine called "D magazine". However, "D magazine" seems to have mixed reputation, so I wouldn't source from there. Better to rely on those dusty books if you really want to write a proper article. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure that counts as “news” lol. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Weird that even though USHA sees errors in the Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article's reviewers also see issues with the article, and that PanGalactic has provided ready-to-go citations which can be freely added, the article remains as-yet unimproved by USHA. Why it's almost like this question was posed with inherent bad faith by someone with no actual interest in solving the issue! Semipenultimate (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
If you know there's an issue UShistoryanalyzer and have the material/knowledge to fix it, feel free to fix it instead of just telling us about it here. Wikipedia uses the same base wiki markup and editor as RationalWiki, so you already know how to write & format an article. It's a collaborative project, grab a wrench and fix it if it's wrong.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 01:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

list addiction[edit]

something really ought to be done about the inane obsession to making and adding to every list imaginable. do we need an intervention? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

My name is Bongo and I am a list addict. Bongolian (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
What an inverse stopped clock from you two (golly that article got gutted recently). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Better to be a listicle addict than to be someone who contributes little to mainspace except throwing random AfDs, methinks. :p PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Awww, I think somebody is bitter about having an AfD not go their way....-Flandres (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Sigh... Seems like a second time. Remember Count Dankula afd? I've had afds not go my way. Frustrating but I wouldn't constantly talk down and vent like this after the fact. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Voted the same way as AMassiveGay in the AfD, and this is ostensibly about the totalitarianism article, but I agree it’s pretty obvious what this is really about. Not a great way to raise the issue (and I agree it’s an issue) if you actually want it fixed.
If you think the lists at inverse stopped clock and stopped clock should’ve stayed you can put them back in. I removed them based on a rather weak talkpage consensus, no one opposed their removal but there weren’t many in support. At minimum the lists should be trimmed a bit as they were getting very bloated. Christopher (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh no I was just riffing on those two pages. Disliked those lists too. AMassiveGay years ago also criticized the stopped clock articles. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Usually the best way to fix a listicle article is to rewrite the article and make it not a listicle article. I've done it before. It takes effort, of course. Far more effort than raising an AfD or other complaining nonsense. Listicle articles in itself are also fairly lazy, but less lazy than complaining about listicle articles. :p
And I honestly haven't given a fuck about AfDs, except in some cases they seem to come after months of editing work and people have been too lazy to even raise the fact that there might be an issue in talk pages in some cases. You feel a bit sorry for the editors that do that sometimes, even if it is a junk article. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
“Just rewrite it” doesn’t really apply in this case, the AfD AMassiveGay is mad about is for an article that exists solely to be a list. Christopher (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
If he was specific and talked about just that list article in the beginning I wouldn't have given him that little "lite jab" that everyone is taking too seriously. :p PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

christopher is correct, this thread was in response to the totalitarian article. also, for the record, i have put exactly 2 articles up for afd (both of which are now gone) and i do and i did, in fact, raise issues on the relevant talk pages. i am not at all 'mad' about any thing at present, except folk leaping to conclusions and not addressing my initial pointAMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

also, i dont need to be de vinci to see if a painting is shit. but do need to de vinci to be able to do it better. its plain to see when an article, listicle or otherwise is dogshit, but i dont have the knowledge 'rewrite' in most case. i could just say nothing, but the shit will still remain. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
i dont even weigh in on most AFDs either, so fuck off with that. AMassiveGay (talk)

I was thinking about this today too. I saw LGM commentary on the totalitarianism article asking people to stop adding exemples and I couldn't agree more. I feel like these lists are somehow a POV-pushing (or, what's worse, a personal taste on pop culture shill). A couple of exemples is fine, but something as too much does exist. GeeJayK (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that absurd growing list on the article.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)